Sacramento or San Diego, Please Help! (Riverside, Oceanside: home, live, beach)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by sav858

Also SD has one of the highest % of parkland in the country, if you think Balboa Park is all there is then you're really selling SD short on its parks. It's filled with a ton of natural canyons all over the city too in the city core and more suburban areas, the city is built atop various mesas separated by undeveloped canyons.
.

It’s weird how your perspective is always to discount Sacramento’s attributes especially if they are compared with any Cali coastal city, and you make it sound like the suburban areas have nothing to offer; take a walk in the old downtowns of Roseville, Folsom, Fair Oaks.

Sorry, but the parks of Sacramento City and County are numerous and more pleasant and enjoyable than San Diego’s canyons. Those canyons are practically treeless by Sacramento standards, and bone dry. The Beaches and the Bays of San Diego are world famous, but if I want to take a raft ride down a clean fresh river, can’t do that in San Diego, but I can in Sacramento.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by sav858

Sure you can compare it but you're not really going to find any quantifiable metric aside from COL where Sac outshines SD in any way. But of course that doesn't really mean much when it comes to people's personal preference on where to live. It's perfectly fine that you or anyone else prefer Sac but what I think is ridiculous is how to try criticize SD for certain issues (lack of urbanity, sprawl, etc..)that are far worse in Sac. Then you talk about objectivity when you seem to lack that completely when it comes to talking about SD. Personally I think it's because you don't like Sd and it bothers you that so many others do.

Also LOL @ the Kings analogy. Their attendance plummetted after they started to lose (such a strong sense of community lol) and almost left town for the LA market of all places.

This makes me chuckle.

I think its because you don't like Sacramento and it bothers you that so many others do, certainly more than you are accustomed to.

After 8 years of deficient owners, consistent lawsuits, adversarial outside interests like Seattle billionaires, Sacramento weathered the storm because it has the most loyal fans and has a huge sense of community.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by pistola916

Anybody who followed the Kings saga would know that attendance began to decline when the Maloofs alienated the fan base and began talking to other cities about possible relocation. Sac has some of the most loyal fans in the NBA. Two of the largest sellout streaks in league history belong to Sac.

Sacramento Kings fans remain loyal despite years of instability, losing - NBA - SI.com

Personally, you question a poster's objectivity toward a city yet you'll find anything to downgrade Sacramento's uniqueness and charm whether its the Kings, Midtown, lack of urbanity and culture, or comparisons to San Jose/Oakland. Maybe you have a personal vendetta against Sacramento or you're a Bay Area snob. Just admit it you dislike Sacramento and be over it.

I was being facetious with the Kings comment because of the remark Sacite made earlier about losing teams and what that apparently says about a community.

I think you need to read my posts a little closer. I'm never said Sac lacks uniqueness, charm, urbanity, culture, etc.. But to try to act like a city like San Diego doesn't in comparison to a city like Sac is complete BS. Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to complain about SD's lack of urbanity, sprawl, etc..when comparing it to Sacramento, a city that has it even worse? Sure if you're comparing SD to SF but to SACRAMENTO? That's my issue, get it now? I like Sac for what it is but some of you homers go so overboard and try to oversell it while at the same time degrading other cities for issues that Sacramento has as well and to a worse extent. "Bay Area Snob" LOL, god some of you have such an inferiority complex.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

It’s weird how your perspective is always to discount Sacramento’s attributes especially if they are compared with any Cali coastal city, and you make it sound like the suburban areas have nothing to offer; take a walk in the old downtowns of Roseville, Folsom, Fair Oaks.

Sorry, but the parks of Sacramento City and County are numerous and more pleasant and enjoyable than San Diego’s canyons. Those canyons are practically treeless by Sacramento standards, and bone dry. The Beaches and the Bays of San Diego are world famous, but if I want to take a raft ride down a clean fresh river, can’t do that in San Diego, but I can in Sacramento.

I'm not discounting them, I was just pointing out the issues Sacite has with SD are just as much and arguiably more of a problem with Sac. I already admitted both areas of issues with sprawl and never claimed there was nothing redeeming in the suburbs of either place. You guys get so defensive and put words in my mouth and really don't see to be understanding the point I'm trying to make.

I never said Sac didn't have nice parks or even criticize them, this another case of a Sac homer reading way too much into my comment. That's nice you prefer Sac's parks, I personally find the urban canyons in the middle of the city or places like Torrey Pines much more breathtaking and pleasurable that what you can find in Sac.

Ok and if you want to go play in the waves, surf, bodyboard, ocean fishing, ect.. you can't do that in Sac, so what is your point?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

This makes me chuckle.

I think its because you don't like Sacramento and it bothers you that so many others do, certainly more than you are accustomed to.

After 8 years of deficient owners, consistent lawsuits, adversarial outside interests like Seattle billionaires, Sacramento weathered the storm because it has the most loyal fans and has a huge sense of community.

