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 think I covered all the bases here. Can we all agree that this list sounds about right and about objective as it can get.
Downtown: Richmond. Sac's downtown as of today is underwhelming. That may change once the arena opens.
Urban core: Richmond. Based on pictures and Youtube, Richmond looks quite dense, which is really impressive. Both cities are very walkable.
Public Transit: Sacramento. Aside from busses, Sac has several light rail lines that serve a metropolitan nearly twice the size of Richmond
Airport: Sacramento. SMF flies to all major US hubs and Mexico. There are talks to add nonstop to London and Vancouver.
Sports: Push. One has the NBA, Triple-A baseball, the other has collegiate and NASCAR. Both have USL Pro. Sac has been in discussion to join MLS down the road.
Diversity: Sacramento. No brainer there.
Weather: Push. Some people like it hot, cold, rainy, foggy.
Nightlife: Richmond but only because of the significant student population.
Education: Richmond. CA public schools are notoriously bad. UC Davis is no slouch though.
Economy: Richmond. Several Fortune 500 companies based there. Cost of living is way cheaper.
Geography: I guess I'd go with Richmond. Close proximity to more major cities, although Sac's geography is just as good (the Bay, Tahoe, Napa, etc)
Food: Push. Both like to claim themselves as Farm to Fork/Table. Sac has a big coffee and craft beer scene. Asian and Latino cuisine goes to Sacramento. Southern, Caribbean, European cuisine to Richmond.
As one who knows Sacramento pretty well, I can agree with most of your points.
Sacramento, with the Kings win the sports argument, though. (However, some points lost for almost losing the team a few years ago to Seattle).
Weather: Well this is subjective, but Sacramento while hot in the summer is never humid, and the winters hardly ever get snow. I think Sac wins this one as well.
Geography: Well, again, what are the metrics here? If you mean to other major cities, then Richmond is the winner, if you mean to recreation, then Sac wins.
Food: Sorry, but the east coast always wins in this category! Richmond.
Again, a good comparison. Thanks to the OP for this one. (and look at those poll numbers, extremely tight!)
I think I covered all the bases here. Can we all agree that this list sounds about right and about objective as it can get.
Downtown: Richmond. Sac's downtown as of today is underwhelming. That may change once the arena opens.
Urban core: Richmond. Based on pictures and Youtube, Richmond looks quite dense, which is really impressive. Both cities are very walkable.
Public Transit: Sacramento. Aside from busses, Sac has several light rail lines that serve a metropolitan nearly twice the size of Richmond
Airport: Sacramento. SMF flies to all major US hubs and Mexico. There are talks to add nonstop to London and Vancouver.
Sports: Push. One has the NBA, Triple-A baseball, the other has collegiate and NASCAR. Both have USL Pro. Sac has been in discussion to join MLS down the road.
Diversity: Sacramento. No brainer there.
Weather: Push. Some people like it hot, cold, rainy, foggy.
Nightlife: Richmond but only because of the significant student population.
Education: Richmond. CA public schools are notoriously bad. UC Davis is no slouch though.
Economy: Richmond. Several Fortune 500 companies based there. Cost of living is way cheaper.
Geography: I guess I'd go with Richmond. Close proximity to more major cities, although Sac's geography is just as good (the Bay, Tahoe, Napa, etc)
Food: Push. Both like to claim themselves as Farm to Fork/Table. Sac has a big coffee and craft beer scene. Asian and Latino cuisine goes to Sacramento. Southern, Caribbean, European cuisine to Richmond.
I'll list only where I disagree:
Downtown: Push, once Golden 1 Center opens, Sacramento
Urban Core: Push, only because Richmond is 112 to 200 years older than Sacramento.
Diversity: Not only is Sacramento more diverse it is more integrated as well.
Weather: Sacramento, summers are more comfortable not only evening, night and morning, but daytime temps slight edge to Sacramento. Richmond way too humid, and doesn't cool enough on a daily summer basis.
Sacramento winters are milder, no snow, less chance for very cold streaks.
Nightlife: Push, but only because of Richmonds significant student pop, otherswise Sacramento.
Education: Push, Sacramento area has some great districts mostly in suburbs, and some good charter schools in the city, along with very good private schools. No University in Richmond as well rounded as UC Davis.
Economy: Push, but only because Richmond's cost of living is cheaper.
