San Francisco or Los Angeles?

dmg24

I prefer LA. I don't really do the whole touristy thing, and found SF a bit too ... touristy! I like LA for shopping and just generally chilling out. However as others have said, there is no reason why you could not combine a trip to both.

lewt

tiamaria wrote: »

Which one to pick and why?;)

Go to both we did, its only about an hour and a half between them on the plane we stayed in LA and flew to SF for two days. wasnt expensive either. if your are going that far do both :j

lewt

Nice_Username wrote: »

San Fran, no contest. Liberal, cosmopolitan

Gay then...

Nice_Username wrote: »

LA is a vulgar, ostentatious, ecologically-unsustainable, culturally-bereft monstrosity .

Cool & modern then...

Both great places. I preffered LA but prob wont go back to either now i have been to them both.

neilbond007

2 completely different places. LA is a massive sprawl whereas you can basically walk around 90% of everything there is to see in SF.
I went to SF and enjoyed it.
I've been to LA about 20 times (am there the next 2 weeks too). It's grown on me. At first I hated it. Now I quite like some areas.

C_Mababejive

SFO...no contest.

LA is ok but its really just an over rated dirty big city.

You could do it in a day on a tour or something but it really doesnt warrant any great length of time.

If your travelling that way anyway they stay on the coast in the nice little town of Santa monica or similar.

kimmee

Another vote for San Fancisco.

I went on holiday a number of years ago - 2 weeks in LA and 1 week SF, there was plenty to do and see in LA but SF was wonderful. The Golden Gate Bridge is awesome, the cable cars, Fishermans Wharf, GG Park, Lombard Street, the bay, and my personal fav Alcatraz were fantastic.

I've done LA and not bothered if I ever go there again or not but I'm flying to SF again this summer - although this time I'm visiting rellies who live just outside the city but can't wait to see SF again.

ailuro2

San Francisco, without a shadow of a doubt....

We have very fond memories of it. We stayed at the Westin St. Francis on Union Square,* it was a great central area to access all the tourist stuff without being down a fisherman's wharf.

Also remember flying over miles and miles of LA to get to SF, what we saw of it through the SMOG, it looked very stretched out, this tied in with what others had told us, that you really need a car to get round it.

The public transport is great in SF, it's not just the cable cars, y'know.:)
Alcatraz is/was much cooler than expected, touching the San Andreas fault was an unexpected thrill, the GG bridge was cool as it's an icon but tbh we prefer the Forth bridges. We touched the pacific too, part of the city trip took us within walking distance so we ran down and touched it 'just because'

OVerall, it was the 'feel' of the city that we liked. The locals are quite different to some other American cities, and as previously mentioned, are pretty accepting of what some places would not accept. There are areas for the many and varied communities that live alongside each other in SF. A bit of a leftover from the 60s and 70s.





I'd not go all that way for theme parks when Florida is closer and has an abundance of them along with very reasonable accommodation.


So, it depends on what you want from a holiday. They are close enough together to do both, if you have the time, a few days in San Francisco and a few in LA...??:D





*(only because it was our honeymoon,wouldn't do that posh again!)

wayne77

Both good in their own way. LA is massive and has nice beaches and theme parks, SF is more scenic and laid back.

photome

Depends on what you want to do? Research both and then decide.

As others have said getting around in SF is much easier as it is MUCH smaller.
Try and do both.

For what its worth I prefer LA but dont particularly like either

Mr_Lahey

nw_man wrote: »

As usual you seem to just choose the contrary option to everyone else.

I have been to every one of those places you mention, i enjoyed them.

However I enjoyed San Fran more.

You got a problem with that ?

No not at all.

But when you said "Not much there (in LA) for tourists" I thought that perhaps i should correct you. Which i did.

For the OP -

Comparing San Francisco and Los Angeles is like comparing London and Cornwall. One is a city that is concentrated in more or less one place (San Francisco) and the other is a vast metropolis spread out over an enormous area.
If you are going to the 'city' and that is all you are looking for then San Francisco is the better of the two (unless you are going in winter) but if you want to get more bang for your buck you should head to LA, also LA is far better for the beach scene and can be visited all year round with quick connections to Las Vegas and San Diego.