Dave, I realize you're just trying to get a response out of people to get attention.
That said, to everyone else, ignore Dave's comments.

Now Dave: if you want to compare LA and SF let's compare apples to apples, OK? Are you comparing the cities proper or the metro/surrounding areas?
You'll lose the argument quickly if you compare the cities proper. Of course the city of LA has very few redeeming qualities while the city of SF has a laundry list of attractive qualities.

I assume you're talking about the area in general. Now if you factor in the Bay area's numerous gems you must include Napa Valley, the redwood forests and the beauties of Marin County, Carmel, Big Sur, Monterey, and some would say Yosemite and even Lake Tahoe.
Sure the argument for LA would then include Santa Barbara, Newport, etc, but when you tally everything up, there isn't an area in the ENTIRE U.S. that has more attractive aspects for the traveller than the Bay area.
Sorry, but LA will always be California's tourism stepchild.

Yes, you should visit that "pokey and twee" (see Joe Queenan's article in the LA TImes in '98?) big town in the north ( grew up in the Bay area), but it is the most overrated hyped city in the US. First of all, it's not a city, but a big small town. There are not "great museums in SF", try the Getty, the LACMA, the Huntington Hartingford, the Norton Simon,etc down south. There is NOT great theatre at all: nothing compares to the Ahmanson, the D. Chandler, the Shubert, South Coast Rep., Pasadenda Playhouse, the Bowl; the place is riding on its reputation and counting on you to believe it. Yes, the setting is lovely, there are pictureseque Victorian houses; it's all so cute . Yes, they do have DiMaggio. They also a BIG homeless problem, major agressive panhandlers, attitude ( which residents of truly great cities do not--I never heard a Londoner , Parisian, or a New Yorker claim their city was the greatest..they don't have to). So, visit, but take it with a grain of salt.
Next year, rent a car and join Anthony Hopkins and Placido Domingo in celebrating Southern CA.

Caught in your own noose, Rick!!

"...residents of truly great cities don't have to claim their cities are the greatest...they don't have to".

Then why is it that residents of LA are always whining on this board about how LA is so wonderful and that it gets no respect??!

Hmmmm.
Makes you think, doesn't it?

The ENTIRE San Fran Bay Area is VASTLY OVERRATED -- PERIOD; END OF STORY!!!

To exangeleno:
I am not just trying to get a response. The concession by the SF Chronicle was in a Sunday magazine article comparing the two cities. The article first noted that business and industry had experienced a southern migration in the last few decades. It then went on to discuss culture, saying that culture, "that whimmsied whore of money" had followed industry south, and that LA has passed SF. Funny, when culture was in SF, she was a classy lady.

When I say LA, I mean within reasonable range in the metro areal. I am in LA, but I consider N. Hollywood in the Valley part of LA. If I want to go to a show there it takes 15 min. to get there. About the same time as it takes to get to SF downtown from some parts of SF. In other words, what is convenient. As for diversity, when I drive downtown, I like to count the different ethnic businesses that I pass in a relatively short drive. Ditto for the number of people I interact with. In the next two hours, I will probably be having dealing with people from at least 6 different backgrounds, and I work alone.

Now, I am just talking the metro area. If you want to tack on Napa to SF, let's do apples and apples. I will throw in Big Bear, Palm Springs, Joshua, and a score of others, which I hesitate to mention because my spelling is so bad.

Final story: I was living in NY in the 80's. Went to a party, where two ex-NYers were bitching about the fact that they had to live in LA. I asked them why, and they said that's where work was (they were in entertainment.) They said there was nothing in LA. I started listing things that they had never done. Finally, I mentioned the Huntington, and one guy said, "but that's in Pasadena."
I told him it was only 15 minutes from where he lived and to ignore political boundries. He said, "It's 15 min. if you have a car."
At which point his partner said, "but we have a car."
It's all here in LA, if you want to go there.

Hi:

Here is my 2-cents on San Francisco. I travel for business once a month if not more to S.F. If you love out-doors mixed with very upscale population then SF is one of the best places for you! My only complains are:

1. Very aggressive homeless in the tourist spots
2. Dot-commers have taken the heart out of the city. Too many people wearing black and looking very bored with the whole thing.
3. Great walking town. Provided you have strong legs! Oh those hills!
4. Fishermans Wharf. Love or hate area! (I kind-of like it, tourist are always having fun!)
5. Dont call it 'Frisco. At least that what the locals say.
6. Weather....cooler than you expect! The "fog" , ya know!
7. Nice Ballpark
8. Huge airport. Watch out for the plane landing next to your plane!

I am a snob for my city NYC! Now that is one great town.

JOHN

The "attitude" to which Rick refers is a reference to the Queenan article , which is very funny and quite accurate. If you can find it, read it for a laugh.

SF is not the "worst destination', it's just hyped way out of proportion to what it offers. It has indeed lost much of its cultural status. And, yes, bring a sweater even in August.

Michele

Love it! I think the airport is what gives it a bad rap. And the fact that people don't understand that there's no place to park a rental car.

Don't tie your feelings to other peoples' opinion. Have fun!

shannon,
don't let rick from southern california discourage you. he alleges that there are no great art museums or theatre in the city, which is totally unfounded. in fact, there is ballet, the opera, the symphony as well. the museums are diverse ranging from the museum of modern art, the asian heritage museum, and the de young, for instance. as for theatre, we have tons of great theatre within a couple blocks downtown with as many new, innovative, theatre groups in the mission, civic center, etc. it's clear that although rick said he grew up in the "bay area", he was not from san francicsco and obviously did not experience many of the charms of the city that adults (not children) are interested in such as art, music and theatre. rick appears to be trying to compare all the attractions of a large portion of la county (pasadena?) which is 3-4 thousand square miles to one city which is only 7 miles wide and long. i'm also surprised that rick alleges there's attitude up here, since the same can be said of la on a grander scale. and, by the way rick, mr. dimaggio passed away a few years back so i guess we no longer "have" him.

I am somewhat amused by this LA vs. SF conversation. As an easterner who has been to both extensively, I can honestly say that SF is far better. LA's cultural scene, although possibly larger, feels very new, and somewhat of an afterthought. It feels like twenty years ago and handful of Angelenos, tired of being bashed for offering nothing culturally, slapped together some museums and theatres. SF's arts scene is so much more organically inspired and historically based. One measure of a city's art scene isn't just the number of institutions, but whether or not the locals support what they have. In that respect, SF is a far weightier arts city than LA.

The migration of business to LA halted and did an about face when silicon valley took all the luster of LAs hopes of ever monopolizing the corporate scene in CA. The heart of CAs business juggernaut is San Francisco and the 9 cunties that surround our harbor. The most educated, the richest and most expensive places in CA are within commuting distance of the golden gate. The bay area single handedly draggeed california out of recession in the 1990s while LA wallowed in riots and defense industry layoffs. We focused our energy on high technology and today command LA and the rest of the world when it comes to innovation. We have by far more millionaires( my self included) and Billionaires than any other region in the United States. The Chronicle 500 is given more respect in business circles than the LATimes 100 because the biggest companies are in the Bay area. Rick, Cyril Magnin was and is a figure in Bay area history, but you are sadly mistaken in your misguided and completley uninformed synopsis as to the economic regions in CA. Angelenos like to play the non-chalant role, but it churns their stomachs to read headline upon headline the different stories heralding the bay area's domination of the new economy. In all things, there is only one number one, and in terms of calling shots in california, LA is definitley is not it.

Lets talk about driving downtown.

Downtown LA doesnt feel like a city center. The streets are not teeming with business suits and shoppers, however there a lot of pawn shops. Pershing Square needs something( Like Divine Intervention) to revitalize it. All the sparkling office towers stand half empty and then at night, its scarry. To say its a fun place would be stretching it.

Downtown San Francisco is brimming in Sophistication and style. Armani is everywhere. Locals and tourists alike enjoy the worldclass shopping and dining( dont even think of comparing LA to SF in the fine dining department, it would be very ugly) Then there are the sights and the adjoining neighborhoods. It feels like a piece of Manhattan in early spring.

