Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-03-2015, 07:54 PM
 
6,879 posts, read 8,207,920 times
Reputation: 3867

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post

- Trying to equate Sacramento to Bay Area suburbs....I mean really LOL
You are the one who made the "riding coattails" argument, which is irrelevant and meaningless.

Ok so I won't use Walnut Creek as an example, how about San Jose, are they "riding coattails" when they drive an hour + traffic up to San Francisco to see a Giants game, or when they drive up an hour+ traffic to see an A's game.

Your comment was a snobbish put down on Sacramento and a double standard. You fail time and time again to accept that Sacramento is no different than any other Bay Area locale in terms of enjoying and participating in Bay Area amenities and culture.

Because Vallejo, Concord or any other Bay Area locale is technically in the Bay Area and Sacramento is not, matters only to you and your ilk. It doesn't matter to Sacramentans or our Bay Area friends and family that Sacramento, technically, is not in the Bay Area; we still can easily enjoy Bay Area amenities.

Sacramentans have an added bonus in that we don't have to worry about outrageous real estate costs, yet we can still enjoy Bay Area amenities.

And Sacramentans have their own culture and metro to call their own, for which a lot of Bay Areans partake more than you realize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-03-2015, 09:29 PM
 
Location: Northern Colorado
4,932 posts, read 12,726,080 times
Reputation: 1364
I see what the OP is getting at. Over priced for what you get. The suburbs of Sac imo are better than the city itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 09:50 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,970 posts, read 32,501,967 times
Reputation: 13615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
You are the one who made the "riding coattails" argument, which is irrelevant and meaningless.

Ok so I won't use Walnut Creek as an example, how about San Jose, are they "riding coattails" when they drive an hour + traffic up to San Francisco to see a Giants game, or when they drive up an hour+ traffic to see an A's game.

Your comment was a snobbish put down on Sacramento and a double standard. You fail time and time again to accept that Sacramento is no different than any other Bay Area locale in terms of enjoying and participating in Bay Area amenities and culture.

Because Vallejo, Concord or any other Bay Area locale is technically in the Bay Area and Sacramento is not, matters only to you and your ilk. It doesn't matter to Sacramentans or our Bay Area friends and family that Sacramento, technically, is not in the Bay Area; we still can easily enjoy Bay Area amenities.

Sacramentans have an added bonus in that we don't have to worry about outrageous real estate costs, yet we can still enjoy Bay Area amenities.

And Sacramentans have their own culture and metro to call their own, for which a lot of Bay Areans partake more than you realize.
Bringing up the Bay Area when the conversation was simply about nature is irrelevant to begin with.

AGAIN, not sure how you got from the "riding the coattails" comment somehow applied to people enjoying another cities amenities. THAT IS NOT WHAT I MEANT by that and I've already explained yet you keep trying to cling to that argument in order to prove some point.

What was ORIGINALLY THE DOUBLE STANDARD on this thread was you diminishing the natural and recreational amenities in close proximity to Fresno in order to prop up Sac.

I'm not sure how any reasonable person can think being an hour to 90 minutes farther away WITHOUT TRAFFIC and not having FREQUENT transit connectivity doesn't make any sort of difference. And it certainly matters to govt agencies, planning agencies, businesses, etc..

So you have your own culture and metro to call your own but your basically part of the Bay Area culture and metro essentially. Do you seriously not see the glaring contradiction there? So Sac is it's own metro and has it's own culture when it's convenient but basically the Bay Area at other times. LOL, you're ridiculous.

Anyways, so lets see if you will have the balls to address this question. So in regards to the LA metro, its culture, amenities, etc..is Pacific Beach in San Diego no different than Venice? Is Escondido just as part of LA's culture as the San Fernando Valley? Is it all one "SoCal culture" too? For NYC, is Long Island and Philly no different than each other? Is it all "one NYC/Philly culture"? These areas are far better connected to each other than the Bay Area and Sacramento with more freeways and more transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 10:32 AM
 
6,879 posts, read 8,207,920 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post

What was ORIGINALLY THE DOUBLE STANDARD on this thread was you diminishing the natural and recreational amenities in close proximity to Fresno in order to prop up Sac.

