Life in Midtown/Downtown Sacramento [Archive]

wburg

Dec 19, 2007, 6:02 PM

This "subthread" was begun in the K Street thread, but of course the tide of recent events demands that thread be on-topic so we can heap scorn on Mo. However, econgrad raised what I think are some points very much worth discussing: How does midtown Sacramento differ from Sacramento's surrounding suburbs? Econgrad has argued that there are no real reasons why suburban residents should move to the central city.

Dakotasteve posted this really great list of reasons why midtown was more liveable than his previous home in Elk Grove, which I repost here:

1) History. I love my 1914 Craftsman Bungalow. I know of no where else besides midtown/central city Sacramento where you can live in a pre-1920's historical home or apartment.

2) Walkability. I happen to work downtown, so its a simple 30 minute walk to work when I choose. And when I don't, no commute traffic. I can walk to Safeway, to the local bread store, to coffee, to my doctor's offices, to a plethora of restaurants and entertainment venues. In Elk Grove, I could walk for 30 minutes and be lucky to hit one Circle K.

3) Mass Transit. Midtown and downtown Sacramento tend to be the hubs for all types of mass transit. I can more easily get to light rail or a bus going in nearly all directions in this area.

4) Diversity. My neighborhood is mixed with million dollar homes and $600 a month apartments. This allows for a wide diversity of people walking the neighborhood and frequenting near by businesses, from accountants to artists, state workers to students. And I find that with diversity comes a lot of tolerance, respect and camaraderie.

5) Neighborhood Community and Pride. I knew more of my neighbors in 2 months in midtown than I ever did in the 12 years in Elk Grove. People come out of their homes in the midtown area, instead of insulating themselves inside or barricaded in their backyards. And the people of this neighborhood care and get involved with what is happening around them (which includes an occasional NIMBY).

6) More regional events and attractions. Second Saturday Art Walk, the defunct Thursday Night Market, Farmer's Markets, Capitol Tree Lighting Ceremony, Cesar Chavez Park Friday Free Concerts, the State Capitol, Convention Center.

My argument, and response to econgrad, is that many of the arguments in favor of the central city are not imagined factors (like "lifestyle" or "personal preference") but actually physical differences between the central city and the suburbs. Some of these differences include:

* The grid street system. It is designed for permeability, walkability, multiple routes, and maximized street frontage. Suburban streets are designed to limit routes, maximize private property area vs. street frontage (thus reducing road maintenance overhead) and their broad design is intended for cars, not people.

* Lot settings of buildings. Buildings in the central city are oriented close to their lot line--both homes and businesses are right up against the sidewalk. This is because of the economics of pre-automobile cities: land was still at a premium, and access to the street more desirable than physical separation. Except for the biggest mansions, downtown homes tend to have tiny front lawns, 10-20 feet deep. Downtown businesses (the ones built prior to about 1940) are right up on the street, even auto-centric ones: Zocalo and PF Chang's are located inside former car dealerships! Parking lots, where they are found, are adjacent, behind or under the building, but generally street parking is used (and at a premium.)
In the suburbs, lawns are broad and deep, based on large lots. Retail uses are surrounded by a moat of parking, which separates pedestrians from the buildings and surrounds them with cars, discouraging foot traffic. Occasional "token" buildings are close to the street, but often these are the most auto-centric uses, like drive-through restaurants, and they are still surrounded by parking.

* Small lots. The typical suburban lot is 1/4 acre at a minimum, often much larger. Central city lots are generally 40x80 (1/13 of an acre) or 40x160 (about 1/6 acre.) Many of these lots are single-family homes, but large numbers have been converted into duplexes, tri-plexes or more, while in other places apartment buildings contain as many as 20 units on a single 40x160 lot. Also, many 40x160 lots use their copious "backyard space" for an alley-loaded garage or "mother-in-law" units on the alley, resulting in higher residential density. These neighborhoods were designed for people who walked to work, and couldn't afford large houses on large lots.

* Diversity. This includes economic diversity (difference of income) as well as ethnic/cultural/racial diversity, and diversity of sexual orientation. The suburbs are no longer the exclusively white enclaves they were intended to be, but the outer wave of suburban growth (the exoburbs, the kind of greenfield development that we're trying to stop) still is. But the central city has always been a diverse place, even after redevelopment efforts tried to force its depopulation.

This diversity also encourages a diversity of business: while downtown is not without its chain restaurants, you don't find the unchanging mix of chain stores that greets you in the suburbs and makes it impossble to tell where you are. Walk around the central city and you'll see family-owned Asian markets, hip boutiques featuring the work of local designers, restaurants with only one location, corner bars from the swanky to the seedy, the ubiquitous "retail blister" corner market situated every couple of blocks throughout the central city, and the other products and services that people need, from car repair to legal representation. Unlike the suburbs, where these things are all gathered together in a "retail district" (often so big that you have to drive from one end to the other) they are integrated with the neighborhood.

BrianSac

Dec 19, 2007, 6:59 PM

:previous:
wburg,
Excellent description of the differences between suburbs and the central city. We are so fortunate to have the grid and its many forms of diversity. :)

otnemarcaS

Dec 20, 2007, 12:11 AM

Quite honestly Wburg, until you learn to throw out the textbook and just deal with people's realities, then this whole central city vs suburbs is nothing more than a fruitless comparism. As a North Natomas resident, I agree a lot with Econgrad and have said this before .... Sacramento is a lot more than just the midtown neighborhood. Heck, I had more things to do on a weekend afternoon when I lived near Cal Expo/Arden area than I did going downtown or midtown. I go to MT/DT mostly for the entertainment and nightlife which has truly only recently evolved in the last few years. Most cities from San Jose to San Diego to Portland to Nashville and many others congregate most of their bars and clubs downtown, so Sacramento is no different in that respect.

There are many reasons to live in the central city and 120,000 people in Elk Grove (as one example) decided it's not for them. All the arguments you've given for living in the central city may also be valid arguments for those who want to get as far away from it. I have friends that live in Folsom, work at Intel and rarely venture into Sacramento. I've driven to Folsom several times just for the nightlife and you'd be amazed at just how crowded and lively historic downtown Folsom on any weekend night.

Let's even imagine most of Sacaramento agree with you and want to move to the central city, then you'd soon come up with more arguments as to why they should now stay away. How dense is too dense to make urban sense? I just returned from Rio De Janiero, Brazil and stayed in Copacabana which is one of the densest places in the world. About 160,000 people live in a 3 sq miles area. Thanks but not my cup of tea.

And with regards to owning and living in old historic 1940s or 1920s homes or 1914 Craftsman Bungalow or whatever, to each their own. I HATE to own or live in old homes. Been to several here in Sac and SF and I'm glad they are not mine. I like my 2005 modern new home, thank you. I like to work in nice shiny new office buildings than some 1940 skyscraper somewhere. I stay in nice modern hotels and not historic, refurbished, cramped old hotels. That's my taste. That's my choice. Doesn't mean I hate the many charming and colorful victorians here and in SF. No, I don't. Nice to look at but not to own or live. To each their own.

econgrad

Dec 20, 2007, 12:12 AM

I just discovered this new thread! At work now, can't post a response yet...great responses from Dakotasteve and Wburg so far! Rebuttal coming soon.

TWAK

Dec 20, 2007, 12:25 AM

If I moved to downtown (all I need to do that is a cheaper rent then where I live with the same amenities) I would live the same life I live now. I wouldent talk to my neighbors like I do now, I wouldn't go to coffee shops down the street or art galleries down the street. I would still shop at wal-mart in west sac because it's the cheapest for food. The only thing that would change, is that I would maybe take Light Rail to school if it was the around the same amount of time it is to drive.

wburg

Dec 20, 2007, 4:53 PM

otnemarcas: This isn't based on a textbook, this is based on my own experiences actually living in the central city since 1993, and my own observations of the central city. The argument that midtown's nightlife only "evolved" in recent years doesn't hold up--the main reason I moved downtown then is because there were so many entertainment options. At that time I went out 4-5 nights a week, and the only reason it wasn't seven was because I was making about $500 a month and couldn't afford more!

I also have some experience in the suburbs--I grew up in Citrus Heights. It wasn't all bad, but hanging out at the 7-11 for entertainment got old fast.

I'm not trying to argue that living in midtown is for everyone--it isn't. But there are definite reasons why people are drawn here, and your post only makes clearer that there are distinct differences between the suburbs and the central city here in Sacramento. I don't want everyone to move to midtown--but I won't stand by and have people accuse midtown of being the same as the suburbs.

TWAK puts it well too: if you aren't the sort of person interested in going to coffee shops or art galleries or meeting your neighbors, or shopping places other than Wal-Mart, then maybe the suburbs are the best choice for you. If you hate old buildings, then strolling through the central city won't have much appeal. For those interested in a different style of life (and yes, it isn't for everyone) midtown offers an urban option.

And 1940s buildings are still considered "the new houses" down here. My house was built in 1907. I'm not sure when my office was built, but the basement level is brick and built down to the original pre-1860s flood level.

Trantor

Dec 20, 2007, 5:09 PM

How dense is too dense to make urban sense? I just returned from Rio De Janiero, Brazil and stayed in Copacabana which is one of the densest places in the world. About 160,000 people live in a 3 sq miles area. Thanks but not my cup of tea.

Copacabana in 1950
http://banco.agenciaoglobo.com.br/Imagens/Preview/200608/c869bf6b-85bc-476f-9ae4-30103ac10c98.jpg

TowerDistrict

Dec 20, 2007, 5:18 PM

:previous: or perhaps the railyards circa 2025?

(i know wburg is looking for the streetcar in that shot)

innov8

Dec 20, 2007, 5:26 PM

^
^ What a sterile place to live, no thanks.

That's funny Wberg, the best place you could find to hang out in Citrus Heights
was at the 7-11? Obviously you did not try very hard to do much of anything.

wburg

Dec 20, 2007, 6:50 PM

Most cities, like Rio de Janeiro, are very different from American cities. In most of the world, the central city is the wealthy part, dense because most European cities were built within protective castle walls, and the lower classes live on the perimeter away from the urban core. Most of the people in Rio don't live on the street you photographed: they live out in "mushroom" shacks made of tin cans and scrap wood, generally without electricity or running water, which surround most South American cities. And most of Rio de Janeiro is definitely not what you'd call "sterile."

I don't think anyone (except maybe Majin) wants to see Sacramento that dense, but we're currently the densest part of the region and, with appropriate infill and some tall stuff in places like the Docks and the Railyards, could stand to get quite a bit denser. Repopulating the central city will help bring downtown back to its past status as a late-night hoppin' sort of place (the more I learn about local history, the more I get the idea that this was the New Orleans of the west coast in the 1920s-1940s.)

The buildings in the photo are about 8-10 stories high: that is actually pretty close to what Thomas Enterprises has in mind for the last buildout phase, near the "Boxcar Parks" area. The ones closest to the parks will be limited to 75 feet, the ones farther away 150 feet. There will be light rail down Seventh Street.

innov8: I exaggerate only slightly--my 7-11 phase was at about age 16, with no car, and there wasn't much to walk to other than shopping centers. Social life in Citrus Heights pretty much revolved around Sunrise Mall or Birdcage Walk and the midnight movies. Moving downtown was a natural progression for my social circle--you outgrow Citrus Heights, so you move downtown.

TowerDistrict

Dec 20, 2007, 6:58 PM

yeah the architecture and streetscape sucks, but beyond the facade and
maybe a couple floors off the taller buildings there, and that's the kinda of
density the railyards project is seeking.

Those are about 9 stories, while the Railyards will be about 5-7. Of course
in this country and state, it's going to be much more comprehensive - trees,
planters, signage, architectral diversity.

econgrad

Dec 21, 2007, 12:33 AM

Most cities, like Rio de Janeiro, are very different from American cities.

innov8: I exaggerate only slightly--my 7-11 phase was at about age 16, with no car, and there wasn't much to walk to other than shopping centers. Social life in Citrus Heights pretty much revolved around Sunrise Mall or Birdcage Walk and the midnight movies. Moving downtown was a natural progression for my social circle--you outgrow Citrus Heights, so you move downtown.

I wanted to try and stick to Sacramento. My original point was, DT and MT Sacramento does not offer enough to justify the prices, and it is not the center of our Sac metro culture as a whole (yet, but someday I hope it will). Everyone should know that ofcourse New York (Manhattan) is different, San Francisco is different, Rio, Tokyo, whatever other cities we can post about to prove our points. Back to the original: Downtown Sac VS Folsom, Roseville, Citrus Heights, ETC
I cannot talk about Elk Grove because I just realized, I have never been there! LOL!
And Wburg! Midnight movies at Birdcage? Way cool! I remember that too, when I was in high school, total blast from the past on that one. The natural progression of moving from Citrus Heights to DT also makes a lot of sense. I went to SF after high school myself. You definately outgrow places like Citrus Heights. I also agree with everyone that many suburbs (not all of them, but some) in Sac Metro have, for lack of a better description, less Tolerant and less accomplished academically individuals. More diversity I must disagree with for now, I am going to find some stats on that and post them ASAP.

econgrad

Dec 21, 2007, 6:21 AM

* The grid street system. It is designed for permeability, walkability, multiple routes, and maximized street frontage. Suburban streets are designed to limit routes, maximize private property area vs. street frontage (thus reducing road maintenance overhead) and their broad design is intended for cars, not people. This is true about grid systems, but downtown Sacramento is still car culture. 16 runs right through DT, the streets are wide and the sidewalks are thin. New York is built for pedestrians, Manhattan's Sidewalks are 6 feet wide or more. Sacramento's thin, tree laden sidewalks will be crowded and will cause major headaches for the city and pedestrians alike as more and more people live downtown. There is simply not enough room for crowds of people walking, with bicycles, and cars. With crowds, I mean constant crowds walking as we see in more developed downtowns. DT Sacramento is not developed enough for this yet, and may never be ready.

* Lot settings of buildings. Buildings in the central city are oriented close to their lot line--both homes and businesses are right up against the sidewalk. This is because of the economics of pre-automobile cities: land was still at a premium, and access to the street more desirable than physical separation. Except for the biggest mansions, downtown homes tend to have tiny front lawns, 10-20 feet deep. Downtown businesses (the ones built prior to about 1940) are right up on the street, even auto-centric ones: Zocalo and PF Chang's are located inside former car dealerships! Parking lots, where they are found, are adjacent, behind or under the building, but generally street parking is used (and at a premium.)
In the suburbs, lawns are broad and deep, based on large lots. Retail uses are surrounded by a moat of parking, which separates pedestrians from the buildings and surrounds them with cars, discouraging foot traffic. Occasional "token" buildings are close to the street, but often these are the most auto-centric uses, like drive-through restaurants, and they are still surrounded by parking.
Although historically this is true, Sacramento is still car culture, you cannot really live here without a car. Bad city planning to make it easier to not own a car has not been very successful. Bad planning has led K Street, when cars where allowed, was a bustling shopping district. If you walk into the old student Union at CSUS, you will see old pictures of K street, you wouldn't recognize it. It was full of people on the sidewalks, and full of cars in the streets. It looked very New Yorkish! Now, as the city's poor planning is still going strong, we continue to discuss how terrible K street is, with all its no car, pedestrian friendly atmosphere. It is a total disaster. Westfield contains a huge parking lot, as does the city. Everyone who lives in Folsom or Roseville would never get on the RT and go downtown to shop, if they really had to go downtown, they would drive. The RT is inconvenient and can be dangerous. It also stops around midnight. Therefore, walking and carrying your groceries for 5 or 6 blocks or more, does not appeal to people who can just drive to Raleys in 3 minutes, park, get what you need, and drive into their garage and unload.
* Small lots. The typical suburban lot is 1/4 acre at a minimum, often much larger. Central city lots are generally 40x80 (1/13 of an acre) or 40x160 (about 1/6 acre.) Many of these lots are single-family homes, but large numbers have been converted into duplexes, tri-plexes or more, while in other places apartment buildings contain as many as 20 units on a single 40x160 lot. Also, many 40x160 lots use their copious "backyard space" for an alley-loaded garage or "mother-in-law" units on the alley, resulting in higher residential density. These neighborhoods were designed for people who walked to work, and couldn't afford large houses on large lots.
This is what I do not get. The prices of the downtown condos, and downtown houses are much higher than the surrounding areas. For around $600,000 you can buy a house on 1/2 acre land, with built in swimming pool, 5 bedrooms, a spa, 3 baths, 2 car garage in Fair Oaks. How much were the 2 bedroom high rise condos? How much are the new single family homes with no yard and much higher crime rate? Where is the value? It should be less expensive to live in an Urban area, not more.

