Which city is best to live in: Los Angeles or San Francisco? (Or any other cities in California)

I lived in both San Francisco and Los Angeles. I only stayed in Los Angeles for six months as opposed to three years in San Francisco if they says anything about the two cities. I find San Francisco to be a great city for it's climate, activities to do throughout the city and it's conveniences to everything. You don't need a car in San Francisco, which eliminates insurance and atrocious parking tickets, but also, you can truly get anywhere in the city within 20 minutes. Also, the city has helped the citizens rely on public transportation by providing apps that will help you gadge when and where the next MUNI is coming. It is a wonderful city and I recommend it to anyone.

After 8 years, we moved from LA to SF. After 1.5 years, we're moving back to LA. SF seems like it was a great city, 20 years ago. But costs have taken their toll. Yes, you will pay significantly more for rent - at least another 1K in SF. A house, you're looking at 4.5k or higher. To buy, you better have had stock in that tech start-up, because you're looking at $1.5 million unless you want to live 90 minutes from work. But . . . the effect of housing cost goes much, much further. A half bag of groceries will set you back $50, and not Whole Foods, just the local market. Restaurants - they are going under and staying under. There are empty ex-restaurants all over - people pay rent and just can't afford to eat out as much - places sit empty Sunday thru Wednesday, can't run a business that way. To save costs, quality is down in restaurants, MSG is up to make up for cheaper main ingredients, not just in Chinese restaurants. Can't wait to get back to L.A., but I'm not a Tech Bro. Your mileage may vary. And for some of the other comments - is it really living in SF when all you afford is Pleasanton? As far as Cultural diversity, LA is much, much more diverse - L.A. is the second largest city in the US, SF doesn't even crack the top 10. Want to go to a Giants game - get a second mortgage, same for SF Giants. There is so much to do in LA, everything is much more affordable.

I've lived in both LA and SF and much prefer the Bay Area (obviously sense I choose it).

Here is what I would say: both areas are expensive.

LA is definitely more of a car culture. SF feels more laid back.

For raising kids, however, I would recommend the East Bay. You might consider Lafayette or Pleasant Hill. Both give you access to BART which makes commuting easier and have good schools without being too expensive if you take time to look. You are fairly close to the Berkeley and those locations but not so close that crime is a real concern.

If you like more of a car culture and like going to beach and that sort of thing, you might prefer LA.

I'd much prefer to live in LA over SF for the same reasons I'd prefer to live in NYC over Boston. Boston and SF are both kind of small towns and provincial (in a global sense), lots of high paying tech jobs, but they made both cities too expensive for what you get, both are kind of gentrified and "white washed." I mean if walkability is your only "plus" over the other, why not save a few bucks and move somewhere like Portland or New Orleans. NYC and LA are megacities, I prefer megacities where I never get bored. Sure, LA isn't walkable (parts are actually), but there is WAY more to do and way more amenities. LA is also closer to more interesting other cities like San Diego and Las Vegas. SF you can go to... Sacramento? #fail

I love both cities. And I love California! Lived in each for roughly 5 years a piece. It's hard to beat the beach communities and recreational lifestyle in Southern California. Beaches, mountains, desert. Malibu on a sunny clear day is paradise. LA has the best weather in the US, but San Diego is slightly superior. In LA it's truly multicultural, in a global, sense. Its massive in economy, culture, offerings, entertainment and media capital. Something for everyone. It's the NYC of the west. Great and "pretty" people, fun and terrific neighborhoods. Home prices in good areas are very pricey, but you generally get a backyard. Mass transit (Pacific Red Car) was removed in the 60's by auto industry and tire/oil company lobbyists, now the city is rebuilding at a cost of $1 billion per underground mile. Traffic congestion is painful.

SF is more dense, cosmopolitan, and much smaller. Great food. Downtown and bay are beautiful. A great city, much like the northeast. Its the Boston of the West. Very provincial. Gritty. Major downside is the places I lived in city got very little sunlight and extremely expensive for no space. Great parks. Schools are same in both ..just meh. Those that can afford private school do so. It comes down to economics. Wealthy areas like Palos Verdes, Pacific Palisades in LA and Marin County and certain Peninsula citiies in SF have far superior public schools. Mass transit is better than LA, but its generally lacking.

