Why does Fresno have a bad Reputation? (San Jose, Sacramento: movers, crime)

[dontbelievehim]

Yeah, that photo of fresno is trickery.

Its very common to do, however. Most photos of seattle and vancouver are fully tricked out as well. Ditto for los angeles.



This is a closer to reality photo











Heres Sacramento fully tricked out. Probably a heavy lens needed for this.

[dontbelievehim]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

It's kind of photographic trickery though. That was taken from a highway overpass, most likely Roeding Dr looking down on CA-180 ahead of its interchange with CA-99. If you stood on that overpass you almost certainly wouldn't see the mountains most days with your bare eyes. They use special techniques to capture those images. And I suspect there aren't many spots in the Fresno area where you would be able to see the mountains at street level. Too far away. It's a good 80 miles to the Sierras.



In L.A. you can actually see the mountains from a lot of spots because the mountains are more like 10-15 miles away, but of course a shot like this is still idealized and not what you'd actually see on a daily basis:

You can see mountains from kerman on a super clear day.(kerman is 15 miles west of fresno). You just can see them more often the closer you are to them. Seeing them perfectly from downtown fresno isnt super rare, but it definitely isnt common either.


Edit:



Street level. No tricks, but it is far north fresno(isolated and rich part of town)









calgary is the best comparison to fresno. Slc and even denver are at another level.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

It's kind of photographic trickery though. That was taken from a highway overpass, most likely Roeding Dr looking down on CA-180 ahead of its interchange with CA-99. If you stood on that overpass you almost certainly wouldn't see the mountains most days with your bare eyes. They use special techniques to capture those images. And I suspect there aren't many spots in the Fresno area where you would be able to see the mountains at street level. Too far away. It's a good 80 miles to the Sierras.



In L.A. you can actually see the mountains from a lot of spots because the mountains are more like 10-15 miles away, but of course a shot like this is still idealized and not what you'd actually see on a daily basis:

I know right. LA has great scenic shots,

And fresno's Poor reputation likely will never end.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by apple92680

^^^That part^^^

She doesn't realize how lucky she actually is, which is typical for Gen Z.

Well its not completely free, ($50/mo.)

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

She gets lots of positive attention....

Which, I hate to say it, is why she has the expectations she does...

Pretty people get an easier go of it than someone who isn't.

[apple92680]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Well its not completely free, ($50/mo.)

That's literally nothing, though.

[dontbelievehim]

Originally Posted by apple92680

That's literally nothing, though.

Chims tale is hard to believe. Best to quit feeding the troll.




Just wanted to say that north fresno is about 50 miles(as the crow flies) to a 7000+ ski resort full of snow.



And clovis/central east fresno is about 35 miles away from a 5k mountain peak. Edit north fresno is only like 30 miles to 5500 feet, too.


So while fresno isnt slc its definitely closer to mountains then most people realize. anyways, I hope im done posting here. Go away, chim.


Edit:

Some perspective
downtown denver is just 30 miles to a 10k base ski resort.
North fresno is 50 miles to a 7k base ski resort
East sacramento is 90 miles from a 6.2k base ski resort (heavenly)

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by dontbelievehim

Chims tale is hard to believe. Best to quit feeding the troll.




Just wanted to say that north fresno is about 50 miles(as the crow flies) to a 7000+ ski resort full of snow.



And clovis/central east fresno is about 35 miles away from a 5k mountain peak. Edit north fresno is only like 30 miles to 5500 feet, too.


So while fresno isnt slc its definitely closer to mountains then most people realize. anyways, I hope im done posting here. Go away, chim.


Edit:

Some perspective
downtown denver is just 30 miles to a 10k base ski resort.
North fresno is 50 miles to a 7k base ski resort
East sacramento is 90 miles from a 6.2k base ski resort (heavenly)

As the crow flies doesn't do you any good... unless you have a helicopter From Fresno it's more like 70 miles to the nearest ski resort (China Peak Mountain Resort, I believe), a 90 minute drive in good conditions.

Whereas it's about 30 minutes from SLC to world class skiing at multiple resorts, including Snowbird, Alta, Solitude, Park City. From Ogden (SLC suburb) it's 30 minutes to Snowbasin. The Wasatch Range has some of the deepest driest powder in the US, as compared to the very wet and heavy Sierra Cement.

