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 want to live in South Sac or North Highlands either. But if you are spending 400K on home, you probably aren't going to be spending a lot of time looking at those neighborhoods.
For what its worth, I feel pretty comfortable walking around midtown during the day, but I don't feel comfortable going out by myself in that neighborhood at night. There are a lot of homeless people milling about and its not that well lit.
In general, for what you would spend to buy something in midtown, you could get a bigger place with better schools in a safer neighborhood in either Fair Oaks or Carmichael. If you throw in the price of sending your kids to private schools as well as the cost of your mortgage to get a place in midtown vs what you could buy for that same amount of money in Fair Oaks or Carmichael, your going to end up with a really nice place in Fair Oaks or Carmichael.
There are some nice restaurants and cafes in midtown. But there are some nice restaurants and cafes in Fair Oaks and Carmichael as well. For whatever events that midtown might offer that Fair Oaks or Carmichael doesn't offer you can always drive down there.
Look up the crime rates for the place you might consider in midtown and then look up the crime rates for what you would spend on an equivalent place in Fair Oaks and Carmichael after you subtract whatever you would spend on private schools. Then balance safety vs commute time.
I wouldn't want to live in South Sac or North Highlands either. But if you are spending 400K on home, you probably aren't going to be spending a lot of time looking at those neighborhoods.
For what its worth, I feel pretty comfortable walking around midtown during the day, but I don't feel comfortable going out by myself in that neighborhood at night. There are a lot of homeless people milling about and its not that well lit.
In general, for what you would spend to buy something in midtown, you could get a bigger place with better schools in a safer neighborhood in either Fair Oaks or Carmichael. If you throw in the price of sending your kids to private schools as well as the cost of your mortgage to get a place in midtown vs what you could buy for that same amount of money in Fair Oaks or Carmichael, your going to end up with a really nice place in Fair Oaks or Carmichael.
There are some nice restaurants and cafes in midtown. But there are some nice restaurants and cafes in Fair Oaks and Carmichael as well. For whatever events that midtown might offer that Fair Oaks or Carmichael doesn't offer you can always drive down there.
Look up the crime rates for the place you might consider in midtown and then look up the crime rates for what you would spend on an equivalent place in Fair Oaks and Carmichael after you subtract whatever you would spend on private schools. Then balance safety vs commute time.
2 different schools of thought on this. Do you enjoy walking instead of driving and do you enjoy doing social activities or do you want a larger house in a bedroom community. I feel that midtown is very safe. Sure someone was shot in front of the Press Club not too long ago but he was provoking a fight. It could have been handled a lot better. IMO if you have a family and spend most of your time doing stuff with your kid or husband like soccer games, bingo, and scrap booking that the suburbs might be a better place for you. if you like to get out a socialize and don't have any kids than midtown would be a much better place to be. St Patrick's day was busy. there is concert in the park. 2nd Saturday.
IMO much more action than in Fair oaks or Carmichael. These places just seem boring to me.
I feel safe walking around Midtown at night, the homeless are generally not a worry, for the most part when you encounter them at night they aren't walking around, they're trying to sleep. I should note that by "feel safe" I don't mean that I'm totally oblivious to my surroundings--I keep my eyes open, stay in the open and avoid dangerous situations. But I do that when walking around Fair Oaks during the day, too.
"Bigger place" is fairly meaningless. Most newer houses are ridiculously huge, it's just extra space to heat and air-condition and fill with crap. Yes, Midtown houses are more expensive per square foot than suburban homes, but it's for the same reason that an 8-ounce Filet Mignon costs more than a 1-pound bean burrito. It's more about the quality than the quantity. I'd rather have a 1000 square foot bungalow in a tree-lined character-filled neighborhood of architectural treasures than a 2500 square foot beige cube in a neighborhood of identical beige cubes.
But then again, some folks just prefer burritos. That's fair, I guess.
I am wondering which areas are good to live if you commute to midtown area near capital (around O street). Thought about Natomas but having lived there in an apt find it not my scene. Roseville looks nice but traffic is an issue. Folsom looks a good option but expensive. Also Carmichael and Fair Oaks. Don't mind an older home but do want a safe, secure and good value area where home prices would hopefully stay steady. Where is good for up to 400K max? Alto schools not an issue at present may possibly be in the future and from reading all the blogs I see Sac has lots of pockets of crime which is worrying. Many thanks
Honestly, I think you could find a nice house in ANY part of this city right now if your range is $400K. Natomas is definitely an option, and if you need nightlife, Midtown is literally 5 minutes away in non-rush hour times. Natomas is clean, well kept in most areas, and is the epitome of suburbia. The problem is, I've heard traffic on I-5 going into downtown is a nightmare in the morning.
