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.
Sacramento is a giga-zillion times more vibrant than Fresno and Bakersfield, no joke
I agree it is way better than Fresno and Bakersfield. I voted for Sacramento and also have a good friend there. Have had some good times there. No one from Fresno and Bakersfield is disagreeing on line either. (just one vote for Fresno). Thanks for sharing your enthusiasm!!
Sacramento is much more on the level of Portland, Austin, Denver, Kansas City. What Sacramento may lack in terms of those cities and metropolitan areas, Fresno doesn’t even come close.
That would be an interesting comparison. Take each building over 200 feet in each city (Oakland and Sacramento) and see which ones are more architecturally interesting.
I personally feel SAC has more attractive buildings. Even our humble draw bridge, The Tower Bridge, has more charm than the new Bay Bridge. The gold-speckled color of Sacramento's Tower Bridge is so much more attractive than Bay Bridge White. (Although I do Love the new bay bridge, biked and walked it several times already)
Last edited by Chimérique; 02-21-2014 at 02:12 PM..
That would be an interesting comparison. Take each building over 200 feet in each city (Oakland and Sacramento) and see which ones are more architecturally interesting.
Well, I'm referring to the actual skylines and not really the individual buildings, but even there I think it's pretty close.
In my opinion, it's easier to find nice vantage points of Downtown Oakland's skyline than Downtown Sacramento. I think part of the issue with Sac is that it's too flat to get a great view and also there are so many trees(which isn't a bad thing at all btw), that it's even hard to get a decent look from the freeways. Like on 50 right there in downtown, you can barely make out the high rises because there are too many trees.
Otherwise, I do like Sacramento's skyline better than Fresno and Bakersfield which don't really have real skylines.
Well, I'm referring to the actual skylines and not really the individual buildings, but even there I think it's pretty close.
In my opinion, it's easier to find nice vantage points of Downtown Oakland's skyline than Downtown Sacramento. I think part of the issue with Sac is that it's too flat to get a great view and also there are so many trees(which isn't a bad thing at all btw), that it's even hard to get a decent look from the freeways. Like on 50 right there in downtown, you can barely make out the high rises because there are too many trees.
Otherwise, I do like Sacramento's skyline better than Fresno and Bakersfield which don't really have real skylines.
That's why a comparison of buildings is warranted with Oakland and many other cities of comparable size because of Sacramento's numerous trees and lack of hills in the core.
If you gave Sacramento just one or two hills or gave it some slight elevation, one would easily see how much is actually there regarding attractive buildings, highrises, Victorians, the Captiol, etc.
Okay great, what are some of the buildings in Sacramento that you like?
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.
