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.
The thing about Sac being part of the Bay is because people are commuting from there, especially in some suburbs that were historically more attached to Sac. The economy of the Bay is so overpowering it's bled into the CV for a long time, and is no encroaching on the Sac metro. Also, the social relations between the two is strong. I went to college in SF. I knew lots of people in SF who had friends in Sac and they visited each other quite regularly as if SF-SJ was a similar thing to SF-Sac. But in actuality, it's just the reality of two significant, powerful, strong cities with amazing suburbs that are geographically close to each other and share some culture. I'd compare it to NYC and Philly. Some people commute from suburbs historically part of Philly to NYC because NYC's sphere of influence continues to grow, like SF's. However, Philly is no slouch on its own. Its downtown is booming, the city is doing fantastically, and it has its own metro and culture. The way people move between Philly/NYC and Sac/SF and people in one often have friends or some social connection to the other. They're very similar in that way.
I would NOT say that SF/Sac is the same as LA/LBC or Seattle/Tacoma or Dallas/Ft. Worth or Tampa/St. Pete or Minneapolis/St. Paul. it's more on the level of a LA/SD, Tampa/Orlando, Austin/San Antonio, NYC/Philly. If anything it's closer to a DC/Bmore relationship because while each retains its own culture, suburbs, and identity, they are beginning to blend. Going to one from the other isn't considering really "traveling" the same way that it is considered traveling between NYC/Philly or LA/SD. However, Bmore and DC are still more connected than Sac/SF. That said, I could see the Sac/SF relationship growing closer and closer to a Bmore/DC relationship in the future.
You get it. Nobody in here said that Sac is in the Bay Area, what we were doing was describing the connectivity between The Bay and Sacramento. People get really up in arms about this but the cross-cultural interactions and connectivity is a real thing...
You get it. Nobody in here said that Sac is in the Bay Area, what we were doing was describing the connectivity between The Bay and Sacramento. People get really up in arms about this but the cross-cultural interactions and connectivity is a real thing...
Yes, I agree with you and jessesmh431 did a great job explaining the Sacramento/Bay connection.
As for this poll itself, I think Sac is in its prime now. Cleveland has yet to get close to its old glory. I think, though, that at their primes, Cleveland would be the far better city. Right now, Sac has the brighter future. I'd choose Cleveland for various reasons, but Sac is doing better as a city.
You did a great job explaining the Sacramento/Bay connection. I disagree with you about Cleveland being a far better city, based on what. Sacramento is far from reaching its prime its just getting going.
Note that: Cleveland had a 50 year head start on Sacramento, really more because Cleveland was a primary city of the late industrial revolution.
I think California will always draw people, capital, ingenuity, money, and Sacramento gets it far share of that. The things that detract people from California: high cost of living, taxes, over-populations help keep Sacramento growth in check. Sacramento growth tends to be half to 1/3 less than the other booming Sun Belt cities (PHX, Vegas, Austin, SA, Florida, etc.) but Sacramento is double the growth of most Ohio cities.
People tend to like warmer climates more than cold ones like Cleveland especially as one gets older.
Cleveland is one of the greyist cities in the US with average of cloudy days on par with Seattle... Sacramento please. Sacramento has a nice energy/vibe to it and the transition from downtown to the near neighborhoods are seamless. I cant say I know Cleveland well at all except it was all grey the two times I visited and from what I saw it didnt appear to be superior to Sacramento as a city.
I cant say I know Cleveland well at all except it was all grey the two times I visited and from what I saw it didnt appear to be superior to Sacramento as a city.
It isn't. The only people who assert that it would be, are unable to set aside their bias. Which, it's okay to feel bias towards a particular bias, but you have to be able to set that bias aside...
I maintain that a comparison of both downtowns today, Sacramento has the healthier and more complete downtown, even if not by a huge margin. Cleveland has better neighborhoods...
It isn't. The only people who assert that it would be, are unable to set aside their bias. Which, it's okay to feel bias towards a particular bias, but you have to be able to set that bias aside...
I maintain that a comparison of both downtowns today, Sacramento has the healthier and more complete downtown, even if not by a huge margin. Cleveland has better neighborhoods...
It's much wealthier and newer, and currently more utilized. All due to outgrowth of the Bay's housing bubble, of course.
Not sure it feels like a proper downtown as the term applies to most larger Midwest and East Coast cities. Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis... of course Chicago and Detroit... all had legit classic urban planning as they were built.
Sacramento is probably better compared to Columbus. Both former Cow-Town's, recently built, near identical growth stats.
In that case, I'd take CBus if cost of living is considered, Sac if it's not.
It's much wealthier and newer, and currently more utilized. All due to outgrowth of the Bay's housing bubble, of course.
Not sure it feels like a proper downtown as the term applies to most larger Midwest and East Coast cities. Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis... of course Chicago and Detroit... all had legit classic urban planning as they were built.
Sacramento is probably better compared to Columbus. Both former Cow-Town's, recently built, near identical growth stats.
In that case, I'd take CBus if cost of living is considered, Sac if it's not.
