HOME > Chowhound > Site Talk >

Discussion

Add a San Diego board

  • m
  • mjoc Sep 21, 2006 06:16 AM
  • 29
  • Share

San Diego is the second largest city in California and the 8th largest in the nation. It is second to LA in California and larger than SF, yet SF has its own board. There are many fine restaurants in San Diego and the vicinity and I think the area is worthy of its own board instead of having to use the general California board.

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
Posting Guidelines | FAQs | Feedback
Cancel
  1. Ditto that

    1. Not quite correct, it's the San Francisco BAY AREA board and it covers the 9 Bay Area counties. SF's 700,000 citizens (and the city's restaurants) are only a small part of the 6.7 million population of the whole area.

      19 Replies
      1. re: Melanie Wong

        That is a good point and I didn't think of that. but still, as a city, San Diego should definitely have its own board. Or maybe divde the California board into SoCal and NoCal.

        1. re: mjoc

          There's been talk before of splitting the California board into North and South pending the new software launch. I'd bet it's on the list of board changes. Where would you draw the dividing line?

          1. re: Melanie Wong

            Just eyeballing a map makes me think the line should run from the Salinas/Monterey area on the coast to just north of Death Valley on the eastern border.

            1. re: mjoc

              That's an easy delineation. Here's the map of California counties -
              http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jmorlan/ca-...

              1. re: Melanie Wong

                I guess you could say that the line of Monterey, Fresno, and Mono counties and north would be NoCal and south (obviously) would be SoCal. The area of NoCal would be a little bigger than SoCal, I think, but population-wise, with LA and SD in the south, they would probably be close to even.

                1. re: mjoc

                  Makes sense to me. I wanted to add that there are some other board changes that might be ahead of this one in line, e.g., International, Midwest, Pacific Northwest. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

                  1. re: Melanie Wong

                    You know, I used to be a big advocate of splitting up the Midwest board, but now I fear it will just become stagnant. Some days pass where there is activity in only one or two Twin Cities, threads, for instance. I wish instead there were a way to index or tag posts. I suspect most Twin Citians don't mind sharing a Board with Kansas Citians as much as they just want to be able to search more easily for and readily identify at a quick glance Twin Cities posts.

                    ~TDQ

            2. re: Melanie Wong

              The current programming team landed the gig partly on the basis of a really slick mapping-enabled site they built. Wouldn't it be neat if regional posts could include a clickable state map or a field containing the city, town or metro area being discussed and posts could simply be grouped by proximity to the area you're browsing?

              The current geograpic "board" metaphor could be kept as a means of quickly browsing a specific region and pre-filling this location field on a new post, but going forward, Californians (or New Jerseyites, or whatever) could narrow it down manually so that a post about Monterey would show up in the local view of a San Luis Obispo hound, but not a San Diego hound.

              It's not just squishy in California. Someone who lives in "Tristate Area" New Brunswick, NJ is more likely to care about posts about Princeton, NJ (New Jersey board) than they are about Norwalk, Connecticut or Suffolk County on Long Island. Similarly, hounds in both Jacksonville and Pensacola, FL are going to be more interested in Mobile, Alabama and Southern Georgia posts respectively than they will be in each other's posts, much less ones about Miami.

              The current categories work Well Enough, but there might be a way through clever design to allow painless geographic fluidity. The key would be to make it transparent and passive enough that posters who don't want to be bothered don't have to do anything.

              1. re: hatless

                I don't mind the way it is now, and I don't need a GIS-based system (which would be hard to do for the zillions of "WHERE IS THE BEST SUSHI IN LA/OC" posts, you'd have to tag each post with a location), but I'd love to have firmer guidelines.

                I grew up in Woodbridge, Middlesex County, New Jersey. There are posts in Tristate, there are posts in Mid-Atlantic, there are even some posts that the mods missed on What's My Craving? and The Best...

                1. re: Das Ubergeek

                  My idea is to have the tagging occur passively and keep the radius pretty wide. Nothing would change from that casual visitor's perspective. They'd click on "L.A." like they do now, ask "WHERE IS THE BEST SUSHI IN LA/OC like they do now, and everyone browsing their "local area" "board" for whom L.A. City Hall is within that 50-mile or whatever radius would see the post, as would anyone clicking on the wider-radius "SoCal board". Heck, maybe there could be a nifty shaded map with a draggable spotlight or clickable counties or whatever, to pick the areas that you want to see posts for or create posts in. I dunno.

                  I would not want to see any kind of manual tagging be made mandatory. In most cases the general location would be picked up passively through context.

                  Or maybe I'm just nuts.

                  1. re: hatless

                    I'm in favor of your non-mandatory manual tagging. People who cared about such things, including more experienced users, could quietly go about tagging posts.

                    ~TDQ

            3. re: mjoc

              I see it being needed more as a matter of the volume of posts for San Diego and environs, perhaps have it cover SD county so it would include Oceanside and Temecula, iirc. Splitting CA into N and S would confuse matters more I'm afraid, e.g. Fresno being in the N sector but Visalia just a few miles away (Tulare Co.) would be South, along Hwy 395 most folks wouldn't know the dividing line between Mono and Inyo (Whoa Nellie Deli would belong on the former, Mammoth the latter).

              Further, the requests for info while traveling (101, I-5, 99) would require knowing that you would have to ask about Paso Robles on the S and King City on the N board.

              Just my $0.02

              1. re: PolarBear

                I'm an advocate of San Diego having it's own board, but I've gotta agree with Polar Bear and the N/S split thing.