I've already told you before I like Sacramento and can appreciate for what it is but posters like you compltely oversell it then you have other posters that on top of that try to degrade other cities for the same exact issues Sac has.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by sav858

Sure if you're comparing SD to SF but to SACRAMENTO? That's my issue, get it now?

I think this where you are the one that is confused. You think, for whatever reason, SD and Sac are worlds apart, when they are not.

I don't like SF but SF and SD are actually the two places that are worlds apart, not SD and Sac.

edit: And to further clarify. SF is like a very very tiny NYC on the west cost.

LA, SD, and Sac are very similar in the way the metro is organized. SF (the city itself, not the metro) is actually the outlier in west coast cities.

The only difference is LA is gigantic its population and land area. Sac And SD are similar in population while one has beaches and the other has rivers.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'm not discounting them, I was just pointing out the issues Sacite has with SD are just as much and arguiably more of a problem with Sac. I already admitted both areas of issues with sprawl and never claimed there was nothing redeeming in the suburbs of either place. You guys get so defensive and put words in my mouth and really don't see to be understanding the point I'm trying to make.

I never said Sac didn't have nice parks or even criticize them, this another case of a Sac homer reading way too much into my comment. That's nice you prefer Sac's parks, I personally find the urban canyons in the middle of the city or places like Torrey Pines much more breathtaking and pleasurable that what you can find in Sac.

Ok and if you want to go play in the waves, surf, bodyboard, ocean fishing, ect.. you can't do that in Sac, so what is your point?

On that note the entire East Bay (except for a few slices here and there), North Bay, and Silicon Valley, have issues with sprawl......not sure how Sacramento and SD are any worse.

Are the Pines breathtaking because they overlook a nude beach, lol. The bluffs and cliffs and beaches are awesome yes, but the American and Sacramento Rivers are very nice too! I do both, less of the surfing, I the older get, more on the rafting the older I get.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Majin

I think this where you are the one that is confused. You think, for whatever reason, SD and Sac are worlds apart, when they are not.

I don't like SF but SF and SD are actually the two places that are worlds apart, not SD and Sac.

edit: And to further clarify. SF is like a very very tiny NYC on the west cost.

LA, SD, and Sac are very similar in the way the metro is organized. SF (the city itself, not the metro) is actually the outlier in west coast cities.

The only difference is LA is gigantic its population and land area. Sac And SD are similar in population while one has beaches and the other has rivers.

No actually you STILL don't get what I am trying to say, I don't think they are worlds apart at all which is why I recognize how they both have issues with sprawl. Yes I do think Sd is more urban, denser in its core (that is a fact), etc. but I never said or indicated it was worlds apart and not comparable. But AGAIN, to complain about Sd's issues with sprawl and urbanity when you are coming from Sacramento is ridiculous because they both are more alike in that aspect and both have similar issues. My argument this whole time has been they are more alike in that aspect which is why it's ridiculous to criticize Sd but not Sac for it. Do you understand what I am getting at yet? Not sure how many more times and to how many more people I need to explain that to but of course none of you have admitted to Sac's issues with sprawl and lack of urbanity yet....

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by wburg

Speaking of which, Sacramento's K Street Downtown Plaza opened several decades before Horton Plaza. It was rebuilt as a two-story semi-enclosed mall a couple years after Horton Plaza, using the same architect, on the assumption that the old pig needed new lipstick. The old K Street Downtown Plaza didn't meet much success because there weren't enough downtown residents to support a mall--although there was more retail downtown in the 1970s and 80s, as downtown's population stabilized in the wake of redevelopment, but then it declined again in the 1990s and 2000s.

Wrong burg, so very wrong. Sacramento's K street Mall opened several decades before Horton Plaza, but not the re-furbished Downtown Plaza which opened in the early 90's and was very much modeled after Horton Plaza.

Key point. Horton Plaza was the stimulus, the catalyst before the housing brought the residents downtown. San Diegans needed a reason to go downtown. It was a perfect match in bringing suburbanites and tourists together in one place and later the new found downtown residents.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

On that note the entire East Bay (except for a few slices here and there), North Bay, and Silicon Valley, have issues with sprawl......not sure how Sacramento and SD are any worse.

Are the Pines breathtaking because they overlook a nude beach, lol. The bluffs and cliffs and beaches are awesome yes, but the American is great too! I do both, less of the surfing I the older get, more on the rafting the older I get.

Well Oakland and Berkeley are a decent sized slice. Both those areas could somewhat compare to the urban areas of Sac and Sd though. But SF is what makes it an outlier. It has a core completely different than anything west of Chicago. Yes the Bay Area has plenty of sprawl but it also has an urban environment that nothing in SD or Sac comes close to.

Eh most of Black's Beach is to the south from what I remember. The cliff erosion and views are pretty spectacular. Snorkeling at the Cove, swimming with the Leopard Sharks at LJ Shores, spending hours in teh waves, etc..I just love the ocean, always have and will. I grew up going to lakes and rivers all over Northern Ca and loved it too but to me the shoreline and beaches just don't really compare to the ocean.