Fresno for Native Arizonian... (Sacramento, Bakersfield: living, shop, airports)

[Count David]

While it is easy to point out qualitative measures when comparing two places, it is very difficult to measure things subjectively.

I really like both cities, and I know I'm in the minority of that department when it comes to Fresno.

However, I find Fresno to be FAR more interesting than Sacramento. It's also cheaper, easily uglier, not as big, further from the Bay (but closer to LA), has a worse job market, and has a host of other problems. But it works for some people. Some people even like it, and this OP could very possibly like it.

Fresno metro is less than half the size of Sacramento metro. They aren't easily compared. It's obvious that Sacramento will win by most measures.

One could easily split the difference and live between the two in Modesto (in an even smaller area, but it still provides access to both, along with the Bay).

[Chimérique]

It's too bad Fresno is not close to anything, most of the nice things are at least 3 hours away or further which is like a 7 hour round trip (except for the National Parks).

Fresno airport has next to zero non-stop flights to national destinations, most national flights require a flight to LA, SF, or you have to drive to either SJ, SAC, LA or SF airports which is NOT a short drive, near 3 hours one way give or take.

Of the largest cities in Calif. it has the worst weather. Of the largest cities in Calif. the worst economy, and Fresno is below national averages on most economic and educational indicators.

But before moving out of California, I would consider a move to Fresno for the attributes it does have.

[jeffredo]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

It's too bad Fresno is not close to anything, most of the nice things are at least 3 hours away or further which is like a 7 hour round trip (except for the National Parks).

That's not enough?

Oh, and you know what old time Bay Area people call Sacramento... "Excremento". Whatever, anything between the coast range and the Sierra kind of sucks.

[Chimérique]

BTW, I love the Central Valley there are some great smaller towns and not so smaller towns:

Davis, Chico, Woodland, Turlock, Visalia, Merced, Redding, Modesto.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Moddedintegra56

i rather pay 500K in antioch, brentwood, discovery bay. heck even fairfield, vacaville is closer. why even go to sacramento. sacramento once had that same bragging rights when the homes were as low as fresno, but not anymore. thats a good thing for those who invested before obviously.

like i said no one is taking away anything from sac that they do have a certain amenities fresno still doesnt have, but for $200K price difference they sure as hell better. which again leads to why even drive that far if you dont need to when you can still get those kind of homes in suburban setting in the eastbay. or closer like vacaville or fairfield.

Your are missing something. Many People are moving to Sacramento because they actually like it better than the Bay Area, not just because of prices. They like it better than antioch, brentwood, discovery bay, fairfield, vacaville, even Silicon Valley cities.

Believe it or not, people like the Central Valley and they like Sacramento.

I would much rather live in Sacramento, because it is Sacramento; it's blend of NorCal/Central Valley culture and because of its size. I like Sacramento because it is closer to Tahoe, Reno, Sierras, Cascades, Northern Cal features, than the Bay Area. I like Sacramento because of it's proximity to the Bay Area, but not officially being part of the Bay Area.

But trust me, I know for a fact, I enjoy more things and places in the Bay Area than some of my Bay Area friends and family. If I were just another 30mins to 1hr further away, I seriously doubt I would enjoy Bay Area amenities as much as I do.

[Californiaguy2007]

Same here I love living in the Central Valley even though it's not some people's cup of tea,but i'm happy here

Originally Posted by Chimérique

BTW, I love the Central Valley there are some great smaller towns and not so smaller towns:

Davis, Chico, Woodland, Turlock, Visalia, Merced, Redding, Modesto.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

While it is easy to point out qualitative measures when comparing two places, it is very difficult to measure things subjectively.

I really like both cities, and I know I'm in the minority of that department when it comes to Fresno.

However, I find Fresno to be FAR more interesting than Sacramento. It's also cheaper, easily uglier, not as big, further from the Bay (but closer to LA), has a worse job market, and has a host of other problems. But it works for some people. Some people even like it, and this OP could very possibly like it.

Fresno metro is less than half the size of Sacramento metro. They aren't easily compared. It's obvious that Sacramento will win by most measures.

One could easily split the difference and live between the two in Modesto (in an even smaller area, but it still provides access to both, along with the Bay).

How exactly do you find Fresno more interesting than Sac?

[Chimérique]

Ya, Sac is pretty darn modest and there is absolutely nothing pretentious about Sacramento.

[Count David]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

How exactly do you find Fresno more interesting than Sac?

It's more real, more modest.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

It's more real, more modest.

So you mean more gritty and not as polished? I mean you can pretty much find everything Fresno has in Sac.

But Sac has a few things Fresno lacks.