* Diversity. This includes economic diversity (difference of income) as well as ethnic/cultural/racial diversity, and diversity of sexual orientation. The suburbs are no longer the exclusively white enclaves they were intended to be, but the outer wave of suburban growth (the exoburbs, the kind of greenfield development that we're trying to stop) still is. But the central city has always been a diverse place, even after redevelopment efforts tried to force its depopulation.
Sacramento Demographics: Latino = 21.6% White = 40.5% Black = 15.5% Asian 16.6% Other 4.8%. The more diverse neighborhoods include: Florin: Latino = 20.8%, White = 34.99%, Black = 18.75% Asian = 19.55% Ntv.Am. = 1.25% Other = 3.76% Data from the Natomas Unified School District also shows a much more diverse ethnic population than the inner city core: White = 26.6%, Black = 25.3% Hispanic = 25.5%, Asian 12.9%, Other 10.3%
The inner city of Sacramento is not the most ethnically diverse area in Sac Metro as demonstrated.

This diversity also encourages a diversity of business: while downtown is not without its chain restaurants, you don't find the unchanging mix of chain stores that greets you in the suburbs and makes it impossble to tell where you are. Walk around the central city and you'll see family-owned Asian markets, hip boutiques featuring the work of local designers, restaurants with only one location, corner bars from the swanky to the seedy, the ubiquitous "retail blister" corner market situated every couple of blocks throughout the central city, and the other products and services that people need, from car repair to legal representation. Unlike the suburbs, where these things are all gathered together in a "retail district" (often so big that you have to drive from one end to the other) they are integrated with the neighborhood.[/QUOTE]

I know when I am in Folsom, or Rancho or Fair Oaks, or Carmichael or Roseville. Folsom has many unique small stores, resturaunts, and shops unique to Folsom only. As does Roseville, Rancho and all the other areas. Fair Oaks has Slocum house and many other interesting shops in Old Fair Oaks. You can find uniqueness just as much in the outer areas as you find in DT and MT. DT has its Westfield Mall, So does Roseville. Roseville has many small owner operated business, so does MT and DT. There is no difference between the two in that respect.

Trantor

Dec 21, 2007, 2:32 PM

Most of the people in Rio don't live on the street you photographed: they live out in "mushroom" shacks made of tin cans and scrap wood, generally without electricity or running water

most favelas in Rio DO HAVE electricity and running water. And most of people from Rio DO NOT LIVE in favelas. The figure is more like 30%.

as for the comment about the Copacabana being sterile... lol... Copacabana is ANYTHING but sterile.

Trantor

Dec 21, 2007, 2:36 PM

yeah the architecture and streetscape sucks

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

@Econgrad: nice choice of avatar. Up The Irons. I already bought my ticket for the 2008 tour... to the show in Porto Alegre.

innov8

Dec 21, 2007, 4:30 PM

as for the comment about the Copacabana being sterile... lol... Copacabana is ANYTHING but sterile.

Trantor, if you read what I said, I did not refer to the city as sterile just
the environment that you choose to show in your photo. All the buildings
look identical in height and design, they all appear to be made from the
same concrete material with no color... and above all, there are no trees.
IMO, a boring street with no character.

http://banco.agenciaoglobo.com.br/Imagens/Preview/200608/c869bf6b-85bc-476f-9ae4-30103ac10c98.jpg

Trantor

Dec 21, 2007, 5:35 PM

in Paris, all buildings are the same color and height, and most streets at old town have no trees. Still, its far from sterile.

these are shots of the same avenue, today
http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/4093/p12304733vf.jpg
http://img333.imageshack.us/img333/2606/29fc9.jpg
http://www.glo-con.com/images/AD4_6330_s.jpg

and a shot of the same avenue around 1920-1930
http://www.marcillio.com/rio/cpvi1906.jpg

some other streetshot in another place of Copacabana
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/1444/internocopamo2.jpg

Trantor

Dec 21, 2007, 5:36 PM

the density is quite striking, as you can see in this shot, which shows just a small section of Copacabana
http://i178.photobucket.com/albums/w253/gdevivas1/fcp01.jpg

innov8

Dec 21, 2007, 5:57 PM

Trantor, try not to take it so personal… I’m not attacking your beloved city, I'm sure it's a nice place.

TowerDistrict

Dec 21, 2007, 6:20 PM

Yes those are some striking pictures in terms of urban density. But strictly on
terms of architectural flair, that's not even remotely comparable with Paris.
Fortunately that doesn't have much to do with how vibrant a city truly is - it's
just the icing on the cake.

wburg

Dec 21, 2007, 8:23 PM

* This is true about grid systems, but downtown Sacramento is still car culture. 16 runs right through DT, the streets are wide and the sidewalks are thin. New York is built for pedestrians, Manhattan's Sidewalks are 6 feet wide or more. Sacramento's thin, tree laden sidewalks will be crowded and will cause major headaches for the city and pedestrians alike as more and more people live downtown. There is simply not enough room for crowds of people walking, with bicycles, and cars. With crowds, I mean constant crowds walking as we see in more developed downtowns. DT Sacramento is not developed enough for this yet, and may never be ready.

You're getting things in reverse order. Sacramento's grid system was built and operating for 50 years before cars even appeared. Sacramento's sidewalks are tree-laden because they provide shade which make walking around in summer a lot more bearable.

Streets downtown were originally designed for two-way HORSE AND WAGON traffic, not car traffic, with dense pedestrian traffic. Through the 1950s, downtown streets were all two-way, with one or two lanes on either side (depending on whether or not they left room for parking on the street.) On streetcar streets (J, K, P, T, 3rd, 7th, 10th, 15th, 21st, 28th) streets were wide to make two lanes for streetcars in the middle and a lane for carts and wagons on the outside.

In the 1950s and 60s, many streets were converted to one-way traffic to ease traffic congestion (M Street and Sixteenth Street were part of Highway 40.) So many of the problems you cite are actually conversions from earlier two-way streets from the redevelopment era, not the way the city was originally designed.

Sidewalks in the central business district are more like ten feet wide, and wider in spots. They're 5-6 feet wide, with a 5-6 foot mowstrip, in midtown. The next time you go downtown, bring a measuring tape.

* Lot settings of buildings.
Although historically this is true, Sacramento is still car culture, you cannot really live here without a car. Bad city planning to make it easier to not own a car has not been very successful. Bad planning has led K Street, when cars where allowed, was a bustling shopping district. If you walk into the old student Union at CSUS, you will see old pictures of K street, you wouldn't recognize it. It was full of people on the sidewalks, and full of cars in the streets. It looked very New Yorkish! Now, as the city's poor planning is still going strong, we continue to discuss how terrible K street is, with all its no car, pedestrian friendly atmosphere. It is a total disaster. Westfield contains a huge parking lot, as does the city. Everyone who lives in Folsom or Roseville would never get on the RT and go downtown to shop, if they really had to go downtown, they would drive. The RT is inconvenient and can be dangerous. It also stops around midnight. Therefore, walking and carrying your groceries for 5 or 6 blocks or more, does not appeal to people who can just drive to Raleys in 3 minutes, park, get what you need, and drive into their garage and unload.

The "bad city planning" of which you speak applies to the postwar suburbs, not the central city. Most people got by here without a car until the 1950s.

Yes, K Street was very busy in the 1930s and 1940s--very New Yorkish. But it was neither the pedestrian mall or the coming of Light Rail that changed that. What was it? A fairly simple point, and an important one, so I'll put it in bold:

K STREET WENT DOWNHILL BECAUSE 75% OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CENTRAL CITY EITHER MOVED OUT OR WERE KICKED OUT.

K Street died off because the people who used to shop there, who grew up and lived in residential parts of the central city, could not buy or build houses in the central city anymore--they were redlined. For whites and the middle class, moving out to the suburbs was very easy--the could get loans (especially WWII veterans) and could afford cars. This meant that the folks with the most money now lived in the suburbs. Originally, the idea was that those folks would still drive downtown. But it took a long time (the freeways weren't built yet) and there wasn't much parking (the streetcars were already gone) and the new shopping centers in the suburbs were closer and more appealing.

The folks who remained, mostly the nonwhite population who were barred from the suburbs by law until the mid-1960s (and for longer by economics), were depopulated by redevelopment. The city government decided that the existing housing density (around 32 dua) was far, far too dense, and made a concerted effort to destroy housing and relocate people, ending up with a final density of around 8 dua. This was considered a great success.

* Small lots.
This is what I do not get. The prices of the downtown condos, and downtown houses are much higher than the surrounding areas. For around $600,000 you can buy a house on 1/2 acre land, with built in swimming pool, 5 bedrooms, a spa, 3 baths, 2 car garage in Fair Oaks. How much were the 2 bedroom high rise condos? How much are the new single family homes with no yard and much higher crime rate? Where is the value? It should be less expensive to live in an Urban area, not more.

Sez who? Does living in New York City cost less than New Jersey? Does living in outer Chicagoland cost less than living in the Loop? The whole point of building suburbs is because land in the central city is at a premium--thus, prices go up. Building a steel and concrete building costs a lot more per square foot than a balloon-frame suburban tract home built of chipboard and Styrofoam.

I live on one of the aforementioned 1/13 acre 40x80 lots. I wouldn't want a 1/2 acre of land--who wants to mow all that crap? I spent a couple weekends this summer ripping out the 250 square feet of grass in my front yard, and xeroscaped it with a drip system and low-water plants specifically so I wouldn't have to mow. This spring I'm going to do the same to my backyard (a whopping 20 feet deep) and turning it into an extra parking space/recreation area. And I sure as hell don't need a 5 bedroom, 3 bath mansion with a pool. My house is less than 1000 square feet, but it feels like a mansion--it more than meets my needs. I don't need a giant house with a giant pile of crap in it, because the city is my home.

And that's the key. The reason why people want to live in an ubran area is because they can get out the door and WALK to cool stuff. Within a ten-minute walk from my front door there are literally dozens of cafes, restaurants, bars, live music venues, dance clubs, gyms, bookstores, libraries, new and used clothing shops, etcetera--and while walking to or from, the odds are I'll run into someone I know and stop and chat. Within a ten-minute walk from the front door of that $600,000 McMansion in Fair Oaks, you pass a couple of other McMansions, assuming that the street in Fair Oaks even has sidewalks and you don't get mowed down by a passing Suburban.

* Diversity.
Sacramento Demographics: Latino = 21.6% White = 40.5% Black = 15.5% Asian 16.6% Other 4.8%. The more diverse neighborhoods include: Florin: Latino = 20.8%, White = 34.99%, Black = 18.75% Asian = 19.55% Ntv.Am. = 1.25% Other = 3.76% Data from the Natomas Unified School District also shows a much more diverse ethnic population than the inner city core: White = 26.6%, Black = 25.3% Hispanic = 25.5%, Asian 12.9%, Other 10.3%The inner city of Sacramento is not the most ethnically diverse area in Sac Metro as demonstrated.
What are the parameters of this "inner city core"? Does it include Land Park, Curtis Park, East Sacramento, Oak Park or just the central grid? What source did you use for these numbers?

Also, please note that we're not just talking about racial diversity: we're talking about cultural diversity (gay-friendly, assorted alternative lifestyle friendly, bohemian) and economic diversity as well.

I know when I am in Folsom, or Rancho or Fair Oaks, or Carmichael or Roseville. Folsom has many unique small stores, resturaunts, and shops unique to Folsom only. As does Roseville, Rancho and all the other areas. Fair Oaks has Slocum house and many other interesting shops in Old Fair Oaks. You can find uniqueness just as much in the outer areas as you find in DT and MT. DT has its Westfield Mall, So does Roseville. Roseville has many small owner operated business, so does MT and DT. There is no difference between the two in that respect.

Folsom, Roseville, Fair Oaks and other suburban areas have small clusters of their "old town." but those are relatively small, contained areas surrounded by a sea of identical chain stores and identical tract homes. Citing Westfield Mall as downtown's "uniqueness" is silly, because downtown urban malls were an effort by city planners (bad ones) to bring suburban uniformity to ailing central cities (we aren't the only city to build a downtown mall, only to have it fail.) Shopping focus in the suburbs is predominantly in the giant car-oriented shopping centers: focus in midtown Sacramento is at small shops on the walking streets. The exceptions (like the Safeways) are because chain stores have successfully driven out much local competition, but this isn't unique to Sacramento either--you find Starbucks in downtown Sacramento just as you'd find them in downtown San Francisco or downtown New York.

The main difference is that in the suburbs, if they have one at all (Citrus Heights sure as hell doesn't have an "old town" unless you count Sylvan Corners) it's the remains of an old TOWN. Sacramento is an old CITY, not a town, and the historic central core dwarfs those suburban old towns--you could swallow them up just in the downtown central grid. Of course, we're not as big as many other central cities around the country, because we've always been more of a second-tier city--but we are an old city, despite attempts to characterize us as something other than that.

creamcityleo79

Dec 21, 2007, 9:04 PM

I'm with you wburg...I think econ has been smoking the good stuff again!

otnemarcaS

Dec 21, 2007, 10:17 PM

Trantor, if you read what I said, I did not refer to the city as sterile just
the environment that you choose to show in your photo. All the buildings
look identical in height and design, they all appear to be made from the
same concrete material with no color... and above all, there are no trees.
IMO, a boring street with no character.

Y'know Trantor's original photo is from 1950. A lot has changed since. Realize that this is just one little street in that whole Copacabana area. Copa is definitely not sterile. The photos do not show the density of that area. Many parts are also quite tree lined. And when you go to Ipanema or Leblon nearby, those are even more tree lined, very urban, very cool and just a great area to work, live, and play.

Note that many neighborhoods in San Francisco have little to no trees but we would not exactly call them sterile or boring.

econgrad

Dec 21, 2007, 10:19 PM

I'm with you wburg...I think econ has been smoking the good stuff again! :koko:

This is all just for fun Neuhickman. It's just a forum.

innov8

Dec 21, 2007, 10:41 PM

Y'know Trantor's original photo is from 1950. A lot has changed since. Realize that this is just one little street in that whole Copacabana area. Copa is definitely not sterile. The photos do not show the density of that area. Many parts are also quite tree lined. And when you go to Ipanema or Leblon nearby, those are even more tree lined, very urban, very cool and just a great area to work, live, and play.

Note that many neighborhoods in San Francisco have little to no trees but we would not exactly call them sterile or boring.

Like I said, I'm sure it's a nice place... otnemarcaS, if Trantor would have
posted a photo that was not 57 years old I might have said something different.
I did not question it's density or any other aspect of the city did I?

