Rick, <BR>I think that Placido Domingo has done little to improve the quality of the LA Opera. San Francisco's symphony is probably the best in the nation( prove that statement wrong). Ironic how such a small berg like Frisco is able to retain its international status as a capital all things good, yet LA, as grandiose and cultured as it claims, has to prostitute itself around like a floozy who just got a boob job" Look everyone, My jugs are bigger, now, dont you love me?" A bunch of new museums built by out-of-towners dont make a city sophisticated, The people who live there need to have more than air between their ears in order to make the city come to life. That must sting.

Just a line in Response to Rick from LA. <BR> <BR>Rick, <BR>Its not the sights, cause LA has lots of those, LA never lacks interesting things to do. The weather in LA, as in SF, is really nice. I love the mountains and the ocean. What I think people in America like the least about LA and to a lesser degree SF is the people themselves. <BR> <BR>The people in LA are kinda not normal. They just care too much about things that arent really important. Like cars and looks. But not to fret, San Franciscans are materialistic too, but on top of that they are totally provincial snobs, and its funny how newcomers to the bay area quickly become stuck up too. <BR> <BR>My cousin just moved to SF from IN, and when he came back last month he totally acted like he was not able to breathe our air, " it just wasnt right" he said

Yes, dontbejealous's comment summed it up. He say LA can't come to life because everyone who lives there has "air between their ears," and it's all big boobs and flash. Guess what: Most of the people here are just that. People. Of course, in his politically correct SF, it would be shocking to say that X group has Y traits. <BR> <BR>He judges the quality of LA Opera company. Has he come to LA to see the opera? It may be out of towners who built some of the things (Actually, a lot of the Getty family still lives here, as do the Chandlers, and a lot of the others) but what does it matter. They are assets that people enjoy and use. <BR> <BR>No, I can't disprove a statement that the SF symphony isn't the best in teh nation, any more than it can be proven it's true. Can you disprove the fact that the SF Chronicle is a pathetic joke of a paper. <BR> <BR>One last word, and I will respect L's wish to let it die. My family was orignally from SF. I grew up in the 50's and on with all the LA jokes and LA has no culture stuff. All the garbage, which is about 30 years out of date. Admittedly, I became touchy on the subject. (Again, how incorrect for SFers to make comments about other places and cultures - unless it's LA.) That is why it was a sourse of great consolation when I was in SF circa 1983, when the SF Chronicle editorialized everything I have been saying. <BR>It's been fun. I'm off this thread. See you on another. <BR>Ou <BR> <BR>, which

Dave, <BR>Did the chronicle fire you or something? You seem bent out of shape and I think that it has something to do with the Chronicle. Oh well, nothing therapy wont cure. If it gives you solace to rag on the chronicle,Then by all means rag away. Which suits us leftist radicals just fine thank you very much!! But please note that The Wall Street Journal has a bigger circulation in the Bay area than the chronicle. <BR> <BR>I have attended the LA Opera 4 times in the last 4 years....rather hokey, please believe me, SF is better, even with Placido Domingo. <BR> <BR>The SF symphony has received more recognition in the form of grammys and awards over the last decade than any other company, including LAs. Even your precious LA Times Music Critics think that the local band could learn a thing or 2 from the Bay's symphony. <BR> <BR>Maybe you would like to visit the San Francisco opera and Symphony, not to mention the ballet? Which, by the way comprise the most heavily endowed arts complex in the nation. <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>

I am sorry, to mettle into this conversation, but San Francisco is indeed a very beautiful place. I found it so beautiful that I moved here and bought a home in the foothills above Oakland overlooking San Francisco. Our view is breathtaking and the temperature today is 68 degrees with sunny blue skies and a light ocean breeze. To Dave I say this, Los Angeles has a lot going for it but you must admit, so does San Francisco. We are not Bakersfield or Fresno, We are a great, world class city just like LA, why cant you admit it? <BR>

