Somewhat surprisingly, my hometown Sacramento was recently included on a new Yahoo! Finance list of ten Best Cities to Live, Work and Play in the U.S. “Our approach this year to picking the ten best cities in which to live and work was simple: Look for places with strong economies and abundant jobs, then demand reasonable living costs and plenty of fun things to do.” The results of the study:
The Top Ten Cities to Live, Work, & Play
- Houston, Texas
- Raleigh, North Carolina
- Omaha, Nebraska
- Boise, Idaho
- Colorado Springs, Colorado
- Austin, Texas
- Fayetteville, Arkansas
- Sacramento, California
- Des Moines, Iowa
- Provo, Utah
With a population just over 2 million, Sacramento is the largest city besides Houston, TX. The researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute say that about 34% of workers are in the creative field, surprisingly. And it’s revelatory to learn that we’re also the only city on the list that has an above-average cost-of-living index, at 121.7% the national average!
It is promising that the researchers believe the California state capital has a relatively healthy job market and shows promise for future success, but I also wanted to take the opportunity to examine reader feedback.
Although Yahoo! doesn’t allow discussion, a reprint of the results at Lifehacker has already prompted over 100 comments:
XanderCrews says:
“Living in one of the suburbs would be fine, if an acceptable starter home was available for less than $350,000.”
aj_robins says:
“There may be fun things to do there, but the cost of living is probably only great compared to Southern California or the San Francisco Bay area. The price of homes in Sacramento is still pretty high compared to other parts of the country.”
Listen2Eurobeat says:
“I’ve lived in Sacramento for 8 years and the only things you can do there are LIVE and WORK. […] You’ll have a hard time finding PLAY in that city.”
cnc says:
“…the real estate bust hit here harder than almost anywhere else in the country. Starter homes in decent suburban neighborhoods can now be had around $200,000, which is what they were about six years ago. Cost of living has improved dramatically (or worsened, depending on whether or not you’re a homeowner).”
Xerloq says, with regards to Sacramento:
“Move to Napa. Nice winters, though. I prefer the wine country and the Delta area more though, especially with BART nearby. Summer not bad, though it’s far from everything (e.g. San Francisco).”
Mile High Soapbox says:
“I don’t know why Sacramento is on the list. It has crazy traffic, pollution, is no where near anywhere to play.”
Looks like lots of commentary regarding the housing bubble. And it is eye-opening how high the cost of living is here, which might help explain why it’s so difficult to prosper in this town, financially.
On the bright side, danahyatt adds a more positive note:
“Overall, Sac has everything that one wants in a living place. Employment is plentiful while cost of living is low (in balance) compared to salary. Transportation (public) relies on county board’s decision making, and comes up short most of the time. Poor public transportation. Mid town is accessible to most everything one needs. Schools are wonderful. CSUS offers classes in everything. However there should be more PHD Degrees offered. It’s hard to complain about anything here in Sacramento.”
And cnc returns to say:
“I see the glass as half full. Outdoor dining is awesome as late as you want to go. […] Sacramento isn’t as cosmopolitan as the Bay Area, and our outlying areas are as boring as anywhere. But the central city is vibrant, interesting and fun and the weather for most of the year can’t be beat.”
It’s always interesting to hear people’s perspectives on our little city in comparison to other parts of the country. I enjoy it here and I know I’ll want to return one day, but I know I’m definitely prepared to experience life in another part of the world! I wonder if prosperity is easier to achieve in other areas with a lower cost-of-living index and a little less “keeping up with the Joneses.”
Unless I am mistaken, Vancouver BC was recently listed as the #4 city in the world to live, on a recent list. As much as I love the city – I was there for 5 years, and now live just a ferry ride away – and as pleasant as it CAN be it doesn’t deserve to be fourth.
Like the comments that you received it is tough to survive there because of housing prices. You have to be loaded to buy a house even in the crappiest parts of town, and their traffic problems are horrible. Vancouver made #1 in the world several times in the late 90′s and has been downhill since – it should sit at number eight, barely in the top 10 until they figure out some basic traffic, and average citizen comforts.
One thing they do have it space, and place to play.
I grew up from about age 2 to 13 in Yuba City – just north of Sacramento. It was my one reference point for a place to live. A few years after I moved out, I saw that Rand McNally rated all metropolitan areas in the US: Yuba City came in dead last. I found this unsurprising (Yuba City has less in the way of culture than, say, Boston? – this is news?) and rather comforting. I learned it was the country’s worst place and I had been happy there. My conclusion? I could be happy anywhere. That was comforting.
And yes, Vancouver is a great city (my wife’s hometown). And yes, great cities are going to be expensive.
I used to live in Sacramento and thought it was a terrible place to live. High pollution, poor public transportation, poor road conditions, bad traffic for commuters, high crime, extremely high cost of living, and very poor public schools. I had relatives and friends that worked in the public school system and they encouraged us to put our kids in private schools. I have lived in several major cities and a few smaller cities so I have a lot of experience to compare Sacramento to. Who ever ranked Sacramento #8 has never lived there or hasn’t in a very long time.