I find it funny that many SF people get uppity and look down on LA. And LA people don't really care. I think most of this "rivalry" comes from non CA natives. I mean who really cares?

I don't get where Livermore/Pleasanton and Lafayette are "inexpensive". I'll provide some Wikipedia stats on all three (They also have citations):

LIVERMORE

Median household income: $96,632 (2005)

PLEASANTON

Median household income: $101,022 (2005)

LAFAYETTE

Median household income: estimated at over $150,000 (2012)

But yes I'd choose SF over LA ;) (As for a cheaper city, try Concord, Pleasant Hill or Martinez)

I've lived in San Francisco my whole life, so I only know Los Angeles from visiting and from friend who have moved there--that kind of thing. What I would say is this. On the pros of San Francisco:

1. SF is much more walkable than LA, even with LA's new transportation. SF is just more compact so that even with the hills you can get around without a car--LA is a car culture, noone can live without one there.

2. Silicon Valley has pretty much weathered the economic crisis. If you have experience in high tech you could find a job there.

Cons:

1. San Francisco public schools are not great for the most part. You may have to shell money out for public school or live out the Sunset District, where there are some better schools. (Down on the Peninsula there are some better schools.)

2. Very expensive to live here--I think one of the most expensive places in the country. The Peninsula where the schools are great also, unfortunately is super expensive.

Here's a recommendation for Nor Cal: Live out in Livermore/Pleasanton and commute into work. It is relatively affordable and the schools are really strong. (The commute is a killer however.)

SuzM and co. are right on. When it comes to the Peninsula (the area inbetween SF and SJ), you definitely can't beat the schools, they are some of the best in the Bay Area. Prices are really high, though you might be able to find some less expensive rents up by South San Francisco and the Pacifica area--bascially, the farther north on the Peninsula you go, the more "reasonable" the rent prices/home prices.

Raising kids in NYC - There are so many reason to make New York City home. sometimes it’s not easy, but I think overall Raising kids in NYC is pretty good. Find everything you need to know about raising kid in NYC. Click Here. https://footballfoodandmotherhood.com/10-reasons-thank-god-im-a-nyc-mom/

SuzM and co. are right on. When it comes to the Peninsula (the area inbetween SF and SJ), you definitely can't beat the schools, they are some of the best in the Bay Area. Prices are really high, though you might be able to find some less expensive rents up by South San Francisco and the Pacifica area--bascially, the farther north on the Peninsula you go, the more "reasonable" the rent prices/home prices.
http://taimuorigin.com

I lived in SF for 2 years and now I am living in LA since 6 months ago. I have to say I much prefer LA. SF hmm yes it is a cute city for visiting. For companies. For startups, if you can afford. But just because of the tech world there makes the rent RIDICULOUS! UNNESSARY! A small studio you need to pay 2000+ a month for freaking what reason? SF is small so I will say most of the time you can walk which is easy. BUT it's really TINY. I am at my mid 20's, I like going out, having fun, exploring places. But I spent 2 months there and I have been to everywhere. Like EVERY PLACE. But LA is so big, and so much more to do and to explore. It's not walkable but man people invented cars for what? Yes for driving. You can just drive around in LA and you will never get bored. SF has a small downtown, and that's it! Well mission area or Marina area is fun but just walk around those places about 30 mins. Done. Nothing else. Also the weather in SF just almost killed me. I love summer but DUDE! There is NO SUMMER THERE. Always foggy and windy. LA has no winter, only summer, spring and fall which is perfect. In summer you can actually go to the beach and do water activities. But in SF, try to dig into the water, FREEZING! Anyways everyone is different. In my opinion I like LA better if you like summer and you like going out.

You can find safe place to live in San Francisco.
http://www.crimeteller.com/crimetel/crime/us-ca-san_francisco-san_francisco.html

This crime map shows burglary rate and other violent crime for your safety.

Also, great schools in Walnut Creek...Daly City, SSF, and "most " (not all) of SF Unified are pathetic. I know.. We left SF for better schools in Northern San Mateo County. Big mistake! Ended up at Truckee-Tahoe schools, just to get out of the gang banger mentality.

If you can afford it....Walnut Creek. Great weather, thriving downtown, low crime rate and not cookie cutter homes like the peninsula! (Northern San Mateo County is probably the worst!)