I'm not sure how any reasonable person can think being an hour to 90 minutes farther away WITHOUT TRAFFIC and not having FREQUENT transit connectivity doesn't make any sort of difference. And it certainly matters to govt agencies, planning agencies, businesses, etc..
Diminishing proximity to other locales is where your double standard lies. Your logic is..."It’s fine if your are talking proximity to nature but not fine when talking about proximity to cultural amenities ....especially concerning Sacramento’s connections".

I never downplayed Fresno’s promity to what it is reasonable close to. I’ve said a few times that it’s great that Fresno is close to Yosemite and other natural environments just as Sacramento is.

There are 17 trains a day between Sacramento and the Bay Area and these trains connect directly with BART. These Sacramento trains stop directly in downtown Oakland and San Jose as well.

Sacramento trains stop directly in front of the A’s, Raiders and 49er’s stadiums. It is just as easy to hop on a train in Sacramento and go to these games than taking San Jose’s light Rail from southern San Jose/or Caltrain from SF. If fact, the Sacramento trains are larger and more comfortable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 10:47 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,970 posts, read 32,501,967 times
Reputation: 13615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
Diminishing proximity to other locales is where your double standard lies. Your logic is..."It’s fine if your talking proximity to nature but not fine what talking about proximity to cultural amenities especially concerning Sacramento’s connections".

I never downplayed Fresno’s promity to what it is reasonable close to. I’ve said a few times that it’s great that Fresno is close to Yosemite and other natural environments just as Sacramento is.

There are 17 trains a day between Sacramento and the Bay Area and these trains connect directly with BART.

Sacramento trains stop directly in front of the A’s, Raiders and 49er’s stadiums. It is just as easy to hop on a train in Sacramento and go to these games than taking San Jose’s light Rail from southern San Jose/or Caltrain from SF.
It's fine if you want to talk about Sac's proximity to the Bay Area's amenities but do it with someone that is interested in having that conversation. I was strictly talking about proximity to nature as that what is I felt was "a wash". I absolutely agree that Sac's proximity to the Bay Area is a clear advantage for Sac and I was never arguing against that. You chose to bring that up probably because perhaps the whole nature aspect is "a wash" so you need another angle to prop up Sac. Very insecure...

You certainly did down play by failing to give it credit when going on about the nature areas in proximity to Sac.

No it's not as easy at all. First your trip will be at least twice as long at a minimum. So for you or anyone else in Sac you're going to have to leave work early to get to an A's game on a weekday. Get there either over an hour early or 45 minutes late. And hope the game doesn't go into extra innings as you will not have any way back to Sac past 10. Going to an A's game via the Capitol Corridor will basically be a 9-hour ordeal for you. How you think that is the same as people in the Bay Area going to a baseball game is beyond me.

It's so funny how you always pick and choose what to respond to from my responses. Clearly you can't handle the tougher questions probably because deep down you know how full of it you are.

Anyways, so lets see if you will have the balls to address this question. So in regards to the LA metro, its culture, amenities, etc..is Pacific Beach in San Diego no different than Venice? Is Escondido just as part of LA's culture as the San Fernando Valley? Is it all one "SoCal culture" too? For NYC, is Long Island and Philly no different than each other? Is it all "one NYC/Philly culture"? These areas are far better connected to each other than the Bay Area and Sacramento with more freeways and more transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 12:35 PM
 
4,307 posts, read 6,245,945 times
Reputation: 6102
Sac is expensive compared to the rest of the Central Valley. Then again, Sac is the only sizeable city in the central valley with an industry other than just Agriculture (which pays low and hires low skilled workers). It has a large number of government workers and a sizeable tech sector, with Oracle, HP and Intel all having major facilities in the Roseville/Folsom area.