One area you might want to consider is Land Park. It's close to downtown, and is a beautiful well kept up area that still appears to have some trendiness to it (i.e, coffee shops, restaurants). To get to downtown you'd only really have to fight traffic on Broadway. The downside is that the housing prices may still be a little high, as it is the pricier area of town. But, I'm sure you could still find a $400K house there.
"Bigger place" is fairly meaningless. Most newer houses are ridiculously huge, it's just extra space to heat and air-condition and fill with crap. Yes, Midtown houses are more expensive per square foot than suburban homes, but it's for the same reason that an 8-ounce Filet Mignon costs more than a 1-pound bean burrito. It's more about the quality than the quantity. I'd rather have a 1000 square foot bungalow in a tree-lined character-filled neighborhood of architectural treasures than a 2500 square foot beige cube in a neighborhood of identical beige cubes.
A large chunk of the existing housing stock in midtown was built in a factory. Sears Roebuck was selling plans, and kits with the parts and materials precut and shipping them out by rail to buyers nationwide. Compared to a modern tract home, these buyers had very few options in how they could configure there homes. These were by no means custom homes.
While there are older parts of Fair Oaks and Carmichael, most of these communities were built after the war. With the post war properity, there was more money available to spend on frivalities like hiring archietects and having custom built homes. You can drive for miles down California Avenue or even Gun Road, looking mostly at custom built homes.
In Fair Oaks off Winding Way again its mostly custom built homes. If you like older stuff, the original trading post of Fair Oaks is largely preserved across from the Village Park in Fair Oaks.
Fair Oaks and Carmichael were mostly built out before the big nationwide developers took over the housing industry. The history of these places involves repeated subdividing of agricultural property. That meant that weren't large as many large properties suitable for tract home development. A lot of these ranchettes were subdivided and sold off as individual lots to custom builders, but if you look around, you can still find horse property back there as well. This process is still going on.
Its terms of quality versus quanity, one could argue that about the merits of where people are choosing to live today in midtown. There are a lot of pretty crappy faux lofts going up. You also have a very limited representation of archietectural styles. You can find a lot of stuff build prewar and a lot of development in the past 10 or 15 years, but try finding any streng homes in midtown.
Fair Oaks and Carmichael are established neighborhoods built out in the era before metered water. These neighorhoods are filled with tree lined homes of character. They just have better public schools, less crime and bigger homes built on bigger lots. These neighborhoods have endured the test of time. They have been solid neighborhoods for the past 50 or 60 years.
Midtown's history has been more checkered. It changing a lot right now and in neighborhoods that are undergoing a lot of change it tough to guess how they will turn out in 20 or 30 years time. If you look at the history of redevelopment the backers of most redevelopment projects sincerely believe that their changes will improve the neighborhood, but the history of past redevelopment efforts is such to make one more skeptical of plans to change a community.
x15: The Ford Model "T" and the '57 Chevy were built in factories too, but they are classics now because of their comparative age and rarity of survivors. Sears-catalog homes actually had a lot of options (there were many catalogs, after all, and different models over the years to meet changing tastes and styles) and because they were not actually built in the factory (the lumber was pre-cut, but it all had to be assembled on-site) there were often additions and modifications. Decades of use and reuse have usually added further embellishments.
Also, these homes were built out of materials like old-growth redwood, oak and other materials from virgin forests that are simply unavailable today. With a modicum of care, these materials are hardier after a century of use than today's tree-farm grown lumber.
I'd argue the idea that Midtown is lacking in architectural styles. The neighborhood with the most architectural consistency is probably Boulevard Park, which had an early prototype of CC&Rs, and even there, one sees at least half a dozen distinct architectural styles and different house sizes. A walk through Midtown is like a walk through time: a block can feature 1870s Second Empires and Italianates, 1880s Sticks, Shingles and Queen Annes, 1890s Colonial Revivals and 1900s Neoclassicals, 1910s Craftsman bungalows and the occasional Prairie Style, 1920s Tudor, Mission, Spanish Colonial and Revivals, and 1930s Streamline Moderne buildings. Add in the variety of commercial and office architecture, varying from 19th century clinker brick to 20th century Chicago Style to 21st century skyscrapers, and you've got quite a pleasing mix for the eye.
