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.
Both are hot, inland, high growing Western cities with metro sizes of around the same population that are receiving overflow populations from their adjacent CSA's (Bay Area for Sacramento, LA for Las Vegas) and are primarily known for one industry (Gambling for Vegas, State Government for Sacramento), and were both hit by the real estate crisis.
Where would you rather live? Based on:
Politics:
Culture:
Location:
Economy:
Diversity:
Access to other areas:
Entertainment:
Anything Else?:
Both are hot, inland, high growing Western cities with metro sizes of around the same population that are receiving overflow populations from their adjacent CSA's (Bay Area for Sacramento, LA for Las Vegas) and are primarily known for one industry (Gambling for Vegas, State Government for Sacramento), and were both hit by the real estate crisis.
I can't vote. You've said everything that needs to be said. Hot, fast-growing "overflow" cities where people live, but would rather live in the cities they relocated from, where making it pencil was probably harder. Then, the one-horse factor: tacky crap in Las Vegas and drone crap in Sacramento.
Both are hot, inland, high growing Western cities with metro sizes of around the same population that are receiving overflow populations from their adjacent CSA's (Bay Area for Sacramento, LA for Las Vegas) and are primarily known for one industry (Gambling for Vegas, State Government for Sacramento), and were both hit by the real estate crisis.
Where would you rather live? Based on:
Politics:
Culture:
Location:
Economy:
Diversity:
Access to other areas:
Entertainment:
Anything Else?:
Las Vegas is probably one of the worst cities to live in the country. Sacramento definitely beats Las Vegas in everything except entertainment, however I have to note that its not even entertainment Im fond of.
Also, Sac is not as inland as LV, it is only 1.5 hours to the ocean. It is also very green and surrounded by greenery. It also has a charming central city with a bohemian vibe and independent movie theaters. LV is just a hellhole in the desert full of tacky casinos and prostitutes.
Last edited by sacramento916; 06-11-2012 at 03:36 AM..
Sacramento is California's capital city, its vastly overlooked because its in the same state as LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and Silicon Valley but it offers everything a metro the level of Denver has. Sacramento is the best underrated city in California and the US.
I can't vote. You've said everything that needs to be said. Hot, fast-growing "overflow" cities where people live, but would rather live in the cities they relocated from, where making it pencil was probably harder. Then, the one-horse factor: tacky crap in Las Vegas and drone crap in Sacramento.
Considering that your idea of "culture" is Starbucks in a strip mall. You wouldn't know what culture was if it slapped you across the face.
I've spent plenty of time in Las Vegas. Being someone who prefers indie stuff with an intellectual bent, I've always hated LV and had no desire to go there. I had some relatives move there years ago and I went to visit several times, and LV was exactly as I expected, a huge tacky amusement park disaster.
Sactown is innumerably better than LV as a place to live. It has historic architecture, it has many independent coffee houses, it has a bohemian community with people who can actually hold intellectual conversations rather than just flash money and trash talk, independent movie theaters which show indie and foreign movies, and it is close to other areas of interest while LV is very isolated.
These two cities are nothing alike.
Also, Im originally from SF, I'm quite happy here in Sacramento. I'm doing pretty well for myself, the cost of living is lower, and I have many intellectual friends who I spend a lot of time with checking out different cafes, restaurants, etc all over the Sac region.
Considering that your idea of "culture" is Starbucks in a strip mall. You wouldn't know what culture was if it slapped you across the face.
I've spent plenty of time in Las Vegas. Being someone who prefers indie stuff with an intellectual bent, I've always hated LV and had no desire to go there. I had some relatives move there years ago and I went to visit several times, and LV was exactly as I expected, a huge tacky amusement park disaster.
Sactown is innumerably better than LV as a place to live. It has historic architecture, it has many independent coffee houses, it has a bohemian community with people who can actually hold intellectual conversations rather than just flash money and trash talk, independent movie theaters which show indie and foreign movies, and it is close to other areas of interest while LV is very isolated.
These two cities are nothing alike.
Also, Im originally from SF, I'm quite happy here in Sacramento. I'm doing pretty well for myself, the cost of living is lower, and I have many intellectual friends who I spend a lot of time with checking out different cafes, restaurants, etc all over the Sac region.
it doesn't seem like you leave the Downtown/Midtown area that often, youre describing maybe like 10% of the metro area. Most of Sac is generic suburbia full of Starbucks and strip malls.
On another note, I'm having trouble deciding which is worse: people who talk about how much money they have or people who talk about how intellectual and edgy they are..
it doesn't seem like you leave the Downtown/Midtown area that often, youre describing maybe like 10% of the metro area. Most of Sac is generic suburbia full of Starbucks and strip malls.
On another note, I'm having trouble deciding which is worse: people who talk about how much money they have or people who talk about how intellectual and edgy they are..
Thank you. I know people accuse LA of being vapid. In some spots, it is. Take Van Nuys or Reseda in the San Fernando Valley. The biggest redeeming quality they have is the definition of being hemmed in by interesting topographical features - namely, the mountains. Most of Sacramento metro is "Reseda exponential," and with NO observable geographic reference points and NO topographical variety.
Even then, Midtown is an edgy "dump" that turns nasty in just a matter or blocks in any direction you go. Just look at their main downtown light rail stop at 16th in Midtown (ramshackle houses in weird colors that are peeling, industrial buildings, bureaucratic buildings, chain link fences, wood fences falling apart, and sidewalks full of bird crap from those enormous palm trees). A lot of people associate living in such an environment as being "in the know." No thanks.
The irony is that in the national lexicon, I feel like "Las Vegas" represents more closely the image of "California" than Sacramento does, which really all is known about it is that it's California's capital (and given Americans' poor geography skill, I don't even think most even know that)
How would you compare the cost of living between the two?
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.