Like I said, I'm sure it's a nice place... lighten up guys :tup:

creamcityleo79

Dec 21, 2007, 10:53 PM

:koko:

This is all just for fun Neuhickman. It's just a forum.
Really? Because for a second there, I thought I really saw you with your finger circling around your ear! :koko:

econgrad

Dec 22, 2007, 6:48 AM

Really? Because for a second there, I thought I really saw you with your finger circling around your ear! :koko:

:pepper:
And now I shall be a dancing pepper! :haha:

Wburg: Here are the sources for the racial demography:

http://www.muninetguide.com/states/california/municipality/Sacramento.php

http://www.muninetguide.com/school.php?school=360375534

creamcityleo79

Dec 22, 2007, 3:03 PM

wburg

Dec 22, 2007, 6:39 PM

:pepper:
And now I shall be a dancing pepper! :haha:

Wburg: Here are the sources for the racial demography:

http://www.muninetguide.com/states/california/municipality/Sacramento.php

http://www.muninetguide.com/school.php?school=360375534

I'm a dancing cheeseburger!
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/emot-burger.gif

I checked the numbers for Sacramento High, the closest high school to the central city (there aren't any high schools in the grid):

Latino - 28.8%
White - 19.6%
Black - 30.6%
Asian - 12.9%
Native American - 2.2%

Oak Park is where the African American community was "pushed" during redevelopment; prior to the Fifties, downtown was a very integrated community and very densely populated. Afterwards, the Asians were pushed into Southside, the Latinos into Alkali Flat, and the single migrant workers mostly into the central business district.

ozone

Dec 22, 2007, 7:47 PM

I'm not going to debate with a bunch of sub-urbanites about urban matters. It's a choice and let's leave it at that. Besides some the comments made by some of the people on this thread just make me laugh. It's pretty obvious by the comments made by some of the forumers on this thread that they really don't know Sacramento's core very well. And I'm sorry to tell you this -but driving into 'downtown' every now and then does not make you a well informed person. Urbanity takes one many forms across the globe. There's no single model.

It's also obvious that some are not as worldly as they pretend to be. But many suburbanites are very well travelled and worldly. Still it doesn't make them urbanites.

Now this whole bit about which has better shops and restaurants -actually has nothing to do with which is "better". But I would except that type of debate coming from someone who lives outside the city since that basically what the city means to them. I know some of you sub-urbanites want to make your case based on that -but it has nothing to do with anything. It's all about, 100 % about lifestyle. Sacramento does have true urbanites. However, most of them wouldn't hang out where the chowerheads do so you probably won't meet them on your short zips in and out of town.

innov8

Dec 22, 2007, 8:22 PM

ozone

Dec 22, 2007, 10:31 PM

Yes you should consider yourself lucky -j/k :P
I stand by my statement that there's many people in Sacramento and a couple even on this forum who think they know 'downtown/midtown' but when you start talking to them you quickly become aware they are kind of clueless.

I never said who I was refering to so I don't why you should care so much. Obviously I sound like a real jerk to you and maybe I come off like an arrogrant know-it-all and I'm sorry.

I don't think people who don't care about or know midtown/downtown are bad or stupid -just that such people should not try to debate what they don't know and/or get all hostile and negative about a place they don't really know or care about.
I think it's really pathetic when locals tell me how bad Sacramento is and how it'll never amount to anything. In doing so they think they're being so sophisticated.

I don't know anything about Roseville or Rancho Cordova or Elk Grove and I wouldn't try to act like I do just because I occasionally shop, eat or take pictures there. Hey discusion about our city and it's core is great and the fact that many different people contribute to this forum is a good sign.

Very Merry Xmass everyone! :)

econgrad

Dec 22, 2007, 11:42 PM

econgrad

Dec 22, 2007, 11:47 PM

I'm a dancing cheeseburger!
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/emot-burger.gif

I checked the numbers for Sacramento High, the closest high school to the central city (there aren't any high schools in the grid):

Latino - 28.8%
White - 19.6%
Black - 30.6%
Asian - 12.9%
Native American - 2.2%

Oak Park is where the African American community was "pushed" during redevelopment; prior to the Fifties, downtown was a very integrated community and very densely populated. Afterwards, the Asians were pushed into Southside, the Latinos into Alkali Flat, and the single migrant workers mostly into the central business district.

Nice! May I ask you to elaborate on these matters: My questions: Why would ethnic make-up create a better living enviroment? How does ethnic make-up equate to urbanism? Side questions: How where the "Asians" pushed? What forces pushed them? (Also the other races). Thanks Wburg for having something intelligent and mature to say, I really enjoy our debates and discussions!

Trantor

Dec 23, 2007, 7:56 PM

there is no race called Latino. Latinos may be white, black, native american, asians, or mestizo, mestizos being the ones found more in US, since most of them came from poor mexican areas.

wburg

Dec 23, 2007, 8:24 PM

My questions: Why would ethnic make-up create a better living enviroment?
First, keep in mind we're talking about broader diversity than just ethnic makeup: income diversity is a very important factor. I mentioned elsewhere that local developer Sotiris Kolokotronis commented that he was glad to have built a place where the car-wash guys at Harv's could live alongside people making much greater incomes.

Part of the reason for this is that the guy who works at Harv's can walk across the street to work, instead of having to live in the suburbs where rents are lower, and commute in. Not only does this reduce his transit time and make him happier, it means that he has more disposable income and more free time (no gas or time spent on commuting) and he can spend his free money and time doing fun things downtown. Note that this also applies to, say, people who live in Roseville and can walk to their jobs in Roseville. They're just fewer in number, because of the way suburbs work.

It also means that the guy who makes ten times as much as the Harv's employee can also walk to his office downtown. And after work, because they live in the same neighborhood, they have a higher chance of running into each other socially. In the suburbs, generally the people in a neighborhood will be from similar economic status, and because they're mostly driving rather than walking, they have less chance of knowing each other. Part of what makes a city is community.

How does ethnic make-up equate to urbanism?

I mentioned community, and people from different backgrounds knowing each other. It is of course possible to have large urban cities that are relatively non-diverse, but in cities described as "international" or "urbane" you expect to see more kinds of people of different color and modes of dress, hear more languages being spoken and more diverse ideas being discussed.

Sacramento gets its white-bread reputation from its suburbs. Downtown has never been that way, although it used to be even more diverse than it is now.

Side questions: How where the "Asians" pushed? What forces pushed them? (Also the other races).

Depends on how far you go back. In the 19th century there were numerous attempts to do away with the Chinese entirely, ranging from the illegal (beatings and arson) to the legal (several state laws banned Chinese from mining or owning land, federal immigration laws banned Chinese immigrants entirely for decades.) But let's just talk about the period from about 1940 to 1960.

On the eve of World War II, the "West End" of Sacramento was the most densely populated part of town. The area where Old Sacramento is now was the "Labor Market" area, the largest hiring market for farming day laborers in the region. Many of these day laborers wintered in Sacramento, in the old "railroad hotels" and rooming houses near the waterfront. There were two major Chinese areas: the old Chinatown along I Street, and another Chinese neighborhood around Sixth and N Street, just east of Japantown, which ran along M Street from about Third to Sixth and south to about P Street. Just to the south of this was a large Mexican barrio, and south of R Street was Southside, mostly Italian, Portuguese and Slav. There were some African Americans, but not enough to form a single neighborhood. A small community of Moslems from what is now Pakistan, had just founded their new mosque, which is now one of the oldest mosques in the country.

In 1942, the Japanese were taken from Sacramento, and other west coast cities, and interned. Some had time to make arrangement with non-Japanese friends to take care of their property, but most lost their homes and most of their belongings. During the war, many African Americans looking for work came to Sacramento, and many found quarters in the vacant Japantown. Before too long, there was a distinct African American neighborhood, including several legendary jazz nightclubs along M Street, including the Mo-Mo Club and the Zanzibar Club.

At the end of World War II, most of the Japanese came back, crowding into the available space in Japantown or moving south into Southside. In the 1950s, the area faced a more permanent relocation: urban redevelopment.

The city of Sacramento was growing very concerned about its waterfront. The urban core, taking up just a few percent of the city's total space, cost the city a great deal of money in operating expenses (including fire, police, public health, and other maintenance costs) but income from property taxes were low. Part of this was because of redlining: a national policy of the Federal Housing Administration that rated home loan risk based on racial makeup of a neighborhood. Nonwhite neighborhoods equaled high risk, so home loans weren't possible and property values were depressed.

Redevelopment laws, intended to eliminate urban slums and replace them with safer housing, provided a way for cities to take whole neighborhoods and rebuild them, with federal assistance and powerful tools like tax increment financing (bonds for redevelopment based on future property tax income) and everyone's favorite, eminent domain.

Despite the fact that redevelopment was supposed to replace each unit of housing destroyed, there were many ways to get around this requirement. The end result: Most of downtown, from roughly I Street south to Q Street between the river and Tenth Street, was once densely populated by the folks I described. Redevelopment efforts took these people's homes, knocked them down, and replaced them with government office buildings, private office buildings, retail buildings, and a handful of garden apartments that were not affordable to the people who had been displaced. Property owners were bought out by the city, and those who refused to sell were forced out by eminent domain proceedings.

Because racial exclusion laws were still in place when this happened, the nonwhites in the neighborhood couldn't move to the suburbs. There were already some Asians in Southside, so they mostly moved into the south--especially because many of the Italians and Portuguese were moving to East Sacramento and Land Park/Pocket during the postwar boom. As I mentioned above, Latinos moved mostly into Alkali Flat, African Americans into Oak Park, and because the old hotels in the downtown area (like the Berry and the Marshall) weren't getting many tourists (due to the new motels springing up along Sixteenth Street, which had parking) they soon filled up with the migrant workers and other "kings of the road" who used to live near the waterfront.

Sorry if this post is pretty huge, but it's kind of something I know a little about--I quite literally just wrote a book on this: Sacramento's Southside Park. If you're interested, econgrad, they sell it at the Barnes & Noble in Birdcage Walk: they probably still have some signed copies. It covers all of the above in more detail, and includes lots of pictures and a bibliography.

TWAK

Dec 24, 2007, 1:21 AM

so what exactly is this urban lifestyle?

econgrad

Dec 24, 2007, 10:26 AM

brandon12

Dec 24, 2007, 5:53 PM

^well, there's that...

jsf8278

Dec 24, 2007, 8:08 PM

To me, one of the best things about living in the city is not having to get in the car to go absolutely everywhere. I don't think you can pinpoint what exactly it means to be "urban," b/c it means different things to different people.

Since I moved into the city, I noticed that I have developed a sense of neighborhood pride. This is the first time I have ever lived in a city. Before now, I never cared about issues involving development and other factors effecting my surrounding.

Those are two things for me...and the suburbs scare me b/c they are overwhelmingly filled with white, middle aged, middle to high income people who tend to be less willing to be open to different cultures and ideas.

creamcityleo79

Dec 24, 2007, 8:43 PM

Urbanity = A gay friendly, multi-racial (less whities the better), close to work, homeless living next to tolerant billionaires, jazz swingin, government ruling your life, SUV hating, no yard to play in city with a big fat price tag!

Replace homeless and billionaires with diverse income demographic which would eliminate big fat price tag and be realistic about city parks providing a good alternative for a yard and you have a pretty nice place for me! Keep the gay-hating, SUV-loving people out of MY backyard!!!

econgrad

Dec 24, 2007, 9:58 PM

Replace homeless and billionaires with diverse income demographic which would eliminate big fat price tag and be realistic about city parks providing a good alternative for a yard and you have a pretty nice place for me! Keep the gay-hating, SUV-loving people out of MY backyard!!!

Apparently sarcasm just does not work. My point is: Sexual preference, racial make-up and political viewpoints are not a part of Urbanism. How diverse is Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai or Beijing? Not very diverse, but huge Urban centers none the less. How "Tolerant" to different lifestyles is Cairo, Baghdad, Karachi or Istanbul? Not very tolerant at all, yet we would not call these places suburbs. So why politisize our cities here? Why hate the "White Middle Aged Upper Income People Who Drive SUV's" in the suburbs? Making statements like "They are intolerant" is completely ludicrous. Its all made up. My neighbors are from Iran on the left, on the right fellow Africans, we know each other and watch out for each other when we are driving our SUV's up to Tahoe to ski (for me, snowboard). We live in Fair Oaks, a suburb with little crime and no homeless, we like our middle aged white neighbors and they like us and accept us too. Your Urban "lifestyle" is a fantasy. Conjured up by Caucasians who hate Caucasians in the name of being righteous, when in fact, it is just separating people even more and causing hatred where there should be no hatred. Intolerance in any shape or form, including intolerance for "White Middle Aged Upper Income SUV Drivers" is just as wrong as any other "intolerance".

The only valid point for living in DT Sacramento so far, using my words: If you work in downtown, to avoid long commutes and traffic headaches, it is beneficial to live in DT Sacramento so you can walk to work. This saves time. You may not get a big house with a big yard, but you can walk to work, walk to some nice restaurants and spend the money you saved on gas. Although you can just drive into downtown Sacramento and experience the nightlife and happenings a dense population provides, living in the downtown core not only can you experience this, it is easier to become a part of it all because you live among it all.

The above reason I provided applies to everyone, no matter what you believe in (yes, even White Middle Aged SUV driving people can benefit from Urban living! GASP! SHOCK! Kind of like the White Middle Aged Upper Class people who live in East Sacramento!). Stick to non-political points if you can people.

Quest

Dec 24, 2007, 10:37 PM

Well said!

Apparently sarcasm just does not work. My point is: Sexual preference, racial make-up and political viewpoints are not a part of Urbanism. How diverse is Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai or Beijing? Not very diverse, but huge Urban centers none the less. How "Tolerant" to different lifestyles is Cairo, Baghdad, Karachi or Istanbul? Not very tolerant at all, yet we would not call these places suburbs. So why politisize our cities here? Why hate the "White Middle Aged Upper Income People Who Drive SUV's" in the suburbs? Making statements like "They are intolerant" is completely ludicrous. Its all made up. My neighbors are from Iran on the left, on the right fellow Africans, we know each other and watch out for each other when we are driving our SUV's up to Tahoe to ski (for me, snowboard). We live in Fair Oaks, a suburb with little crime and no homeless, we like our middle aged white neighbors and they like us and accept us too. Your Urban "lifestyle" is a fantasy. Conjured up by Caucasians who hate Caucasians in the name of being righteous, when in fact, it is just separating people even more and causing hatred where there should be no hatred. Intolerance in any shape or form, including intolerance for "White Middle Aged Upper Income SUV Drivers" is just as wrong as any other "intolerance".

The only valid point for living in DT Sacramento so far, using my words: If you work in downtown, to avoid long commutes and traffic headaches, it is beneficial to live in DT Sacramento so you can walk to work. This saves time. You may not get a big house with a big yard, but you can walk to work, walk to some nice restaurants and spend the money you saved on gas. Although you can just drive into downtown Sacramento and experience the nightlife and happenings a dense population provides, living in the downtown core not only can you experience this, it is easier to become a part of it all because you live among it all.

The above reason I provided applies to everyone, no matter what you believe in (yes, even White Middle Aged SUV driving people can benefit from Urban living! GASP! SHOCK! Kind of like the White Middle Aged Upper Class people who live in East Sacramento!). Stick to non-political points if you can people.

creamcityleo79

Dec 24, 2007, 11:57 PM

The problem is that suburbanites (of any color!) are more NIMBY and anti-development than those who live in more urban areas. Placating to suburbanites and making downtown/urban areas more welcoming for them is a BAD IDEA!!! Let's take a few examples of those wonderful suburbanite values taking hold in Sacramento and failing MISERABLY!!!
1) Downtown Plaza
2) I-5 through downtown (possible the worst suburban mistake in Sacramento history)
3) tearing up the streetcars to make room for busses and cars!
4) Business 80 and US-50 through downtown

There are, I'm sure, many more. But, if I were living in an "urban area", I wouldn't want those suburban-minded people living near me. They vote for people who are more suburban-minded and those people then make suburban-minded choices. It's a no-brainer to me! If suburban people want to move downtown, go ahead. But, don't impose suburban values on those who already live in those URBAN places!

TWAK

Dec 25, 2007, 12:47 AM

watch out what you say econgrad, posts like that will get you labeled "redneck christian conservative wal-mart shopper" on this forum of ohh so tolerant people

excellent post.

econgrad

Dec 25, 2007, 1:31 AM

watch out what you say econgrad, posts like that will get you labeled "redneck christian conservative wal-mart shopper" on this forum of ohh so tolerant people

excellent post.