While there aren't many Ranch-style houses, and no Streng Bros. homes, midtown isn't without its modernist architecture either, including the occasional International Style building, and if you really want to go see a Neutra or a Carter Sparks you can just walk downtown. As to the lofts, some seem well-built and attractive, while others aren't.
I wouldn't call what is happening in Midtown redevelopment: that implies the high levels of government intervention, demolition and wholesale adjustments to the landscape, like what we saw downtown in the 1950s and 1960s, when the Japanese, Chinese, Mexican and African-American neighborhoods there were demolished. Midtown's rebirth came from its residents, people who moved here because it was more interesting and fun and beautiful, fixed up their own places and created a critical mass of culture and creativity. I realize it isn't for everyone, so if you really don't feel comfortable in Midtown, that's fine, you can stay in the suburbs if you like. If you really dig sprawling horizontal houses with big yards, and shopping centers with big parking lots, it's probably the best place to go.
But, as you may have noticed, ideas like buying a house in the suburbs because you might have kids someday kind of get my dander up.
If you have 400k to spend, you can buy into neighborhoods with little to no gang activity, without a lot sex offenders and with significantly better schools.
Moreover midtown just isn't very well laid out for kids. When you start having kids, you need more space. They have bikes and train sets and swings in the backyard. You need room for cribs, bassinets, strollers and diaper pails. These items aren't junk. All of them are tools that make it easier to raise a kid. When you have kids you are going to be picking up kids to take them to soccer practice or little league. Have you tried parallel parking in a Minivan?
Then look at the built enviroment. The restaurants for families are in the burbs. You really can't take a screaming 2 year old to Biba's. But the burbs are built for families. The McDonald's have play areas out in front. The big box retailers have baby changing facilities. You have the chain restaurants with children's menus like the Macroni Grill where there are other families with screaming kids, so if you 2 year old wants to run around the restaurant, everyone else pretty much ignores it.
When you have kids, they change your lifestyle. You need to find activities that are suitable and capable of holding the attention of your kids or you need to find and arrange for a sitter. That means that you are going out much less. Kids also really like regular routines. In short the focus of your life is less about going out somewhere to find something to entertain you and more about doing stuff with your family. Your kids would rather have you stay at home play with their legos with them than go hang out in cafe where there isn't much for them to do where they will mostly just be bored. Thus even when you want to get a mocha, you would probably prefer to just get it through the drive through window, so you can take the kids home where they can play and you can drink your coffee in peace.
If you have kids or you are planning on having kids, the features of midtown aren't as appealing and the limitations of the area loom larger. In midtown, you just don't have the density of other families with kids. So there are fewer kids for your kids to play with. When you are 25 living in walking distance to a bar or lively street life might be a feature. But when you have 4 year old that you are trying to put to bed, that same street noise really is more of liability.
If you have kids or you are thinking about having kids, there are areas much better than midtown at addressing your needs.
Kids have been growing up in midtown for over a century: midtown was built for families too. The kids then had cribs, bassinets, strollers and diaper pails too, when they lived in the same houses that are here now. Plenty of those historic homes also have backyards, where one can set up all of that stuff, they're just smaller backyards than the 1950s suburbs (although from what I have seen of backyards in Natomas, they're not that much smaller than new subdivisions' backyards.)
Midtown's kid layout isn't that bad either: there is a community park every few blocks, most of which have playground equipment and recreational programs. Because people walk more around here, you're more likely to encounter other kids. There are a lot of day-care, pre-school and other child-oriented facilities in the central city.
Not all the restaurants in the central city are Biba's. There are plenty of cheap places to eat, many of which are pretty lively, and many have children's menus too. I can think of few restaurants more family-oriented than the Old Spaghetti Factory, at the heart of midtown! If you really want to poison your family with plastic semi-food, there are even chain fast-food restaurants along the outer perimeter of the central city one can visit, and if you want to poison your family with plastic semi-clothing or semi-furniture, there are big-box shopping places not much farther out.
Truth be told, there aren't that many kids in the central city, for various reasons. I just think you seem to be splitting people up into two groups: people with kids, and people thinking of having kids. There are plenty of folks who don't fit into either group, including myself.
And I suppose that one of the reasons I like Midtown is because if I went to a restaurant and there was a screaming 2-year-old tearing around the place, I'd be pretty irritated. I see kids in central city restaurants, but their parents seem to be capable of controlling them...if such behavior isn't standard in the suburbs, I'd rather not dine there.
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.
