How does Sacramento stack up against Anaheim? (Los Angeles, Riverside: homes, landscaping)

[question4youuu]

Anaheim and it's general area seems to have a lot going for it... Disneyland, the beach nearby, jobs, 2 professional sports teams, and various resources.



Sacramento is more of a true city with a downtown. It's a part of the 4th largest metro in the state. It can often be an after thought, and yet it's a very substantial place.


Thoughts on them and their futures...?

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by question4youuu

Anaheim and it's general area seems to have a lot going for it... Disneyland, the beach nearby, jobs, 2 professional sports teams, and various resources.



Sacramento is more of a true city with a downtown. It's a part of the 4th largest metro in the state. It can often be an after thought, and yet it's a very substantial place.


Thoughts on them and their futures...?

Anaheim has always had a downtown; it's just the advent of Disneyland and the 5 fwy coming through in the past 60 or so years had hurt it, but the city is doing all it can to lure people from "suburbia" into the original old city grid --it's actually on the lampposts--EXIT SUBURBIA --CITY CENTER (I see this constantly since I live here). They're building yet another 300+ unit edifice right across from where I live.

(Note on that "EXIT SUBURBIA" thing--much of even Anaheim's downtown area has a suburban feel as it's a lot of SFRs).

I agree, though, about Sacramento getting short shrift a lot of the time. It felt very much like a "real city" when I visited. I think people need to take places as they are, and not try to make them more as the atmospheric equivalent of the "cool kids".

[ryanst530]

Sacramento has a vibe problem, IMO. It's shortcomings are, in many ways, somewhat intangible.

For me it's the ho-hum architecture and landscaping, the fact that the city isn't really known for anything interesting, the lack of interesting scenery, and the rather forgettable building/street layout.

If you are more of an object-oriented, "checks off all the boxes" type of person (i.e. good schools, short commute, safe neighborhoods, etc.), then you are also probably the type of person who can live anywhere in the country and be happy. On the other hand, if you are more of the holistic type, placing a high value on good aesthetics/design/vibe, Sacramento leaves a lot of be desired when compared to other cities, especially in California.

That's the way I see it anyway.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Sacramento has a vibe problem, IMO. It's shortcomings are, in many ways, somewhat intangible.

For me it's the ho-hum architecture and landscaping, the fact that the city isn't really known for anything interesting, the lack of interesting scenery, and the rather forgettable building/street layout.

If you are more of an object-oriented, "checks off all the boxes" type of person (i.e. good schools, short commute, safe neighborhoods, etc.), then you are also probably the type of person who can live anywhere in the country and be happy. On the other hand, if you are more of the holistic type, placing a high value on good aesthetics/design/vibe, Sacramento leaves a lot of be desired when compared to other cities, especially in California.

That's the way I see it anyway.

It started life in the wake of the Gold Rush and was known as the "Big Tomato" for a long time, due to its status as a center for the fruit.

Apparently you haven't been to Old Town or the river, either.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by ryanst530

Sacramento has a vibe problem, IMO. It's shortcomings are, in many ways, somewhat intangible.

For me it's the ho-hum architecture and landscaping, the fact that the city isn't really known for anything interesting, the lack of interesting scenery, and the rather forgettable building/street layout.

If you are more of an object-oriented, "checks off all the boxes" type of person (i.e. good schools, short commute, safe neighborhoods, etc.), then you are also probably the type of person who can live anywhere in the country and be happy. On the other hand, if you are more of the holistic type, placing a high value on good aesthetics/design/vibe, Sacramento leaves a lot of be desired when compared to other cities, especially in California.

That's the way I see it anyway.

The Sacramento I know has a fantastic vibe!

IMHO, the only "vibe" problem comes from (some) people from the Bay, Coast, or SoCal who spill out inaccurate descriptions of Sacramento.

You obviously have never really walked around Sacramento in-depth because the central city and its older neighborhoods have a ton of interesting architecture. Like SF, Sacramento was built from Gold Rush money and commerce henceforth why it has more Victorians than any other California city outside of SF.