                In spite of it's size, the dining scene in SD, while improving daily, does not (yet) compete with either Los Angeles or San Francisco. Both these areas clearly warrant local boards. I might be inclined to say that a SD board should cover SD, Imperial and possibly Riverside counties (Temecula is in Riverside Cnty). There are almost as many people commuting the I-15 corridor to jobs in SD as commute I-10 and 60 into the greater Los Angeles area. Though I think a plausible argument could be made for Riverside county being attached to the LA board too.

                Exclusive of SF and LA, rather than break the CA board into 2 sections, 3 sections might be more realistic. 1) San Diego, Imperial and possibly/probably Riverside counties, 2) Central, to include Venutra, Santa Barabara and the entire central valley, as well as Salinas, Monterey with perhaps Modesto being the northern end point. 3) Sacto, Mendocino, Redding and all other points North.

                A topic that routinely comes up when SD Chowhound get together is the placement of the Tijuana/Ensenada corridor on the International, now Mexico board. Most regular SD posters to not visit the International or Mexico boards with any degree of frequency, yet many of them do travel in northern Baja with great frequency. Economically and culturally, SD and TJ are forever linked and that bond is growing every tighter with each passing year. Posters inquiring about Tijuana, Ensenada and all points in between are going to have a far better chance at getting a response if their posts are made on the (current) CA board than they will to a post on the Mexico board. Tijuana/Ensenada should included in any incarnation of a SD specific board.

                1. re: DiningDiva

                  Disagree on Baja, which I feel belongs on Mexico. The rest of the country counts on you San Diegans to ferret out the good eats in the TJ / Baja area because it is your extended local area.

                  But we also count on you guys to put that data where it makes sense to us. I think the rest of the Chowhound community perceives of Baja as Mexico.

                  Something to chew on: would you, as a San Diegan, look for Vancouver BC information on the newly created Western Canada board, or Pacific NW? Seattle locals might think of their northern neighbor as local, but it's still Canada.

                  Chowhound took the time to give Mexico it's own board, so let's use it.

                  1. re: Professor Salt

                    I would probably look for Vancouver on a Pacific NW board even though I know it's located in Canada.

                    I think to some extent San Diego's situation is a little unique. It's a very large city sitting almost exactly on an international border, the busiest international border crossing in the world (where it only takes 3 seconds to get into Mexico, but 3 hours to get out). There are not many other cities in the U.S. that are comparable in that regard. Tijuana, Rosarito and Ensenada are frequent day-trips for visitors to San Diego, there is a dearth of tourist info on that area in SD. Besides, almost everyone who visits San Diego wants to know where to get the "best" fish taco, which isn't in San Diego at all, but Baja. It's hard, unless you really live in the SD area understanding the dynamics or the interaction and relationship that the two regions have with each other isn't that black and white.

                    BTW, as I supsect you know, I do visit and post on the Mexico board;-)

                    1. re: DiningDiva

                      Yes, I know DD :) I hold your posts on Mexican chow in the highest esteem, which is why I'd want other people to find them easily.

                      1. re: Professor Salt

                        look, as Diva and the rest of us in San Diego know, Tijuana should at least be part of any SD board. Anyone going to Tijuana is going to be going through SD anyhow. Now I'll buy into an argument that, say, Cabo should be separate.

                      2. re: DiningDiva

                        Maybe it takes YOU three hours to get out... but I know the secret and it only takes me 45 minutes, ha ha!

                        :-P

                        As you said, Temecula's in Riverside County... and it doesn't "feel" like SD County, it feels like ghastly Chow-free inland desert cow-laden... never mind, I'm thinking of Hemet.

                    2. re: DiningDiva

                      Second on the N/S split being a terrible idea. San Diego is large enough in terms of population that it should have its own separate board.

                      Maybe for California there should be San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, then Northern, Southern, and Central for places outside the big three metropolitan areas.

                      It should be quite simple to add these boards, and I think it would reduce the number of "I'm coming to San Diego, where should I eat?" threads.

              2. I would add a vote for a SD board of its own. We may not rival LA and SF for culinary experiences, but we do seem to get a lot of people visiting here, either for vacations or work/conferences, and a separate board would make it easier to filter through recommendations.

                And, sometimes it's nice to have a place to go when you're just looking for a laid-back local joint for a good meal.

                Leanne

                1. Presently, of the 70 top threads on the California board, well over half are devoted to San Diego topics. This is an idea whose time has come.

                  1. .02 Give SD its own board, because clearly half of the posts on CA are SD related. Please don't divide CA in half, that's not how it's populated, traveled, and eaten!

                    1. putting in my vote because I was dumb enough not to see this thread earlier. Please make EITHER made a San Diego Area board (thats all of north county too, and temecula), or split up the california board into Southern, Central, and North.

                      1. I completely agree. I tried to post something for San Diego and ended up posting to both the L.A. and California boards; the L.A. board post, which to me, is 'closer' to SD area than "California" ended up getting deleted!

                        San Diego is huge and deserves its own board.

                        1. 11 of 18 posts for 12/13/07 at about 1pm are for San Diego.

                          How about it's own board?

                          1 Reply
                          1. re: thirtyeyes

                            Please see the response from Jacquilynne, Chowhound Community Manager, here:

                            http://www.chowhound.com/topics/46592...

                          2. so funny, I was just looking for a way to suggest this to you. I like to search teh California boards, and I've noticed that there are many many positngs for San Diego. I think it makes good sense to have San Diego board, I think it will get plenty of traffic.