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.
I wouldn't jump on a "airplane every weekend either" that would get old quick and in a hurry. Isolated cities can't be helped by "jet airplanes" it's too expensive and too much of a hassle.
I was just thinking that. Sacramento is within 2 hours to three major cities, SF, Oakland, SJ, and also to world class tourist destinations like Tahoe, Napa, Sonoma, etc.
Actually, without traffic, from Sac, I get to Oakland in about 1 hr 10 min, to downtown SF in about 1 hr 20 min. Napa in 1 hour.
I think actually driving to a place in two hours makes those places far more accessible than having to jump on a plane. If we were to include areas within a 3 hour plane ride from Sac, we can throw out cities like Seattle, Phoenix, Portland, LA, San Diego, etc. I mean Sac is just much better connected to other destinations, period, while KC is very isolated.
I wouldn't jump on a "airplane every weekend either" that would get old quick and in a hurry. Isolated cities can't be helped by "jet airplanes" it's too expensive and too much of a hassle.
Having to go away from your city to have fun would suggest there isn't much to do there.
If a place is capable of standing on it's own and having fun things to do, it shouldn't be necessary to take a roadtrip to next closest place. I notice that some Sacramento posters like to bring up sf slot.
I'm not saying daytrips every now and then shouldn't be done. But my point is, why should one leave Sacramento if there's a lot to do there?
Having to go away from your city to have fun would suggest there isn't much to do there.
If a place is capable of standing on it's own and having fun things to do, it shouldn't be necessary to take a roadtrip to next closest place. I notice that some Sacramento posters like to bring up sf slot.
I'm not saying daytrips every now and then shouldn't be done. But my point is, why should one leave Sacramento if there's a lot to do there?
If that is the case, why should anyone go anywhere, ever?
Having to go away from your city to have fun would suggest there isn't much to do there.
If a place is capable of standing on it's own and having fun things to do, it shouldn't be necessary to take a roadtrip to next closest place. I notice that some Sacramento posters like to bring up sf slot.
I'm not saying daytrips every now and then shouldn't be done. But my point is, why should one leave Sacramento if there's a lot to do there?
There's plenty to do in Sacramento. But part of the appeal is that it is part of the Greater Norcal region. There's no doubt about that. Yes, part of the appeal of Sac is that it is close to San Francisco, which is a world class destination.
However, Sac has plenty about it that can stand on its own. I was mainly address KCMO's point that KC was within flying distance of other destinations.
Also like I said before, we do not live in bubbles. Perhaps standing alone, cities like KC and Denver may have more amenities than Sac. But the reason why I, as well as many others, would prefer to live in Sac than these other cities is because of the greater region it is surrounded in and the overall Norcal culture that exists here.
Last edited by sacramento916; 04-19-2012 at 09:07 AM..
There's plenty to do in Sacramento. But part of the appeal is that it is part of the Greater Norcal region. There's no doubt about that. Yes, part of the appeal of Sac is that it is close to San Francisco, which is a world class destination.
However, Sac has plenty about it that can stand on its own. I was mainly address KCMO's point that KC was within flying distance of other destinations.
Also like I said before, we do not live in bubbles. Perhaps standing alone, cities like KC and Denver may have more amenities than Sac. But the reason why I, as well as many others, would prefer to live in Sac than these other cities is because of the greater region it is surrounded in and the overall Norcal culture that exists here.
There is more to do in KC than Sac. I need a city that has a lot to do within 30 minutes. But even if I lived in Sac and had SF nearby, I would want to travel. My point is that everything is so easily accessible from KC. I fly A LOT. I travel by car A LOT. Always have. One of the reasons I started SkylineScenes.com was because living in KC gave me such easy, quick and affordable access to the entire country. You can drive to most of the country in a day. The east coast is 2 days, the west coast was 2-3 days. KC has non-stops to nearly every city. Nothing was more than a 2-3 hour flight and 3 hour flights from KC are long. Even if you wanted to fly from Sac, I would imagine the Sac airport is pretty limited and you would have to drive to SFO for some flights. I would be at JFK by the time you checked in for your six hour flight at SFO.
So while you are in the middle of nowhere (sort of), you are also in a city that has just about anything you would want out of a major metro without having to leave, you have some very nice long weekend destinations (Colorado, Twin Cities, Chicago etc) and some great short trip destinations (St Louis, Lake of Ozarks). But then the entire country is sort of at your doorstep compared to living on the coasts.
KC is one of the best places in the country to live if you want to see the entire country on a regular basis, but at the same time, there is plenty to do locally.
Well, SF's population is only small because the city limits is very small. SF's metro is actually over 5 million, while SJ is less than 2 million, so the size of the cities are actually well reflected in their feel. On top of that, SF is a major international destination, so it is extremely cosmopolitan.
True however I was talking about San Francisco being only about 44 square miles for the city proper , San Francisco population of 800,000 to 900,000 still makes it one of the largest cities in the United States population wise.San Francisco punches way about it's weight class with cities like Rome,Paris,London,Tokyo,NYC,LA,Chicag when it's comes to being a destination city , and KCMO is only around (one) destination city (but the rub is that you have to use a JET PLANE) in order to get to it....Chicago.
San Francisco, CA
San Francisco, CO
San Francisco Plaza, NM
San Francisco Maritime National ...
San Francisco, NM
SFO San Francisco International
South San Francisco, CA
Presidio of San Francisco, CA
Golden Gate National Recreation ...
Golden Gate National Recreation ...
Sacramento, CA
Sacramento, KY
Sacramento, PA
Sacramento, NM
Sacramento, IL
Sacramento, NE
SMF Sacramento Metropolitan Airp...
SAC Sacramento Executive Airport
Parkway-South Sacramento, CA
West Sacramento, CA
]87.4 miles
]Mileage Calculator
]The Rand McNally mileage calculator will help you determine the mileage between any two destinations. [/LEFT]
]Enter Starting Point
Kansas City, MO
Kansas City, KS
Kansas, IL
Kansas, OK
Kansas, OH
Kansasville, WI
Kansas, AL
Kansas, GA
Kansas, AR
MCI Kansas City International
]Enter Ending Point
Chicago, IL
Chicago Heights, IL
Chicago Ridge, IL
Chicago Park, CA
Chicagon Lake, MI
MDW Chicago Midway
CGX Meig's Field Chicago
North Chicago, IL
East Chicago, IN
West Chicago, IL
]Get Mileage
]Calculating mileage[/LEFT]
]Mileage] ]509.6 miles
Time] ]7 hrs 15 min
P.S. I consider San Jose as part of San Francisco METRO , the only reason the Federal Goverment doesn't is that San Jose is A STAND ALONG CITY (Which doesn't have 25% of it's WORKFORCE COMMUTING INTO SF.
Last edited by Howest2008; 04-19-2012 at 09:36 AM..
If that is the case, why should anyone go anywhere, ever?
That's not what I said. What I was getting at is that Sacramento can stand on it's own as a city, yet San Francisco is always brought up as if it's an extension of the city. It's not.
Being close to another city that has more to do is nice and a good advantage.
There is more to do in KC than Sac. I need a city that has a lot to do within 30 minutes. But even if I lived in Sac and had SF nearby, I would want to travel. My point is that everything is so easily accessible from KC. I fly A LOT. I travel by car A LOT. Always have. One of the reasons I started SkylineScenes.com was because living in KC gave me such easy, quick and affordable access to the entire country. You can drive to most of the country in a day. The east coast is 2 days, the west coast was 2-3 days. KC has non-stops to nearly every city. Nothing was more than a 2-3 hour flight and 3 hour flights from KC are long. Even if you wanted to fly from Sac, I would imagine the Sac airport is pretty limited and you would have to drive to SFO for some flights. I would be at JFK by the time you checked in for your six hour flight at SFO.
So while you are in the middle of nowhere (sort of), you are also in a city that has just about anything you would want out of a major metro without having to leave, you have some very nice long weekend destinations (Colorado, Twin Cities, Chicago etc) and some great short trip destinations (St Louis, Lake of Ozarks). But then the entire country is sort of at your doorstep compared to living on the coasts.
KC is one of the best places in the country to live if you want to see the entire country on a regular basis, but at the same time, there is plenty to do locally.
In comparison to Sacramento, KC is very isolated. Honestly, how many people will jump on a plane every weekend to go somewhere?
Just the last week, I drove out to Berkeley to watch a play and meet up with some friends, and easily drove back. It took me 1 hour 15 minutes each way.
There are times when I need something from a client in San Francisco, and I simply drive down there, get it from them, and drive back.
It's really not the same dynamic with Kansas City where the larger destinations are so far away.
There's plenty to do in Sacramento. But part of the appeal is that it is part of the Greater Norcal region. There's no doubt about that. Yes, part of the appeal of Sac is that it is close to San Francisco, which is a world class destination.
However, Sac has plenty about it that can stand on its own. I was mainly address KCMO's point that KC was within flying distance of other destinations.
Also like I said before, we do not live in bubbles. Perhaps standing alone, cities like KC and Denver may have more amenities than Sac. But the reason why I, as well as many others, would prefer to live in Sac than these other cities is because of the greater region it is surrounded in and the overall Norcal culture that exists here.
I can agree with some of this, but if I ever move to northern California, I think actually being in the main city (San fancisco) would be a better move. That way, I wouldn't have to take a day trip to the place with all the excitement.
Yes, as a whole north Cali is better than both Denver and Kansas city, but Sacramento as a city isn't as impressive by itself. Well, that's just my opinion.
In comparison to Sacramento, KC is very isolated. Honestly, how many people will jump on a plane every weekend to go somewhere?
Just the last week, I drove out to Berkeley to watch a play and meet up with some friends, and easily drove back. It took me 1 hour 15 minutes each way.
There are times when I need something from a client in San Francisco, and I simply drive down there, get it from them, and drive back.
It's really not the same dynamic with Kansas City where the larger destinations are so far away.
Well, I think you are simplifying what I said. Like I said, there really is a lot to do in KC, but when you do want to get away, (it's not every weekend, but several times a year), you have quite a bit that is not that far away and the entire country is accessible. If you travel as much as I do, living on the west coast would be a PITA. The east coast is a bit of a pain, but it's a lot closer to a lot more cities than the west coast is. I think that's why people on the west coast have seen so little of the country east of Salt Lake City or Vegas.
I do agree with you though on Sac's overall location. Having the bay area nearby is a fantastic asset for Sac. It's one of the great things about living in the Mid-Atlantic (only there is far more here than the bay area IMO).
My point is I could go either way. There are benefits to being "near" one large metro plex like SF/Bay and there are benefits to living "in" a city that has more local amenities, but better access to more of the country, despite not having a mega city nearby.
Last edited by kcmo; 04-19-2012 at 10:49 AM..
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.
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.
