Yet another “Where do I move?!?!?” Thread (solved)

rebootwrote:

Then why do most of these people end up leaving after a while? Maybe it was never worth it & they just didn't know any better?

This is a very basic and well studied phenomenon of sociology. They move to the city in their 20s, enjoy a great time, turn thirty and move to the burbs to start families. it's not that it was never worth it, they just matured and developed new values

JCMwrote:

.    

Bonus points to:

- low to average cost of living

Not really. It is the west coast. Though it is probably the least expensive major metro on the west coast. It is pricey here, but no worse than anywhere else with job opportunities, good weather, outdoors access, an airport, and urban entertainments.

- lively city/active dating scene

Yes. Live "on the grid" in Midtown or adjacent neighborhoods and you will be in a lively, walkable city with lots of entertainment options and young people. It is also very compact, on a flat grid, which means it is very easy to get to wherever you want to go. I'd argue that Midtown Sac is a better urban neighborhood than any part of Seattle. Avoid the vast sprawling suburbs to the east of Sac though.

The central city is beautiful too. Lush with dense tree cover in the neighborhoods. Very different from the desert vibe of many other western cities. Yet is it also very sunny here. It’s a nice combo to have both the sun and the greenery.

I was gonna argue about there being entertainment options but I actually looked and Sacramento has a lot of music events. And you guys have the beam.

oldfattradguuy kkwrote:

Everything looks good when you live in CT or anywhere in the east. 

I've never looked back and now could no longer stand living anywhere east of Denver.

By time the Olympics came, SLC already had a fork in its ass!

By time the Olympics came, SLC already had a fork in its ass!

Folks were already leaving by 2000

Sure. And now we're still one of the fastest growing metro areas in the west.

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I was gonna argue about there being entertainment options but I actually looked and Sacramento has a lot of music events. And you guys have the beam.

LIGHT THE BEAM!

didn’t sacramento break records last year for consecutive days over 100 degrees? 41 over 100 in total, plus fire days. is tahoe still climbable when sac is sitting at 110?

Interesting thread conclusion, regarding Nevada City / Grass Valley.  While I am a fan of this part of NorCal generally, Grass Valley seems an odd choice given OP's criteria. OP seemed to indicate an interest in urban amenities, dating scene, and a good ropes climbing gym - and those small foothills towns do not offer those things.  I also would argue that the climbing access from Grass Valley isn't that great. While you are closer to the I-80 climbing (as compared to Sac), you aren't closer-enough to make a big difference in day-to-day accessibility. And everything else - the I-50 climbing, the coast, Yosemite, etc, is farther away. When we moved to this area we took a serious look at living in Auburn, and in the end decided that the tradeoffs weren't really worth it and we'd rather live in the city.  That said, we prefer living in an urban neighborhood. If you prefer the environment of a rural small town (as many do), the Sierra foothills are a nice place.

If OP is interested in Sierra foothills rural living, an arguably better choice to consider is the Sonora/Jamestown/Columbia area. That area has, IMO, much better climbing access than Grass Valley. In town basalt sport climbing (and amazing marble bouldering) for the winter, high-quality granite up Sonora Pass for the summer (which offer much solitude - an overlooked gem), and within reasonable day trip distance (1:45) of Yosemite/Tuolumne. I figure if you're going to take the tradeoffs of the foothills, might as well go for the best climbing access.  It is more conservative over there though, so that's a consideration.

Also worth noting that the foothills climate is notably worse than in Sacramento in the summer. In town we get the "Delta Breeze" which cools things off notably in the evening in the summer. Gets real hot in the afternoon, but its pretty nice from 8pm to 11am every day. Can open up you house at night, and there is a window of really nice weather in the morning every day to go for a run or bike ride or whatever. Whereas the inland areas (foothills) stay a lot hotter overnight.

JCM lays it out nicely. One thing he doesn't mention, and it can be a big deal to some, is air quality. The air in the Central valley is / can be from poor to worst-in-the-nation during summer, the farther you get away from the Delta. And when the wildfires are burning, the smoke can be hellish in the valley. In a bad year it can be smokey for weeks, literally. 