Shannon, <BR> <BR>Ignore the Los Angeles people, go to San Francisco and see for yourself. <BR> <BR>I recommend visiting the Marin Headlands on the other side of the Golden Gate Bridge. It is spectacular!! <BR> <BR>And also, theres a restaurant there called "Boulevard", it is wonderful. <BR>I think the Chef is Nancy Oakes, simply superb. <BR> <BR>If you get over to the eastern side of the bay, berkeley has this area called the gourmet ghetto, filled with great restaurants. Chez Panisse in Berkeley is the birthplace of california cuisine, you wont be disappointed. <BR> <BR>Finally, My other best SF memory is that of the lay of the land. The bay and the hills coupled with simply perfect weather make for a memorable time. <BR> <BR>Plus you can take the bus or the subway to anywhere in the urban core areas like San Francisco, Berkeley and Oakland. <BR>

I think SF is a great city overall but I have to ask something: <BR>why do so many people describe its weather as "perfect"?? <BR> <BR>I HATE SF's weather! It never seems warm in the city. Always coolish with a breeze, even when the surrounding areas are warm. Very frequently cloudy, and of course the AM fog. <BR>I think weather is one of SF's worst features. True it almost never gets bitter cold, but give me consistent warmth and sunshine at least PART of the year!

San Fran = Manhattan = GROSS! <BR>L.A. = Warm/Tropical = DELIGHTFUL!!

My absolute favorite part of my recent San Fran trip was a drive to Sonoma Valley and touring wine country. Do it if you can. Rent a car for it, but don't keep it the rest of the time in SF. The parking prices are outrageous. $35 per day at our hotel. My one biggest complaint about the city: The number of homeless people is incredible and they are extremely aggressive. I was approached while withdrawing money from an ATM on Union Sq. I've been to many other big cities and I've never seen anything like it.

Tanner, <BR>The temperature in San Francisco is the same that you set your AC to as sit in the sweltering heat of wherever it is that you live( Y/N?). To borrow from another fodorite, "dontbejealous". <BR> <BR>I came to the bay area from New York in July 1998 and the weather was the first thing that I liked about this place. <BR> <BR> <BR>

I have lived in both Southern and Northern California and feel the need to jump into this debate...Born & raised in L.A. (San Fernando Valley), moved to the Bay Area (Fremont) in 1993 - lived there for 7 years and just HAD to get out of there. While I will always have a soft spot for The City, I just could not handle the attitudes of the people. Very snobbish and reserved. I really gave the area and people a chance..but I encountered it everywhere!! Needless to say, I moved back to Southern California last year - not to LA (cannot handle the smog), but to South Orange County (Aliso Viejo) and absolutely love it. People here are very open and friendly and I am still kicking myself for wasting 7 years of my life in the Bay Area. And by the way, the Bay Area traffic is much worse than So Cal. Take it from someone who has lived in both places.

Posting on this thread as it seems we have a lot of SF experts here. Going in July for 4 days. We were going to stay at the Radisson Fisherman's Wharf, only because I bought 3 nights at a charity auction. Is the Wharf really that bad? I don't intend to spend much time there, just to sleep. We will be visiting friends in San Jose for one day, which I understand is about 1 hr away by car. The rest of the time we will be exploring San Simeon, Redwoods, etc. By the way, Radisson charges $22 per day to park. Any comments?

ellen, don't worry about the fact that you're staying in fisherman's wharf. the only thing really wrong with it (and some people might like it that way) is that it's very touristy. it's your average tourist area with lots of trinket shops and galleries. $22 parking is awful but relatively typical for sf hotels (they charge $30 - $35 downtown near union square), but you might possibly be able to find some cheaper parking in one of the public lots nearby for the daily rate, if you don't mind the fact that you might have to walk a ways and the garage might lock up at night. if you're looking for a restaurant in the area, you might try eating at kuleto mccormicks (american) in ghiradelli square or at ana mandara (asian fusion). kuleto mccormick's has a beautiful view of the water through the bay windows and the food is good. ana mandara is more upscale and has a really pretty interior and has excellent food (but small portions). i especially like going to the ghiradelli ice cream shop upstairs after dinner for ice cream covered in warm, melted ghiradelli milk chocolate, definitely try it. if you're looking for restaurants a little less touristy, try some of the places on polk street in nearby russian hill: yabbies (seafood), la folie (french, very pricy, but one of the best in the city), antiqua (italian), lemongrass(great thai). you could probably walk there in about 15 minutes, but if you take the car, be forewarned that the parking is atrocious. many of the restaurants offer valet, however. hope you have a great time!