SF is in fact so fab, I'd suggest black, black and more black, except that's for NYC. In SF, I'd think a mixture of black and grey ... light wool or silk/linen/wool mix. Boring afternoon, but Great Thread(s). Ciao

Shannon, I think that you should go to San Francisco, thinking that youll be dissappointed. Because that way, when you actually arrive, the city will blow you away. As soon as you step out of the airport and the cool air hits you, your love affair with SF will begin. The visitors bureau in SF doesnt have to try that hard to sell the city, cause word-of-mouth has brings tens of millions to San Francisco every year.

I came here from Houston last summer, and despite my $3000 rent in the Berkeley Hills( 2 bd, 1.5 bath) I wouldnt want to live anywhere else.

I love the Bay area,I was there in Sept. and the weather was great, but my biggest complaint is the traffic. I drove from San Francisco to a meeting in Palo Alto and it took me almost 3 hours to drive 30mi. I hear that the commute from the Oakland side of the bay is even worse. Just stay in the city and youll be okay traffic-wise.

To dontbejealous:

Rick didn't post the Cyril Magnin comment, I did, and I know who he is because he was related to me. It sounds like SF has been flooded with dot.com yuppies, which is apparent when you go to SF and count the number of Starbucks downtown, as opposed to the number of small mom's and pop's places remaining. You also said that the heart of CA business is the "9 cunties" surrounding the Golden Gate. Yes, but I was trying not to get into how sleazy the North Beach area has become.

SF and NY are great places to live in if you are millionaires (like yourself) or billionaires. On the other hand, I am not in that range, yet I have a lovely house with lots of charm, built in 1912, with a yard and garden, looking up to the hills, in a very nice area of town. And there are thousands and thousands of similar homes. No non-millionaire in SF could afford the type of house that I have in LA. It is true that your Victorian apartments are very pretty. But they are basically gussied up railroad flats.

As for Reianne's belief that as to culture, I am very involved with the LA dance community. I frequently go to shows and am only able to see a small percent of what is available. SF has a ballet company, but there are more nights per year where you can see dance on any level in LA. Same for my friends in the arts world who go to shows all the time. Name a day, and let's compare what was playing in the two cities. (Try to find a "Drop in" tap class in SF - I did, doesn't exist.)
As for the moniker "dontbejealous," I am not, having lived in both.

Nathaniel, 3 hours from the city to Palo Alto????? There must have been an accident. At worst it takes and hour and small change. As to the controversy--I didn't want to get into this, but I lived in L.A. for 6 years and have lived in the Bay area for 7 more. I love both places and would never compare them. Northern and Southern CA are like two different states and both cities have much to offer, but are apples and oranges when you compare. This whole disagreement makes us Californias sound really nutty. So, it probably confirms to many Easterners that we are wacko people living in fantasyland.

Enough already. This was among the dumbest of the duh threads in a long time, and you guys just kept it going , on and on. Whgo cares whether you like LA over SF ... give your egos a break. Let this thread die, goodness sakes. It's stupid, and you are too to keep arguing about SF ... Go, don't go, who cares. To the bottom, please.

Didn't imagine this post would turn into something this intense. However, thanks for all the positive comments and I am eagerly continuing my travel plans to San Fran etc. (L, I am sorry you see this as a 'dumbest of the duh threads,' however, I felt I needed to ask). Cheers all.

Well, Shannon, you had ever right to ask ... but the asnswers were strange, to say the least ... because they resulted in this SF v. LA diatribe, when both are great cities. And I just cannot imagine what you read that suggested SF was not a place to see. If I were you, I'd find another source for future travels ... that one certainly got you started in the wrong direction. Not to go to SF, of course, would be a mistake for anyone who relishes exciting cities. One might just as well debate NYC, Paris, Venice, Bangkok, you name it. All deserve a visit, if one can manage it. Well, if you do see SF, I hope you like what you see.