Add Craftsman style, California Adobe, Art Deco, Neoclassical, and California-Moorish style and all the styles and types from the 1900's until 1950. Go out a bit further from Sacramento's oldest neighborhoods into its suburbs built in the 40's, 50's and 60's and you will find a ton of Mid-Century homes: Eichler, Streng, Sparks, California Ranch.

Likewise, it's easy to find a healthy share of all the styles of commercial/highrise architecture from the 1850's through the post -modern era represented in Sacramento: Neoclassical, Art Deco, International style, and all variations from those periods.

Not only does Sacramento blow-out the Coast when it comes to value/cost of living and quality of life; it's holistic approach includes plenty of quality aesthetics like a lot of trees, rivers, lakes, and plenty of parks. Moreover, it's people are good-natured, humble, sensitive, hard-working and add a lot to its aesthetics and positive vibe.

Sacramento also has one of the largest most traditional urban street grids in California.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by mrsltd

I agree, though, about Sacramento getting short shrift a lot of the time. It felt very much like a "real city" when I visited. I think people need to take places as they are, and not try to make them more as the atmospheric equivalent of the "cool kids".

I agree with you. Sacramento is definitely its own thing, a good thing and its a fun town.

It's biggest critics are the "snobs" from LA, SF and the coast. They have this special disdain for Sacramento based on old and outdated stereotypes that were always exaggerated and often just plain false. Folks from outside of California are likely the least critical of Sacramento and the most positive about it.

[kttam186290]

Sacramento vs. Anaheim?

This is a really strange comparison to ask people to make...

Why did you randomly pick those two?

If I was going to compare Sacramento to a city in Southern California, it would most likely be Riverside, but even that would be a stretch!

Two completely different vibes.

[cornsnicker3]

Originally Posted by question4youuu

Anaheim and it's general area seems to have a lot going for it... Disneyland, the beach nearby, jobs, 2 professional sports teams, and various resources.



Sacramento is more of a true city with a downtown. It's a part of the 4th largest metro in the state. It can often be an after thought, and yet it's a very substantial place.


Thoughts on them and their futures...?

I spent a long time in (or near) both.

Sacramento is more realistic for those looking for a family life. Anaheim has more fun attractions (for some people)

Cost of living is actually somewhat reasonable (by California standards). A middle class family doesn't need to go to extreme measures to get into a basic home. The same cannot be said for Anaheim. Sacramento has the government anchored there which means perpetual state jobs are available (albeit difficult to acquire).

Summers in Sacramento are hotter and dryer, but cool off at night. Winters are rainier and colder. If you want slightly more variation in temperatures and precipitation and to be closer to snow, Sacramento is the way to go. The city itself doesn't actually see snow, but it does see freezing temperatures at night in dead of winter.

Anaheim is closer to beaches. Sacramento is closer to the Sierras and Lake Tahoe. If you love beach life more than mountain life, Anaheim is the way to go. If you like mountains, live in Utah. If you like mountain life more, go with Sacramento. Both cities have both within 3 hours.

Sacramento's biggest attractions are mostly nature oriented given its ideal location to the coast, mountains, and redwoods. It also has Cal Expo and the State Fair. Sun Splash and former Water World (not sure what it is called now) made summers fun as a kid. Unlike Anaheim, it is easy to get away from the business and find solitude.

Anaheim has Disneyland and is close to Knott's Berry Farm. It is also close enough to Los Angeles to make it completely jammed packed with city amenities.

What would be the deciding factors? Cost of living, recreational preferences, weather preferences, and career choice.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by cornsnicker3

It is also close enough to Los Angeles to make it completely jammed packed with city amenities.

What would be the deciding factors? Cost of living, recreational preferences, weather preferences, and career choice.

Sacramento has its own big city attributes but the few times you feel you want a little more variety, the Bay/SF is 1-2 hours away.

[Chimérique]

Sacramento's got the American River. Floating on rafts/kayaks down the American is a favorite past time right in the Heart of the Sacramento Metro. Definitely a unique Sacramento experience you can't do in any other California City. Aways a good time spring/summer/fall. Very common in the summer to see huge flotillas of partiers going down the River. It's about a 3 hour one-way down river ride from Sacramento's Sunrise Bridge to the Watt Ave Bridge. It's takes about half the time in the winter.

Talking about Good Vibes.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qohh-T3wcoM