Fresno is great if you don't like cold winters/snow, don't mind lots of sprawl/chain stores, and want driving access to mountains. SLC is better if you really want great skiing, great consistent mountain views, a more of an established vibrant downtown, and more culture nearby.

Don't hear me wrong, I think Fresno is an okay place to live, and I think coastal elites are snobs for looking down their noses at the Central Valley. And I love the Sierra Nevada and have done a great deal of time backpacking/hunting there. Every place is largely what you make of it. However, Fresno needs to redevelop/revitalize it's downtown, and IMO its proximity to larger metros isn't a benefit because it means the city is treated as more of a bedroom community. Whereas cities like SLC are the main hub for hundreds of miles, so events and services are concentrated there, which makes the city more interesting than its size might otherwise suggest.

[dontbelievehim]

Originally Posted by AnythingOutdoors

As the crow flies doesn't do you any good... unless you have a helicopter From Fresno it's more like 70 miles to the nearest ski resort (China Peak Mountain Resort, I believe), a 90 minute drive in good conditions.

Whereas it's about 30 minutes from SLC to world class skiing at multiple resorts, including Snowbird, Alta, Solitude, Park City. From Ogden (SLC suburb) it's 30 minutes to Snowbasin. The Wasatch Range has some of the deepest driest powder in the US, as compared to the very wet and heavy Sierra Cement.

Fresno is great if you don't like cold winters/snow, don't mind lots of sprawl/chain stores, and want driving access to mountains. SLC is better if you really want great skiing, great consistent mountain views, a more of an established vibrant downtown, and more culture nearby.

Don't hear me wrong, I think Fresno is an okay place to live, and I think coastal elites are snobs for looking down their noses at the Central Valley. And I love the Sierra Nevada and have done a great deal of time backpacking/hunting there. Every place is largely what you make of it. However, Fresno needs to redevelop/revitalize it's downtown, and IMO its proximity to larger metros isn't a benefit because it means the city is treated as more of a bedroom community. Whereas cities like SLC are the main hub for hundreds of miles, so events and services are concentrated there, which makes the city more interesting than its size might otherwise suggest.

I never said being 3hrs from Los Angeles was a benefit. That was somebody else.
And being 80-90 minutes from a ski resort with 700 inches of snow isn't chop liver. Most of the country would kill for that. Most of the country skis on hills with just so-so amounts of snow.

Fresno was built during a time when most of the country felt VERY unsafe(60s-90s). That's why developers were so car centric back then. You can't go back and fix it, all you can do is make what you have more dense. Downtown Fresno is getting fixed up, but progress is slow because outside developers are waiting for the hsr to get finished. Once they finish the train station, you'll see more progress downtown (2-3 more years).

Lastly, Fresnos resort has a base of 7k, so It's very dry snow most years. Wet snow is more common at under 7k elevation.

[AnythingOutdoors]

Originally Posted by dontbelievehim

I never said being 3hrs from Los Angeles was a benefit. That was somebody else.
And being 80-90 minutes from a ski resort with 700 inches of snow isn't chop liver. Most of the country would kill for that. Most of the country skis on hills with just so-so amounts of snow.

Fresno was built during a time when most of the country felt VERY unsafe(60s-90s). That's why developers were so car centric back then. You can't go back and fix it, all you can do is make what you have more dense. Downtown Fresno is getting fixed up, but progress is slow because outside developers are waiting for the hsr to get finished. Once they finish the train station, you'll see more progress downtown (2-3 more years).

Lastly, Fresnos resort has a base of 7k, so It's very dry snow most years. Wet snow is more common at under 7k elevation.

I didn't claim it was you, was referring to the other person's comment. My point is just that a 1M metro area in CA is different than a similarly sized metro in a less populated state.

Downtowns can be redeveloped to be more dense and walkable. It's a gradual process of replacing low buildings and surface parking with taller structures, creating pocket parks, protected bike lanes, improving the pedestrian experience, and actively courting businesses. Time and investment are required, so it's something voters need to support. While I don't know for sure, my sense was that citizens of Fresno value convenience and driving, hence the strip malls and car oriented neighborhoods. Not my jam, but a lot of people like it.

I've skied and snowboarded all over the Sierras (including China Peak), PNW, and Intermountain West. Sorry, the snow in the Sierras, even at higher elevations, isn't the same. Mammoth and Kirkwood get the closest to the 'Cold Smoke' powder one finds in the Intermountain West, but it's still wetter and heavier.