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.
2nd consideration was, "Is this city going to be any different in 10 years than when I move there?" I didn't think so. I couldn't picture myself growing with the city at all. It seemed like it would be the exact same place the day I left it as the day I arrived. In contrast, Sac has all sorts of momentum with a new stadium in downtown, a growing art scene, new developments everywhere. I just did not see or feel that in SD.
Good points. Sacto hasn't changed much in the past 10 years I've been here. I'm sure the next 10 years will be significantly different. Some changes for the good, and some for the bad depending on your perspective. Too damn many people for my tastes, but I have a fantastic job and there's lots of different opportunities here that are just not found in smaller towns.
OP. I am currently in a similar position where I need to choose between the two cities. I lived for 10 years in Sac, and 4 in SD already. And, if the offer I have been extended in Sac weren't as over the top as it is, I probably wouldn't even consider Sac as a place to live again.
1st: I left Sac around 10 years ago. One thing I have noticed, all the close friends I made while there have left as well. And, this has factored into my thinking as I consider moving back. My social network there has pretty much disolved. The industerial/tech sector in Sac is small and close to non-existant. I have moved enough over the years, and don't want to start building a network from scratch yet again. (But, I still may.)
In an earlier post a couple of completely uninformed people made it sound like SD was very similar to Sac when it came to Industry/Tech. They obvioulsy do not know the SD area. SD started out many years ago as a place where lots of military research was done (so Govt jobs yes, Industry/Tech jobs YES). As those budgets collapsed in the 80s, 00s, ...; these engineers/managers branched out. Today, there are a large number of Fortune 100/500 companies located in SD, many of which started in SD. A great example is Qualcomm. Another sign of this is that unemployment is much lower in SD (6.7%) than in Sac (9.7%), and one of the lowest in the state. And, turnover time on finding a new job is significantly shorter (6wks vs 36wks for new comprable job in the same area/loc). This has formed a very real aversion to returning to Sac. And, it is the reason my network there evaporated. If you need to change jobs in Sac, you are probably going to move again. On the positive side... Most people who leave Sac end up in the Petaluma/Santa Rosa area (small comunities with a lot of tech companies 2 hours west of Sac), but the cost of living again is similar to SD (as is the quality of life).
Next, the established culture in SD. One, you have the Old Globe theater which is considered a major "off-Broadway" venue. That is to say, a large number of plays/musicals were first performed here before moving on to Broadway. Probably two of the more shining examples are : "Into The Woods" (which was first performed in 86), and "Allegaince" soon to open on Broadway (which opened in '13). The Old Globes fame atracts many famous actors to its stage. It is located in famous Balboa Park, which houses a sieres of Museums, Opera centers, and so on. SD also has a multiple sports facilities for pro sports. The Old Town in SD has been preserved much better than Old Town Sac. The number of restaurants that have 4 and 5 star ratings is much higher. (In fact, food in general is just that much better in SD over Sac). And, they boast a large number of micro-breweries. And, they have propably one of the most famous zoos in the world. If you want to travel... Disney is just an hour away, as is Joshua Park, and other great destinations like weekend cruises.... and last but not least... is the beach with it's semi-warm water and abundance of aquatic wildlife, as well as the ocean front shops.
On the flip side, Sac's Old Town is "nice". (But, the original "old-town" (the one that was very similar to SDs old town) was the Mormon Batallion Settlement located east of Folsom and now lies under water. That "was" the well preserved "old-town" back in the day.) I do like walking on the waterfront in Sac downtown. It's pretty. But, the cultural scene there is very low. If you live in Sac, be prepared to drive to SF several times a year. That said... There are a lot of nice things in driving distance: Tahoe, Reno, the Sierras, SF, Napa, Santa Rosa, Monterey, Yosemite and Lassen (a small version of Yellowstone). So, if you don't mind taking a lot of "day trips"/"weekend get aways", you can do a lot in Sac. It just requires more effort and planning. And, you are a little more limited.
Last, COL if you look at the data, the only piece of Cost Of Living that is really higher in SD is the cost of housing. And, on a morgage or rent, look to pay about 400-600$ a month more. But, in Sac the Cost of Utilities, namely power and gas is higher. You will have about a 20-30% increase in utilities in Sac over SD. As a rule of thumb, I consider Sac to be a 400$ a month raise over SD. But, I noticed in my past... that 400$ was usually used to get away from Sac at least once a month. The good part of Sac is that it really did force me to travel more. In SD, I rarely leave the SD/OC area, there really is enough to do.
I would say SD is a normally no brainer. But, in my case, I have to factor in the fact that my offer is coming from a great company, the offer is an amount that is the same as what I would get in SD (possibly a touch more), the job up there would be more stable, the benifits are significantly better, and I could get more house for the dollar (all attractions). I would leave behind the social network in SD (which includes family), diving community, the cultural events I enjoy, and an environment where I know the next job is a couple of interviews away if things go south. It will put me closer to a set of friends who have mostly moved on to Santa Rosa.
Anyway... Best of luck. This is what is going on in my head at the moment as well. And, at any given moment... I would give you a different answer as to where I will end up.
The unemployment rate for the Sacramento MSA in November 2014 was 6.7%. San Diego was a bit lower, 5.8%.
Not sure where that stuff about the Mormon Battalion settlement east of Folsom being the original site of Sacramento comes from, but no, that's just silly. Sutter's Fort was the original settlement, and the stuff along the waterfront came along with the Gold Rush. Sacramento was founded where the current city "grid" is located, from the river to east of Sutter's Fort, and the foot of K Street in what we now call Old Sacramento was where gold-seekers hopped off the boat on their way to the goldfields. There were plenty of short-term cities built and abandoned during the Gold Rush, Sacramento was the one that stayed, despite obstacles like fire and flood, and grew into a major city, just as San Francisco did. Mormon Island (assuming that's the flooded settlement you're talking about) burned to the ground in the 1850s and was never rebuilt, it has been flooded since the 1950s when Folsom Lake was created.
What you see now in Old Sacramento is intended to interpret Sacramento of the 1850s-1860s, when we were the second biggest city on the West Coast. Not an "Old Town," but an "Old City" of 10,000 people or so. San Diego was populated by about 500 at the time. So yes, they are different--San Diego was a tiny backwater when Sacramento was becoming the hub of the state's transportation network and its political center. Our connectivity really is our strength--being so close to so many regions of the state has been our main advantage since the gold rush. It's something to be proud of, not the criticism it so commonly becomes. Having San Francisco and the Sierras as neighbors is wonderful, creating a very regional mindset. Unlike the provincial San Franciscan, who thinks of Sacramento as a far-off place they never visit, the Sacramentan thinks of San Francisco as a potential option for lunch or an evening's entertainment. I don't even think of it as travel, any more than an Angeleno thinks of a drive or train trip of the same length that barely gets them across town. But there is plenty to do here, plenty of good food and drink, and plenty of entertainment, if one bothers to look for it.
San Diego is bigger, it's richer, there's more of it, their weather is disturbingly nice. If you like it better, that's just fine. But get your facts straight.
The unemployment rate for the Sacramento MSA in November 2014 was 6.7%. San Diego was a bit lower, 5.8%.
Not sure where that stuff about the Mormon Battalion settlement east of Folsom being the original site of Sacramento comes from, but no, that's just silly. Sutter's Fort was the original settlement, and the stuff along the waterfront came along with the Gold Rush. Sacramento was founded where the current city "grid" is located, from the river to east of Sutter's Fort, and the foot of K Street in what we now call Old Sacramento was where gold-seekers hopped off the boat on their way to the goldfields. There were plenty of short-term cities built and abandoned during the Gold Rush, Sacramento was the one that stayed, despite obstacles like fire and flood, and grew into a major city, just as San Francisco did. Mormon Island (assuming that's the flooded settlement you're talking about) burned to the ground in the 1850s and was never rebuilt, it has been flooded since the 1950s when Folsom Lake was created.
What you see now in Old Sacramento is intended to interpret Sacramento of the 1850s-1860s, when we were the second biggest city on the West Coast. Not an "Old Town," but an "Old City" of 10,000 people or so. San Diego was populated by about 500 at the time. So yes, they are different--San Diego was a tiny backwater when Sacramento was becoming the hub of the state's transportation network and its political center. Our connectivity really is our strength--being so close to so many regions of the state has been our main advantage since the gold rush. It's something to be proud of, not the criticism it so commonly becomes. Having San Francisco and the Sierras as neighbors is wonderful, creating a very regional mindset. Unlike the provincial San Franciscan, who thinks of Sacramento as a far-off place they never visit, the Sacramentan thinks of San Francisco as a potential option for lunch or an evening's entertainment. I don't even think of it as travel, any more than an Angeleno thinks of a drive or train trip of the same length that barely gets them across town. But there is plenty to do here, plenty of good food and drink, and plenty of entertainment, if one bothers to look for it.
San Diego is bigger, it's richer, there's more of it, their weather is disturbingly nice. If you like it better, that's just fine. But get your facts straight.
Merry Christmas, burg. I like how you said all this, true, accurate with a bit of Sacramento Pride that I don't always get from your posts.
Every time I visit family in San Diego, I see it as a smaller, provincial place, and insular, it's way too crowded, too expensive and too dry. I find that every year the Sacramento area offers more of what I want. The eyesores and blemishes, as Sacite put it, are surely being fixed and it is an exciting time to be in Sacramento.
Ironically, San Diego is less provincial than it ever has been, certainly more than when I was young living there, maybe it's because Sacramento has grown-up and become more cohesive that i see San Diego in this different light.
Sacramento will never have San Diego beaches, but San Diego will never have our nearby slopes, the American and Sacramento Rivers. San Diego has "perfect weather", too perfect. I hate that San Diego has so little rain.
Sacramento weather is pretty awesome too, with more variety than San Diego. and thankfuly twice the rain.
Can and will Sacramento have the kind money and private sector job offerings that San Diego has, in time it could happen, it depends on how much our politicians and the established locals want to fight for it. Apparently, according to the last poster we are headed in the right direction. Having said that Sacramento still has above median national income levels, above average educational attainment, and your Sacramento housing dollar goes twice as far as a San Diego dollar.
OP. I am currently in a similar position where I need to choose between the two cities. I lived for 10 years in Sac, and 4 in SD already. And, if the offer I have been extended in Sac weren't as over the top as it is, I probably wouldn't even consider Sac as a place to live again.
1st: I left Sac around 10 years ago. One thing I have noticed, all the close friends I made while there have left as well. And, this has factored into my thinking as I consider moving back. My social network there has pretty much disolved. The industerial/tech sector in Sac is small and close to non-existant. I have moved enough over the years, and don't want to start building a network from scratch yet again. (But, I still may.)
In an earlier post a couple of completely uninformed people made it sound like SD was very similar to Sac when it came to Industry/Tech. They obvioulsy do not know the SD area. SD started out many years ago as a place where lots of military research was done (so Govt jobs yes, Industry/Tech jobs YES). As those budgets collapsed in the 80s, 00s, ...; these engineers/managers branched out. Today, there are a large number of Fortune 100/500 companies located in SD, many of which started in SD. A great example is Qualcomm. Another sign of this is that unemployment is much lower in SD (6.7%) than in Sac (9.7%), and one of the lowest in the state. And, turnover time on finding a new job is significantly shorter (6wks vs 36wks for new comprable job in the same area/loc). This has formed a very real aversion to returning to Sac. And, it is the reason my network there evaporated. If you need to change jobs in Sac, you are probably going to move again. On the positive side... Most people who leave Sac end up in the Petaluma/Santa Rosa area (small comunities with a lot of tech companies 2 hours west of Sac), but the cost of living again is similar to SD (as is the quality of life).
