Sacramento vs. Las Vegas (place, Los Angeles, people, cons)

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215

The irony is that in the national lexicon, I feel like "Las Vegas" represents more closely the image of "California" than Sacramento does, which really all is known about it is that it's California's capital (and given Americans' poor geography skill, I don't even think most even know that)

How would you compare the cost of living between the two?

I think Las Vegas is cheaper right now. In fact, I'm almost sure it is.

Las Vegas DOES feel very much like Southern California. Many parts of it, if you don't look at the desert foothills in the backdrop, look similar to new subdivisions in the desert suburbs north and east of Los Angeles.

[Huge Foodie 215]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

I think Las Vegas is cheaper right now. In fact, I'm almost sure it is.

Las Vegas DOES feel very much like Southern California. Many parts of it, if you don't look at the desert foothills in the backdrop, look similar to new subdivisions in the desert suburbs north and east of Los Angeles.

Well, I used the City-Data cost of living calculator:

Mar. 2012 cost of living index in Sacramento: 98.8 (near average, U.S. average is 100)
Mar. 2012 cost of living index in Las Vegas: 95.4 (near average, U.S. average is 100)

Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Las-Ve...#ixzz1xX79UaVy
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/city/Sacram...#ixzz1xX6z0Wuo

However, using another COL calculator, living a $50,000 lifestyle in Las Vegas would require $52,110 in Sacramento, so it really is relatively equivalent. However, when the tax situation comes into play, I believe NV has no state income tax while CA has some of the highest income tax.

And yeah, given that the popular lexicon of California really is dominated by Southern California, Las Vegas feels a lot closer to that than Sacramento does, especially being dominated by entertainment, partying, etc. That isn't to say Sacramento is a bad place to live though.

[TheFlats]

Diversity (people, food, environments), better weather, access to regional amenities (especially considering near equal COL). Don't think it's much of a contest, in my opinion Sacramento would be a tier higher than Las Vegas anyways.

There's a pleasant city core surrounded by suburbia with more character than what Vegas has. Consider Folsom: Nice cheap (relatively) houses, shopping, great schools, borders a fantastic lake, and light rail access. You can be climbing/skiing in the Sierras or in the Bay Area within two hours.

Granted there's some entertainment Vegas has that Sacramento will never match, but then again neither will SF/LA.

Per OP's categories:

Politics: Depends. In general Sacramento is more liberal, not that Vegas is a conservative bastion.
Culture: Sac
Location: Sac (unless you prefer the Southwest or LA/SD)
Economy: Sac (although both poor and single track at the moment.)
Diversity: Sac
Access to other areas: See above. 4hr drive to LA, no thanks I'll take Norcal.
Entertainment: Vegas for what it does, Sacramento for bohemian type stuff.
Anything Else?: Education, Parks I'd also give to Sac. Skyline to Vegas because the strip is so iconic but Sac has a better traditional skyline (although small).

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by sav858

it doesn't seem like you leave the Downtown/Midtown area that often, youre describing maybe like 10% of the metro area. Most of Sac is generic suburbia full of Starbucks and strip malls.

On another note, I'm having trouble deciding which is worse: people who talk about how much money they have or people who talk about how intellectual and edgy they are..

The central city of any metro area will only be a small part of the overall metro area. However, Sac's central city is more than just midtown, I'm talking about downtown, land park, east sac, curtis park, oak park. Even outlying areas like del paso heights, arden, south sac have things to offer in terms of the diverse ethnic restaurants, markets and cultures there. So Sac's center city to me is at least about 1/3rd of the entire metro.

Hell, even the Bay Area is chock full of strip malls and tract housing once you get outside of San Francisco. It's just that many of these communities are older, but they are generally oriented the same as Sac's suburbs. Places like Daly City, San Bruno, Burlingame, Millbrae, they are all full of strip malls, but they also have some very pricey real estate due to the location which makes it a lot more desirable.

But any metro area in the US is full of strip malls. Perhaps except for a few very urbanized east coast metros, America is mostly tract housing and strip malls outside any urban core.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by Huge Foodie 215

The irony is that in the national lexicon, I feel like "Las Vegas" represents more closely the image of "California" than Sacramento does, which really all is known about it is that it's California's capital (and given Americans' poor geography skill, I don't even think most even know that)

How would you compare the cost of living between the two?

That's because the national image of California is essentially Los Angeles plus the Golden Gate Bridge.

Growing up in SF, I always found it amusing when visitors come dressed up in shorts and end up freezing their asses off after realizing how cold it is in Norcal.

Sacramento is very much California, it's just NORTHERN Californian. It's very different from Southern California, which is what the rest of the country thinks when they think CA. But anyways, yes, Los Angeles (a city in which I lived for years) is probably the big sister to Las Vegas, and I don't mean that as a compliment.

[robertpolyglot]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

That's because the national image of California is essentially Los Angeles plus the Golden Gate Bridge.

