General Question

Carly's avatar

Which city in California would you rather live in?

Asked by Carly (4555points) July 18th, 2010

My boyfriend has recently been offered two different jobs (with different companies). They both pay around the same amount of money compared to the price of living in each city, and they have very similar benefit packages. They’re both located in California, but one is based in San Luis Obispo and the other is in San Francisco.

I’m from the Bay Area, but have never lived in the city (I’ve also been living in Illinois for about 3 years). My boyfriend is from Washington and has only been to California once. For those of you who know either or both of those areas, which would be a better place to move to, and why?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

20 Answers

FutureMemory's avatar

San Luis is nothing special what-so-ever. If money isn’t an issue go with SF.

fairytales's avatar

I lived in SLO for two years and loved it there. I’ve also lived near San Francisco. Personally, I would choose SLO. Would you like to live in a larger city, or do you prefer a small town atmosphere?

Coloma's avatar

Yes, if money is not an issue go for SF.

Lots to do, near the coast, a cultural epicenter of the state.

Of course the drawbacks are lots of fog, cold to cool temps most of the year and not a lot of sunshine.

Not to menton it’s on a major fault line…but hey, one must risk for excitement. lol

Another downside is mega homelessness and high crime in some areas.

The BEST features are fishermans wharf the museums and all the incredible seafood!

dpworkin's avatar

Both are nice. SLO is near Santa Barbara, and the weather is better. SF is more sophisticated and metropolitan, but also more expensive.

Allie's avatar

I’d pick SF over SLO any day. Any day.

marinelife's avatar

San Luis Obispo is one of the places I have always wanted to live. I would go for that in a heartbeat. Even though I love San Francisco.

The cost of living will be a lot higher and the traffic will be terrible in the latter.

tinyfaery's avatar

San Fran is the best city in No. Cal. SLO has much more of a suburban or small town feel to it. Also, SF is so diverse. SLO, not so much.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

SLO couldn’t possibly compare to San Francisco and your quick access to the surrounding areas and attractions. Are you saying they’ll pay him enough for you to live in the Bay Area? I moved from there 5yrs ago and miss it EVERY DAY but a monthly rental of $3300.00, toll pass for $150., in city parking space within 3 blocks of work for $300. and the regular stuff was harsh.

ipso's avatar

I’ve lived in San Francisco. Like NYC, if you feel you’ll only be there a couple years (and if you’re going to rent), go for it just for the experience. If it’s more long term, I’d look for a good value home with a view in San “Lewey” (or SLO “slow”), where your money will take you so much farther. As mentioned above – less congestion, better weather, better value.

Before you decide, spend a three day weekend in San Louis Obispo first. You’ll know in you gut right away. Go to the supermarket, post office, school. Burb-rural may not be for you, but you can always take the train up to San Francisco or down to Santa Barbara for day trips with all that money you save!

Also checkout Morrow Bay, Pismo beach, and Santa Maria if you can.

frdelrosario's avatar

San Luis Obispo and San Francisco are on different planets.

SF is one of the greatest places on its planet if one can afford it and doesn’t mind the stinky, crowded city life.

I visit SLO three or four times per year. Highway 101 sucks all the way through Gilroy, and then there’s 150 miles of ‘why would anyone live here’, 50 miles of nothing, and then you climb this big hill that drops into a lush, green paradise. SLO seems to be hidden in the middle of the northern and southern metropolises. Folks are pleasant like smalltown folks, and the Cal Poly kids are smart. I always hate leaving. The drive north is fast and quiet, but as soon as I enter San Jose wham welcome back to the traffic, and then I feel at home. SLO is a very, very nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there.

You’re from the Bay Area, so you might dig what I’m talking about. There aren’t many places in the U.S. that feel like this.

If I were in your boyfriend’s position, I’d take the SLO job with the provision that I could move back to SF if I couldn’t stand the peace and quiet.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

I can echo what @ipso and @frdelrosario have just written. SLO is okay if you like sub-rural.

Dr_Lawrence's avatar

San Fransisco or San Diego would do nicely. La Jolla would not hurt.

Coloma's avatar

I lived in San Diego for some years, yes, La Jolla is very nice.
Used to hang glide at Torrey Pines beach.
I met Dr. Seuss there and Joan Kroc, owner of the San Diego Padre’s. :-)

YARNLADY's avatar

While I enjoy visiting San Francisco (the city, not the Bay Area), I would never choose to live there. Basically, I love the small town atmosphere, and would choose SLO in a heartbeat, of those two choices.

Personally, I long to live in the San Diego coastal town of Del Mar.

Neizvestnaya's avatar

Sausalito
Corte Madera
Pacifica

These are towns in the Bay Area that are small, less expensive than in SF proper and nice.

wenn's avatar

I would go with San Francisco, I like city life.

Cruiser's avatar

SLO is a pretty town loved visiting there and Morro beach is an awesome beach. SF was too cold for me!

jenandcolin's avatar

I would pick living in San Francisco over any other city in the country. I love it there. I do have a cousin (by marriage) who loves SLO. I know very little about SLO but, I know quite a bit about SF. I have never lived there but, I did honeymoon there and have since become obsessed with it. The culture, activities, beauty- they are unparalleled. It really depends on what you are looking for…

jeffmbca's avatar

SF is really expensive and the weather isn’t great but there’s a lot to do. SLO isn’t cheap but cheaper than SF. It’s a much slower pace but it’s really nice. It all depends on your lifestyle. Do you want a great nightlife or something more mellow? They’re both nice places and you will like them both but you should really try to visit them first as they’re very different from each other. Take a weekend and fly into SF then drive down the coast. It will be a great weekend and give some better insight.

FluffyChicken's avatar

I’ve lived in San Luis Obispo county all my life.

If you like the outdoors, and feeling safe in your home, and a peaceful easy pace, go with SLO. It’s one of the most beautiful places. there’s plenty to do despite it being a smaller city. there’s beautiful hiking not only surrounding the city but right in it. there’s good local theater(not as good as sf, but you can’t have everything) and Cal Poly’s Performing Art Center, where a lot of big names both music and theater come and perform. (We’ve got Crosby and Nash from Crosby Stills and Nash there this weekend). It’s 10 minutes away from the beach, and of Course there’s Montana De Oro right over in Los Osos. Also, If you haven’t had the clam chowder at Splash Cafe, you haven’t had Clam Chowder. And then there’s Farmer’s market every Thursday, which is loads of fun. and our weather is the Happy Medium. I could go on forever, seriously. plus I’m always discovering new things I like about it.

Sanfrancisco is OK if you like that kind of pace, and being in a crowd all the time. Everyone I know who has lived there has gotten kind of burnt out on it and then moved elsewhere.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther