Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2014, 07:39 PM
 
6,877 posts, read 8,177,838 times
Reputation: 3867

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
There is no good airport within reasonable driving distance, and the whole area is just plain boring.
Good point about air travel. Fresno has much less options for non-stops to major hubs and if you do need to drive to SFO, Sacramento is 90 minutes closer.

If needed you can actually take direct trains+Bart directly to SF0 from Sacramento. But, it's rarely needed because Sacramento has a beautiful new airport with many non-stop flights to most of the major hubs in the nation, and within California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-30-2014, 02:57 AM
 
Location: Folsom
5,128 posts, read 9,788,131 times
Reputation: 3735
One thing about Fresno, it's a heck of a lot cheaper to live there than Sacramento. Our prices on groceries are double what one would pay there. I am speaking from experience.

there's other negatives....but if money is tight, it will go a lot further there.

Funny, when I lived down there, I was able to travel all around the world from Fresno with just a few connecting flights. It was very convenient. Not an issue at all. I'd much rather fly out of Fresno than SFO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2014, 03:08 AM
 
6,877 posts, read 8,177,838 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligirlz View Post
One thing about Fresno, it's a heck of a lot cheaper to live there than Sacramento. Our prices on groceries are double what one would pay there. I am speaking from experience.

there's other negatives....but if money is tight, it will go a lot further there.
I seriously doubt it's double, what are you comparing prices at the Nugget in El Dorado Hills or Whole Foods in Folsom with WinCo or Grocery Outlet in Fresno?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2014, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Folsom
5,128 posts, read 9,788,131 times
Reputation: 3735
Of course you doubt, no surprise there. I have family who live there and we compare prices regularly. Nugget doesn't have stores that far south, and my family don't shop at Whole Foods. I'm talking the average grocery store where most families shop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2014, 11:51 AM
 
1,321 posts, read 2,638,937 times
Reputation: 808
Why dismiss the skepticism? Of course he doubts what you said, because that's a pretty extraordinary claim. Heck I'd be surprised if groceries in New York City were "double" those in Fresno. When you say "average grocery store"--then you might be right, but only because "average" people in Folsom shop at different places than people in Fresno. In any case, bestplaces says Sac has slightly cheaper food costs. Everything else is pretty much even except for housing, which is 24% higher in Sac. Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Last edited by Yac; 01-31-2014 at 07:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-31-2014, 09:06 AM
 
1,176 posts, read 3,170,331 times
Reputation: 476
Sac isn't for everyone but at least it is, as everyone joked when I lived there in the 70s and 80s, close to where you would rather be (Bay Area, foothills, Sierra Nevada, Sacramento River delta), and does have the American River, etc. It's grown a lot since I left, which has its good and bad aspects. Traffic and overall congestion will be worse in Sac, but Fresno generally hotter. However, realtors in the Sac area do oversell the effects of the Delta breezes-- it can still get damn hot in the summer. You can get to SF by car, train, bus or even plane (though that is rather pricey and time-consuming).

When I lived in Sac, I regularly made day trips to the Sierra for hiking in the summer and x-country skiing in the winter. You could even consider areas nearby, such as Folson, El Dorado Hills, Auburn, etc. At one time I was working for the state government and was offered a similar job in San Francisco, but declined because the Bay Area was too expensive (a colleague gladly jumped at the offer).

Fresno is closer to Yosemite, Sequoia/Kings Canyon and L.A., probably has more Basque restaurants, and undoubtedly has a better university football team.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 08:16 AM
 
1,176 posts, read 3,170,331 times
Reputation: 476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimérique View Post
Good point about air travel. Fresno has much less options for non-stops to major hubs and if you do need to drive to SFO, Sacramento is 90 minutes closer.

If needed you can actually take direct trains+Bart directly to SF0 from Sacramento. But, it's rarely needed because Sacramento has a beautiful new airport with many non-stop flights to most of the major hubs in the nation, and within California.
I've read here and on Tripadvisor that FAT (Fresno) has a lot more flights now. Has SMF (Sac) replaced both of its terminals? Last time we were there, only one had been replaced. SMF certainly has few non-stops across the country and fares can be higher than from SFO, but more options than FAT (from where you may have to first go through SFO or LAX). However, unless I was going to fly a lot on a regular basis, I don't know that this would be a big factor in my choosing a place to live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 09:46 AM
 
6,877 posts, read 8,177,838 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoi137 View Post
I've read here and on Tripadvisor that FAT (Fresno) has a lot more flights now. Has SMF (Sac) replaced both of its terminals? Last time we were there, only one had been replaced. SMF certainly has few non-stops across the country and fares can be higher than from SFO, but more options than FAT (from where you may have to first go through SFO or LAX). However, unless I was going to fly a lot on a regular basis, I don't know that this would be a big factor in my choosing a place to live.
Yes, SMF (Sacramento) has a brand new Central Terminal B and Concourse, opened in Oct 2011. It's a work of art with lots of fantastic art pieces inside. SMF was named one of the most user friendly and beautiful terminals in North America.

Terminal A with a huge new garage opened in 1998. There is very little trace of the old terminal built in the late 60's that you may know of.

SMF (Sacramento) has non-stops to every major hub in the nation unlike FAT, and SMF has more direct flights than FAT. (minus Miami and Boston).(We have Ft. Lauderdale instead of Miami). SMF also has more flights to the same destinations as FAT with larger planes than FAT. And, SMF has more destinations within California with larger planes than FAT.

For example, Sacramento has non-stops to the gateways to Europe and South America through JFK, Dulles(Washington DC), Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Charlotte. And every large Western city - too many to list. More non-stops to Hawaii and Mexico, and more non-stops to LAX and SFO bound for Asia and Australia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 10:05 AM
 
6,877 posts, read 8,177,838 times
Reputation: 3867
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samoi137 View Post
Sac isn't for everyone but at least it is, as everyone joked when I lived there in the 70s and 80s, close to where you would rather be (Bay Area, foothills, Sierra Nevada, Sacramento River delta), and does have the American River, etc.
True, Sacramento is to close Bay Area, foothills, Sierra Nevada, Sacramento River delta, but many Sacramentans already know it's quite a fun destination unto itself for outsiders.

Sacramento has an actual true urban core that is walkable and dense that has more variety and higher-end restaurants, clubs, sports bars, dive bars, museums, upper end hotels, more interesting architecture. We have two great recreational rivers and a lake. Fresno does not have these on the scale of Sacramento.

Comparing Fresno with Sacramento is like comparing Sacramento with SF - worlds apart. Fresno looks and feels like Sacramento did 30 years ago without the infrastructure, and bones for a dense urban core.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2014, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Northern California
979 posts, read 2,083,289 times
Reputation: 765
...and Sacramento is getting a new downtown arena in 2016 !
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top