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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 09-26-2009, 06:33 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,174,179 times
Reputation: 49244

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Screw Sacramento View Post
Actually it is a little worse than in other parts of the state, at least if the Sacramento Bee and the official labor market trends are to be believed. Currently unemployment here hovers somewhere between %11-%17, there is one position to every seven applicants, and out of all US cities with unemployment issues, it ranked 42 out of 50 (in the nation).

Dontknowifwe'recomingorgoing had a really good point about character. As much as I couldn't live in San Francisco, that city has a lot of character and is fun to visit. Auburn, too, has a small town character and Lake Tahoe is unequivocally beautiful and fun to visit. Colorado Springs (another area I lived) was strong in the character/recreation dept.

Sacramento does just seem to a big "small" city in the middle of the valley. The most character I've seen from it is Old Town Sacramento, thank God they kept that. It's just somewhat corporate and impersonal here, and the people don't seem to have too much going for them unless they enjoy politics.
ok, yes, the unemployment rate is similar to the rest of the state,but combine that with the statement about cost of living. I guess it depends not only on facts but attitude. You do not like Sac. that is fair, a lot of people do not, but many do and I disagree about character if you look to the downtown area. Most major cities do not have a lot if you are considering the outlining areas filled with tract homes and small fenced yards, huge shopping centers and freeways. That is part of the urban spraw I guess.

As for the people, again, it is a matter of opinion. I do not know where you lived, your age group or how involved with the comuunity you get, but we found the people in Sacramento very real, more so than many places we have lived.

It all boiled down, pretty much, to attitude. Oh, I do believe the labor dept stats to some degree but I don't believe any stats too much, would I believe anything I read in the Bee? Most likely not or only 1/2 of it.

Nita

 
Old 09-26-2009, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
302 posts, read 861,812 times
Reputation: 159
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
ok, yes, the unemployment rate is similar to the rest of the state,but combine that with the statement about cost of living. I guess it depends not only on facts but attitude. You do not like Sac. that is fair, a lot of people do not, but many do and I disagree about character if you look to the downtown area. Most major cities do not have a lot if you are considering the outlining areas filled with tract homes and small fenced yards, huge shopping centers and freeways. That is part of the urban spraw I guess.

As for the people, again, it is a matter of opinion. I do not know where you lived, your age group or how involved with the comuunity you get, but we found the people in Sacramento very real, more so than many places we have lived.

It all boiled down, pretty much, to attitude. Oh, I do believe the labor dept stats to some degree but I don't believe any stats too much, would I believe anything I read in the Bee? Most likely not or only 1/2 of it.

Nita

I don't really know about the unemployment in the rest of the state, I've lived mostly from Sacramento --> Chico --> Redding. Not south of Sac though. The labor statistics right now from within and outside Sacramento (such as CNN) seem to be screaming that it's having some problems comparably to the rest of the nation. Other places I've lived are Colorado Springs and Denver.

So to be fair I guess you could say Sacramento has character for some people, I just haven't "felt" a lot of it. I got kind of the recreational, sports vibe out of Colorado Springs and Denver. San Francisco no doubt has personality although it's too expensive and tight for me to ever consider residing there. I guess I just felt Sacramento was kind of bland in comparison to those two places.
 
Old 09-30-2009, 02:21 PM
 
3,633 posts, read 6,140,733 times
Reputation: 11375
Quote:
Originally Posted by Screw Sacramento View Post
So to be fair I guess you could say Sacramento has character for some people, I just haven't "felt" a lot of it. I got kind of the recreational, sports vibe out of Colorado Springs and Denver. San Francisco no doubt has personality although it's too expensive and tight for me to ever consider residing there. I guess I just felt Sacramento was kind of bland in comparison to those two places.
I agree, having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for half my life and San Francisco for 18 years. I find the Sacramento area very bland, also. People always talk about how great the location is because you're two hours from the ocean or mountains, but sheesh - that's 4 hours round trip if traffic is kind to you, so for shorter day trips to much of anything scenic, you're out of luck. I've traveled all over the area, and there are nice places, but nothing really exceptional. I'm not sure I've ever gone back a second time to any of them...I tend to head up to the mountains or over to the coast, instead.

I also dislike the air quality and heat. The heat is tolerable because it's dry, but it's still hot. And there are cultural things I don't care for about the area, like the insistence on green surburban lawns in a place with no summer rain, overuse of air conditioning, etc. that make it a very environmentally-unaware place, to me.

I don't get the appeal of this area - but that's just me, and I realize everyone has different wants and needs. I've just started construction on a small home is a community by the sea and mountains, with cool summers, clean air, and lots of clean water - in another state - and will be leaving next July 1. I really can't wait. 8 years in this area has been more than enough for me!
 
