who wins this argument? i like the bay its more diverse, whereas LA is all gangsterish and violent but LA is cool too... but i prefure the bay, what about you?...drew

SF liberal nature makes the crackheads and the hypes more prominent as opposed to LA where they hide in street alleys.

Do you seriously think there is no gangs in the Bay area?

noooooooooooo way i disagree! they dont hide in LA... while i know their are alot of gangs in SF, LA is full of violence and stuff... people just get away with more in SF... but you my friend are wrong about gangs "hiding" in alleys in LA

LOL AHAHAHA I was wandering down market street and there was a shooting in a convenience store...I didnt know where the shooting was coming from so I ran into a random spot...since I have been to LA I have never been around a shooting lol! There is crime everywhere my friend!

moron, i live in south central LA, the most feared city in all of cali and it quiet as a mouse every night. that gang **** is so 1995. only people bangin are hard head teenagers with no guts

although im from the LA area i would have to say that San Fran is 10 times better... but then again im a liberal so that could have something to do with it

I was born and raised in San Francisco, and currently living in LA. LA over the last three years has grown on me. I definitely prefer San Francisco though. I like the stronger sense of community and the more political nature of the people. The air is cleaner and the city more beautiful.

While there ARE aspects to L.A. that definitely DO suck, I'd be hard pressed to say that SF (otherwise known as "The Peoples' Republic of San Francisco") is better.

For starters, the whole "gangsterish" and "violence" crap is pure bull-honkey- we're in the midst of a year with the LOWEST murder rate in the last couple of years, which wasn't all that high anyway. In fact, most of that gangsta hogwash was probably thought up by some bleeding-heart liberal in Sacramento looking get his tax-and-spend initiative put on the books more than anything else.

Of course, Frisco can't call itself "immune" to murder and gang-based crime, as it has had its own share of mind-boggling violence thanks to the Chinese Triad wars of the last thirty years. And that Triad gang war is STILL going on, BTW.

And don't get me started on the shenanigans of nearby 'burgs as Berkeley and Oakland, which have had murder/violent crime rates that have been significantly higher than any So-Cal town. I'd be MUCH more fearful of walking down a street in Berkeley in the middle of the night than I would in South Central (which I've done in BOTH town, in case you should ask).

Each town has its own "flava" lol! For sure two different cities,but each has certain aspects that make them what they are!

both are cool, but since i live in SF and been to LA, i have to say i prefer SF. ONLY SF, not the area, i think the area itself is like any other area in the country, but the city is an amazing place, who can deny it? and about gangs and violence, i think that's present in every single city in the US. though i like LA, SF is waaay better to live.

look dude, that is not exactly true. i grew up in East Los Angeles and violence and crime is not as pictured in Hollywood movies. Just like Dredz_Hang_Low said.. that's not the case anymore. i just visited San Francisco for the first time i can not judge the city for 4 days i was there. but it seem no less than the outskirts of LA. To me there isn't anything like LA, and i have lived in Minneapolis (too cold and boring), Miami (too humid, bad food and expensive) & Phoenix (too dry & hot). please consider the facts before making an ignorant (no offense) remark of any kind again.

I know LA has its bad communities, but what city doesn't?

OC is the place to be! just enough violence and perfect amount of peace =) well balance unlike LA and SF =X