That's the national image to a stupid person, much the same way Miami = Florida. The questioning person knows there are many Floridas, just as there are many Californias.

The national image, to a discerning person, is
- Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sac for the Capitol and Old Town
- Silicon Valley and entrepreneurs
- the usable coastline in the south (swimming without a wetsuit) and the rugged coastline in the north, including Hearst Castle and Big Sur
- Palm Springs, interesting desert vegetation, and Death Valley with its dunes
- national parks like Yosemite and Sequoia
- enormous mountains like Whitney and Shasta
- an immense agricultural belt in its center
- trendy beach towns like Santa Barbara and Monterey/Carmel
To the intelligent person anywhere in the world, California is a diverse "slide show."

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

That's the national image to a stupid person, much the same way Miami = Florida. The questioning person knows there are many Floridas, just as there are many Californias.

The national image, to a discerning person, is
- Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sac for the Capitol and Old Town
- Silicon Valley and entrepreneurs
- the usable coastline in the south (swimming without a wetsuit) and the rugged coastline in the north, including Hearst Castle and Big Sur
- Palm Springs, interesting desert vegetation, and Death Valley with its dunes
- national parks like Yosemite and Sequoia
- enormous mountains like Whitney and Shasta
- an immense agricultural belt in its center
- trendy beach towns like Santa Barbara and Monterey/Carmel
To the intelligent person anywhere in the world, California is a diverse "slide show."

Got to agree with this - most half-intelligent people do not equate California with only Los Angeles.


sacramento916, unless you lived in San Bernardino or Victorville, I'm not sure what similarities Las Vegas and Los Angeles really have.

And for the purpose of this thread - I'd take Sacramento a million times over.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by robertpolyglot

That's the national image to a stupid person, much the same way Miami = Florida. The questioning person knows there are many Floridas, just as there are many Californias.

The national image, to a discerning person, is
- Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, and Sac for the Capitol and Old Town
- Silicon Valley and entrepreneurs
- the usable coastline in the south (swimming without a wetsuit) and the rugged coastline in the north, including Hearst Castle and Big Sur
- Palm Springs, interesting desert vegetation, and Death Valley with its dunes
- national parks like Yosemite and Sequoia
- enormous mountains like Whitney and Shasta
- an immense agricultural belt in its center
- trendy beach towns like Santa Barbara and Monterey/Carmel
To the intelligent person anywhere in the world, California is a diverse "slide show."

Good post. I think most people who have some knowledge of geography and have actually travelled a bit have some ideas about what California is actually famous for.

I mean my distant relatives in rural Wisconsin think California is just movie stars and palm tree-lined beaches, but they also think New York is still a crime filled dump ala Taxi Driver in the 1970s and think Florida is basically Miami Vice, Disneyworld and alligators. But they've never been anywhere and won't go anywhere, so who really cares about the opinion of the grossly uninformed.

[Huge Foodie 215]

Originally Posted by TheFlats

Diversity (people, food, environments), better weather, access to regional amenities (especially considering near equal COL). Don't think it's much of a contest, in my opinion Sacramento would be a tier higher than Las Vegas anyways.

I think the diversity measure is closer than most people think. Sure, the City of Sacramento is more diverse than the City of Las Vegas, but metrowise, I think Las Vegas takes it.

US2010
Metro Sacramento

55.7% Non-Hispanic White
20.2% Hispanic
14.2% Asian
8.3% Black
1.6% Other Races

US2010
Metro Las Vegas

48.0% Non-Hispanic White
29.1% Hispanic
11.2% Black
10.7% Asian
1.0% Other Races

In addition, I believe that Las Vegas also has access to nature nearby (Mt. Charleston, Lake Mead, Grand Canyon, Zion National Park, etc.), so it really depends on what kind of scenery you prefer.

And it seems, unlike Sacramento, there are actually things to do in Las Vegas itself. The Strip is world known!

There's a pleasant city core surrounded by suburbia with more character than what Vegas has. Consider Folsom: Nice cheap (relatively) houses, shopping, great schools, borders a fantastic lake, and light rail access. You can be climbing/skiing in the Sierras or in the Bay Area within two hours.

How do you define character? I've heard great things about places like Summerlin, Henderson, etc. And it seems that the suburbs of Las Vegas seem to be more diverse than the suburbs of Sacramento, IIRC.

[robertpolyglot]

I have heard this statistic: Sacramento is America's most diverse city, in terms of ethnicity/race. It's mostly white, but there are sizable numbers of Hispanics (all kinds), Filipinos, blacks and Asians. Asians are largely Chinese (going back to the building of the railroad days) and quite a few Vietnamese. There is a tiny Italian community and there is a huge Russian community. Realistically, the area doesn't shut anybody out, but then no city in California does that.

It's just that it's boring. The Bay Area is 87 miles away and Lake Tahoe is 99 miles away. It's not like you can be there as often as you NEED to.