Would I like Sacramento? (San Francisco, Oakland: low income, ski resorts, tech jobs)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by sfgirl101

Sacramento is leafy with lots of parks. It's very quiet, and looks abandoned a lot of the time (even in the wonderful Midtown district many others have mentioned). I would agree with your friend down in LA; It's a hick-town. It lacks in interesting things to do. However, if you're not into that kind of thing (theatre, independent movies, museums, etc), it could be a great, lower-cost alternative to a nicer California city. Sacramento does not have a good reputation if you ask people from SF, SJ, SD or LA, and I think very few people know much about it outside of California...Sacramento is one of those places that doesn't have a lot going for it, but also doesn't have a lot against it, if that makes sense. The few real cons for me are:
not very safe; so many assaults and attacks on the news during my time here
TONS of smokers
nothing to do
bad air quality

pros:
nice weather
green; parks
proximity to SF, Napa, Tahoe, etc

Some nice comments there but really, you knock Sacramento for having "tons of smokers", what scientific poll are you using there?

Bad air quality - compared to LA, Sacramento has much better air.

Nothing to do - Really, I guess waterskiing on the Sacramento or rafting down the clean American with a large group in the middle of an urban area doesn't rate well. How about the Mondovi, Crocker, or independent live theater in town. Cruising your bike with groups of people on pub crawl in the Grid, not really possible in LA or SF.

Sacramento doesn't give a flying fudozzle what people from SF, SJ, SD or LA think of us.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Some nice comments there but really, you knock Sacramento for having "tons of smokers", what scientific poll are you using there?

Bad air quality - compared to LA, Sacramento has much better air.

Nothing to do - Really, I guess waterskiing on the Sacramento or rafting down the clean American with a large group in the middle of an urban area doesn't rate well. How about the Mondovi, Crocker, or independent live theater in town. Cruising your bike with groups of people on pub crawl in the Grid, not really possible in LA or SF.

Sacramento doesn't give a flying fudozzle what people from SF, SJ, SD or LA think of us.

I wonder what the OP likes to do that Sac cannot provide? I think if you are into clubbing, major sports teams or seeing bigtime music acts on a regular basis you may be disappointed (though Arco/Sleep Train does get some). But in all other respects Sac offers as much if not more than other big cities that I have been to such as SF, Denver, New Orleans, and Seattle.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Sacramento actually gets LESS precip than Denver per year, so you won't see forests like in New England for example..

Wrong.

Sacramento gets just under 18 inches of precip. per year.
Denver gets just under 16.


Climate of 100 Selected U.S. Cities | Infoplease.com

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Sacramento is mostly ghetto or suburban. The central city has become decidedly hipster in the last few years, as hipsters are getting priced out of the bay by scenesters, yuppies, tech geeks, and trustafarians.

Thr central core is definitely up and coming, in a small town sort of way. Lots of smaller apartment buildings, bars, places to eat.

Logistically, it is similar to Denver though not as isolated and much more working class. It is pretty arid and cow towny to be honest, like denver. But not as granola. It is not a city filled with go getters and try hards, but its not a podunk either.

Its a funky kind of mehhhhhhh. Its not an exciting town at all, but it has all the creature comforts of modern suburbia. Keep an open mind, but don't expect a wow factor.

This post is a bit negative, and I don't get the "working class" comment. But other than those two quibbles, it's accurate.

The "arid" thing is relative. If you're coming from New England, anywhere out West is going to seem arid. I always thought Sac. was quite green when I lived there---it's greener than San Jose, where I live now.

[NorCal Dude]

Allow me to expand on the working class comment. I'm not saying it is steel mill, usa. But it is more working class than denver.

There is a distinct lack of corporate/it/finance industry in sac. This translates to a lack of hyper affluent folks that are found in coastal metros.

The study wburg offers is old, vague, and misleading. A large bulk of state jobs are data entry (keyboard jockey)/clerical jobs, that pay 2500-3500 a month. With ba/bs degrees not required.

His study counts jobs like waste management and customer service reps, as business services, but I don't consider that white collar either.

I personally would guess that a slim majority of sac jobs are working class (ie wage jobs, low skill set or manual labor).

And it shows in the city's median house hold income and per capita incomes, both of which are lower than the state average.

Then you must factor in the reality of most of sac's middle class still seeking out the suburban periphery.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Wrong.

Sacramento gets just under 18 inches of precip. per year.
Denver gets just under 16.


Climate of 100 Selected U.S. Cities | Infoplease.com

Interesting, 18 inches was my first thought as I used to always pay attention to this sort of thing and last year I was looking at some weather data and those stats bumped the yearly average to 20-22 inches per year for Sacaramento and San Francisco. The averages went up because in the last 10 years we've had larger and larger averages well beyond the 20 inch mark.

I suspect this drought year along with a couple more drier years,the averages will be back down to the 18 inch mark.

[wburg]

Most of the middle class in the Los Angeles and Bay Area still seek out the suburban periphery too. And sure, Sacramentans have a lower median income than the hyper-wealthy coastal megacities. But I don't see how that translates to "working class," unless your definition of "working class" is "not hyper-wealthy." If that's your definition, fine, just make your terms clear. If nothing outside the corporate, IT and finance sector counts as "middle class," then it sounds like you're including a lot of very educated and technically skilled people in the blue-collar category--which I'd call a very inaccurate metric.

The figures I used are seven years old, and if workforce sectors have changed so radically since then, please point us towards figures you'd consider more recent and accurate and tell me where they're wrong.

[Woof]

Originally Posted by nep321

...
That's good that it doesn't have perfect weather all year round. I actually like diverse weather patterns, rain, snow, hot, cold, humid, dry, etc.

....

Sacramento has a long, hot, sunny, dry season with little variation. It can get boring and if you have the wrong apartment, you'll need to spend a lot on airconditioning. (fortunately it's also dry, so you can use a cheaper swamp cooler). The wet season has more variety.

[bluevelo]

Originally Posted by sacite

I wonder what the OP likes to do that Sac cannot provide? I think if you are into clubbing, major sports teams or seeing bigtime music acts on a regular basis you may be disappointed (though Arco/Sleep Train does get some). But in all other respects Sac offers as much if not more than other big cities that I have been to such as SF, Denver, New Orleans, and Seattle.

And it is cheaper/cost comparative with most of those - exceptions being SF on the high end, New Orleans on the low. Sacramento kicks Denver's and Seattle's butt on nice weather (however if you like snow and mountains Denver wins hands down).

I find Seattle to be a slightly larger and overpriced version of Sacramento - most of the "tourist" attractions are no better and priced $10-$20 more than the same thing in Sacramento.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by bluevelo

(however if you like snow and mountains Denver wins hands down).

Totally and completely not true, SACRAMENTO is as close or closer in some cases to awesome skiable mountains than Denver. I've been a skier since a little kid, and I've skied Colorado through and through, and it's not better than Tahoe, plain and simple, they are about they same overall. In fact, Tahoe is more scenic than Colorado.

Sacramento has more variety in mountain types as well from Redwood covered mountains, Sierras, and Cascades.