Take a closer look, Sacramento (like San Francisco) was built from its infancy with proper legit classic urban planning. Sacramento and San Francisco were built with Gold Rush Money. From its beginning Sacramento was not a cow-town. Sacramento was built as a city of trade and commerce because it was built at the confluence of American and Sacramento Rivers and the Sacramento River could handle big ships coming from the Golden Gate/San Francisco Bay. Sacramento's first 50-75 years brought a classic urban grid, with stately Victorian houses and buildings, neoclassical buildings, later art deco. It was not until Sacramento's second 50 years that its economy became part of the booming Agriculture part of California's Great Central Valley. As the much larger industrial cities of the midwest/east boomed (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis. Chicago and Detroit..), Sacramento's growth was limited to manufacturing of AG products. Sacramento was in the far far west barely connected to all the growth and action of the great lakes cities and east coast cities. Its growth much slower. It's next wave of growth had little to do with Agriculture, rather it was the high-technology of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's two big air force bases and Rocket and Space Technology that is when Sacramento's largest growth occurred and it was all suburban growth. During this time, People forgot that Sacramento had a proper legit classic urban grid with classic urban infrastructure. It was easy to ignore because the urban infrastructure of the big midwest/east coast cities were all at the time at least twice the size of Sacramento.
My point is that Sacramento has always had a proper downtown with legit classic urban planning and it really has been only in the last 10-15 years that Sacramento has been focused on bringing it back to its original glory and beyond.
Sacramento's urban grid is about the same size as Portland, Oregon's urban grid, but with less residential high-rises, but we are steady moving forward and up.
Take a closer look, Sacramento (like San Francisco) was built from its infancy with proper legit classic urban planning. Sacramento and San Francisco were built with Gold Rush Money. From its beginning Sacramento was not a cow-town. Sacramento was built as a city of trade and commerce because it was built at the confluence of American and Sacramento Rivers and the Sacramento River could handle big ships coming from the Golden Gate/San Francisco Bay. Sacramento's first 50-75 years brought a classic urban grid, with stately Victorian houses and buildings, neoclassical buildings, later art deco. It was not until Sacramento's second 50 years that its economy became part of the booming Agriculture part of California's Great Central Valley. As the much larger industrial cities of the midwest/east boomed (Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis. Chicago and Detroit..), Sacramento's growth was limited to manufacturing of AG products. Sacramento was in the far far west barely connected to all the growth and action of the great lakes cities and east coast cities. Its growth much slower. It's next wave of growth had little to do with Agriculture, rather it was the high-technology of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's two big air force bases and Rocket and Space Technology that is when Sacramento's largest growth occurred and it was all suburban growth. During this time, People forgot that Sacramento had a proper legit classic urban grid with classic urban infrastructure. It was easy to ignore because the urban infrastructure of the big midwest/east coast cities were all at the time at least twice the size of Sacramento.
My point is that Sacramento has always had a proper downtown with legit classic urban planning and it really has been only in the last 10-15 years that Sacramento has been focused on bringing it back to its original glory and beyond.
Sacramento's urban grid is about the same size as Portland, Oregon's urban grid, but with less residential high-rises, but we are steady moving forward and up.
Thanks for the historic background, that was very interesting information. However, in 1950, Cleveland had 914,000, while Sacramento had 137,000. 1950 is around the time period that urban development stopped basically. So Cleveland's urban layout is much, much larger, and it also has several adjacent suburbs with dense, walkable areas such as Lakewood and Cleveland Heights, as well as smaller, older suburbs with charming downtowns such as Chagrin Falls. Also, Cleveland has 4 rail lines.
It's much wealthier and newer, and currently more utilized. All due to outgrowth of the Bay's housing bubble, of course.
Not sure it feels like a proper downtown as the term applies to most larger Midwest and East Coast cities. Milwaukee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis... of course Chicago and Detroit... all had legit classic urban planning as they were built.
Sacramento is probably better compared to Columbus. Both former Cow-Town's, recently built, near identical growth stats.
In that case, I'd take CBus if cost of living is considered, Sac if it's not.
"Proper downtown" implies bias that could be spun in several directions. Downtown Sacramento offers pretty much everything expected of downtowns in large cities, including a historic center. Downtown Cleveland and Cleveland overall has the design and build of a city that matured in an earlier period. I'm not sure either downtown is more or less "proper"...
Nobody on this site was working or playing in Cleveland in 1950 (68 years ago). Downtown Sacramento today is larger, more filled in, and just more robust. Been to Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh (love all three). Downtown Buffalo is a ghost town and is tiny and only Downtown Pittsburgh has a presence that can be argued as stronger than Sacramento today...
If your point is that those cities have the structural build of a legacy city, thanks for stating the obvious...
What would people call the urban core of Cleveland? I'd like to even consider a comparison of both cities' core to core...
That said, I don't disagree that Columbus is probably the Ohio city best compared with Sacramento...
"Proper downtown" implies bias that could be spun in several directions. Downtown Sacramento offers pretty much everything expected of downtowns in large cities, including a historic center. Downtown Cleveland and Cleveland overall has the design and build of a city that matured in an earlier period. I'm not sure either downtown is more or less "proper"...
Nobody on this site was working or playing in Cleveland in 1950 (68 years ago). Downtown Sacramento today is larger, more filled in, and just more robust. Been to Cleveland, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh (love all three). Downtown Buffalo is a ghost town and is tiny and only Downtown Pittsburgh has a presence that can be argued as stronger than Sacramento today...
If your point is that those cities have the structural build of a legacy city, thanks for stating the obvious...
What would people call the urban core of Cleveland? I'd like to even consider a comparison of both cities' core to core...
That said, I don't disagree that Columbus is probably the Ohio city best compared with Sacramento...
Well, aren't you pleasantly snarky today? This is just my opinion having growing up in the Bay and living in Chicago, Cleveland and spending considerable time in Pittsburgh and Philly. Why do disregard the attraction of legacy downtown's and neighborhoods in contrast to Sac? Sac feels much more like a sunbelt city than an old legacy city like SF and the previously mentioned.
Nothing wrong with that. Hence why it's better compared to Columbus.
And of course Pittsburgh has a stronger downtown than Sac. Thank you for stating the obvious...
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.