I find Fisherman's Wharf pretty detestable (was just there last week...only driving through), and don't know why anyone would go back twice. It reminds me of a bad travelling circus for shoppers. <BR>If you have a good hotel rate there and have to stay there, that's fine. Just ignore the surroundings and go elsewhere. <BR>And I hate to sound snobbish, but I love ice cream and Ghirardelli's ain't anything to write home about. Nothing wrong with it, just not worth waiting in line for...though the chocolate syrup is pretty good.

jamie, next time don't get the syrup. get the real chocolate.

Ellen, it doesn't sound as if you're planning on spending much if any time *in* SF, with a day in SJ and day trips elsewhere, in which case it's not the most convenient lodging--though I understand you're locked into it. I assume you are not planning a day trip to San Simeon, though; you do realize that it's a 4-5 hour drive from SF, depending on route and traffic (and at least five if you really want to see the spectacular Big Sur coast on the way), right? A day trip to Muir Woods will eat up at least half a day or more, as well.

Thank you Caitlin and Rheianne. Actually, I am not 'locked in' to the Radisson. But, I would rather use the coupon up at a Radisson in the US, than use it in Europe where I'd rather stay in a pensione. In the US, most of the hotels are pretty much the same, give or take an ice machine or two. We don't care much about B & B's - too much effort (for a short trip to SF) to find out which ones really don't have resident dogs or cats (allergies). We won't be doing the usual sites in SF as we have done that already, thus the side trips. Would we be better off staying closer to San Jose? Palo Alto? There are a few Radissons out there as well.

ellen, i think you might be better off staying further south since you don't seem to plan on doing much in san francisco. the only plus side to staying in the city, is that access to the north bay (marin, napa) is easier and the city itself. but, in terms of convenience, expense it's not a good location. just getting to the southbound freeway exit from fisherman's wharf will take you about 20 minutes, then about 40-60 minutes to your destination in san jose, depending on whether it's in north or south san jose (that's not taking heavy traffic into consideration). i guess it just depends on whether you're planning to spend any time in the city at all. if no, then definitely try palo alto or san jose. my first choice would be palo alto (about 40 min south), then san jose (20 min south of palo alto). hope this helps

Ellen, as you won't be spending any time in SF, I'd definitely urge you not to stay there. You'll be adding significant driving time to all your destinations, plus having to deal with bad traffic in and out of the city. If you're really focused on your day trips and visiting your friends, I'd actually recommend staying in SJ over Palo Alto. If the Radisson is downtown, there are some nice restaurants and areas for strolling. You'll be handy to your friends and will save a bit of time when you go down the coast. If you want to spend some time hiking in the redwoods, head for Big Basin State Park or the Henry Cowell State Redwoods Preserve, both in the Santa Cruz Mountains; both are less than an hour from SJ, have lovely hiking areas and tend not to be overcrowded. A day trip could easily combine a morning hike and an afternoon beach trip in Santa Cruz County (where I recommend the state beaches in Santa Cruz [Natural Bridges] or Aptos over the Santa Cruz snd Capitola city beaches), or if you have kds, perhaps a visit to the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk.

Excellent suggestions! Really! I will follow the advise and stay at the compromise point, Palo Alto. Funny, I always forget about traffic when I go on vacation (as if the rest of the world is on vacation as well). Sometimes forget that it is still a work day for others. That is why I love this forum. Trolls aside, this is the smartest bunch around! Whether it is a minor detail or an encyclopedia of info, I always get something out of a post. Thank you again.