why does sacramento get such a bad rap? ;( (Los Angeles, San Diego: real estate market, 2013)

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

haha, the bay is oversaturated with local sports as is.

Not affordable sports. Sure, they can't give away A's tickets, but the the A's have always had trouble drawing crowds. Which is why it was stupid having their AAA team close enough where people who care can see the real deal for the same price. The Giants are a whole different ballgame. It would cost a family of 4 a fortune to sit closer than nosebleeds at AT&T. People WILL look to their farm team as an affordable alternative. Besides, Sacramento has always been more of a Giants town than A's. It just makes sense.

Now to bring the 49ers training camp back to Rocklin....

[GoldCountry80]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

Not affordable sports. Sure, they can't give away A's tickets, but the the A's have always had trouble drawing crowds. Which is why it was stupid having their AAA team close enough where people who care can see the real deal for the same price. The Giants are a whole different ballgame. It would cost a family of 4 a fortune to sit closer than nosebleeds at AT&T. People WILL look to their farm team as an affordable alternative. Besides, Sacramento has always been more of a Giants town than A's. It just makes sense.

Now to bring the 49ers training camp back to Rocklin....

If I was a Bay Area native, I would have to go for the A's, sorry I just find the San Francisco Giants like the Yankees of the west coast, their fans might even be worse and more douchy than Yankees fans are. I know hard to believe but its true. I don't like the aura a lot of them have.

[NorCal Dude]

LOL, I lived in the Sac area for quite sometime. I have seen and done everything there several times over. It is just a lame city. Look at threads where visitors ask for suggestions or what locals like to do. It is embarrassingly sad.

Sac can not compare with metros that have the same population size. KC, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh put the Sac metro to shame. Sac is an uninspiring, boring, underachieving, town. It's peers are smaller 3rd rate regional centers. Omaha, Tulsa, Salt Lake and such. This is why it is known as an overgrown cow town.

It is all due to history/economy.

Similar sized metros back east like cleveland had over 900,000 people living there in 1950. They had massive white flight to the burbs and the metros grew at a slower rate. Sacramento metro was the size of Stockton in 1950, about 270,000 people. Now it has 2 million people like metro Cleveland. It literally went from being a hick town to large metro, very quickly. And it shows.

So cities like Cleveland have a much larger, better, and older urban fabric to work with. They have older, more established, and more endowed arts/culture/entertainment. And they grew at a slower rate than Sac, so they have much more sensible infrastructure.


Sacramento's economy is horrible too. As others have noted, it is a yes-man government town. The bulk of these jobs are file clerk/data entry jobs, that do not attract top talent. The rest of economy is dominated by health care, service-retail, and warehousing/distribution. Construction industry got fat off the ole BOSS HOG, during the RE Bubble last decade, but is a shadow of it's old glory days. A few small office operations. The types of places for customer service, collections, selling insurance, and the like. Nothing like twitter or pixar or wells fargo hq type jobs. Government is the niche industry that holds the region afloat.

I'm not saying Sac is hell on earth, like Stockton. But most of it's bad rep is deserved. It is okay to raise kids there, and 2 hours from Sf and tahoe. But other than that? Meh.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

LOL, I lived in the Sac area for quite sometime. I have seen and done everything there several times over. It is just a lame city. Look at threads where visitors ask for suggestions or what locals like to do. It is embarrassingly sad.

Sac can not compare with metros that have the same population size. KC, Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh put the Sac metro to shame. Sac is an uninspiring, boring, underachieving, town. It's peers are smaller 3rd rate regional centers. Omaha, Tulsa, Salt Lake and such. This is why it is known as an overgrown cow town.

It is all due to history/economy.

Similar sized metros back east like cleveland had over 900,000 people living there in 1950. They had massive white flight to the burbs and the metros grew at a slower rate. Sacramento metro was the size of Stockton in 1950, about 270,000 people. Now it has 2 million people like metro Cleveland. It literally went from being a hick town to large metro, very quickly. And it shows.

So cities like Cleveland have a much larger, better, and older urban fabric to work with. They have older, more established, and more endowed arts/culture/entertainment. And they grew at a slower rate than Sac, so they have much more sensible infrastructure.


Sacramento's economy is horrible too. As others have noted, it is a yes-man government town. The bulk of these jobs are file clerk/data entry jobs, that do not attract top talent. The rest of economy is dominated by health care, service-retail, and warehousing/distribution. Construction industry got fat off the ole BOSS HOG, during the RE Bubble last decade, but is a shadow of it's old glory days. A few small office operations. The types of places for customer service, collections, selling insurance, and the like. Nothing like twitter or pixar or wells fargo hq type jobs. Government is the niche industry that holds the region afloat.

I'm not saying Sac is hell on earth, like Stockton. But most of it's bad rep is deserved. It is okay to raise kids there, and 2 hours from Sf and tahoe. But other than that? Meh.

Yeah, if only Sacramento could be more like the bastion of cosmopolitan culture that is San Leandro...

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Yeah, if only Sacramento could be more like the bastion of cosmopolitan culture that is San Leandro...

I never claimed San Leandro to be that.

But it is more diverse than Sac, has higher density, higher median house hold income than sac, higher home values, better public transit, and better weather.

So even a blue collar-middle class bay area suburb is better than Sacramento. As far as culture, it is better to be 30 minutes from SF, than be in the heart of Sacramento.

Rathet than hate, Sacramento needs to learn how to emulate. Otherwise the city will never advance itself, and will remain a backwater town.

[wburg]

I don't think Sacramento is ever going to get any physically closer to San Francisco, unless there are some really big earthquakes. Inverse Franciscanism at its finest...although most cases are found in San Francisco, isolated outbreaks in the greater Bay Area are known to occur.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't think Sacramento is ever going to get any physically closer to San Francisco, unless there are some really big earthquakes. Inverse Franciscanism at its finest...although most cases are found in San Francisco, isolated outbreaks in the greater Bay Area are known to occur.

SAC has so much potential. But the people hold the town back. Too many people that want their old cowtown back, that can't accept that Sac is a city now.

[wburg]

Sacramento has been a city for a long time, and we were never a cowtown--unless you're talking 1848. We went from a floodplain to the second biggest city on the west coast in about a year. Seems like most of the people who think it's a "cowtown" are on the far side of Carquinez Strait, don't know what's here and don't bother to ask so they assume there is nothing.

[NorCalLover]

I lived in the Sacramento area for a couple of years, before moving back to SF. My experience is that many people who live in the Bay Area haven't been to Sacramento and make assumptions without knowing much about it. I think Sac has a lot to offer for a mid-sized city, and if I'd been living in Midtown instead of the boring suburbs I might well have stuck around.

[sacite]

Originally Posted by LoriBee62

LOTS of people here in the North Bay hate Sacramento. They think it's vanilla and bland and big box and hot. Most of them are "quaint town" kinda people who get all squeely-excited over towns with squares that offer lots of pretentious wine tasting shops and farmers markets and cosmopolitan overpriced restaurants with locally made art on the walls and GMO-free food. If you are that person then, yes, you will hate Sacramento.

I am not. I happen to like malls, warm nights, IKEA, affordable homes, a swimming pool I can use more than 3 weeks a year, and being close to I-5.

Whether you like ANY city depends entirely on what kinds of things matter to you. You have to take with a grain of salt the opinions of people who don't live there. It's why they don't live there. It's not for them. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be for you.

Puke. I hate malls, Ikea, etc. You just referenced everything that Sac is NOT. At least in my experience. Feels more like an artistic place with a diverse population and tons of small business.

Here is my impression of Sac:

Went to Lohman's plaza last night to eat at Bernardo's. The entire complex was packed. So much fun and great food.

Afterwards we go to Tokyo Fro's to watch the Kings. People (including us) are cheering. Everyone was into it

This morning I jog and get coffee. A guy literally offers me and others fruit from the plate that he just ordered. That would neeeever happen in the bay area. Ever.

This place is so open. Incredible if you are single and want to meet people. I have no effen clue what people are talking about when they complain about the social scene here. I have lived in the bay and here, and it is just such a better vibe in Sac. Everytime I go back to the bay it appears Clique-ish, gaurded and just kinda warped now. I'd never move back after living in Sac. I actually meet real people here and make real friends.

Don't listen to the BS OP. Give it a shot.