Yep. I am waiting for the list of "Suburbanite Values" from Neuhickman. I am assuming that being anti-Christian is being Pro-Urban, and it is Jesus's fault the downtown Plaza sucks, and that we do not have a circular Highway Interchange connecting Highway 80 and Highway 50 because the local Christians wanted the freeway system to be shaped as a cross. :jester:

Its disgusting and sad that development is being politicized. All we should be concerned with development is enhancing and improving all peoples lively hoods by creating nice, crime-free, easy to move about in your car, bus streetcar, taxi or subway, place to live and work and bring up a family. A place where no one is excluded and no one is asked to live somewhere else. Apparently, this is not the case. What an uproar it would have caused if Wburg's sentence Sacramento gets its white-bread reputation from its suburbs. If the word White bread was replaced with the word black? Just one single word would have made all the difference. I am not even "white", and yet I am not ashamed to admit that these great American cities where created and built by white-christian people in the first place. They also died by the millions so we can debate nonsense like this on the internet as free people. Anti-White does not mean Urbanism. Anti-Anything does not mean Urbanism. Urbanism is an economic system for dense populations. In order for Urban systems to work, they should be practical, convenient, and sociable. Excluding anyone in the name of Urbanism is political, not practical.

So, if we can: Anyone else have something intellegent to say in support of living in downtown as opposed to Roseville or Folsom? Something solid, non political? Or is what makes Downtown a better place to live because it contains less white people? Is that your reason Neuhickmon?

econgrad

Dec 25, 2007, 1:32 AM

MERRY CHRISTmas!

creamcityleo79

Dec 25, 2007, 1:39 AM

watch out what you say econgrad, posts like that will get you labeled "redneck christian conservative wal-mart shopper" on this forum of ohh so tolerant people

excellent post.
I didn't bring any of that into it. All I said was that suburban-minded people do not espouse the same values as most who live in urban areas and they should not try to impose their values on urban areas! I said nothing about Wal-Mart, conservative Christians (although often times they have a LOT to say about me and how I am!!), or rednecks. As a matter of fact, I have friends and family who fit into all 3 of those categories and we get along just fine. We just don't have the same values as far as the type of area we would choose to live in. But, I can get along with those people just fine. So, I'm not sure where your post comes from if you're implying that I would label someone those things! Besides, I have not known too many rednecks, conservative Christians, or Wal-Mart shoppers to be ashamed that they are one of those things. So, why would it be a big deal!?

econgrad

Dec 25, 2007, 1:45 AM

I didn't bring any of that into it. All I said was that suburban-minded people do not espouse the same values as most who live in urban areas and they should not try to impose their values on urban areas! I said nothing about Wal-Mart, conservative Christians (although often times they have a LOT to say about me and how I am!!), or rednecks. As a matter of fact, I have friends and family who fit into all 3 of those categories and we get along just fine. We just don't have the same values as far as the type of area we would choose to live in. But, I can get along with those people just fine. So, I'm not sure where your post comes from if you're implying that I would label someone those things! Besides, I have not known too many rednecks, conservative Christians, or Wal-Mart shoppers to be ashamed that they are one of those things. So, why would it be a big deal!?

No one is ashamed, and no one is claiming to be anything. My arguement continues to be the same: Give me one solid reason why Downtown Sacramento is more desirable than Folsom or Roseville? I myself gave a solid reason why, that applies to everyone. Can anyone else provide another one, that is not political?

For the record, for those who may have missed the original post, here it is again:

Apparently sarcasm just does not work. My point is: Sexual preference, racial make-up and political viewpoints are not a part of Urbanism. How diverse is Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai or Beijing? Not very diverse, but huge Urban centers none the less. How "Tolerant" to different lifestyles is Cairo, Baghdad, Karachi or Istanbul? Not very tolerant at all, yet we would not call these places suburbs. So why politisize our cities here? Why hate the "White Middle Aged Upper Income People Who Drive SUV's" in the suburbs? Making statements like "They are intolerant" is completely ludicrous. Its all made up. My neighbors are from Iran on the left, on the right fellow Africans, we know each other and watch out for each other when we are driving our SUV's up to Tahoe to ski (for me, snowboard). We live in Fair Oaks, a suburb with little crime and no homeless, we like our middle aged white neighbors and they like us and accept us too. Your Urban "lifestyle" is a fantasy. Conjured up by Caucasians who hate Caucasians in the name of being righteous, when in fact, it is just separating people even more and causing hatred where there should be no hatred. Intolerance in any shape or form, including intolerance for "White Middle Aged Upper Income SUV Drivers" is just as wrong as any other "intolerance".

The only valid point for living in DT Sacramento so far, using my words: If you work in downtown, to avoid long commutes and traffic headaches, it is beneficial to live in DT Sacramento so you can walk to work. This saves time. You may not get a big house with a big yard, but you can walk to work, walk to some nice restaurants and spend the money you saved on gas. Although you can just drive into downtown Sacramento and experience the nightlife and happenings a dense population provides, living in the downtown core not only can you experience this, it is easier to become a part of it all because you live among it all.

The above reason I provided applies to everyone, no matter what you believe in (yes, even White Middle Aged SUV driving people can benefit from Urban living! GASP! SHOCK! Kind of like the White Middle Aged Upper Class people who live in East Sacramento!). Stick to non-political points if you can people.

creamcityleo79

Dec 25, 2007, 1:51 AM

Yep. I am waiting for the list of "Suburbanite Values" from Neuhickman. I am assuming that being anti-Christian is being Pro-Urban, and it is Jesus's fault the downtown Plaza sucks, and that we do not have a circular Highway Interchange connecting Highway 80 and Highway 50 because the local Christians wanted the freeway system to be shaped as a cross. :jester:

Its disgusting and sad that development is being politicized. All we should be concerned with development is enhancing and improving all peoples lively hoods by creating nice, crime-free, easy to move about in your car, bus streetcar, taxi or subway, place to live and work and bring up a family. A place where no one is excluded and no one is asked to live somewhere else. Apparently, this is not the case. What an uproar it would have caused if Wburg's sentence Sacramento gets its white-bread reputation from its suburbs. If the word White bread was replaced with the word black? Just one single word would have made all the difference. I am not even "white", and yet I am not ashamed to admit that these great American cities where created and built by white-christian people in the first place. They also died by the millions so we can debate nonsense like this on the internet as free people. Anti-White does not mean Urbanism. Anti-Anything does not mean Urbanism. Urbanism is an economic system for dense populations. In order for Urban systems to work, they should be practical, convenient, and sociable. Excluding anyone in the name of Urbanism is political, not practical.

So, if we can: Anyone else have something intellegent to say in support of living in downtown as opposed to Roseville or Folsom? Something solid, non political? Or is what makes Downtown a better place to live because it contains less white people? Is that your reason Neuhickmon?
In my original post on this, I was responding to the ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek description you gave of urbanism and you are now practicallly calling me racist towards whites, Christian-hating, and intolerant. I AM WHITE! I must really hate myself! My whole family is Christian and my best friend is a bible-thumping Christian! I think it is rude and assumptive of YOU to label ME these things when I never said anything about you! I am a liberal, gay man! I am not ashamed of this at all! If you want to live in a dense, urban place, you have to be tolerant! I consider myself pretty darn tolerant...EXCEPT when it comes to those who are intolerant! If you (general you...not you, econ) don't like gays, if you want to lump all black people into a stereotype, if you want to be an intolerant NIMBY living in an urban area, I think you need to reconsider where you are living instead of imposing your intolerant values on others.

As far as the Christian thing goes, Christians hated on gays LONG Before gays hated on Christians and STILL do it to a MUCH larger degree than gays do to Christians!

Intolerance is WRONG wherever it comes from! As far as your rant on how an urban area should be, I agree with most of your post! But, you don't need to get all religious in a skyscraper forum! Unfortunately politics has to do with development in todays day and age. But, whether or not someone is a Christian should NOT! So, Merry Christmas to you, too!

creamcityleo79

Dec 25, 2007, 2:00 AM

TWAK

Dec 25, 2007, 2:59 AM

econgrad

Dec 25, 2007, 3:00 AM

I'll tell you the honest truth! If I am an openly gay man living in Roseville or Rocklin or many other suburban Sacramento places, why would I want to live in an area where the VAST majority of the people there do not approve of my lifestyle and are going to vote to restrict me from having the same rights they do!?? Why would I want to live there!? As a gay man, a big reason I would want to live downtown(or in a more urbanized area) is because I am accepted and don't have to deal with the kind of discrimination that I HAVE dealt with in the suburbs! You wouldn't know that discrimination because you are not gay, econ! I hate to bring this into things. But, if we were having this discussion and the values of the 50's (segregation, racism, etc) were still around, you would not be having this argument with me! Of course, there are many other reasons that people would want to live downtown! But, for me, this is a big reason!

Also, comparing foreign cities with American cities is comparing apples to oranges! You are giving examples where whole countries are less diverse ethnically. America is not like that! You cannot compare them! It is NOT the same!!!

I know gay people who live in Roseville and Folsom and Fair Oaks (My Gym in Fair Oaks is mostly Gay Men and Women). I am not convinced and never will be that places like Roseville are full of intolerant people. This is simply not the case. It is also not a valid point in support of living in Downtown Sacramento, because this does not apply to everyone as a whole. On a personal note, if you were my neighbor and someone harrased you for what you do in your bedroom, I would be obligated and proud to defend your rights and your livelyhood if needed! At that same notion, I will defend anyone who calls themselves Christians, Jews, Muslims anything. I am not getting all "religious" on anyone, I am reacting to the anti-Christian comments in the name of "Urbanism". If you would read my posts more closely with an open mind, you would see that I am not being insulting, that opposing posts against me are. I am just reacting and defending people's rights.
I am also sick of trying to discuss what Urbanism means while others make it a political discussion. I am equally offended by people claiming they are offended by the non-tolerant ignorant suburbanites, when there really isn't that type of polar-ism. These are just places where people live. All kinds of people. We can live together in harmony in the Suburbs as we can live together in harmony in the cities. Tolerance is not part of Urbanism, tolerance is just common sense. Leave it out of economic development and give me some real reasons why I would pay $1 Million dollars for a 2 bedroom Condo verses $600,000 for a 5 bedroom house with a swimming pool and we can continue to have a good informative discussion. Unfortunately with comments like "White Bread" and "Intolerant Suburbs" all you will get is reactionary jokes making fun of you.
FYI: I have experienced as much racism against me as most people, this is not a suburban problem only. People are just as ignorant in large cities as they are in the Suburbs. To create a true "tolerant" world, people would have to end comments regarding race and economic status period. No more "White Bread" comments. They are just as bad as making fun of any race or creed. In the end, it hurts all of us, because it shows that classification of a people using stereotypes is acceptable. It is not acceptable, and has nothing to do with Street Cars or Traffic Congestion, or the Development of the Railyards. Re-read my posts and you will see I preach more tolerance than most.
So, back to the main issue! :)

Can anyone give me a solid reason to live in downtown Sacramento over Roseville or Folsom? (I gave one, still waiting for more...)

Quest

Dec 25, 2007, 4:23 AM

One reason for me "THE VIEW"
If they'll build something in West Sac next to Sacramento River...

Can anyone give me a solid reason to live in downtown Sacramento over Roseville or Folsom? (I gave one, still waiting for more...)

Fusey

Dec 25, 2007, 4:30 AM

If you want to hear racism ride RT. On the flip-side, upper-class wannabe suburban gangstas need to die. Merry Christmas!

JeffZurn

Dec 25, 2007, 8:43 AM

^ Yes I agree Merry Christmas to all!

econgrad

Dec 25, 2007, 8:54 AM

Happy Holidays too! Thanks neuhickman79 for your discussions. I realize that if I felt discriminated and hated in the suburbs I would leave with a bitter taste as well. I probably would be leaving posts speaking negatively about the people in the suburbs as well if I was in your shoes. No one deserves to be discriminated against. Some after thought questions then if anyone feels like adding:
Could the closeness of living in Urban areas really help true tolerance? If so, can we have some examples.

(If you guys haven't noticed, I like good dialog and healthy debates. I hope you guys enjoy this as well, I know they can become messy, but it is all in good fun. I am not here to offend anyone, just attempting to bring out points of view. Thanks Wburg for all your research! I am impressed with all the information you provided in your posts.)

creamcityleo79

Dec 25, 2007, 5:20 PM

Thanks for being understanding, econ! It's not that I don't like the suburbs in general. I just don't like what it represents sometimes. We can talk about it for days and days. But, this would be a discussion better had in person. Perhaps a meat in February will allow for this! :) Merry Christmas everyone!

wburg

Dec 26, 2007, 5:30 PM

I would very much resist the suggestion that the level of tolerance in the central city is anti-Christian. There are a great many Christian churches in the central city, including a Catholic cathedral and several smaller Portuguese Catholic churches, large churches of the Lutheran, Episcopalian, Baptist, Orthodox and other Christian denominations, the oldest African Methodist Episcopalian congregation in the western United States, and many others. Most of the immigrant groups I mentioned above were predominantly Christian (Portuguese, Italians, Mexicans, African Americans) and very devout, and even those that were not had Christian populations (in addition to the Buddhist and Tenrikyo churches, there were Japanese and Chinese Christian churches downtown, many of which are still around.) The non-Christian churches in the central city (like the Moslem mosque) live together quite well with their Christian neighbors: the mosque is a block from a Baptist congregation. Even the features of the central city that many (both in the suburbs and downtown) decry are largely Christian organizations: Lutheran Social Services, the Union Gospel Mission, the Salvation Army, or the much-maligned Loaves and Fishes, are all Christian-based organizations.

Econgrad, you seem to simply be discounting any argument put forth as a reason for living in the central city, and then repeating your statement that nobody has offered you a reason. You're implying that if it isn't a reason for YOU to live in the central city, it isn't actually a reason. I get the feeling sometimes that you are actually physically incapable of seeing the same city I live in. I hope that isn't the case--but often when I talk about something I like about living here, you claim it doesn't exist. Which is a bit disappointing, to say the least.

For me, one reason I moved downtown was reflected 80 years earlier by Ernesto Galarza. His autobiographical novel Barrio Boy told the story of his growing up in Sacramento, an immigrant from Mexico in the early 20th century. He described Sacramento like this:

“The lower quarter was not exclusively a Mexican barrio but a mix of many nationalities. Between L and N Streets two blocks from us, the Japanese had taken over. Their homes were in the alleys behind shops, which they advertised with signs covered with black scribbles…The Portuguese and Italian families gathered in their own neighborhoods along Fourth and Fifth Streets southward toward the Y Street levee. The Poles, Yugo-Slavs, and Koreans, too few to take over any particular part of it, were scattered throughout the barrio. Black men drifted in and out of town, working the waterfront. It was a kaleidoscope of colors and languages and customs that surprised and absorbed me at every turn.”--Ernesto Galarza, Barrio Boy

Now, of course, a lot of what he saw was gone from Sacramento by the time I first visited downtown in the 1970s. But enough of it was there that I still caught on to what drew him, and it entranced me equally. And it still does.

wburg

Dec 26, 2007, 7:19 PM

Apparently sarcasm just does not work. My point is: Sexual preference, racial make-up and political viewpoints are not a part of Urbanism. How diverse is Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai or Beijing? Not very diverse, but huge Urban centers none the less. How "Tolerant" to different lifestyles is Cairo, Baghdad, Karachi or Istanbul? Not very tolerant at all, yet we would not call these places suburbs.

How diverse is Tokyo, Moscow, Mumbai or Beijing? Well, I'd consider Mumbai to be plenty diverse, as this cut-and-paste from Wikipedia shows:

The religions represented in Mumbai include Hindus (68% of the population), Muslims (17% of the population), and Christians and Jains (4% each). The remainder are Parsis, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews and atheists.