Geography: Hands down Sacramento area including Sacramento's wonderfully flat biking riding terrain in grid and surrounding neighborhoods, no brainer regarding the other geographical attributes within 1 to 2 hours by car.
Sacramento is larger than Columbus by about 349k people, yet trails Columbus GDP by 4 billion. Sacramento is larger than Kansas City by about 173k, yet trails Kansas City's GDP by 7 billion. And it gets worse: 95k larger than Cincy yet trails in GDP by 9 billion; 180k larger than Cleveland but trails by 15 billion in GDP; 273k larger than Indy but trails GDP by 18 billion...291k larger than San Jose yet trail GDP by 87 billion! Notice a pattern here?
The fact of the matter is that of metros with at least 2 million population, Sacramento only has a larger economy than San Antonio and Las Vegas. It would appear that Sac is out of its own "league" when compared to cities of similar size, as not only do most of them have a larger economy, they blow Sac away in other arenas you yourself have mentioned--culture, urbanity, transportation, retail, etc. Sacramento is the outlier; at least Vegas and San Antonio both have richer histories and are far more renown domestically and internationally. So no, friend, Sacramento deserves comparison with any city between 1-2 million, because clearly, it is of the weakest in the two million-plus category, no matter which way you want to spin this bottle. Seriously, nobody really considers Sacramento on the same level as Charlotte or Pittsburgh, so all your trumpeting about Sacramento's "tier" is unfounded....
Richmond is arguably more urban, more educated, more historic, better architecture, wealthier, larger business climate, more important role in federal government, better location, better and better attended cultural festivals, arguably better in sports overall......etc etc etc...
And to you, Sacramento is in another tier? I want to lol every time I read your responses. Sacramento doesn't have enough going for it to warrant assumption in some higher tier. Is this so hard to understand? It clearly is on the losing end in several important categories, and in a 50/50 dead heat by other important criteria (food, sports). You guys really give a new name to the "bigger is better" crowd....
A million more people, yet lagging behind most cities in its size range, and trailing Richmond in more than a couple fronts....one million more people...
Just because Sacramento might lag behind its own group doesn't mean Richmond is on the same level. This is crazy that we even have to discuss this. Richmond seems like a nice city and all, but it's undoubtedly a tier below Sacramento.
I love how Richmond is supposidly this charming, educated, high end retail place... yet it has twice the murder rate, more murders in raw numbers, and while having half the population. Yea real culture there. LOL
Cows are awesome because peanut butter. <--- See I can do it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical
As far as cultural festivals, I have no idea. I can tell you Sacramento's second saturday art walks started in 1992, while Richmonds first fridays did not start until 2001. First Friday, nice rip off
You do realize there are dozens of cities with an art walk or art night right? I feel like this is meant to be a joke, but I can never tell with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pistola916
I think I covered all the bases here. Can we all agree that this list sounds about right and about objective as it can get.
Downtown: Richmond. Sac's downtown as of today is underwhelming. That may change once the arena opens.
Urban core: Richmond. Based on pictures and Youtube, Richmond looks quite dense, which is really impressive. Both cities are very walkable.
Public Transit: Sacramento. Aside from busses, Sac has several light rail lines that serve a metropolitan nearly twice the size of Richmond
Airport: Sacramento. SMF flies to all major US hubs and Mexico. There are talks to add nonstop to London and Vancouver.
Sports: Push. One has the NBA, Triple-A baseball, the other has collegiate and NASCAR. Both have USL Pro. Sac has been in discussion to join MLS down the road.
Diversity: Sacramento. No brainer there.
Weather: Push. Some people like it hot, cold, rainy, foggy.
Nightlife: Richmond but only because of the significant student population.
Education: Richmond. CA public schools are notoriously bad. UC Davis is no slouch though.
Economy: Richmond. Several Fortune 500 companies based there. Cost of living is way cheaper.
Geography: I guess I'd go with Richmond. Close proximity to more major cities, although Sac's geography is just as good (the Bay, Tahoe, Napa, etc)
Food: Push. Both like to claim themselves as Farm to Fork/Table. Sac has a big coffee and craft beer scene. Asian and Latino cuisine goes to Sacramento. Southern, Caribbean, European cuisine to Richmond.
Seems like a fair comparison.
As far as weather goes I'd be more inclined to go with the uncomfortable days factor.
Something like:
The number of days Richmond has that are 90 degrees or above with 80% humidity or above and the number of days at 0 degrees (or maybe 20 degrees)
vs.
Sacramento's days over 90 (100).
Having lived in Miami 90 plus high humidity is just as bad as 100 degrees (from when I was out in AZ and Vegas this seemed to be the point where "at least it's a dry heat" became uncomfortable.)
My guess is Richmond probably has about 2.5 months of crap weather and Sacramento 1 or maybe 2. I keep hearing about the fog and air quality on here...
Sacramento wins here unless you're looking for true four-season weather.
Thanks for the videos. Interesting stuff.
Edit: Richmond marching bands sound more like football marching bands than bands apart like say What Cheer? Brigade out of Providence.
Last edited by Port Pitt Ash; 09-07-2015 at 06:24 AM..
Downtown: Push, once Golden 1 Center opens, Sacramento
Urban Core: Push, only because Richmond is 112 to 200 years older than Sacramento.
Diversity: Not only is Sacramento more diverse it is more integrated as well.
Weather: Sacramento, summers are more comfortable not only evening, night and morning, but daytime temps slight edge to Sacramento. Richmond way too humid, and doesn't cool enough on a daily summer basis.
Sacramento winters are milder, no snow, less chance for very cold streaks.
Nightlife: Push, but only because of Richmonds significant student pop, otherswise Sacramento.
Education: Push, Sacramento area has some great districts mostly in suburbs, and some good charter schools in the city, along with very good private schools. No University in Richmond as well rounded as UC Davis.
Economy: Push, but only because Richmond's cost of living is cheaper.
Geography: Hands down Sacramento area including Sacramento's wonderfully flat biking riding terrain in grid and surrounding neighborhoods, no brainer regarding the other geographical attributes within 1 to 2 hours by car.
I'm giving this response in all civility, as I don't know Sacramento besides what I've researched....
I'll disagree on the urban core, and not because Richmond is older. I don't think it's a tie because Richmond's urban core is not only denser, but includes more interesting neighborhoods, from multiple nightlife districts to retail districts to residential/retail, to the University right in the core, etc. Richmond's urban core includes the neighborhoods of Church Hill, Manchester, The Fan, Jackson Ward, Monroe Ward, Scott's Addition, The Bottom, The Slip, The Canal, Oregon Hill, Carytown, Museum District, and maybe a handful of smaller neighborhoods and Downtown proper. Collectively, there is no equivalent balance of urbanity, lifestyle, history, architecture, and entertainment in Sacramento's core...
If Richmond's nightlife is attributable to its student population (which isn't true, otherwise there wouldn't be the many local live entertainment/open air venues, sports bars, bars/pubs, and 25+ nightclubs in the city that attract the working class), then this isn't a push either, the depth of Richmond's nightlife is overall better...
Richmond's economy is more diverse, Richmond is wealthier by any metric used and then its cost of living is slightly lower. I just don't understand how this is equal to you. Being the larger city, Sacramento has the larger overall GDP---and that's it....
I think Sac wins at primary education, Richmond is better in higher ed. It is a couple percentage points in educational attainment, which means a more educated workforce. Not that we're blowing Sac out the water here, but I think a clear, if slight, advantage leans to Richmond...
I'd say weather and geography are equal. Richmond doesn't lack for hilly terrain, has rapids right in the city, and experiences all four seasons---some people actually enjoy snow, man. That said, many people can't stand East Coast humidity. Both cities are driving distances to mountains and beaches....
As I mentioned way up thread, I feel like food and sports culture are essentially a tie. Sac has the Kings I'm house, and I know they have a loyal fan base. That's an NBA team, though, and not even one of the most valued NBA teams. The Redskins, one of the most historic and valued sports franchises in the world, hold training camp in Richmond, with a fan base that's larger, more loyal (we've been losing forever) with fan support in this city that dates back twice as long as the Kings in Sacramento, are the equalizer to the Kings---because they don't play in Rich. Otherwise, Sacramento has a AAA baseball team and one of the best, and the more popular, soccer club. Richmond's soccer club is older, Richmond has NASCAR and one of the premier NASCAR tracks, and Richmond has the larger collegiate athletics following. And as mentioned, both cities are very, very diverse in the food offered, both cities offer some foods not found in the other, and neither city has clear advantage on either sports or food....