The other thing about the air quality is super important to know, the bad air (and winter fog) laps up onto the foothills, like waves up on a beach. When a summertime inversion layer sets in, and they often do, temps soar and the bad air thickens; 1000, 2000 even 3000 feet thick. So, odd as it may seem, lower foothill communities along the foot of the western slope of the Sierra, have some of the worst air of all, particularly ozone and smoke/smog. Towns at 2000 feet or lower, while they might not get as hot as the valley floor, don't cool off in the evenings as much and the air is not pleasant for weeks at a time. 

All that said I've come to love where I live and the opportunities for uncrowded climbing are as true as others have said.

petzl logicwrote:

didn’t sacramento break records last year for consecutive days over 100 degrees? 41 over 100 in total, plus fire days. is tahoe still climbable when sac is sitting at 110?

It was a hot summer for sure, but the daytime high in town doesn't tell the full story. There is a huge diurnal range here, and a day will a 100 degree high often still has a 60 degree overnight low. Evenings are pretty nice for hanging out outside, and there is a window of great weather in the morning every day in the summer for outdoor activities. Mid-afternoon is hot, of course. 

If it is 100 in Sac, Tahoe is still quite good at shady crags. Low 100s highs in Sac means mid-70s highs in Tahoe at 7000 feet. A shady crag, dry air, and a bit of a breeze, and it is quite comfortable - even a bit chilly first thing in the morning.  If it is 110+ in Sac, then you're looking at 80s in Tahoe. At that point I don't bother going up there and go to the coast instead (which will still be in the 60s and has some nice climbing), or just take it as a weekend off and hang out at home. It isn't in the 110s that often.

It's also worth noting that I think of summer as the off-season for hard climbing - You still climb plenty but you take your foot off the gas a bit. So if there are a few weeks that are too hot to go climbing, that's fine. It's the off season, after all.  I'll happily take that over months of snow or rain in the winter.

----

Re: Air Quality. 100% agree with Cherokee. The heat isn't that big a deal to me, but the air quality is. It can a big bummer. If there is one thing that will cause me to move away from this region, it is the air quality. Be warned. But also as Cherokee notes, being in Sac proper is better for this than the foothills - the delta breeze will bring in clean and cool marine air in the summer.  There were times this past summer where we had "green" (good) AQI in Sac, but 15 miles east in Folsom is a smokey mess. The foothills have the worst air quality, since all the polluton gets pushed up to the base of the mountains and gets stuck there,

----

Kevin Worrall's point about San Diego is valid - if the absolute best climate in the country is your main priority, then San Diego is the place to be. And they do have some decent local crags down there. But there are tradeoffs. The best "local" crags in San Diego aren't actually notably closer to town than the good Tahoe crags are to Sac. The bigger issue for me is that I don't love the climbing in SoCal (I have lived down there), and it is pretty far from the super-motivating climbing destinations. That's just my biases though, and I can see why some climbing really like living there. There isn't any one best place to be as a climber - it's all a set of tradeoffs and personal preference.

that’s what i was saying about smoke. looking at pics of stone mountain, t-wall, and looking glass this morning and just wondering about how good the bbq really is. 

JCMwrote:

Also worth noting that the foothills climate is notably worse than in Sacramento in the summer. In town we get the "Delta Breeze" which cools things off notably in the evening in the summer. Gets real hot in the afternoon, but its pretty nice from 8pm to 11am every day. Can open up you house at night, and there is a window of really nice weather in the morning every day to go for a run or bike ride or whatever. Whereas the inland areas (foothills) stay a lot hotter overnight.

It's really location dependent. I live at 400' elevation in a basin along a creek at the start of the foothills and our local climate is great. It's cooler than Sacramento and nearby towns (if I drive to the next town over with a little more elevation and a lot of pavement it's 10-15 degrees hotter). It always cools off at night and the evenings and mornings are great. We have a green built house and run a whole house fan at night, close up during the day and only ran our A/C maybe 10 times last summer. If it's below 110 our house doesn't get above 80 during the day. I don't remember it being really hot out much last year. It's usually 90s in the summer. If it's in the 100s it's hot but not bad because the humidity is low. It's only uncomfortable to me when it gets above 110 which is rare. I keep an eye on the air quality a lot because I coach youth sports and have to cancel if it's bad, which I don't think every happened with no fires going on. The last few years have sucked because of the fires. When the smoke moves in you're stuck inside, or you travel somewhere without smoke. It's kind of luck of the draw where the wind in blowing the smoke.