According to the 1991 census, the ethnic groups demographics are - Maharashtrians (42%), Gujaratis (18%), North Indian (21%), Tamil people (3%), Sindhis (3%), Kannadigas (5%) and others.

Mumbai has a large polyglot population like any other metropolitan city of India. Marathi, the official language of Maharashtra state is widely spoken. Other languages spoken are Hindi and English. A colloquial form of Hindi, known as Bambaiya – a blend of Marathi, Hindi, Indian English and some invented colloquial words are spoken on the streets. English is extensively spoken, and is the principal language of the city's white collar workforce. The overall literacy rate of the city is above 86%, higher than the national average.[31]

A large polyglot population, like any other metropolitan city in India. That means diversity--economic, cultural, religious, language, etcetera. India is profoundly, amazingly diverse, and its cities personify that diversity.

Although, before I start on a full laundry list of how pretty much all the cities you named have some aspect of diversity (Are you really suggesting that Istanbul, nexus of trade, cultural exchange and knowledge between Europe and Asia for over a millenium and a half, when it was founded as "Constantinople" and stood as the capital of the Eastern Roman (later Byzantine) Empire, isn't a diverse place?) keep in mind that north American cities really are a lot different than cities in other parts of the world, both in terms of density and physical arrangement--and especially their relationship with the suburbs.

econgrad

Dec 26, 2007, 10:06 PM

The debate is: Why would I or someone pay more to live downtown in a 2 bedroom high-rise condo for $1 Million verses a 4 bedroom house with pool in the suburbs of Sacramento for lets say $600,000.?

Valid points for DT:
1 - If you work there, its easy to walk around and walk to work avoiding traffic. A person can save money on gas and even a car. (This point is from me!)
2 - The Views! (This is from Twak) Views of a city skyline.

Valid points against DT:
1 - Crime
2 - Homeless problem
3 - Too expensive for what you get to own.
4 - Not employed in DT Sacramento. If a person works in say Folsom or Roseville, downtown still does not offer enough for a person to endure a commute to work. Both cities have nightlife, great resturaunts, many good people, and a budding thriving culture as well. (On a personal note, a better music scene, but that really does not count..lol!)

Invalid Points:
1 - Diversity: Although your points of view are extremely interesting on the matter, suburbs can be just as diverse (especially with your definitions) than an urban setting. Also, you cannot factor "diversity" in a demand curve, because your diversity may appeal to you, but to many others that may not be a reason for you to live their (especially if you do not English, you may want to live in a community of common peoples first, then move into a more diverse area once you have learned English and are more familiar with the United States). Therefore does not effect demand, and does not effect the price. (Should not effect the price).
2 - Neighborhood Pride: This can happen in any neighborhood, suburb or countryside.
3 - Walking to everything. There are neighborhoods in Citrus Heights with everything under the sun in walking distance from your homes. Also in Roseville and Folsom.
4 - City Parks take the place of yards. Fair Oaks Park, Roseville Park, Folsom Zoo and Park and the River everywhere ADDS to your living with your big backyard and pool. You can have the best of both worlds, a yard, and all the parks and the river. It can be argued that some downtown parks are unsafe because of the homelessness, drugs and crime. Especially for children.

Wburg: Your reaching with your India statistics on diversity, so my answer to your question is: YES. With your definition of diversity, suburbs are as diverse as cities. We have different religions, peoples, and economic diversity as well. So here's the plan, your a Realtor trying to convince a 5 person family (Mom, Dad, 3 Kids) to live in the central city, over Folsom or Roseville. How would you do it? What are your points? Why should they give up their cars and yards to bring up a family in downtown Sacramento?

wburg

Dec 26, 2007, 11:47 PM

The debate is: Why would I or someone pay more to live downtown in a 2 bedroom high-rise condo for $1 Million verses a 4 bedroom house with pool in the suburbs of Sacramento for lets say $600,000.?

If that's the debate, count me out, because I'm no fan of high-rise condos and don't see any point in arguing about them. I'm coming from the viewpoint of someone with a $350,000 2 bedroom house in midtown with a ten-foot yard. We're dealing with waaaay different realities here.

1 - Crime
2 - Homeless problem
3 - Too expensive for what you get to own.
4 - Not employed in DT Sacramento.

1. There's crime everywhere--and the worst crime rates in the region are in the old suburbs to the south. I feel a lot safer walking around midtown (day or night) than I would in Rancho Cordova or even Arden-Arcade.

2. The homeless are everywhere--the reason why Fair Oaks doesn't have a "homeless problem" is because homeless who turn up there (or in other suburbs) get shuttled off to the nearest major city--that is, Sacramento. Sacramento (like San Francisco or Los Angeles, or any other regional center) becomes a dumping ground for social problems throughout the region. Because of the political and economic organization of suburbs, they literally don't have to address a lot of these problems, and become financial parasites off of big cities.

3. As I have mentioned before, a four-bedroom house would be pretty useless to me: I live in a two-person household, with no desire to add any more people to it!

I did know some folks who lived in Gold River a decade or so back. They paid a massive amount of money for this huge four-bedroom house with a pool. Because they were a couple with one daughter, who had grown up years before, they slept in one bedroom, used another as an office, and the others weren't even furnished--there was no point in doing so. They had a spotless living room and dining room that they used once or twice a year, used their pool even less, and spent 90% of their time at home in the den next to the kitchen. Most of the house was just taking up space, so they could show off their "Gold River address." Even though they were relatively well off, they had to continue working (two incomes) well into their sixties to maintain the mortgage.

My wife and I saw this and decided we wanted no part in a life like that. Our first house was a 731 square foot, one-bedroom, just outside the grid;our current midtown 950 sf two-bedroom feels like a palace--and looks like one, thanks to its century-old charm and solid architectural bones. Older houses tend to be smaller, but are profoundly functional if you know how to use them. The front lawn is now a non-issue, and as I have mentioned my massive 20x40 foot backyard will soon be a vegetable garden and off-street parking. I'm not a pool guy, but if I really want to go swimming I can go hit up a friend of mine down the street who has a 1920s era pool that looks like something out of a Busby Berkeley musical. Because we don't have to spend a whole lot of time doing routine maintenance on our house (like mowing those huge lawns), and don't have to work extra hard to pay for more house than we need, we can spend more time doing things we want to do--some of which includes things like restoring and updating bits of our house, on our schedule. And because we're living well below our means, we're planning on early retirement (although, for a writer, "retirement" means "writing books full-time.")

4. If someone isn't employed in downtown Sacramento, then yes, that's an excellent reason for them to not live here! However, the central business district is a huge job generator. So huge, in fact, that many surrounding communities have used Sacramento's employment figures as part of their own employment figures because so many of their residents are commuters. The result is, again, that parasitic relationship between cities and suburbs: a commuting suburbanite pays property tax in the city where they live, not the one where they work. Thus, the suburbs tend to be much more flush with cash than the core city--not because of any fiscal mismanagement on the core city's part, but because the carpetbagging commuter takes money from the downtown office and spends it elsewhere. A parasitic relationship. So here, yes, I agree, people who live in, say, Roseville, should work in Roseville, rather than commuting. But there really aren't enough jobs there for that to be feasible.

1 - Diversity: Although your points of view are extremely interesting on the matter, suburbs can be just as diverse (especially with your definitions) than an urban setting. Also, you cannot factor "diversity" in a demand curve, because your diversity may appeal to you, but to many others that may be a reason to not live in an area. Therefore does not effect demand, and does not effect the price. (Should not effect the price).

You're assuming that your opinion is reality here. "Should not affect the price" means that YOU think it shouldn't, but it does. As I have shown in several places above, the race and diversity of a community can have profound effects on land values. Racial exclusion policies, redlining and other factors were very much in force until the 1960s and 1970s, and racial (and, to a lesser extent, working class) migration into neighborhoods has a definite effect on property values even today. You really can't discuss the suburbs or urban structure of the past century WITHOUT talking about race: it would be like trying to discuss cities without mentioning cars, or houses. It's a primary factor, and you can't avoid talking about it just because you don't find it comfortable.

As an example, Rancho Cordova started out as an upper-class suburb, but as nonwhites and the working class moved in, the wealthier citizens headed for the hills (specifically, to Fair Oaks and Citrus Heights and Folsom.) When I was a teenager, it was often referred to as "Rancho Cambodia" due to both the large Southeast Asian population that had moved in and the area's growing level of violence.

You would be correct in assuming that most middle-class whites don't want to live near anyone who is nonwhite (the ones in your example above who prefer to avoid diversity), which is why most middle-class whites prefer the suburbs. While racial exclusion laws are no longer in effect, the nonwhite populations in affluent suburbs are often enculturated in middle-class white attitudes to the point where they'd make Barack Obama look like 50 Cent.

When I say the suburbs are "white bread," I'm not talking about "white people." I'm talking about boring, bland, fuddy-duddy suburban attitudes. What plain white Wonder bread with Miracle Whip is to food, the suburbs are to living. I prefer my meal with a little spice, that's all, even if there's some dirt in it sometimes.

econgrad

Dec 27, 2007, 12:17 AM

You would be correct in assuming that most middle-class whites don't want to live near anyone who is nonwhite (the ones in your example above who prefer to avoid diversity), which is why most middle-class whites prefer the suburbs. While racial exclusion laws are no longer in effect, the nonwhite populations in affluent suburbs are often enculturated in middle-class white attitudes to the point where they'd make Barack Obama look like 50 Cent.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I also think that the statement "Most Middle-Class Whites Don't want to live near anyone who is nonwhite" is almost if not racist in itself. Your applying your opinion to a large group of people, and a statement like is unfounded. I would not want someone talking about my ethnicity that way, even though many still do unfortunately.

wburg

Dec 27, 2007, 12:34 AM

The statement isn't unfounded if it is backed up with evidence, and, well, it is. FHA redlining isn't some conspiracy theory, it was official government policy. Racial exclusion laws weren't the exception to the rule in the suburbs, they were the rule in California until our parents' generation.

It's not racist to state the obvious: that racism exists in this country, and that racism by whites was a primary factor in American urban development in the 20th century which continues today. It's as important as cars, or balloon-frame homes, or even skyscrapers, because people acted, both as individuals and as communities, in response to racial migration patterns, just as they did to technological and eocnomic shifts.

Feel free to call me a racist all you like, it doesn't make you any less wrong.

Los_Lobo

Dec 27, 2007, 12:42 AM

The debate is: Why would I or someone pay more to live downtown in a 2 bedroom high-rise condo for $1 Million verses a 4 bedroom house with pool in the suburbs of Sacramento for lets say $600,000.?

Valid points for DT:
1 - If you work there, its easy to walk around and walk to work avoiding traffic. A person can save money on gas and even a car. (This point is from me!)
2 - The Views! (This is from Twak) Views of a city skyline.

Valid points against DT:
1 - Crime
2 - Homeless problem
3 - Too expensive for what you get to own.
4 - Not employed in DT Sacramento. If a person works in say Folsom or Roseville, downtown still does not offer enough for a person to endure a commute to work. Both cities have nightlife, great resturaunts, many good people, and a budding thriving culture as well. (On a personal note, a better music scene, but that really does not count..lol!)

Invalid Points:
1 - Diversity: Although your points of view are extremely interesting on the matter, suburbs can be just as diverse (especially with your definitions) than an urban setting. Also, you cannot factor "diversity" in a demand curve, because your diversity may appeal to you, but to many others that may be a reason to not live in an area. Therefore does not effect demand, and does not effect the price. (Should not effect the price).
2 - Neighborhood Pride: This can happen in any neighborhood, suburb or countryside.
3 - Walking to everything. There are neighborhoods in Citrus Heights with everything under the sun in walking distance from your homes. Also in Roseville and Folsom.
4 - City Parks take the place of yards. Fair Oaks Park, Roseville Park, Folsom Zoo and Park and the River everywhere ADDS to your living with your big backyard and pool. You can have the best of both worlds, a yard, and all the parks and the river. It can be argued that some downtown parks are unsafe because of the homelessness, drugs and crime. Especially for children.

Valid Point #3 for DT:
Not everyone wants a large house in the suburbs. I've had a large house in the burbs for a long time and it's a LOT OF WORK. I would gladly pay up to live in a 2-bedroom condo in a high rise with no yard work, little housework, and could lock up and leave for a trip without cleaning out gutters, fixing sprinklers, and dusting rooms I don't use. I see it as simplifying my life.

Also, as TWAK said, the view. Having a view of the city would provide a lot of enjoyment for me, much more so than looking out my current front window and seeing my neighbor's house.

I would disagree with your "invalid point" of being able to walk to everything and would put it back on the valid list (at least this would go on MY list). I'm not familiar with the walkable neighborhoods in Citrus Heights and elsewhere you mentioned but usually if there are large suburban homes taking up a lot of acreage, then it is more difficult to fit in as many restaurants, art galleries, museums, etc. within a short distance to the homes. I also find walking in a city to be much more enjoyable than walking in the suburbs because there tends to be a higher energy level in a city because more people are out and about (I'm sure there are some exceptions...... just my opinion here). Also, having public transportation more readily available would allow me to get rid of a car.

As for your points against DT:
1 - Crime: yes that's valid. I think I would need to be more careful living downtown.
2 - Homeless problem: Yep, I'm really not keen with that but I've found most to be harmless. I figure as more non-homeless people live downtown then it won't be such an issue. Again, I would probably need to be more careful.
3 - Too expensive for what you get: You're probably right..... for some people. I'm sure there are many people like myself that don't want or need all that space. I fill my current extra space with junk I rarely see or use. I'll pay HOA dues so someone else can maintain the swimming pool for the handful of times I may use it in a year. I see buying a smaller home with no yard work as buying time and freedom. It's difficult to put a price tag on that.
4 - Commuting to work: Yes, people who need to commute to Roseville or Folsom may not want to endure the hardship from DT but there are many who already have much longer commutes than that so they can enjoy living where they please. Again, this wouldn't be an issue for me since I work in Davis and the commute would be fairly easy.

I also don't find anything wrong with living in the suburbs. It's not for me at this point in my life but I have enjoyed the many years with neighborhood bbq's, planting flowers, restoring and decorating my 1927 home, and everything else that comes with living in the suburbs. I'm just ready for a change. It doesn't make me better, hipper, more tolerant or anything else than anybody who chooses to live elsewhere. It's just a personal choice of mine.

In summary (are ya still with me here?), I find all your points for and against DT living as very interesting and they show that different people value different things at different times in their life. Good thing, too, since I don't want EVERYONE moving downtown when I do :)

One final point, if it costs a $1 million to get a 2-bedroom condo downtown then I probably will have to rethink this......

econgrad

Dec 27, 2007, 1:45 AM

Wburg: I am not calling you a racist. I am saying your generalized statement can be considered a racist statement. I read all your posts, and you are not a racist in any way.

Los Lobo: Thanks! Excellent points. This whole thing started with someone asking (I forget whom, it has been so long and so many posts ago) why it is so difficult to get projects built in DT Sacramento and why are there so many people not supported of a strong central core in this city. I have tried to show some supporters of a strong central city what the opposing points of view were, like trying to explain the logic of an anti-downtown arena individual's outlook to a person who supports a DT arena paid for by our tax dollars. Why:
1 - The reason why Q & R and other projects have been opposed is that many people in the metro area do not understand the benefits of a strong central core. Some are outright afraid of large cities, because of their lack of experience with them. Therefore, much is opposed.
2 - The city and urban supporters (all) need to explain the reasons why we all benefit from a strong central core. Especially if tax dollars are going to help fund development.
3 - Through bad urban planning, such as "Midtown Calming Project", Natomas, Oak Park's terrible reputation (mostly caused by the media), not clinching the crime problems in the central core and K street, and now wanting to increase traffic congestion artificially in the central core, and not creating an affordable convenient for families to live central core.
This turns people off of urbanism, we need to unite all people in support of good and efficient urban policies by using better marketing and executing better policies. We need to convince the so called suburbanites to support development in the central core, or else we will continue to have opposition, because we are all in the same metro area and improving one area can effect all areas. Excluding people because of wanting to live in a suburb and accusing these same people of being intolerant will not convince them to support legislation that supports central core development and more efficient public transportation.

creamcityleo79

Dec 27, 2007, 2:17 AM

Valid Point #3 for DT:
Not everyone wants a large house in the suburbs. I've had a large house in the burbs for a long time and it's a LOT OF WORK. I would gladly pay up to live in a 2-bedroom condo in a high rise with no yard work, little housework, and could lock up and leave for a trip without cleaning out gutters, fixing sprinklers, and dusting rooms I don't use. I see it as simplifying my life.

Also, as TWAK said, the view. Having a view of the city would provide a lot of enjoyment for me, much more so than looking out my current front window and seeing my neighbor's house.

I would disagree with your "invalid point" of being able to walk to everything and would put it back on the valid list (at least this would go on MY list). I'm not familiar with the walkable neighborhoods in Citrus Heights and elsewhere you mentioned but usually if there are large suburban homes taking up a lot of acreage, then it is more difficult to fit in as many restaurants, art galleries, museums, etc. within a short distance to the homes. I also find walking in a city to be much more enjoyable than walking in the suburbs because there tends to be a higher energy level in a city because more people are out and about (I'm sure there are some exceptions...... just my opinion here). Also, having public transportation more readily available would allow me to get rid of a car.

As for your points against DT:
1 - Crime: yes that's valid. I think I would need to be more careful living downtown.
2 - Homeless problem: Yep, I'm really not keen with that but I've found most to be harmless. I figure as more non-homeless people live downtown then it won't be such an issue. Again, I would probably need to be more careful.
3 - Too expensive for what you get: You're probably right..... for some people. I'm sure there are many people like myself that don't want or need all that space. I fill my current extra space with junk I rarely see or use. I'll pay HOA dues so someone else can maintain the swimming pool for the handful of times I may use it in a year. I see buying a smaller home with no yard work as buying time and freedom. It's difficult to put a price tag on that.
4 - Commuting to work: Yes, people who need to commute to Roseville or Folsom may not want to endure the hardship from DT but there are many who already have much longer commutes than that so they can enjoy living where they please. Again, this wouldn't be an issue for me since I work in Davis and the commute would be fairly easy.

I also don't find anything wrong with living in the suburbs. It's not for me at this point in my life but I have enjoyed the many years with neighborhood bbq's, planting flowers, restoring and decorating my 1927 home, and everything else that comes with living in the suburbs. I'm just ready for a change. It doesn't make me better, hipper, more tolerant or anything else than anybody who chooses to live elsewhere. It's just a personal choice of mine.

In summary (are ya still with me here?), I find all your points for and against DT living as very interesting and they show that different people value different things at different times in their life. Good thing, too, since I don't want EVERYONE moving downtown when I do :)

One final point, if it costs a $1 million to get a 2-bedroom condo downtown then I probably will have to rethink this......
That about sums it up for me!

wburg

Dec 27, 2007, 4:08 PM

Wburg: I am not calling you a racist. I am saying your generalized statement can be considered a racist statement. I read all your posts, and you are not a racist in any way.

1 - The reason why Q & R and other projects have been opposed is that many people in the metro area do not understand the benefits of a strong central core. Some are outright afraid of large cities, because of their lack of experience with them. Therefore, much is opposed.
2 - The city and urban supporters (all) need to explain the reasons why we all benefit from a strong central core. Especially if tax dollars are going to help fund development.
3 - Through bad urban planning, such as "Midtown Calming Project", Natomas, Oak Park's terrible reputation (mostly caused by the media), not clinching the crime problems in the central core and K street, and now wanting to increase traffic congestion artificially in the central core, and not creating an affordable convenient for families to live central core.
This turns people off of urbanism, we need to unite all people in support of good and efficient urban policies by using better marketing and executing better policies. We need to convince the so called suburbanites to support development in the central core, or else we will continue to have opposition, because we are all in the same metro area and improving one area can effect all areas. Excluding people because of wanting to live in a suburb and accusing these same people of being intolerant will not convince them to support legislation that supports central core development and more efficient public transportation.

econgrad: You're interpreting it as racist because you're misinterpreting it.

1. People didn't support Q&R because it was a RIDICULOUSLY BAD IDEA. People didn't like the fact that the plan was really shoddy and kept falling apart, the fact that the Maloofs are atrocious jerks didn't help. It was too vague, too obviously a sneaky money-grab (the two separate measures vs. a two-thirds measure, the blurry picture of what the other half-billion would be used for, etc.)

2. Plenty of those reasons won't play well with the folks who don't live in the core. The failed attempt by Darrell Steinberg to address some of the issues of suburban parasitism (property tax drain, suburban lack of social services, unwillingness to participate in public transit projects, higher infrastrucure costs) is just an example of how the suburbs don't have to pay their share--it's the only way they can keep solvent. Of course, in plummeting home markets, they can't even do that--look at the article in today's Bee about Rocklin. Unfortunately, short of requiring that suburban counties start addressing their own social-service problems and creating job centers to match their housing imbalances, doing that will be tough. Tax sharing would be a good start, though.

3. Your accusations of "bad urban planning" don't really have anything to do with urban planning in Sacramento, and quite a lot to do with bad suburban planning designed to sponge off of cities. Cities have problems especially because they have to make up for suburbs' inadequacies without any equivalent fiscal return. The city's plan to downgrade streets from C to E isn't an artificial increase, but rather an admission that traffic is going to get worse because people really, really want to be downtown, and they usually drive there, so it's no longer cost-effective to try to limit traffic to the level of a suburban street. Maintaining a "C" traffic standard costs money that could be spent on other things--like police, public transportation, affordable housing subsidies. Because suburbanites assume that cities are an infinite magical money tree, any time cities acknowledge their fiscal limits, it must be an "artificial" means to hurt them. Nonsense!

You are also assuming many other things that aren't true. Years ago, when I talked with people in the Bay Area and mentioned I was from Sacramento, I'd get annoying remarks like "doesn't Sacramento have more cows than people?" and these days, instead I get "Really? I want to move there, can you recommend a good neighborhood?"

We don't *need* to draw suburbanites to the core. Stay in Rocklin. Stay in Fair Oaks. Between the folks like me who grew up out there and hate it, and the folks from other urban areas who come downtown and see something they recognize as a city, we're doing just fine and growing quite rapidly, thank you very much. There is little need to win over those who prefer their quarter-acre plot of crabgrass. Half a century of kowtowing to the suburbs has failed--it's time to stop trying and cast off suburban dead weight.

creamcityleo79

Dec 27, 2007, 4:54 PM

^^^Excellent points wburg!

quevinh

Dec 28, 2007, 4:01 AM

So here's the plan, your a Realtor trying to convince a 5 person family (Mom, Dad, 3 Kids) to live in the central city, over Folsom or Roseville. How would you do it? What are your points? Why should they give up their cars and yards to bring up a family in downtown Sacramento?

Econgad, I think it's a little unfair to compare suburbs with the current downtown of Sac. Sacramento is a city dominated by it's suburbs. I think most people on this board want to see that change. From what I read on this forum, everyone seems to be looking forward to what Sacramento can become in the future.

I'm a parent living in Carmichael. I like raising my family in the suburbs, but when my daughter graduates in three years, I plan to move closer to the downtown/midtown area. I've lived in several downtown areas in several cities and I miss the lifestyle.

For me, the main advantage to living in a more densely populated area is the culture. I find that there is very little culture in the suburbs. I go into the central city area to see plays, concerts and other events, and to go to museums and art galleries. You may find diversity in the suburbs, but I find events and parties more diverse and interesting in the central city. I love my kids, but I don't know if I can stand many more party conversations revolving around schools, teachers, kids and their achievements. I also get tired of the architecture in the suburbs as I assume everyone on this board does. This is a skyscraper forum after all.

I also find that, aside from a few restaurants in Folsom and a few other scattered areas, there really aren't that many good places to eat in the suburbs.

econgrad

Dec 28, 2007, 4:58 AM

Econgad, I think it's a little unfair to compare suburbs with the current downtown of Sac. Sacramento is a city dominated by it's suburbs. I think most people on this board want to see that change. From what I read on this forum, everyone seems to be looking forward to what Sacramento can become in the future.

I'm a parent living in Carmichael. I like raising my family in the suburbs, but when my daughter graduates in three years, I plan to move closer to the downtown/midtown area. I've lived in several downtown areas in several cities and I miss the lifestyle.

For me, the main advantage to living in a more densely populated area is the culture. I find that there is very little culture in the suburbs. I go into the central city area to see plays, concerts and other events, and to go to museums and art galleries. You may find diversity in the suburbs, but I find events and parties more diverse and interesting in the central city. I love my kids, but I don't know if I can stand many more party conversations revolving around schools, teachers, kids and their achievements. I also get tired of the architecture in the suburbs as I assume everyone on this board does. This is a skyscraper forum after all.

I also find that, aside from a few restaurants in Folsom and a few other scattered areas, there really aren't that many good places to eat in the suburbs.

Thanks for chiming in! Yet once again I have to explain: I never said the suburbs are better. I never said that we should not support development, downtown or anywhere. If you read all my posts, I am stating that downtown is dependent on support, and many people in the burbs do not understand what a strong central core is, nor do they understand the benefits. They never will understand the benefits by being called "intolerant White upper class" etc....etc....
Also:
Parties and culture. great, so are you telling me you cannot drive into downtown from Carmichael to these parties? Are you not invited because you live in Carmichael (thats a joke)? How about these Museums? Any of us can get into our cars and drive into our central city and go to these parties, museums, galleries, clubs, restaurants and bars. Not missing a thing by not living there....

So how about this question for you: Why did you bring up your kids in Carmichael and not downtown Sacramento?

wburg

Dec 28, 2007, 6:04 AM

If you read all my posts, I am stating that downtown is dependent on support, and many [snip]
Wrong. The suburbs are dependent upon cities for their economic support. If Sacramento went away somehow, the economies of the surrounding community would be in disarray, their employment centers would be gone, and their social services and infrastructure would be immediately overloaded. In fact, Sacramento doesn't even have to disappear: we just have to figure out a way to cut the parasites off of their gravy train.

Any of us can get into our cars and drive into our central city and go to these parties, museums, galleries, clubs, restaurants and bars. Not missing a thing by not living there....
Except for missing the point. Living among these people, and that place, is different than living in the suburbs and visiting the city as a tourist. And yes, often you don't even find out about a lot of the parties, cultural events, etcetera, if you don't live downtown and know people.

Living in the suburbs, and *having* to make that commute, act as barriers (however slight) to participation in urban life. You don't relate to city people because you don't live there, you don't go to downtown events because you don't know about them. You don't go downtown just to hang out, because it's too much trouble. You don't know where to park or it's easier to just go to the mall or stay home and watch TV. The attitude that "you can just get in your car and drive there" is the attitude that built Orange County and every other suburb. You may even be able to get in your car and drive there NOW, but that drive time is only going to get longer as sprawl grows, traffic grows worse and gas gets more expensive. It's not a long-term solution.

econgrad

Dec 28, 2007, 6:22 AM

Your just plain wrong Wburg. I know about all the parties in DT, all the peeps. Everyone in the music scene here relies on the people from all sorts of areas. The main peeps that book about 70 to 80% of the live music shows downtown do not live downtown, I know, I have been to their houses in Folsom and Roseville and Natomas! The art scene? They live everywhere. Also, calling a person from Carmichael a tourist to downtown?!?! Thats just laughable!

I get it now. I get you and others like you. You think your somewhat better, or smarter for living in downtown, so you like to think of reasons and make up terms and call people suburbanites, etc.. We do not have a class system anymore. This is an elitist point of view. You may want to cut yourself out of the rest of Sacramento and stay in your little Grid, but the truth is, the grid is as Dependant on artists and musicians like me. I am part of downtowns nightlife, a very important part. I live in the suburbs. I am living proof of you being wrong. Without me, and people like me, Old Ironsides, Harlows, Torch Club, Marylins, Press Club, Blue Lamp and many other live venues in the "Grid" would not exist. There would be no one there. You need the burbs Wburg, we are the musicians that rehearse off of Watt Avenue, south, in large wherehouses in the suburbs, so we can play at downtown venues, and throw parties afterwards. We make the grid, and we don't live there. Your happening grid depends on me, and others that I know. Your elitism is outdated. I have only lived in DT for a short time, before I moved there I knew everyone in the music scene, I didn't need to live there, so I realized I can move and live in a better area with more room to rehearse and have a studio. Your grid needs us, it would be a dump without us, us suburbanites creating such a happening scene for people, all people, not just "gridders", to benefit from.

In other words Wburg! You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to. :jester:
What movie? Anyone?

TWAK

Dec 28, 2007, 8:04 AM

Regardless of what some of us say and explain on this forum econgrad, 90% of the members of this forum will always believe that the suburbs are hell. That they are full of intolerant ,100% white, SUV driving, bigoted, "red state" people who never step outside.
Take a look at the other parts of the forum, if somebody doesn't walk the liberal/ubrbanist tightrope they are labeled as such, regardless of who they actually are, and all arguments from them are considered "ignorant" and the links they provide are "propaganda"

innov8

Dec 28, 2007, 6:02 PM

Except for missing the point. Living among these people, and that place, is different than living in the suburbs and visiting the city as a tourist. And yes, often you don't even find out about a lot of the parties, cultural events, etcetera, if you don't live downtown and know people.

Living in the suburbs, and *having* to make that commute, act as barriers (however slight) to participation in urban life. You don't relate to city people because you don't live there, you don't go to downtown events because you don't know about them. You don't go downtown just to hang out, because it's too much trouble. You don't know where to park or it's easier to just go to the mall or stay home and watch TV. The attitude that "you can just get in your car and drive there" is the attitude that built Orange County and every other suburb. You may even be able to get in your car and drive there NOW, but that drive time is only going to get longer as sprawl grows, traffic grows worse and gas gets more expensive. It's not a long-term solution.

Berg, you sure sound like an elitist here. Actually, you sound like some of
those SF/Bay area people who snub their noses (were just better than you)
to anybody who lives beyond the city of Berkeley. Where do you get this
bloated opinion of you’re existence inside the grid that has made you’re head
swell to this giant size? You don’t have to live downtown to know what’s
going on. People communicate with each other beyond the grid berg. We do
live in an age where the ability to communicate with others has more
alternatives than ever before. It's really about who you know not where you live.

quevinh

Dec 28, 2007, 6:05 PM

So how about this question for you: Why did you bring up your kids in Carmichael and not downtown Sacramento?

When I moved to the area 17 years ago I chose to live in Suburban Sac for two reasons. First of all, like any responsible parent, I wanted the best schools for my kid. Second, the only decent family homes at that time were in the midtown area and in East Sac. I found more reasonably priced places in a better school district only 10 minutes away.

Before you say that I'm making your point, let me remind you that I said I like the suburbs, it's just that I find myself driving into the downtown area so much these days, it's time I think about moving there. Isn't that what this whole urban-residential trend is all about? If I found myself driving to Rocklin 3-5 times every week, I'd look into moving there too. I spend far too much time in my car as it is. Life's too short.

How does using a quote from Col. Jessup (one of the worst film characters in the last 20 years), help to make your point?

innov8

Dec 28, 2007, 6:21 PM

When I moved to the area 17 years ago I chose to live in Suburban Sac for two reasons. First of all, like any responsible parent, I wanted the best schools for my kid. Second, the only decent family homes at that time were in the midtown area and in East Sac. I found more reasonably priced places in a better school district only 10 minutes away.

