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.
Gotta go with sac
SLC is way more beautiful than sac and the people are friendlier, but Sac is the overall better city/metro and has better weather. Not to mention, it's close enough to day trip to the ocean..
Another thing about SLC
High elevation is very damaging to ones skin.
Sac might get hotter, but at least your skin won't turn into a dry, raisiany, ashy mess.
Gotta go with sac
SLC is way more beautiful than sac and the people are friendlier, but Sac is the overall better city/metro and has better weather. Not to mention, it's close enough to day trip to the ocean..
Another thing about SLC
High elevation is very damaging to ones skin.
Sac might get hotter, but at least your skin won't turn into a dry, raisiany, ashy mess.
I have to disagree, SLC does not have friendlier people than Sacramento. I’ve been to both places many times, and people in Sacramento are extremely nice. At businesses in SLC, I’ve been treated very rudely like I was just a waste of their time! NYC people are nicer than Utahns.
Downtown Sacramento has a surprisingly clean downtown but it wasn't very vibrant. It also has some pretty pressing social issues going on and didn't seem safe.
I don't know that I can agree with this. Downtown Sacramento is as vibrant or even more vibrant as a number of "major" cities that are often thrown around on here. I wouldn't know how that compares to Salt Lake but i know saying Downtown Sac isn't vibrant is patently false...
I also don't know where one wouldn't feel safe downtown. I'm sure it's just grittier than Downtown SLC, but DT Sac is definitely not unsafe, and those few social issues don't add to a feeling of unsafe...
Sac, largely because SLC on a regional level, is far too much culture shock for me. Watered down booze, conservative population, hard core religious types, it's just not my cup of tea.
That being said, they are both in the same league as far as cities go. And the differences are largely superficial.
I get what your saying regarding regional level conservativism because it does exist but. Ehh if your in the city itself it’s not conservative, yes at the state level is very conservative. But regarding liquor, all the bars, breweries and liquor stores sale high point beer, yes they do water down mixed drinks unless you go to the right places. SLC also has an openly lesbian mayor and hasn’t elected a republican mayor in 30 years so no the city proper is not conservative at all. I do get it that this area is not for everyone though but it is changing drastically for the better in my opinion.
I don't know that I can agree with this. Downtown Sacramento is as vibrant or even more vibrant as a number of "major" cities that are often thrown around on here. I wouldn't know how that compares to Salt Lake but i know saying Downtown Sac isn't vibrant is patently false...
I also don't know where one wouldn't feel safe downtown. I'm sure it's just grittier than Downtown SLC, but DT Sac is definitely not unsafe, and those few social issues don't add to a feeling of unsafe...
Downtown Sac lacks cohesive vibrancy. The urban core nightlife/entertainment is scattered in such a *patch work* type of way, that Sac could appear dead if you are on the wrong block.
That being said, the daytime vibrancy is huge during the work week. And midtown is pretty lively.
DT Sac is safer than it was 10 years ago, but hardly what I would call safe. The urban core still needs some work, there are tons of homeless lunatics, and a large portion of violent crime happens in midtown, due to trashy low class people getting drunk.
Downtown Sac lacks cohesive vibrancy. The urban core nightlife/entertainment is scattered in such a *patch work* type of way, that Sac could appear dead if you are on the wrong block.
That being said, the daytime vibrancy is huge during the work week. And midtown is pretty lively.
DT Sac is safer than it was 10 years ago, but hardly what I would call safe. The urban core still needs some work, there are tons of homeless lunatics, and a large portion of violent crime happens in midtown, due to trashy low class people getting drunk.
I don't agree that DT Sac lacks cohesive vibrancy, especially because there is a good number of well-known cities that get spoken if on here as if they are super vibrant; DT Sac (and the city overall) is at worst as vibrant as these places...
Again, I don't know how this would compare to SLC, but I am highly skeptical that DT Sac is less vibrant than DT SLC; the only impetus for someone calling DT Sac non-vibrant is if they think the opposing city is more vibrant...
There are homeless lunatics everywhere in California. And Sac's core is rapidly improving, on par with similarly-sized cities across the nation...
I don't agree that DT Sac lacks cohesive vibrancy, especially because there is a good number of well-known cities that get spoken if on here as if they are super vibrant; DT Sac (and the city overall) is at worst as vibrant as these places...
Again, I don't know how this would compare to SLC, but I am highly skeptical that DT Sac is less vibrant than DT SLC; the only impetus for someone calling DT Sac non-vibrant is if they think the opposing city is more vibrant...
There are homeless lunatics everywhere in California. And Sac's core is rapidly improving, on par with similarly-sized cities across the nation...
One of the biggest complaints on other forums and among people who are familiar with SLC and have lived there such as I have is that downtown SLC lacks vibrancy...it is like a ghost town after 5pm and on the weekends except for Temple Square and the big mall adjacent. Restaurants and bars are spread out over huge blocks separated by wide streets which does not make the pedestrian experience very pleasant, hence diminishes walkablilty. There is a notable homeless and drug problem and one of the major parks downtown is a place you just don't go to because of this. A plus to downtown SLC is the light rail that can whisk you away to the suburbs.
Downtown SLC is making some progress on vibrancy, but it is difficult when street level retail is competing with a huge mall that sucks life away from the rest of downtown. For a regional comparison, smaller Boise has a much more vibrant and pedestrian friendly downtown compared to SLC.
If your idea of downtown vibrancy is hanging out at Temple Square or going to the mall or eating at Olive Garden then you are in luck.
I've been to both cities and SLC seems like a nice enough city. However, I have to go with Sac because I would agree with those on here who say that Sac seems far more walkable and vibrant. Also I value diversity, and I know SLC has pockets of it, but I didn't have to go very far in Sac to see people like myself.
1. Downtown - tie
2. Walkability - SLC
3. Scenery - SLC
4. Economy - SLC
5. Transportation Car and public - SLC
6. Housing - tie
7. Suburbs - Sac
8. Food - Sac
9. Nightlife - Sac
10. Culture - Sac
11. Weather - Sac
12. Where would you rather live? Tough one. Downtown SLC would be great. However, the location of Sacramento (short drive to mtns, beach, Bay Area) and climate, win for me.
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.