If it's just climbing I agree farther south closer to Yosemite, jailhouse, etc. is great. But for jobs, access to Tahoe, etc. the Sac Foothills are great. I ski and that's a big factor for me. I can drive one to 1.5 hours and be at world class skiing and excellent climbing.

Heyyyyy, for once someone is repping my area without it being me! The climbing year round is pretty great, stay in the low country in the winter, stay in the high country in the summer, climb wherever in spring and fall. Great climbing, no crowds. Downsides are you have to bring your own job (or spend a while finding a good one) and dating is rough. Oh, and finding partners is a bit of a struggle if ya don't climb 5.11 or above (most people want 5.11 or 5.12 or even 5.13 partners for Gold Wall, Jailhouse, and CotG)

Someone move out here please, I'm getting tired of rope soloing. 

This thread got kind of weird. When cost of living is factored in, really only Tucson and Albuquerque check every box on the OP’s list, but yet somehow we ended up with the Four Corners and Grass Valley. 

Princess Puppy Lovrwrote:

I was gonna argue about there being entertainment options but I actually looked and Sacramento has a lot of music events. And you guys have the beam.

There are lots of good music events. Especially if you are into jam bands and The Grateful Dead family. Sometimes you need to go to the Bay Area but that's only a couple hours away. 

Frank Steinwrote:

This thread got kind of weird. When cost of living is factored in, really only Tucson and Albuquerque check every box on the OP’s list, but yet somehow we ended up with the Four Corners and Grass Valley. 

I believe my take-home net for my profession would be more in California (especially living in or near the foothills) than in AZ or NM. I can comfortably afford rent at my projected salary.

J Ewrote:

I believe my take-home net for my profession would be more in California (especially living in or near the foothills) than in AZ or NM. I can comfortably afford rent at my projected salary.

Not to pry too much, and feel free to disregard my question if you feel it’s too invasive, but roughy how much are you thinking you’ll be making? I’m curious about various healthcare careers, especially seeing how they mesh with climbing and living in high COL areas

Jack Bushwaywrote:

Not to pry too much, and feel free to disregard my question if you feel it’s too invasive, but roughy how much are you thinking you’ll be making? I’m curious about various healthcare careers, especially seeing how they mesh with climbing and living in high COL areas

Job postings right now start at 70k+/yr after taxes. Radiation therapy also has travel contract opportunities

J Ewrote:

Job postings right now start at 70k+/yr after taxes. Radiation therapy also has travel contract opportunities

I hate to tell you this, but 70K is not a lot of money in CA. My wife’s sister, the one in Nevada City/Grass Valley, makes about $95K and feels poor. She can make it comfortably only because of her investment properties. Basically, it sounds like you would be making the same income as in some of the aforementioned non-CA cities, but paying twice as much for housing. 

Frank Steinwrote:

I hate to tell you this, but 70K is not a lot of money in CA. My wife’s sister, the one in Nevada City/Grass Valley, makes about $95K and feels poor. She can make it comfortably only because of her investment properties. Basically, it sounds like you would be making the same income as in some of the aforementioned non-CA cities, but paying twice as much for housing. 

Every source for minimum/livable wages contradicts this. I find it hard to believe she feels poor at just south of 6 digits unless she’s poor with finances, lives an expensive lifestyle, or is constantly dumping the money she makes from her properties back into those properties. Bring a single person without children or significant debt, I don’t see how renting a place for ~$1500 (plenty in the foothills in this range) + standard cost of living expenses could leave me feeling poor.

J Ewrote:

Every source for minimum/livable wages contradicts this. I find it hard to believe she feels poor at just south of 6 digits unless she’s poor with finances, lives an expensive lifestyle, or is constantly dumping the money she makes from her properties back into those properties. Bring a single person without children or significant debt, I don’t see how renting a place for ~$1500 (plenty in the foothills in this range) + standard cost of living expenses could leave me feeling poor.

I think you and her have vastly different living requirements. Sounds like you're willing to rent a small apartment, where as she probably lives in a house. Without getting into some creative solutions you almost certainly would feel poor here on that salary were you to insist on living in a single family home. Sounds to me like you have a reasonable sense of the cost of living.