by JHH60 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:58 am
by simonov » Fri Dec 18, 2009 4:05 pm
Luciano136 wrote:Pasadena or Orange County. I personally don't like how busy LA county is, so OC was the best option for me. And the clean air and beach is a bonus.
San Diego = too far south
Bakersfield/Fresno = no culture
San Jose/Sacramento area could work but is further from the east side than LA.
by Luciano136 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:30 pm
HandjamMasterC wrote:Looks like OC (or LA area) would be your best bet for the 3 reasons highlighted. The Sierra is closer than San Fran/Sacramento, world class rock climbing in J Tree and you are near the ocean (and will still be cheaper than San Fran).
If you do pick Norcal, I'd go with Sac town; SF is just too expensive. However, you will be further away from the Sierra and there's no ocean.
Sacramento is NOT further from the Sierra - east or west side - time wise, than LA. In fact, to Cedar Grove / Kings Canyon, it is the exact same amount of time from Hwy 50 near Placerville as from Torrance / San Pedro area in LA. - 5 hours. Bishop - same thing. LA is closer to Lone Pine / Whitney. Sac is closer to Yosemite ( much closer ) / Mammoth Mtn etc. If you figure Friday night LA traffic into the mix, it can take much longer to get to Bishop from LA than Sac. I should know - I've driven it from both locations many many times.
by Luciano136 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:34 pm
by simonov » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:35 pm
Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.
by Luciano136 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:38 pm
redneck wrote:Luciano136 wrote:Bottom line for the OP, if you like Yosemite and the northern Sierra, Sacramento is a good choice. If you like the High Sierra in the LP/Bishop area better, you should stick to the LA area.
Meanwhile, I spend by far the majority of my high elevation time in the nearby San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, no more than two hours from OC. In the summer, I do a weekend backpacking trip nearly every weekend.
I wouldn't do that if I had to drive three or four hours each way every time.
by Luciano136 » Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:44 pm
redneck wrote:OC is highly congested (Luciano and I aren't the only people who like it here). If I didn't work walking distance from my home, I doubt I would be able to stay here. YMMV[/color]
by The Defiant One » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:20 pm
Dingus Milktoast wrote:See NorCal and SoCal are really 2 different states. They offer a very different lifestyle and climbing style too, for that matter.
IMO its really important to understand the OPs mind. If he likes desert climbing So Cal is the place to be. If he's tried of heat and needs something completely different - San Francisco, proper.
If he wants to be close to Sierra, Sacramento or East Bay.
Ski? Nor Cal.
Surf? So Cal.
Down to earth? Nor Cal.
Idealistic and vain? KIDDING! JUST KIDDING!!!1111
by The Defiant One » Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:32 pm
1000Pks wrote:One more thing to factor in...
When you buy property, I wouldn't worry much about quakes. Building code and such are that unless it's another huge one, you will probably be safe enough. Only a few structures collapsed during Loma Prieta, those were built on dubious unstable ground. Similar with L.A. quakes.
More deadly are wildfires. Then mudslides, floods (a potentially disasterous probability in much of lower Sac), and daily, almost, crime. Get the history of the property, and do some research. Lots of fools in the homebuying business, and insurance is no doubt sky high, but indispensable.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests