2007-02-26 04:53:33 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ United States ➔ San Francisco
SAN FRANSICO! sacremonto is a one horse town with nothing to offer. San freansico on the other hand has so mcuh going on. been to both and hated sacramento but loved san franciso.
HOPE I HLEPED
2007-02-26 05:01:31 · answer #1 · answered by musclovr456 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
In terms of cultural and economic influence (which is the ultimate goal of urban capitalism), this is not a difficult question to answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
Los Angeles and San Francisco are very high up on the list. Sacramento isn't even mentioned.
However, Sacramento does have positives. It's still affordable. It's low-key and unpretentious. Overcrowding and lack of open space is not an issue yet. And since most of the population works for government bureaucracies or agriculture, the pace of life is also much slower (less stress).
San Francisco is a very stressful and competitive environment. It is a place of extremes...where the winners are multi-billionaires with large mansions, and the losers are forced to eat from garbage cans in the streets. You have to be ambitious to survive. However, there's no question that San Francisco is infinitely more exciting than Sacramento. It has the mother lode of Northern California's museums, nightclubs, operas. symphonies, theatres, and what have you.
2007-02-26 15:37:36 · answer #2 · answered by SFdude 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
SF has more to do
But Sac is WAY more affordable.
I just moved out of Sacramento and to me, it was too violent. There was always crazy stuff happening all over (not just Sacramento the city, but the whole Sacramento Metro)...
I can't speak for San Francisco on crime, as I don't live there, but I'm here in the South Bay and watch the same news channels and to me, it's not quite as bad as Sac.
There's more to do in San Francisco and it's more "city-fied" if you're into that stuff.
Sacramento is more "country-fied" which I like much better. Mellow pace, still farmlands (going quick though), places to camp, jump in rivers, water sports.... those are the kinds of stuff I like.
Because I have kids, I would pick Sacramento.
But if I didn't have kids, I would choose San Fran. SOOO much to do!!!
2007-02-26 13:06:01 · answer #3 · answered by LittleFreedom 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i totally agree with LittleFreedom. Also something to keep in mind about Sac is that is significantly warmer in the summer. It could be 100+ degrees there vs. say 65 in SF. SF barely tops out at 80 in the summer and is quite foggy.
I prefer SF better than Sac, but feel that they are totally different towns from each other.
2007-02-26 15:18:03 · answer #4 · answered by Lisa H 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
San Francisco, hands down.
It costs more, but you get what you pay for. Better music scene, better club scene, better food, and better looking women.
2007-02-26 13:02:32 · answer #5 · answered by Fraggle rawk 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