That was going to be my first guess, the schools. I know of two families who
move out of the grid because the schools suck. One, a good friend, moved
out of midtown within a year of relocating from the pocket. He was excited
to move here when the hype of living down here was building steam. But after
a few months of dealing with the definitional school, they moved back to the
pocket area so they could feel better about their child getting a better education.
Unless you can afford a private school downtown, you're child will get a
second rate education compaired to many suburban areas.

wburg

Dec 28, 2007, 8:29 PM

Schools are a common reason for people moving from the central city to the suburbs. This is because of the tax imbalances I spoke of upstream: the suburbs don't have to provide the things a city does, and their property tax rolls tend to be higher, so they can spend a lot more on schools. Once again, this is because the suburban commuter takes money from the central city and invests it in their separate suburban community.

We're talking about different things, econgrad: The suburbs are economically dependent on the central city, due to imbalances between property taxes and employment centers. The music scene is a different animal entirely. You're wrong about that too, but in a different way.

innov8: My point is that living in the suburbs and living in the central city (even the central city of Sacramento) are different experiences. Some prefer the suburbs--that's fine with me. Econgrad claims that they are no different whatsoever, and I think he's wrong. Which one is "better" is based largely on personal preference. If someone who lives in San Francisco claims that life in San Francisco is different from life in a Bay Area suburb, I don't disagree, because they're right--and personally I'd prefer the former to the latter. Someone thinking they're better than me because they live in San Francisco and I live in Sacramento is an entirely different matter--but, again, it's not the same thing.

Typically my venom is reserved for people who live in, say, East Palo Alto or Richmond or other Bay Area suburbs, who try to cop San Francisco attitude when they don't even live there. Or people who assume their preferences are universal truths, and thus assume that when I state my preferences I am challenging those universal truths.

TWAK: You're right except for the 100% white part. The fact that many suburbs are becoming much more racially diverse (as artificial racial barriers decay and nonwhites penetrate farther into the middle class) is responsible for a lot of the recent "new-urbanist" movement among affluent whites: since building exoburbs is becoming impractical, if they can turn downtown into the suburbs plus tall buildings (by edging out low-income housing, encouraging boutique retail and expensive restaurants, and eliminating social services in the central city) they can outrace the nonwhites populations moving into their neighborhood, and finish the redevelopment process started in the 1950s.

otnemarcaS

Dec 30, 2007, 11:06 AM

Quite honestly, if WBurg, who is married, had four kids at home, for example, I'm sure his take on living in the grid will be little different. I agree with others about Wburg's elitist "me good, you bad" attitude towards others not living in the central city. I've said this before and I'll say it again ... there are many great things about living in Sacramento and Midtown alone does not make Sacramento great.

MT/DT depends on "suburbanites" in the same way the city of SF depends on outlying Bay Area cities. Half the restaurants in SF would shut down if they depended only on the residents of SF. Ditto, the grid.

From suburban state workers patronizing restaurants and retail during the day to suburban Sac residents patronizing restaurants, retail and nightlife in the evening, this helps add to the dynamic environment of MT/DT. How successful will second saturdays be if only the grid residents attended? Last SS I attended, I went with five friends. I was from North Natomas. The others from Greenhaven, Loomis, Folsom, Elk Grove and Roseville. We all met at Centro's to eat and then visited the galleries and events. I'm sure the galleries and restaurants hated us "parasites" invading their grid.

Again, my take is that the grid is a great, exciting, vibrant, lovely, urban part of Sacramento and we all know that. But there's more to Sacramento than just the grid.

wburg

Dec 30, 2007, 8:49 PM

otnemarcaS: Let me repeat myself here:

"My point is that living in the suburbs and living in the central city (even the central city of Sacramento) are different experiences. Some prefer the suburbs--that's fine with me. Econgrad claims that they are no different whatsoever, and I think he's wrong. Which one is "better" is based largely on personal preference."

In other words, *I* like the grid better than the suburbs. This is not the same thing as saying that *EVERYONE SHOULD* like the grid better than the suburbs.

The parasitic relationship between suburbs and cities is, to some extent, recuperated when a city becomes a social destination for suburbanites. I don't know if the amount of sales tax generated by suburban visitors is equal to or greater than the property tax lost, or the increased infrastructure costs due to traffic, but my off-hand guess would be probably not. And because school funding comes primarily from property taxes rather than sales tax, it doesn't solve the city/suburb schools problem--an important reason why parents move to the suburbs instead of the central city (urban schools are under-funded because the wealthy moved to the suburbs, resulting in less property tax revenue.)

econgrad

Dec 31, 2007, 12:52 AM

Serrano v. Priest - 1976
California Supreme Court decision declared the local property tax-based system of school funding to be
unconstitutional, violating the equal protection clause. Required basic per pupil funding of school districts (within
categories of districts) to be equal or within a small margin. Categorical funding is excluded from the formula.
Proposition 13 – 1978
Constitutional amendment passed by California voters. Capped property tax rate & limited increases in assessed
values. Required two-thirds vote for new local taxes. Local property taxes no longer the major source of school
funding—shift to state funding. The governor and the legislature took over the allocation of local property taxes to
schools, cities, counties, and special districts.
Proposition 98 – 1988
Constitutional amendment passed by California voters. Guarantees a minimum funding level for K-14 public
education, figured by a complex formula based on tax revenue. The Prop 98 guarantee may be suspended for a
year by a two-thirds vote of the legislature with the governor’s signature.

As you see Wburg, downtown schools are not affected by property taxes. Your simply wrong again...

Oh, here is the source, its called "California Public School Funding":

http://www.fourthdistrictpta.org/forms/funding_overview.pdf

So: It goes back to this, the Sacramento inner city (The Grid), because of bad city planning and bad politics, has no good schools. Not because of lack of funding, and definitely not because of the existence of suburbs.. (sigh, its hard being correct all the time).

And answer me this Wburg: How am I wrong about the music scene? You never stated a reason. I booked bands for many downtown venues, how am I wrong? I play at downtown venues, how am I wrong? Please tell me, so I can improve my music experience here by moving into a smaller place downtown and have my neighbors complain when my band rehearses because everyone is so smashed into each other with thin walls separating each other.. I don't want to miss out! Do you think my band will lose the concert in the park next year because I live in Fair Oaks? Thank God I am anonymous on here! I wouldn't want my bands from being ex-communicated from playing downtown! (I hope you are catching my sarcasm, I am laying it on pretty thick..) What movie??

deeann

Dec 31, 2007, 2:01 AM

Please excuse this brief interruption as I present-

Sacramento Broad Generalizations: The Musical

I'm a Suburban Parasite
I live for the mall and
Crowd the road with my SUV
McMansionLand is for me

I'm living the GridLife
It's walkable! It's cultured! The coffee can't be beat!
It's also really scary
Past the number letter streets!

Drop off the kids at soccer, get the dog shampoo'd
PTA meeting tonight so no time to make real food
Three Happy Meals to go please, my spouse is really late
'Cause they're stuck in rush time traffic
On the interstate

I have my bike, I have my 'pod, I live a life carefree
It's one-way so don't have to stop unless I hit a tree
One thift store pant leg rolled up tight for functionality
I'm so damn cool even my backpack rules
I shop for groceries by RT

UnCity here! Hello, hello!
I have something to say
Shut Up
Shut Up
You don't exist
I guess I'll go away

There's a movie at the Tower - Stay out of my 'hood or I'll glower
But I'd really like to visit in-city
You're not hip enough to appreciate an "Artsy" film you'd probably hate
You'll probably just pee on our bushes anyway

We have shopping - We have music
We're affordable - If you like Walmart
You have a point there - But we don't care
We like art too - Please stay away
And good music - Hear what I say
We'd like a break from monoculture
We only want to see you on a Second Saturday

So let's all bicker and call each other names
On the internet it's just a game
Nothing gets done
And we'll waste time
But we'll feel better than those other people
Instead of working together
So we don't become the City, County
And State, Oh Glorious State.... of Rite-Aid

Now returning back to our normal thread...

econgrad

Dec 31, 2007, 9:14 AM

:previous:
:lmao:

That was way cool!

creamcityleo79

Dec 31, 2007, 2:39 PM

Best...Post...EVER!!!!

deeann

Dec 31, 2007, 7:45 PM

Thank you, thank you, and happy new year everyone!

wburg

Dec 31, 2007, 10:22 PM

Profound wackiness indeed!

Perhaps my purpose is misinterpreted. This is, truly, a recreational activity, but it also encourages me to challenge what I think--and yes, sometimes I learn something. In some ways it wastes time--but it encourages me to learn things, and occasionally dispels me of some of my own illusions and misconceptions, and helps hone my debating skills--and since I actually do quite a bit of arguing about city politics in real life, not just on the Internet, no, I wouldn't consider it entirely a waste of time (though it is fun.)

One reason why I continue this discussion with econgrad is that there isn't too much name-calling going on: there's a manageable signal/noise ratio in the discussion, and it tends to be more about the topic at hand (even if we disagree) and not limited to remarks about people's mothers and calling each other nazis (which has its own joys, but ones I have lost my taste for in recent years.)

econgrad is correct that California's educational budgets are no longer entirely dependent on property taxes, largely due to Proposition 13, which froze property tax rates at their extant levels in the mid-seventies. Because property values in the central city were still depressed, due to redlining and suburban white flight, this meant a risk of permanent inequity in school funding, and as econgrad points out, state funding was stepped up to fill the bill.

However, he is not correct in stating that property taxes no longer play a role in school funding. Here's a pie chart of the 2007 educational budget:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/edsource.jpg
From this source:
http://californiaschoolfinance.org/BudgetandFunding/200708Funding/tabid/166/Default.aspx

There are also other factors affecting local school budgets. School budgets are paid by attendance of students: the more students you have attending, the more your school district gets paid. Because school district funding WAS based on property taxes for so many years, the abandonment of downtown from the 1950s to the 1970s had a profound effect on central city schools which is still felt today. Families leaving the grid meant fewer students for the schools in the central city, and thus a continued lack of funding even with state support. Most of the schools in the central city closed because of this population drain: Newton Booth, Marshall, Lincoln, Fremont, etcetera.

School funding is supplemented in the present day by Mello-Roos taxes, local taxes which are easier to get passed in the suburbs than in the central city (more families and more wealth.) Private contributions from parents and local businesses often make a significant difference in well-to-do areas. In economically strapped areas, and in places with fewer kids (and thus fewer parents to hit up for cash) you get a lot less money that way--which makes, again, for significant differences in school funding between the central city and the suburbs, even with more even levels of funding.

Another place you are correct: Many of Sacramento's problems are due to bad city planning. However, the bad city planning was in the form of creating suburbs that would be forever economically dependent on the parent city, leeching money from the core, and failed attempts by business interests to redevelop the central city to make it more closely resemble the suburbs, instead of figuring out ways to fix the suburbs to make them work the way that cities work. Add on to this racist and classist policies like redlining, racial exclusion laws and education funding based on property taxes, and you have a whole lot of poor planning decisions--intended to support the suburban developments at the expense of the core.

So thanks, Econgrad, for pointing out where I'm wrong and encouraging me to do a bit more research.

Oh yeah, about the music scene: You're wrong in your assumption that artists and musicians don't live downtown. Plenty do, and manage to even have band practice here.

And I don't know what movie the quote was from. But here's one for you:

Evan (reading from diary): "They call it 'suburbia,' which is perfect because it's a mix between 'suburb' and 'utopia.'"
Jack: Little did they know they'd be the slums of the future!

econgrad

Dec 31, 2007, 10:52 PM

My movie quote is from:" Tommy Boy".
Yours is from: Clerks? (My girlfriend helped me on that one, so technically I cheated, and if we are wrong, I get to blame her.)

Second guess is "Mall Rats"

wburg

Dec 31, 2007, 11:02 PM

Never saw "Tommy Boy."

No Kevin Smith movies were involved in the the above quote. Although I'm a big fan of "Clerks," having worked in both convenience stores and video stores while I was living in Citrus Heights. Lots and lots of truth in that movie.

The quote was from "Suburbia," directed by Penelope Spheeris.

Do those of you in the suburbs really interpret some people's preference for downtown as "snobbery"? I guess I just don't get that. Most of the folks I know who moved downtown didn't do so because we felt superior, but rather because we felt rejected by the suburbs. Our clothes, hair or behavior were too weird to fit in, so we found a place where it was less of an issue, and the rent (at the time) was cheap.

And cheap rent, really, is another social driving force: not a big impact in the economic sense, but more so in the social sense. Musicians and artists flock to cheap rent, because it allows them to work part-time and practice their craft, or go peruse the craft of others. While it isn't the case now, midtown rents used to be absurdly cheap: my personal example was a six-bedroom house on 21st Street that rented for $1000 a month (this was 1993.) Split eight ways (I had seven roommates) that's $125 each: a pittance! Of course, we didn't have much heat in the winter, and no air conditioning whatsoever, and our bathroom was a mess of hair dye and assorted nastiness (8-10 punks with wildly varying haridos will do that to a sink) but I could work 2-3 days a week and spend my time going to lots and lots of shows or just tramping around looking for adventure. It was something like paradise.

Cheap rent pops up in other places too. If you look at major cities where great music scenes appeared, most of them share the cheap-rent attributes: San Francisco in the sixties, New York in the seventies, Seattle in the late eighties. Of course, these cheap places were cheap because they were none too safe or sanitary, or because the properties were abandoned or even condemned. But young musicians rented 'em anyhow.

There, as here, these folks created a community. Obviously, Sacramento's homegrown music scene didn't meet with the success that New York or San Francisco (or even Seattle) did. But it did create the same sort of air of urban cool that drew more like-minded folks, and eventually started drawing those with more disposable income, bringing with it gentrification and increased rents. This happened most obviously in places like San Francisco and New York, but it certainly happened here too. In many cases, yes, this has driven musicians and others who can't afford swank palaces to other places: in recent years, I have noticed a lot of folks who used to live in midtown moving to Oak Park. Why? Cheap rent! And, despite its bad rep, it's a far safer place to live than it used to be--more along the lines of how Midtown looked in the eighties and nineties, when people thought you were crazy to want to move down here. High rents and land values in midtown are a recent phenomenon--one of the past decade, really. And largely a result of people who came here because they shared the dislike of the suburbs, and liked the cool vibe. Most of them don't know any of the statistics either, they just know they like it here.

It's difficult to explain, and when I do it comes off as snobbishness or elitism to some folks here. So be it. Midtown is just different. It FEELS different than the suburbs, it LOOKS different than the suburbs, and it WORKS different than the suburbs. I can throw out all sorts of statistics and history to show this in objective ways, but the truth is I certainly didn't know ANY of that when I moved to midtown. I moved here simply because I loved it here, and hated the suburbs.

I could tell the difference when I first came downtown as a little kid, and it drew me back again and again until I finally took the opportunity to move here. It's certainly not for everybody, nor would I want it to be. If that makes me a snob, then hey, I guess I'm a snob.

otnemarcaS

Jan 1, 2008, 4:18 AM

Deeann, that was a good one :haha:

econgrad

Jan 5, 2008, 5:58 AM

Even though reading through these posts seem silly to some, but this "debate" has changed my point of view as well. Wburg and Neuhickman79 talked much about feeling more accepted in the urban areas of Sacramento, and shunned or out casted (hope those words are ok) in the suburbs. I am not a "white" person (though I do not believe in race, and I hope the world will someday drop this stupid divisive ideology, we all evolved from Africa, we are all Africans in my eyes..) and I never noticed any discrimination around me as I live in the suburbs now, but growing up was a much different story. Also, after interviewing some of my peers and colleagues, I now have some true stories of discrimination relating to certain areas (certain suburbs we have here in Sacramento and Placer counties) and there is no more doubt that unfortunately there is (in certain areas) a non tolerant environment. People like Wburg and Neuhickman like the Urban core for its culture and feel accepted living in the core as it is now. I want the core to grow larger and more metropolitan before I can justify buying something there, yet hopefully in the future it will grow into the metropolis I would like it to be. In the end, we all want that place to feel accepted and be proud of where we live. Good to hear you guys found that in the urban core of Sacramento. I guess you can't really apply an economic study on feeling accepted, so I cannot be the one to say it is overpriced for what you get. I cannot put any monetary value on your feelings of acceptance and being proud of where you have chosen to live. I find it quite admirable. Thanks for the debate guys! If something new comes up we can debate, we will keep it in this thread. Peace.
:cheers:

creamcityleo79

Jan 5, 2008, 3:15 PM

wburg

Jan 5, 2008, 5:31 PM

econgrad: How much larger and more "metropolitan" are you hoping downtown will grow? I should warn you that prices are only going to go up in the central city, so if you're thinking of buying something, do it now--you'll thank yourself later!