Old 09-30-2009, 03:37 PM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,174,179 times
Reputation: 49244
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelbug View Post
I agree, having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for half my life and San Francisco for 18 years. I find the Sacramento area very bland, also. People always talk about how great the location is because you're two hours from the ocean or mountains, but sheesh - that's 4 hours round trip if traffic is kind to you, so for shorter day trips to much of anything scenic, you're out of luck. I've traveled all over the area, and there are nice places, but nothing really exceptional. I'm not sure I've ever gone back a second time to any of them...I tend to head up to the mountains or over to the coast, instead.

I also dislike the air quality and heat. The heat is tolerable because it's dry, but it's still hot. And there are cultural things I don't care for about the area, like the insistence on green surburban lawns in a place with no summer rain, overuse of air conditioning, etc. that make it a very environmentally-unaware place, to me.

I don't get the appeal of this area - but that's just me, and I realize everyone has different wants and needs. I've just started construction on a small home is a community by the sea and mountains, with cool summers, clean air, and lots of clean water - in another state - and will be leaving next July 1. I really can't wait. 8 years in this area has been more than enough for me!
wow, this shows how we all preceive things differently: I guess living in SF for many years as well as living on the east coast, you might consider Sac dry. I consider it pretty humid.

As for the cultural aspect, and some of your other negatives, you are not the only person who feels that way. No place is perfect for everyone as you pretty much have said. I happen to like it better than anyplace we lived in Ca, but that is me.

Nita
 
Old 09-30-2009, 05:15 PM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,197,096 times
Reputation: 4685
Not sure why one would consider Sacramento humid, unless you grew up in the Southwest or other desert region.

I guess what people mean by "character" varies. In Sacramento, I find that the older parts of town (not just the 6 blocks of Old Sac, but the central city and surrounding neighborhoods) have a lot of character, and even some of the older 1950s neighborhoods are starting to be old enough to have a sense of style. If you're really into sea and mountains, Sacramento isn't going to have too much appeal.

In terms of environmental awareness, as people make very clear, it gets very hot here so there isn't really much alternative to use, or "over-use" of air conditioning, and while we don't have much rain in the summer, we have water because of our position in a river valley. Historic homes built before air conditioning was common have features designed to make the heat more tolerable, like high ceilings and attic vents (to give hot air somewhere to go), double-hung windows, big porches in front, sleeping porches in the back, and of course plentiful trees for shade, both on houses and on sidewalks. Trees were a historic feature of the Sacramento Valley before the arrival of Europeans--the valley oaks prodiced acorns, abundant enough to be the primary dietary staple of thousands of Nisenan tribespeople. Building lots tend to be very small, so front lawns are far more limited (typically 10-15 feet, 25 feet for the more mansion-like parts of town) and building densities relatively high. Old streetcar suburbs were built very differently than modern developments--and prior to World War II, all of our suburbs were built as streetcar suburbs.

So in many ways, the historic neighborhoods tend to be more "environmentally friendly" by design, while mid-century and later neighborhoods, built when it was assumed that we'd never run out of land, gasoline, water or electricity, reflect a different philosophy. Things like inefficient design, car-centrism, air conditioning and big lawns were done pretty much everywhere in the country, not just here. Modern development is rediscovering some of these ways to make buildings more energy-efficient, but we are just now getting back to the levels of inherent passive energy efficiency that were commonplace in the 1930s.

One factor of environmental awareness is local agriculture, and in that aspect Sacramento is in a very good position: as the center of an agricultural breadbasket, locally grown products are very easy to get. In fact, most of what you find in Bay Area supermarkets or farmer's markets that says "Locally Grown" probably came from the Sacramento Valley. It's easy to be a locavore here.

The "two hours from everything" trope is overused. If you really love the mountains or the ocean you probably won't find Sacramento's terrain much to your liking, but you can make your way down into the Delta or up into the foothills in considerably less than two hours, and while Sacramento's cultural amenities aren't up to San Francisco or Los Angeless standards, neither are those of most American cities.
 
Old 09-30-2009, 11:29 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,128,906 times
Reputation: 3248
I think the two hours from everything trope is used to point out that one can live the California lifestyle and can enjoy all the things that are in northern california while living in sac. One is only stuck in the confines of the metro area if they allow themselves to be.

I hit the slopes a dozen times a year. The fact that I can wake up at 7, and be on the road by 8, in time to be the first in line when the lifts start running, while people in silicon valley wake up at the crack of dawn to achieve the same results, typically gives me an edge when enjoying the mountains. Conversely it takes me much less time to get home.

When I want to go to SF, have a night on the town, or go to giants game, its roughly a couple hours to the city or to a Bart station and I have all the urbanity the bay has to offer with in my reach.

True our cultural amenities may be lacking compared to other cities but having the bay area with in reach really makes up for anything missing in sac.
 
Old 10-01-2009, 02:38 AM
 
Location: Macao
16,265 posts, read 42,984,230 times
Reputation: 10231
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
I think the two hours from everything trope is used to point out that one can live the California lifestyle and can enjoy all the things that are in northern california while living in sac. One is only stuck in the confines of the metro area if they allow themselves to be.