To clear the air for those who question my comments on Sacramento's size and how it lacks, I thought I expressed this clearly early in the thread, before all the bickering, but I will try to do it again:
Why would anyone feel Sacramento is out of Richmond's league? From the surface, there are three main reasons that stick out---Sacramento is way larger, has a far larger GDP, and is the capital of California. However, closer inspections at those numbers reveal the Sacramento has a lesser per capita GDP, a less diverse economy, no Fortune 500 companies, and is slightly higher cost of living. At the very least, this is what drives economy to a tie, if not in Richmond's favor...
Richmond can't help that it isn't the capital of California, however is more centrally located to the federal capital, has a Federal Reserve, is a more important player within its own state than Sac is to its (influence is what I'm talking about here). And when you add the fact that Sacramento's habitually trails cities of similar size, and is more comparable to cities like Richmond in terms of amenities than it is to Cleveland or Baltimore, that adds something else to the equation...
So when I make that statement, it is because there is nothing that concretely places Sacramento above Richmond---yet throat this thread, I've heard "without question", "undoubtedly", "no brainer" that Sacramento is above or ahead of Richmond. And that is easily seen if Richmond was compared to Cleveland or Charlotte, but that inference just isn't true with Sacramento. Sacramento DOES NOT offer enough in the form of anything to automatically assume it belongs ahead of Richmond, and I think part of the problem of this thread is that some of you were caught by surprise that Richmond stands up so well against Sacramento...
Anybody can say their city is bigger or has a larger economy. A closer introspection provides details and rationale that give real insight into what a city offers. So yes, Sacramento might be out of position compared with cities of similar size, but Richmond plays over its head to cities of its size. And clearly, that annoys people who'd rather generically sweep over any real comparison, because Sac is bigger and has a bigger economy....
Sacramento DOES NOT offer enough in the form of anything to automatically assume it belongs ahead of Richmond, and I think part of the problem of this thread is that some of you were caught by surprise that Richmond stands up so well against Sacramento...
I'd imagine most have never even considered Richmond and once they see that the population numbers and the lack of pro sports it gets passed over.
Richmond recreation is better in every season.
Nothing is sexier than drinking bourbon on a 150 year old porch on warm, fragrant summer night. Kayaking with snow on the ground ain't bad either!
The nice people of Sacramento deserve a snow day. They are wonderful (especially the bar scene before and during a storm)! I'm not a huge fan of snow (always love to see it go) but seeing your own neighborhood transformed into a winter wonderland is much more thrilling than driving hours to see snow.
Hills +snow= sledding. It is free and accessible to every class of people. The few occasions a year are coveted by all races and income levels.. http://youtu.be/BgGoEYcX8L8
Richmond recreation is better in every season.
Nothing is sexier than drinking bourbon on a 150 year old porch on warm, fragrant summer night. Kayaking with snow on the ground ain't bad either!
The nice people of Sacramento deserve a snow day. They are wonderful (especially the bar scene before and during a storm)! I'm not a huge fan of snow (always love to see it go) but seeing your own neighborhood transformed into a winter wonderland is much more thrilling than driving hours to see snow.
Hills +snow= sledding. It is free and accessible to every class of people. The few occasions a year are coveted by all races and income levels.. http://youtu.be/BgGoEYcX8L8
Sacramento recreation is better in every season; we have by far more clear, fair, rainless and cloudless days to enjoy the outdoor recreation. Less cold in the winter, much much less humidity in the summer. Sacramento does NOT have bone dry -nose bleeding humidity like Phoenix or Denver, rather Sacramento has "perfect humidity levels" during the summer (15-30% during warmest time of day)
Snow is 15mins to 30mins away from many locations within the Sacramento region. If we want 10,000 foot peaks and world-class skiing that is what is 1-2 hours away. We don't need to shovel any snow in town.
We have class III and IV white water rafting within 30mins, or a very clean and cold water in the heart of Sacramento for an easy relaxing float down the American River. This is free and accessible too.
For quick viewing skip to scenes of rafting, then skip to 7:40 onward for some backflips, goofy jumps from the bluffs into the river, and other jump scenes from the bluff and ropes.
Just because Sacramento might lag behind its own group doesn't mean Richmond is on the same level. This is crazy that we even have to discuss this. Richmond seems like a nice city and all, but it's undoubtedly a tier below Sacramento.
Exactly, you can tell by their posts that they haven't actually been to Sac.
They bring up a tent city, that was taken down in 2009, during the recession?
