why does sacramento get such a bad rap? ;( (San Jose, San Francisco: houses, neighborhoods)

[soulsearcher14]

cool thanks ;')

[shelato]

Consider what types of neighborhoods you can afford in different communities. If you are wealthy enough to afford to live in a Malibu beach house, then I agree that Southern California is a much better choice than say just about anywhere in Sacramento, but most people have budget constraints. If you are living on a budget where in Southern California say you are going to be living in say Riverside or Downey, Burbank or maybe Van Nuys while in Sacramento you might be able for that same budget to live in say Roseville or East Sac, then the Sacramento region becomes a lot more appealing place to live.

While some people might say that the bay area overall is a nicer place to live than Sacramento because the climate is nicer. If you are choosing between living in say West Oakland or Richmond in the Bay area, vs Folsom or Arden Park in Sacramento, suddenly living in Sacramento seems much nicer. I think the relevant yard stick is less the region overall than what neighborhoods in a specific region you can afford vs what kind of neighborhoods you can afford in a different area.

[soulsearcher14]

thanks...what is the pocket area?

[anderscl]

It's a neighborhood of Sacramento. Here's the city-data link to neighborhoods with some data:
http://www.city-data.com/nbmaps/neig...alifornia.html

Or you can look at the City of Sacramento's maps:
Maps and Boundaries

You can find reasonably specific information on a lot of those neighborhoods on the internet and on this forum.

Here's a Sacramento magazine article on neighborhoods, for example, not all of them actually in the city--but a decent start:

10 Great Neighborhoods - Sacramento Magazine - September 2013 - Sacramento, California

[hd4me]

Originally Posted by soulsearcher14

Im considering moving to the sacramento and surrounding area and all I keep reading about Sac makes it out to be a horrible place to live ;( This post is not meant to offend anyone, as Im sure its a great place to live (god knows I might be moving there LOL) but just wondering why the city gets such a bad rap. Thanks for any insight

Originally Posted by soulsearcher14

Not on here..other places. (I guess a have a friend who lives in san Francisco and strongly dislikes sacramento and perhaps I got some skewed web sites from him ;( sorry

Before we moved from SF to the Sacramento area the typical comments were:

It's so hot

It's ghetto


However having moved to the area here's my observation:

The summer is hot but things cool off nicely later in the evening and night. Most summer mornings are pleasant enough to be outdoors until about 11 am. However, on those days it hits 100 or more just stay indoors or spend a weekend in SF

The fall and spring weather is near perfect and winters are mild (it can get frosty but it beats shoveling snow from your walkway/driveway).

It's not ghetto although some neighborhoods frankly are. However, just like any larger city there are distinctive neighborhoods. I was surprised to see how many Victorians are in and around downtown Sacramento. East Sac, Landpark, and Curtis Park have charm and walkable neighborhoods. Midtown is a very walkable neighborhood that seems well suited for young people and empty nesters. My wife and I find ourselves traveling from the burbs to Midtown and nearby areas and enjoy the coffee houses, locally owned restaurants, farmers market and general vibe of the neighborhood and all these neighborhoods benefit from a beautiful tree canopy.

You can also take in a live music show at Ace of Spades or Broadway/musical at the Community Center Theatre. Just some stuff to do but by no means all.

Sacramento made it into the top 20 coolest cities in America...

No. 14: Sacramento, Calif. - In Photos: America's Coolest Cities 2014 - Forbes

[wburg]

San Francisco is a very provincial place--people get very locked into that 49 square miles surrounded by reality, and tend to look at anything outside the city limits as humdrum and tedious. Sacramento becomes a metaphor for all things not San Francisco: hot weather, conservative politics, lack of hills and fog. I call it "Inverse Franciscanism": a San Franciscan's assessment of the level of culture, entertainment, education and beauty of a place is inversely proportional to its distance from San Francisco. The typical San Franciscan has never been to Sacramento except maybe riding through on I-80 or 50--and some may assume that the Wal-Mart supercenter is downtown Sacramento if they haven't taken 50 to Tahoe. In some cases, people base their assessment of Sacramento on a visit to some far-out suburb, rather than downtown Sacramento or one of the old city neighborhoods, and assume that Sacramento is all like that, even though that isn't the case. Which is a bit like basing one's assessment of San Francisco on a trip to Orinda, not exactly fair. And San Francisco is a pretty spectacular place--which is part of why they pay such outrageously high rents. Folks tend to get defensive about their own choices, and part of how people justify paying $3000 a month for a one-bedroom apartment is the assumption that anywhere outside the San Francisco city limits is howling, unlivable wilderness.

On the flip side, to a Sacramentan, San Francisco is a potential option for lunch, an easy two-hour drive or ride for a day trip or an evening show, a place where they have friends, family and enjoyable memories of many visits. A lot of Sacramentans I know go to San Francisco often enough that they can give directions to tourists, and because we pay a lot lower rents or house payments than our San Francisco friends, are able to spend our money at San Francisco eateries and entertainment venues. So it's not so much that Sacramento lacks entertainment, fine dining, good weather, scenic beauty or culture--it's just that we include San Francisco's entertainment, fine dining, weather and culture as part of our own backyard--and the scenic beauty of the Sierras is part of the Sacramento metro area, and it's no farther away than San Francisco.

[soulsearcher14]

thanks so much all!!! One quick question..someone mentioned Riverside area as opposed to Sac..I am considering that area too...is Sac much preferred?? and why??

Thank

[caligirlz]

Originally Posted by soulsearcher14

thanks so much all!!! One quick question..someone mentioned Riverside area as opposed to Sac..I am considering that area too...is Sac much preferred?? and why??

Just wondering...Do you have the ability to visit all of the areas you are considering yourself? I think you can get good info online, but it may not be accurate for you.
Most people who live in Sacramento are going to vote for Sacramento over Riverside. Most in Sacramento haven't lived there or spent much time there. I used to work down there, but it's been some time, I'm sure times have changed. Have you thought about asking about Riverside in the Riverside County forum?

[muffincake]

Because it's gross and offers no real amenities despite being pretty expensive, whether you're interested in city living or suburban living. Go to the suburbs out in Davis, Roseville or Folsom, if anything. If you prefer urban living, try San Francisco. If you can't afford that, go to Seattle or Portland or move east.

The biggest selling points for living in Sacramento are how easy it is to leave and visit San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, etc. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

[muffincake]

Originally Posted by hd4me

Sacramento made it into the top 20 coolest cities in America...

No. 14: Sacramento, Calif. - In Photos: America's Coolest Cities 2014 - Forbes

Notice how all the other photos on that list are of the actual cities and facets of life there, and the Sacramento photo was a sign? Clearly the methodology they came up for that list was severely flawed. Sacramento is a lot of things, but cool is not one of them.