I hit the slopes a dozen times a year. The fact that I can wake up at 7, and be on the road by 8, in time to be the first in line when the lifts start running, while people in silicon valley wake up at the crack of dawn to achieve the same results, typically gives me an edge when enjoying the mountains. Conversely it takes me much less time to get home.

When I want to go to SF, have a night on the town, or go to giants game, its roughly a couple hours to the city or to a Bart station and I have all the urbanity the bay has to offer with in my reach.

True our cultural amenities may be lacking compared to other cities but having the bay area with in reach really makes up for anything missing in sac.
I wonder if one way to look at is by comparing Sacramento to your general generic Bay Area cities. I think generally if a person is in Walnut Grove or wherever, he probably wouldn't go into the city of SF that much either.

So in some ways, it is probably better to compare Sacramento as a complete city versus some random Bay Area suburb...and decide which is better. If they are more or less the same, I'd think that since Sacramento actually IS a real city, then it would win out - both would still have SF not all that far away, and probably get into it about as often.
 
Old 10-01-2009, 10:56 AM
 
8,680 posts, read 17,197,096 times
Reputation: 4685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Beer View Post
I wonder if one way to look at is by comparing Sacramento to your general generic Bay Area cities. I think generally if a person is in Walnut Grove or wherever, he probably wouldn't go into the city of SF that much either.
Not so sure about that. An awful lot of people in the Bay Area seem to base their regional superiority on their proximity to San Francisco, and pretty much all of my friends in the Bay Area go into "the city" quite frequently for clubs, cultural events or shopping/dining options. Tens of thousands of people commute into San Francisco from the suburbs for work 5 days a week.

You are correct in that most Bay Area cities are not particularly self-contained: they were designed as streetcar suburbs or auto suburbs for San Francisco. Some of them, like Oakland and San Jose, grew into cities in their own right, but for the most part they are defined by their proximity to San Francisco, and if San Francisco were to fall into the sea the result would be a huge economic vacuum in most of the surrounding region.

While there are a handful of people who commute from Sacramento to San Francisco, and a few hardcore club people who go to clubs in San Francisco for clubs/shows on a regular basis, they're a small number compared to the total Bay Area.

Quote:
So in some ways, it is probably better to compare Sacramento as a complete city versus some random Bay Area suburb...and decide which is better. If they are more or less the same, I'd think that since Sacramento actually IS a real city, then it would win out - both would still have SF not all that far away, and probably get into it about as often.
You also have my applause, sir, for realizing that Sacramento is a "real city" in that it is economically self-contained. We're not a suburb of anywhere. Our suburbs aren't real cities, but suburbs aren't supposed to be real cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCalDude
True our cultural amenities may be lacking compared to other cities but having the bay area with in reach really makes up for anything missing in sac.
Depends on what you mean by "other cities." If the "other cities" are San Francisco and Los Angeles (the cultural capitals of the western United States) we're kind of lacking, but compared to other cities of similar size and scale, we pull our own weight just fine.
 
Old 10-01-2009, 07:14 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 9,128,906 times
Reputation: 3248
Yes I must add the first half of my life I spent in Chicago, until I was roughly 13. So when I say other cities I mean big metros like LA the bay etc. Compared to other state capitols and other cities just shy of 500k I think we pull our own weight fine.

I'm just saying if I wanna say get some illegal fire works in China town for my nephew, go to Giants game or jog across the golden gate than I need to go to sf. For me I just need urbanity in doses. I go to SF once a month and I am good. Sac suits me just fine.
 
Old 10-04-2009, 03:07 PM
 
Location: San Diego (Unv Heights)
815 posts, read 2,688,857 times
Reputation: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelbug View Post
I agree, having lived in the Washington, D.C. area for half my life and San Francisco for 18 years. I find the Sacramento area very bland, also. People always talk about how great the location is because you're two hours from the ocean or mountains, but sheesh - that's 4 hours round trip if traffic is kind to you, so for shorter day trips to much of anything scenic, you're out of luck. I've traveled all over the area, and there are nice places, but nothing really exceptional. I'm not sure I've ever gone back a second time to any of them...I tend to head up to the mountains or over to the coast, instead.

I also dislike the air quality and heat. The heat is tolerable because it's dry, but it's still hot. And there are cultural things I don't care for about the area, like the insistence on green surburban lawns in a place with no summer rain, overuse of air conditioning, etc. that make it a very environmentally-unaware place, to me.

I don't get the appeal of this area - but that's just me, and I realize everyone has different wants and needs. I've just started construction on a small home is a community by the sea and mountains, with cool summers, clean air, and lots of clean water - in another state - and will be leaving next July 1. I really can't wait. 8 years in this area has been more than enough for me!
**************************************************
Excellent thoughts!
You pretty much summed up how I feel about Sacramento to a tee.
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.


Closed Thread


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