As a foreigner who's been to both, I'd say LA is a little better. There seems to be less urine in the streets. If you're talking about pure visual aesthetics, I'd also say LA wins, just by a little and primarily because of Santa Monica.
In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think either rank very high, even among American cities. Chicago and New York have far nicer architecture.
Well, both LA and Santa Monica are part of Los Angeles County. Plus, Santa Monica is bordered on all sides by the actual city of LA.
People frequently do refer to many cities in the county as living in LA.
San Jose and San Francisco are in separate counties and are 48 miles apart, while downtown LA to Santa Monica is 16 miles. Also they do not border each other.
Why is it important to point out that Santa Monica isn't the same as the city of Los Angeles? If you live there, you probably know already. If you don't live there, it doesn't matter anyway. They're neighbors. And it's not like Santa Monica is any more culturally unique than the dozens of communities that make up L.A. proper.
Living in LA could mean anything from Brentwood or Bel Air (which I'd strongly argue are not bad places to live) to ghettos in South Central. Most people speak in terms of neighborhoods in LA, and most people consider Santa Monica a kind of neighborhood in LA even though it's a separate city.
Like if I say I live in Marina Del Rey and I have a friend in Santa Monica invite me over, it's not a big deal. That's what important. If I live in SF and a friend in San Jose invites me over, I'm like hmmm do I really want to drive an hour..
Thats like saying living in the tenderloin is a kind of bad place to live but noe valley is not. Both are in SF just like both Santa Monica and downtown LA are considered part of the same "greater LA"
FWIW, I see Santa Monica as being more akin to Berkeley, or even San Francisco, than to LA.
To me, Santa Monica's politics seem much more engaging, idealistic and left-leaning than those of LA. Santa Monica is also much wealthier, on average, than LA.
Because of its greater wealth (or its idealism, you decide) Santa Monica seems to be a better run city with what appear to be better maintained streets and public facilities. It's the kind of city LA residents like to escape to from time to time, if they can afford it.
It's perhaps relevant that Stephen Miller, an influential element of the Trump administration, forged his identity as a reactionary provocateur in the politically correct crucible of Santa Monica High School.
Portlandia! San Francisco has some rough corners. Even thing adjacent to Market street is terrible. Went to some clubs in the Tenderloin with a bunch of friends. Always trouble.
In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think either rank very high, even among American cities. Chicago and New York have far nicer architecture.