Next, the established culture in SD. One, you have the Old Globe theater which is considered a major "off-Broadway" venue. That is to say, a large number of plays/musicals were first performed here before moving on to Broadway. Probably two of the more shining examples are : "Into The Woods" (which was first performed in 86), and "Allegaince" soon to open on Broadway (which opened in '13). The Old Globes fame atracts many famous actors to its stage. It is located in famous Balboa Park, which houses a sieres of Museums, Opera centers, and so on. SD also has a multiple sports facilities for pro sports. The Old Town in SD has been preserved much better than Old Town Sac. The number of restaurants that have 4 and 5 star ratings is much higher. (In fact, food in general is just that much better in SD over Sac). And, they boast a large number of micro-breweries. And, they have propably one of the most famous zoos in the world. If you want to travel... Disney is just an hour away, as is Joshua Park, and other great destinations like weekend cruises.... and last but not least... is the beach with it's semi-warm water and abundance of aquatic wildlife, as well as the ocean front shops.
On the flip side, Sac's Old Town is "nice". (But, the original "old-town" (the one that was very similar to SDs old town) was the Mormon Batallion Settlement located east of Folsom and now lies under water. That "was" the well preserved "old-town" back in the day.) I do like walking on the waterfront in Sac downtown. It's pretty. But, the cultural scene there is very low. If you live in Sac, be prepared to drive to SF several times a year. That said... There are a lot of nice things in driving distance: Tahoe, Reno, the Sierras, SF, Napa, Santa Rosa, Monterey, Yosemite and Lassen (a small version of Yellowstone). So, if you don't mind taking a lot of "day trips"/"weekend get aways", you can do a lot in Sac. It just requires more effort and planning. And, you are a little more limited.
Last, COL if you look at the data, the only piece of Cost Of Living that is really higher in SD is the cost of housing. And, on a morgage or rent, look to pay about 400-600$ a month more. But, in Sac the Cost of Utilities, namely power and gas is higher. You will have about a 20-30% increase in utilities in Sac over SD. As a rule of thumb, I consider Sac to be a 400$ a month raise over SD. But, I noticed in my past... that 400$ was usually used to get away from Sac at least once a month. The good part of Sac is that it really did force me to travel more. In SD, I rarely leave the SD/OC area, there really is enough to do.
I would say SD is a normally no brainer. But, in my case, I have to factor in the fact that my offer is coming from a great company, the offer is an amount that is the same as what I would get in SD (possibly a touch more), the job up there would be more stable, the benifits are significantly better, and I could get more house for the dollar (all attractions). I would leave behind the social network in SD (which includes family), diving community, the cultural events I enjoy, and an environment where I know the next job is a couple of interviews away if things go south. It will put me closer to a set of friends who have mostly moved on to Santa Rosa.
Anyway... Best of luck. This is what is going on in my head at the moment as well. And, at any given moment... I would give you a different answer as to where I will end up.
Wow, really? You are claiming Sac has a higher % of people that come and go (eg, "transients") than SD? You have that completely reversed. SD actually attracts people from all over the country and even the world who quickly find that the COL exceeded their expectations. Many of these people work service indusrty jobs and they are gone within a yr or two.
2nd, SD's downtown arguably has less energy than even Sac's meager downtown does currently, even without considering the new developments coming through. This is evidenced by the high volume of hotels and condominiums that dominate SD's skyline. One would expect that with an economy dominated by tourism. There are few office buildings there and even less foot traffic on most days, with the majority of it coming through the Gaslamp with 20 somethings, military etc and others who enjoy the nightlife.
Last, while SD may have some venues capable of showing major acts/art, the LOCAL art scene is nearly nonexistent and nowhere in the same universe as Sac's. Sac was just voted #2 most diverse and artistic city in the US by a major publication (as stated by SF news), was voted most diverse city in America by time magazine in 2002. When you have diversity + cheap COL it = thriving art community.
Old Town SD is "ok". It is admittedly better than Sac's Old Sac in terms of a family environment, outdoir eating etc. But it lags far behind on volume of small businesses, interstung/historical architecture, and unique venues. For example, there is no underground wine bar with a piano player in Old Town SD or anything close. Again, neither is "better" than the other. It's just a matter of preference.