These tech workers probably have salaries on average 15-20% less than here in the Bay Area. Then again, you can get a nice 4 bedroom home in a very nice part of Folsom, El Dorado Hills, etc in the $400k-500k range. You're talking about wealthy communities, great schools, etc.

Here in the Bay Area, you're talking about well over $1M and sometimes $2M to get that type of house.

Its all a matter of perspective. Yes, Fresno is much cheaper, but you have zero industry and an unemployment rate approaching 20%. Fresno is a pit. With Sacramento, at least it has more nice areas and some jobs to support it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 12:58 PM
 
6,879 posts, read 8,207,920 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post

So you have your own culture and metro to call your own but your basically part of the Bay Area culture and metro essentially. Do you seriously not see the glaring contradiction there? So Sac is it's own metro and has it's own culture when it's convenient but basically the Bay Area at other times. LOL, you're ridiculous.
Yes, Sacramento is essentially part of Bay Area culture and metro, in the same way San Jose is part of SF culture in terms of enjoying urban attributes-fine dinning, theater, clubbing, bar hopping, urban shopping, and sporting events.

Not that either San Jose or Sacramento do not have urban attributes, there was a time when both cities didnt have much in urban attributes and who can deny SF’s draw when they are so close.

While Sacramento, essentially, is part of Bay Area Culture, it always had it’s own lifestyle and culture apart from the Bay Area, and still does.

What’s different now than 10 yrs ago is Sacramento’s culture has become more diverse, sophisticated and urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 03:45 PM
 
2,963 posts, read 6,245,464 times
Reputation: 1577
I like how most of this thread is about the Bay Area and Sacramento instead of Fresno and Sacramento as that was the intention of the OP.

Anyway, about Sacramento home prices, I think we can all agree (except the OP obvious) that Sacramento is the most reasonability priced city in the entire state. Especially the urban core. Yes it's expensive, but you get MUCH more out of your money for the amenities/urban living that anywhere else in the state. Especially the entertainment district going up around the Arena.

Plus there are many middle class areas in the rest of the metro that are for the most part not down right dangerous and a lot less expensive than the urban core such as Rancho Cordova or Citrus Heights. In other CA metros even the dangerous ghettos are expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 03:48 PM
 
2,963 posts, read 6,245,464 times
Reputation: 1577
Quote:
Originally Posted by the city View Post
The suburbs of Sac imo are better than the city itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-04-2015, 04:51 PM
 
6,879 posts, read 8,207,920 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858 View Post
No it's not as easy at all. First your trip will be at least twice as long at a minimum. So for you or anyone else in Sac you're going to have to leave work early to get to an A's game on a weekday. Get there either over an hour early or 45 minutes late. And hope the game doesn't go into extra innings as you will not have any way back to Sac past 10. Going to an A's game via the Capitol Corridor will basically be a 9-hour ordeal for you. How you think that is the same as people in the Bay Area going to a baseball game is beyond me.
Look, nobody is comparing short trips involving just a few stops on Caltrain or BART, say from El Cerrito to Oakland, or Orinda to Berkeley, or SF to Millbrae.

I talking about day trips from the southern suburbs of San Jose to SF/Berkeley/Oakland involving Caltrain, BART, light rail; or a trip from Antioch to San Bruno on BART; those are the comparisons I am making with a trip from Sacramento to the Bay Area.

You obviously have not taken Sacramento trains to A’s games and 49ers games. The trains are packed. Of course, we don’t take the train for a weekday game, it’s something we do on a weekend for a day trip.

Your bubble is burst everytime you try to downplay Sacramento with your snobbish attitude. Sacramento is not what it used to be; it’s much better in many ways, and the Bay Area is not what used to be, and the connections and transportation connections are more than you realize.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top