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 find it strange how a lot of people keep comparing Sacramento to LA, San Francisco, and sometimes San Diego.
Seems like comparing Providence to Boston, New York, and Philly. Then trashing Providence because it doesn't compete with those cities.
If someone where to compare Sacramento to say Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, or even Austin I'd think that would make more sense.
When I think San Fran the peer cities on the same level that come to mind are places like Boston, Montreal, Chicago, Vancouver, BC and so on.
That I believe is the main issue. Sacramento sucks/is great opinions often lack a comparison to which of its peer cities? The question of reasonable comparison is what I'm trying to get at.
For me, it's hard to say where it would rank among Midwestern cities. Being a part of California is what gives Sacramento its exposure. The vibe feels midwestern, our skyline looks midwestern, but the lifestyle is quintessentially Californian.
Part of what makes Sacramento, Sacramento....is it's location, near 10,000 ft mountains, spectacular coastline, comfortable weather all year round, rivers and lakes for recreation, etc. Sacramento is as Californian as much as LA is Californian.
If Sacramento were in Indiana or Ohio, and replaced one or some of those major cities; urban sports amenities that are lacking in Sacramento now, would surely be in this fictional "Sacramento of the midwest".
For example, Sacramento doesn't have major league baseball(MLB) because within 60-75 miles there are TWO MLB teams, same with the National football league, TWO teams within 60-100 miles, AND, Sacramentans have supported those 4 Bay Area teams, as much, if not more than any Bay Area city for decades. For example, SF 49ers have more season ticket holders from the Sacramento area than from the city of San Francisco.
That I believe is the main issue. Sacramento sucks/is great opinions often lack a comparison to which of its peer cities? The question of reasonable comparison is what I'm trying to get at.
I often compare Sacramento to it's peer cities:
Austin - Sacramento has by far better summer weather, for example. Milwaukee, Pittsburg, Indy, Cincy, Portland, San Antonio, Charlotte would be comparable cities.
Oakland, Long Beach, and San Jose are the comparable California cities.
I've frozen my *ss off enough times in Madison to completely eliminate it on my list of liveable cities. It may be a nice town, but the winters su#k so bad that you couldn't pay me to live there in the winter.
I'd go with better parts of Sacramento region. Moderate climate, pretty neighborhoods/trees, mountains nearby, but crappy Dem State Government tyrants and some smog.
Property taxes are capped at an incremental rate- it all depends on when and where you bought the house.
These cities are nothing alike Madison is only similar to Columbus in that are both cities with a huge university in them so they have a large student population. Sac is nothing like Madison and Columbus in any way I can see.
I've frozen my *ss off enough times in Madison to completely eliminate it on my list of liveable cities. It may be a nice town, but the winters su#k so bad that you couldn't pay me to live there in the winter.
After visiting Madison I thought that it was nice, but a tad too pricey for what you got. Seemed like if you were going to agree to the cold why not just go to Minneapolis/St. Paul or Milwaukee where you got more at a better cost of living?
After visiting Madison I thought that it was nice, but a tad too pricey for what you got. Seemed like if you were going to agree to the cold why not just go to Minneapolis/St. Paul or Milwaukee where you got more at a better cost of living?
Yes, Madison is somewhat expensive for a mid sized mid-western city. But it's certainly tolerable, cost wise. I already expressed my opinion on its climate, so I won't repeat myself. If you're looking for a big city feel, Madison won't satisfy you. Think mid-sized.
Minneap/St. Paul area usually gets high ratings on many quality of life factors (except climate is rated very poorly.)
I've been through Milwaukee many times when I was younger. I remember hearing a lot of black on black crime tv news reports there. But there are many nice suburbs around Milwaukee that are safe. And it sits on the shore of beautiful Lake Michigan.
Of the three, I'd probably choose Madison if I could escape Nov-May to a warm area.
Of the three metros, I'm fairly sure Milwaukee would be the cheapest; Madison and MPLS fairly similarly priced if I recall recent stats.
Wisconsin has a good Gov. right now IMO (Walker). So Wisconsin's notoriously high taxes may be easing to a degree due to his efforts.
Yes, Madison is somewhat expensive for a mid sized mid-western city. But it's certainly tolerable, cost wise. Madison and MPLS fairly similarly priced if I recall recent stats.
I think Minneapolis was something like 10% cheaper than Madison when I was up there. Really the only thing that is prohibitive in MPLS is the rent for a nice place.
Almost moved to Minne once until I found out winter was even colder than Chicago.
Milwaukee is probably the best deal in the whole area. Heard it was highly segregated and if that's the case then it's a no go for me. Love the look of their art museum.
Anyway, after this winter I'm not sure I can bring myself to move anywhere with a major winter. That's one thing I've gotten accustomed to living down here.
Gameday experience in Columbus is great. Truly something to behold. Other than that, feels a little rundown and the weather or culture is nothing to write home about.
Madison I know less about, but have heard good things. Though in my circles Madison is known for Epic, the cult-ish company that writes medical record software. Is there more to Madison when it comes to politics/economy? Also, the horrendous weather there is a total deal-breaker for me.
Sacramento is very Californian (70+ F in Feb not uncommon), but much less pretentious than places like SF or LA. People care about sports, but not nearly to the extent of Wisconsin or tOSU. And why would you when you could go to Napa to go wine tasting, go skiing at Tahoe, go for a bike ride basically any weekend of the year on a whim? It's a totally different place.
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.