Even when they clearly lose the density arguement and transit, they still try to claim they are more urban. "Buh, buh, buh, Richmonds building are brick like NYC".
LOL it's like, give it up, sac is more dense AND does it with considerably more land mass.
Did someone really try to compare NASCAR to the NBA? Which Sac metro has too, btw.
Bragging about nightlife because of college kids? LOL you can tell we are dealing with 1990's babies. Sorry, Sac nightlife is for grown ups. College kids stay in college towns, and that's the way. Sac likes it.
Just remember, Virginia is a welfare state. For every dollar they give the feds, they get 1.25 back in federal spending. California gets 75 cents for everydollar they give. Think about the billions of dollars CA cities lose out on because of this.
The only reason Richmond can throw a punch at all, is because tax payers in California, New York, Illinois, etc are willing to pay for the steroids, so to speak. Of course like southerners, they boast and think they did it on their own. NOOOOOOPE.
They should be thanking us for the Federal grants to fix their roads, that go to their universities, and police forces.
And lets's be real, Sac has the second most drinking establishments per capita in California, behind only SF. SAC is not short on nightlife. But they haven't actually been to Sac, so they use googlemaps......
And I have yet to see one stat proves Richmond residents are more wealthy. Unless you are using net worth, don't bother. Only a college freshman would be dumb enough to use per capita income. But yes, land does cost more in Sacramento. I wonder why real estate is more valuable in Sac vs Richmond. Hmmmmmmmmm Could it be supply and demand????
.
Hey guess which city was ranked the most dangerous city in Virginia recently? Clue: It wasn't Sacramento
Last edited by WizardOfRadical; 09-07-2015 at 02:57 PM..
Exactly, you can tell by their posts that they haven't actually been to Sac.
They bring up a tent city, that was taken down in 2009, during the recession?
Even when they clearly lose the density arguement and transit, they still try to claim they are more urban. "Buh, buh, buh, Richmonds building are brick like NYC".
LOL it's like, give it up, sac is more dense AND does it with considerably more land mass.
Did someone really try to compare NASCAR to the NBA? Which Sac metro has too, btw.
Bragging about nightlife because of college kis? LOL you can tell we are dealing with 1990's babies. Sorry, Sac nightlife is for grown ups. College kids stay in college towns, and that's the way. Sac likes it.
Just remember, Virgina is a welfare state. For every dollar they give the feds, they get 1.25 back in federal spending. California gets 75 cents for everydollar they give. Think about the billions of dollars CA cities lose out on because of this.
The only reason Richmond can throw a punch at all, is because tax payers in California, New York, Illinois, etc are willing to pay for the steroids, so to speak. Of course like southerners, they boast and think they did it on their own. NOOOOOOPE.
They should be thanking us for the Federal grants to fix their roads, that go to their universities, and police forces.
And lets's be real, Sac has the second most drinking establishments per capita in California, behind only SF. SAC is not short on nightlife. But they haven't actually been to Sac, so they use googlemaps......
And I have yet to see one stat proves Richmond residents are more wealthy. Unless you are using net worth, don't bother. Only a college freshman would be dumb enough to use per capita income. But, yes land does cost more in Sacramento. I wonder why land is more valuable in Sac vs Richmond. Hmmmmmmmmm
Being a native Californian I have been to Sacto quite a bit, some natives probably don't even bother.
I have spent a great deal of time camping in her neighboring Delta and Gold Country. I have partied on houseboats in Rio Vista. I have skied at Heavenly, I have watched a 4th of July parade in Nevada City on the summer after 9/11 and there was not a dry eye on the street. I have very good friends in Penn Valley and Grass Valley (do you know where they are?) and we have watched fireworks on the lake in Penn Valley and walked back up to the house and had spit roasted lamb with lots of good ass NorCal vino.
I love it all but NOT Sacramento itself. She is uber underwhelming for being the capital of CALIFORNIA! ESPECIALLY the burbs, ahh Roseville, enchanting, Short Pump not quite realized.
There is no there there in Sacto.
Richmond HAS a there there and it has much more personality, soul and vibrancy.
Sacramento has a lot of flood historic markers and Gold Rush historic markers and there is really nothing to make one feel that they are not in anywhere USA.......
Peace out citizen.....
Last edited by Poquoson7; 09-07-2015 at 03:15 PM..
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.
Could it be supply and demand????