So yes, if you want a beach and more opportunity to work in a corp environment (though still less opp than SF, LA etc) you'd choose SD over Sac. If you want stronger community, stronger interpersonal relationships, better art/music scene, cheap COL you'd choose Sac. Just depends on your preferences. FAR from a "slam dunk".
And FYI, if I am making a choice based primarily upon career opps, I am choosing Chicago, SF etc. Lol kinda a joke to chose SD for that reason.
Good points. Sacto hasn't changed much in the past 10 years I've been here. I'm sure the next 10 years will be significantly different. Some changes for the good, and some for the bad depending on your perspective. Too damn many people for my tastes, but I have a fantastic job and there's lots of different opportunities here that are just not found in smaller towns.
Thanks. I am obviously biased toward Sac, and I visited SD several times in hopes of liking it enough to transer there. But the "energy" part was something I could not get around. Overall, I felt as though SD attracted people who were either enthralled by the beach life or satisfied with a good Margarita and a taco. If I go back 15 yrs from now I am willing to bet the downtown will look exactly the same, the demographic exactly the same, etc. I did not want to live there 10 yrs and become part of that culture, going nowhere but the beach.
Last, while SD may have some venues capable of showing major acts/art, the LOCAL art scene is nearly nonexistent and nowhere in the same universe as Sac's. Sac was just voted #2 most diverse and artistic city in the US by a major publication (as stated by SF news), was voted most diverse city in America by time magazine in 2002. When you have diversity + cheap COL it = thriving art community.
Merry Christmas! Sacite,
Good info, the rating as 2nd most Diverse was confirmed for 2014 as well in another publication. Didn't catch the #2 artistic rating, Which one was that?
Sacramento is in the Top 10 for most FIT cities as well.
The presence of downtown high-rise condos in San Diego reminded me of when I met the director of San Diego's Little Italy about 2 years ago. He was really impressed with some aspects of Sacramento that seem to leave locals cold, such as Capitol Park--he couldn't believe that it was so underutilized, and was really impressed by its scale and beauty, but people here seem absolutely indifferent to a 40 acre open-air arboretum filled with plazas, landscapes and sculpture. He also noted the common use of big black fences around outdoor cafes where alcohol is served, insisting that those things can be minimized and where possible totally eliminated. A city staffer didn't believe him, claiming that they are required by state ABC law.
He also said that San Diego's downtown building boom was all residential, no office towers to speak of, because people today want to live in downtowns, not the suburbs, but they hardly need as much office space as they used to--if you've got a coffee shop with Wi-Fi and a laptop, you've *got* an office. So building housing downtown is of primary importance in San Diego, not building office towers and hoping that it will somehow induce construction of downtown housing as a second-order effect. He was also not convinced that Petco Park did anything good for downtown San Diego other than moving all the homeless people from the Gaslamp into his neighborhood. I didn't notice any homeless people in Little Italy on my one trip to San Diego--but I did notice that the Trolley line from the Gaslamp back to my hotel ran through a really quiet, desolate stretch of downtown offices where I saw a lot of homeless people sleeping on steps and sidewalks, the same way they do around Capitol Mall. I imagine San Diego is pretty much perfect for homeless people, the comfortable weather means you can live outdoors all year and not freeze to death.
Another thing I noticed is that downtown San Diego has an active freight railroad running through it, but that does not seem to be much of an obstacle for urban development, whereas our active freight railroad running through downtown is seen as something disastrous, and something utterly unknown in any other major city in the United States. Travel broadens the mind and often disabuses one of the notion that one's problems or situations are unique, and exposes one to how solutions in other places can be replicated at home, despite claims by those who don't leave town enough that this problem or that is unprecedented and insurmountable.
Good info, the rating as 2nd most Diverse was confirmed for 2014 as well in another publication. Didn't catch the #2 artistic rating, Which one was that?
Sacramento is in the Top 10 for most FIT cities as well.
Merry (late) X-Mas Cimerique! I heard this on bay area news last week - 2nd most ethnic and artistic city in the US - but did not catch the name of the publication. I have been searching for the link ever since. Have not found it yet, but will be sure to post it when I do.
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.