Actually, that brings me to another point about midtown living that skips all my angsty teenage rebel bullshut: property values! I bought my current place in October of 2006, just as the housing bust was starting. Yesterday I checked MLS to see how the last year or so of falling prices and doom & gloom had affected my property value. The result? Comparable homes to mine, in the same neighborhood, were selling for about the same price. Meanwhile folks in the suburbs have seen the value of their homes drop dramatically.

Econgrad, it seems like you're very into physical things: ideas like aesthetics, culture and history obviously don't weigh much into your housing decision. Likewise, walkability and the "eco-urban" ideal doesn't seem to be a high priority for you: from previous posts, you don't mind driving 20 minutes to get someplace where others here would rather walk. But I am reasonably certain that you like money, and economic factors have some bearing on your decisions.

Thus, I'd submit that a home in the central city, if lacking in amenities like copious front lawns, is probably a better investment, and more likely to hold its value (and in the long term, appreciate), than a suburban home.

According to the city's priorities in the new General Plan, the city wants to triple the number of dwelling units in the central city, mostly in the Richards Boulevard, Shops and central business district, and along R Street. Even though this increases housing stock, expect property values to rise, not fall, because the demand for central city living will still outstrip supply. Increasing the urban density in these areas will also add to the value of commercial properties in the central city as the customer base not dependent on cars (and street parking) increases.

Second, I'd suggest that consumer choice is an important part of economics, and that much of our economy is based on a range of consumer choices that might otherwise seem unimportant. Talk about Coke vs. Pepsi, Chevy vs. Ford, Starbuck's vs. Peet's and people start making arguments worse than ours, but the bottom line is consumer choice. Suburban vs. urban is yet another of those choices.

Part of how land developers make money is through a keen understanding of how people make these choices, and designing their products to meet a perceived demand. Lots of these folks are currently aiming their marketing at a perceived demand for urban living, most of which is not aimed at folks like me who came here because people wouldn't get our asses kicked because of our funny hair color!

Suburban developers used to aim their advertising at those wanting the quiet, simple life of the country: Have your own plot of land, your own quiet cottage away from the bustle and smoke of the city! Today, urban developers promote city life and amenities to draw those seeking life that's a bit less quiet. We may not yet be up to the standards of first-tier cities, but that is the way we're heading, and it doesn't look like that trend will end anytime soon. And that's how one gains wealth: buy in BEFORE it gets popular, not after.

Phillip

Jan 5, 2008, 8:37 PM

econgrad: How much larger and more "metropolitan" are you hoping downtown will grow? I should warn you that prices are only going to go up in the central city, so if you're thinking of buying something, do it now--you'll thank yourself later!

Actually, that brings me to another point about midtown living that skips all my angsty teenage rebel bullshut: property values! I bought my current place in October of 2006, just as the housing bust was starting. Yesterday I checked MLS to see how the last year or so of falling prices and doom & gloom had affected my property value. The result? Comparable homes to mine, in the same neighborhood, were selling for about the same price. Meanwhile folks in the suburbs have seen the value of their homes drop dramatically.

I neve thought I'd hear wburg sounding like a Realtor!

Another interpretation of the same data is that Sacramento's suburbs are a better value than Downtown now because Sac's suburbs have ALREADY dropped, while 95814 and 95816 are behind the curve, with their drop still to come. These things don't unfold at the same pace in every neighborhood.

There are other Downtowns (San Diego and Miami for example) where property values are plummeting now. There's no universal law that Downtowns always hold value better than suburbs.

Even if the "Downtown holds value" argument turns out true in Sac it's irrelevant to most Sac buyers who can't afford Downtown's higher absolute prices. You can buy a nice 3 bedroom 2 bath house for $250G in Carmichael or Natomas now. What can you get for 250G in Midtown?

I'm not being anti-Downtown here. Just saying that if you buy Downtown now it should be because you want to live there and can afford it; not because it's a "wise investment".

According to the city's priorities in the new General Plan, the city wants to triple the number of dwelling units in the central city, mostly in the Richards Boulevard, Shops and central business district, and along R Street. Even though this increases housing stock, expect property values to rise, not fall, because the demand for central city living will still outstrip supply.

What evidence is there for this pentup demand for Downtown Sacramento living? If there was large pentup demand 500N and 18th and L lofts would be sold out by now. And the 800J lofts would be leased. From published reports even the very best Downtown and Midtown projects are struggling to sell now, and altogether they only add up to a few hundred units. I'm not reporting this gleefully; I wish it wasn't true.

creamcityleo79

Jan 6, 2008, 1:20 AM

I neve thought I'd hear wburg sounding like a Realtor!

Another interpretation of the same data is that Sacramento's suburbs are a better value than Downtown now because Sac's suburbs have ALREADY dropped, while 95814 and 95816 are behind the curve, with their drop still to come. These things don't unfold at the same pace in every neighborhood.

There are other Downtowns (San Diego and Miami for example) where property values are plummeting now. There's no universal law that Downtowns always hold value better than suburbs.

Even if the "Downtown holds value" argument turns out true in Sac it's irrelevant to most Sac buyers who can't afford Downtown's higher absolute prices. You can buy a nice 3 bedroom 2 bath house for $250G in Carmichael or Natomas now. What can you get for 250G in Midtown?

I'm not being anti-Downtown here. Just saying that if you buy Downtown now it should be because you want to live there and can afford it; not because it's a "wise investment".

What evidence is there for this pentup demand for Downtown Sacramento living? If there was large pentup demand 500N and 18th and L lofts would be sold out by now. And the 800J lofts would be leased. From published reports even the very best Downtown and Midtown projects are struggling to sell now, and altogether they only add up to a few hundred units. I'm not reporting this gleefully; I wish it wasn't true.

I don't think you know what you're talking about! There is no drop coming for downtown/midtown like the suburban drop! Sales are struggling a bit. But, they're doing much better than the sales in the suburbs. I know plenty of people looking to move from their suburban homes to the central city but they are waiting for the market to recover so they can SELL their homes. Everything I've heard about homes in the central city...not condos...is that those homes are still selling fast! I don't know where you get this information from. But, from what I know, it's wrong!

urban_encounter

Jan 6, 2008, 8:38 AM

I don't think you know what you're talking about! There is no drop coming for downtown/midtown like the suburban drop! Sales are struggling a bit. But, they're doing much better than the sales in the suburbs. I know plenty of people looking to move from their suburban homes to the central city but they are waiting for the market to recover so they can SELL their homes. Everything I've heard about homes in the central city...not condos...is that those homes are still selling fast! I don't know where you get this information from. But, from what I know, it's wrong!

There are pockets in Sacramento where prices are holding failry steady including downtown and midtown. I think estabilshed neighborhoods tend to hold their value as opposed to other parts of town.

econgrad

Jan 6, 2008, 10:03 AM

Wburg: Sure, the prices will hold steady, and hopefully go up in the core. I also do not think that areas like Fair Oaks or Granite Bay will degrade either. Wherever there is demand, like you said.
About more development in DT: I guess it will be difficult for you and I to see downtown Sacramento the same way. This is not a bad thing at all, I am happy you like where you live and we both want the same things in downtown I am sure. I just do not think that it is the happening area as people like to say. Ofcourse it is more happening and hip than Elk Grove, or Citrus Heights, or Fair Oaks, or Rancho Cordova, or even Davis (I love Davis FYI). I also understand it is unfair for me to compare Sacramento's downtown to other cities, but in my opinion (its just a personal preference, not really something we can argue about) downtown and midtown are not really that exciting yet. I am all for diversity, I am all for art walks, culture, people, scene's, nightlife, museums, parks, skyscrapers etc... In my opinion, Sacramento's core needs more, much more. More housing and people is a good start, but we need more ideas. Good creative ideas that make the central city something special. I liked the canal idea in the Railyards, I think that if that worked it would have been something really special. Things like that, and more museums and people. I still see empty streets in downtown, I want to see street musicans and people walking around more, I want downtown to be like 2nd Saturday every saturday and Friday. Stuff like that. :)

wburg

Jan 6, 2008, 6:03 PM

What evidence is there for this pentup demand for Downtown Sacramento living? If there was large pentup demand 500N and 18th and L lofts would be sold out by now. And the 800J lofts would be leased. From published reports even the very best Downtown and Midtown projects are struggling to sell now, and altogether they only add up to a few hundred units. I'm not reporting this gleefully; I wish it wasn't true.

Part of the prediction of increase in central city living is the fact that we're running out of hinterlands. In order to avoid worse sprawl than we already have, we have to start building up rather than out. The city realizes this, and the new General Plan puts a lot of emphasis on urban infill, as well as transit-oriented denser development in other parts of the city. This means that much of the new development in the city will be focused on the urban core--as the city grows, the core will be where there is room for expansion. As mentioned above, it won't be everyone who moves downtown. Not everyone wants to, or can afford to. But the plan is to have something like 60,000 housing units in the central city (including Richards, Docks, etc.) instead of the current 20,000. While I'm sure that Placer and El Dorado Counties will try to pave over as many of their beautiful hills as they can to cover with McMansions, they may realize the folly of their actions when they run out of water, or buyers.

econgrad: The central city is already something special. Every friday and Saturday is as busy as second Saturday was ten years ago; weekdays are as busy as every Saturday. Second Saturday itself is starting to feel more and more like Thursday Night Market did! Live music and dancing can be found every single day. Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that street music, turning Second Saturday into "Saturday," and more late-night business will be coming shortly. Along with more crowds.

Canals would be as dumb as the old water-fountain things along the tank traps on K Street...the Railyards already have something special and unique (the Shops buildings) so why make a fake identity? Why put in water features when the river is a short walk away?

Sacramento has a 170 year legacy as a historic, diverse place. If the trees, the historic buildings, the industrial and cultural legacy, the state capitol, the railroads, and the rivers don't make us special, it's because we haven't done enough promotion of those things. Part of why I'm such a downtown booster is because I see all of these things and am drawn to them, and I want to share them with the many folks who apparently didn't even realize they were here.

urban_encounter

Jan 6, 2008, 6:28 PM

Part of the prediction of increase in central city living is the fact that we're running out of hinterlands. In order to avoid worse sprawl than we already have, we have to start building up rather than out. The city realizes this, and the new General Plan puts a lot of emphasis on urban infill, as well as transit-oriented denser development in other parts of the city. This means that much of the new development in the city will be focused on the urban core--as the city grows, the core will be where there is room for expansion. As mentioned above, it won't be everyone who moves downtown. Not everyone wants to, or can afford to. But the plan is to have something like 60,000 housing units in the central city (including Richards, Docks, etc.) instead of the current 20,000. While I'm sure that Placer and El Dorado Counties will try to pave over as many of their beautiful hills as they can to cover with McMansions, they may realize the folly of their actions when they run out of water, or buyers.

econgrad: The central city is already something special. Every friday and Saturday is as busy as second Saturday was ten years ago; weekdays are as busy as every Saturday. Second Saturday itself is starting to feel more and more like Thursday Night Market did! Live music and dancing can be found every single day. Gazing into my crystal ball, I predict that street music, turning Second Saturday into "Saturday," and more late-night business will be coming shortly. Along with more crowds.

Canals would be as dumb as the old water-fountain things along the tank traps on K Street...the Railyards already have something special and unique (the Shops buildings) so why make a fake identity? Why put in water features when the river is a short walk away?

Sacramento has a 170 year legacy as a historic, diverse place. If the trees, the historic buildings, the industrial and cultural legacy, the state capitol, the railroads, and the rivers don't make us special, it's because we haven't done enough promotion of those things. Part of why I'm such a downtown booster is because I see all of these things and am drawn to them, and I want to share them with the many folks who apparently didn't even realize they were here.

Very well said wburg.. I agree 100%..

As far as the railyards having canals, we have two beaultiful rivers and one (the Sacramento) just begging to see some quality development that reconnects the people to the river on both sides of the river. We definitely don't need a man made drainage canal..

But we do need parks, restaurants residential options that take adavantage of a the beautiful Sacramento..

econgrad

Jan 7, 2008, 2:40 AM

OK, the canal thing was just an example (I still think it would have been realy cool!) I couldn't think of anything else at the time. How about Gold Rush Park, that would definitely be a good thing for the city, and many other things, creative developments like more statues and fountains and public art and public stages for performances, we need much more, much more. I think its great Wburg, you think the central city is special. To me, it needs more. Your right, I am not impressed by old buildings. I think the ones in the railyards should be obliterated for newer cool stuff. I like the Victorians, but not that much to preserve everyone of them, only a few. There is also an abundance of 1950 to 1970's apartment buildings that should be taken down and nicer newer buildings put up. You see beauty in midtown and downtown, I see old buildings and deserted streets with few people walking around. Maybe I lived in New York for too long, but to me, downtown Sacramento just doesn't feel like a city yet. There is not enough yet for me to call it a real city, even though I like it here very much. I am with you on more housing, and everything else. We just disagree on preservation, and that Sacramento is a real city yet. To you, its great, to me, its on its way, and I hope soon it will be. In a way, you are pushing for what I want to! More people and better living standards in the central city! My opinion differs on is it great yet: You say yes, I say no....I think thats a Beatles song too. Either way, the city will grow into something neither of us have really any true control over unless we make it our life's work, I guess thats what makes this forum so cool.
Hope your weekend was good! I am very impressed on your research and civic pride you have for Sacramento. The more of you the better!

wburg

Jan 7, 2008, 7:21 PM

Apartments downtown are a sore subject. Admittedly, a lot of them are not in the best of shape, and many of the 1950-1970 ones sorely lacking in character or high quality of construction, but some of them are actually kind of nice, especially the ones dating from the 1930s and before. The other important thing about apartments in midtown is that they are really midtown's comparatively affordable housing: rents in those buildings are a lot cheaper than in new construction. Destroy the housing and whatever replaces it will very often be unaffordable to the previous tenants. That's not a way to bring people into midtown--more of a way to force them out.

Also, there was a time when those apartments were "nice, new" buildings, and Queen Annes and Craftsman bungalows were considered the ugly, cruddy buildings, knocked down in the name of progress. No matter what gets built today, in 30-40 years it's going to be an old-fashioned, unfashionable building.

So much architecture is subject to the dictates of fashion that every building has a period in its life cycle when it is considered "old and ugly" shortly before it becomes "classic and historic." You see the same thing with clothes, cars, or anything else subject to the vagaries of fashion: first it's the hot new thing, then it's just routine, then it's passe', then it sits around for a while and probably gets trashed. Then it gets rediscovered because it's cheap, and it becomes the cool new retro phase and becomes super expensive! Sounds kind of like midtown...

Even in the busiest American cities, not every street is crowded at all times. San Francisco, Los Angeles and Chicago all have their quiet corners (I mention them because they are the three biggest cities I have spent time in.) I work in downtown Sacramento, and the streets get pretty busy during the workday, both with people and cars. I ask, though, what is your threshold? How many people do you think should be living in Sacramento before we rate?

I get heartily sick of the "real city" thing. We ARE a real city...in fact "real" is our main advantage! People get sick of cities like Los Angeles because it can be so plastic and fake. But Sacramento is REAL: the people are for real, there's a lot less attitude and pretense here. So, in many ways, we're a lot more of a "real city" than most others!

KEEP SACRAMENTO REAL!