I know the QE2 has been there before but I can't find out when. I also can't find any pictures of her in San Diego.

San Diego is a beautiful city with a lot of history and a lot of up scale places. It seems like a good port for Cunard to call at.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cunard Fan:
I meant more as a port of call, not a departure port. San Diego seems like I great port to embark form though. I love San Diego.

It seems like a great port of call for Cunard.

---

Oh I agree. San Diego is a wonderfully slower-paced clean So. Cal city-a little like L.A. was in the past: 'Iowa By the Sea'.

LA isn't one of my favorite places (though it certainly has its charms) but it has got a lot of stuff to see and do, and everyone seems to love San Francisco, myself included. I haven't been to San Diego in about 16 years, which means I remember nothing meaningful about the place. I remember I loved it, because it was warm, sunny and there was a lot of water and boats, but that's about it. But I think it is perceived as a less interesting place to visit than LA or San Francisco - maybe a nice place, but a little boring. (I'm not saying that's what it is, just what people tend to think of it.)

It has little, however, to offer 2500 passengers as a '8a-5p' port of call. Balboa Park, shopping at Horton Plaza, a visit to the beach or Sea World, or a jaunt to another locale within 1-hour drive time really doesnt justify or warrant it as a port visit.

The Maritime Museum with Star of India, walk the tourist route in the Gas Lamp Qtr, hop on off the trolley buses, there's some sort of a shopping village near there too on the coast with a nice restaurant over the water, take a ferry to Coronado, go to the park, zoo, museums, plenty. Whatever hotels and dining options there are, really makes no odds as a port of call. There are some nice 'scenic' drive along routes too; I've done all these, much better than pounding the traffic in LA. Skip LA, and sail San Diego to SF

However, given that choice between the two as a port of call, yes, San Diego would definitely be preferred over LA due to the proximity of foot-travel sightseeing (hey, and its just plain nicer than LA!).

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmwnc1:

It has little, however, to offer 2500 passengers as a '8a-5p' port of call. Balboa Park, shopping at Horton Plaza, a visit to the beach or Sea World, or a jaunt to another locale within 1-hour drive time really doesnt justify or warrant it as a port visit.

---

I have to say I disagree, San Diego has much more to do now then before. My familly goes down there several times a year for vacation and I have never been borred there.

In February I sailed on MONARCH OF THE SEAS and San Diego was a port of call. There were a ton of options to keep busy for the day, in fact much more so than the other ports such as Catalina and Ensenada. The fact you dock in the heart of the city means you can explore without even taking a shore excursion. I think it would be far worse to stop in LA for the day. Most attractions are a fair distance (like Beverly Hills/Santa Monica) and by the time you allow travel time it doesn't leave you with a lot of time to explore. The Port of Los Angeles is fairly remote from the rest of the city. Long Beach is close but once you have seen the QM then you have seen Long Beach. I only wish many of the ports I have visited over the years had as much to offer as San Diego.

One reason San Diego has not become a larger turn-around port is because of the airlift. San Diego airport is still located downtown (great airport BTW) and airlift is limited. There is really no where for the airport to expand so it will never become a major airport. Flying into LAX presents far more options (and it's usually cheaper).

Ernie

[ 05-27-2008: Message edited by: eroller ]

Before I ever visited San Diego I saw a couple of real 'horror' documentaries on crime there and was quite put off for a while. In fact the first time we were going to visit we only got as far as some lovely beach half way between LA & San Diego, forget the name offhand, and stayed there instead. The next time I was determined to go and actually pre-booked an hotel so I didn't bottle out. Loved it, and was nothing like anything I imagined from those documentaries and would have stayed longer if only I hadn't already pre-booked QM to go back to, which I wasn't able to change. A city we will definitely go back to and those documentaries should be binned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:

Before I ever visited San Diego I saw a couple of real 'horror' documentaries on crime there and was quite put off for a while.

---

This is surprising Pam. San Diego has a low crime rate, especially when compared to LA and the Bay Area. In fact it's rare you hear about violent crime in San Diego. Compare that to places like Miami, Washington D.C., LA, New Orleans, and even my own Atlanta all of which have high violent crime rates. In Atlanta it's mostly domestic violence and it's crime the average person or visitor never sees, but it still exists.

FYI - this from Wikipedia:

In 2004, San Diego had the sixth lowest crime rate of any U.S. city with over half a million residents.[19] In 2005, San Diego had 4.2 murders per 100,000 (national average of 5.9) and was the lowest U.S. city over one million residents.

Ernie

[ 05-27-2008: Message edited by: eroller ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by PamM:
Ernie, I am going back a long time here, I should have said, it would have been 1993, perhaps 1994. I recall those programmes vividly, they were all to do with drug related crime, gangs and drive by shootings.. individual cops relating their daily routines and what happened every single day on duty with the drug addicts and 'down & out' real hardened ciminals living on the streets [not the general homeless person]. I guess perhaps this has been squashed pretty much? or perhaps the programmes were very much OTT, these things sometimes are.

Pam

---

Got it Pam. Certainly I'm not saying San Diego doesn't have crime. Of course there is drug related crime considering the proximity to Mexico, but many other large cities have much bigger crime issues. I'm guessing the program you watched was a bit OTT. If they really wanted to concentrate on a city loaded with corruption, drug issues, and high crime then Miami would have been the ideal choice. I remember years ago German (and other nationality tourists) were getting robbed and even killed trying to find their way from the Miami airport to the beach. Miami even went as far to post large signs geared towards the tourists to keep them out of the bad areas. Not easy in Miami as there are so many bad areas. The amount of in your face wealth in Miami is a bit misleading. It's one of, if not *the* poorest major city in the US, perhaps tied with New Orleans.

Actually I just checked some statistics. I think Cleveland is currently ranked as the poorest US major city, followed by Detroit, Miami, and Newark. Interesting to see Miami mixed in with those old, industrial Northern cities.

Ernie

[ 05-27-2008: Message edited by: eroller ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by avalon1025:
ugh, most of the crime in the bay area is Oakland...SF is usually quite safe

---

Agreed. But SF itself is relatively small compared to the entire Bay Area. The population of the city itself doesn't even reach 1M residents. What a fantastic city though! SF or San Diego. That would be a hard choice for me. Fewer earthquakes and better weather in San Diego. Much more culture, natural beauty, and atmosphere in SF. Thankfully it's a not a decision I currently have to make but one I would like to.

The downtown layout is perfect w/the airport, sports stadium, waterfront parks and cruise terminal all within 5 minutes. Coronado is stunning -almost Disney like but in a good way and La Jolla is also another lovely community w/fabulous beaches and great natural beauty.