"San Framento": Discuss

[BTinSF]

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008

http://sf.curbed.com/uploads/2008_04_sanframento.jpg

"San Framento": Discuss.
Be warned, citizens of the Bay Area: The MEGALOPOLIS cometh. Economic activity is spanning across cities, linking them into business-savvy, commuter-friendly megaregions. Northern California as we know it may soon change forever. Several organizations representing the Bay Area and Sacramento are meeting this week to discuss methods of further linking the neighboring cities by improving "the coordination of transportation investments, land-use planning, and travel modeling." So yes, In the greatest appellation amalgamation since Benelux and Bradgelina, San Framento could be your future home. You are psyched.
Source: http://sf.curbed.com/

[Majin]

No.

[COASTIE]

"San Framento"- sounds like a tasty beverage :cheers:

[TowerDistrict]

From the Business Journal

------------

UC Davis sponsors "Sanframento" conference
Sacramento Business Journa (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/04/07/daily35.html?ana=e_du)l - by David Goll East Bay Business Times

The growing economic and geographical closeness of the Bay Area and Sacramento region will be explored during a summit Thursday at the University of California Davis.

The event is being co-sponsored by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Association of Bay Area Governments -- regional planning agencies both based in Oakland -- and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Also participating are officials of the California Department of Transportation and the Solano Transportation Authority.

Summit participants will share initial results from a study of how the two sprawling metropolitan areas can improve the coordination of transportation investments, land-use planning and travel "modeling" along the Interstate 80 corridor and Amtrak's Capitol Corridor train service that connects the Sacramento region with the East Bay on its way to San Jose and Santa Clara.

"Solano County is a great place to see the growth of a mega-region connecting the Bay Area and Sacramento," Jim Spering, MTC commissioner and Solano County supervisor, said in a statement. "One of the best illustrations is the planned Vacaville Intermodal Station, which will provide a single convenient location for commuters to catch express buses either to downtown Sacramento or to the Pleasant Hill BART or El Cerrito del Norte BART stations."

Christopher Cabaldon, mayor of West Sacramento, said the two regions are "building a strategic partnership to develop a list of goods-movement priorities to benefit all of Northern California. One of the keys to reducing traffic on Interstate 80 is deepening the Sacramento deep water ship channel. That will take up to 23,000 truck trips between the Bay Area and Sacramento off the road each year."

The summit is free and open to the public, but space is limited and pre-registration required. For more information, go to mtc.ca.gov/meetings/events/interregional_summit.htm. (http://mtc.ca.gov/meetings/events/interregional_summit.htm.)

The event will be held from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. in Room 232 of the ARC building at 1 Shields Ave. on the UC Davis campus.

[TowerDistrict]

From Planetizen... (http://www.planetizen.com/node/29301)

The Emergence of the Northern California Megaregion
Posted by: Irvin Dawid

16 January 2008 - 8:00am

The powerful northern California "megaregion" was revealed when it was awarded $840 million by the state Transportation Commission to the amazement and chagrin of southern California, which had been expecting to receive the majority of state funds.

"That the bureaucrats from the Oakland-based Metropolitan Transportation Commission could win such riches..from a state seemingly dominated by the Southern California megalopolis of 14 million" showed just how connected - economically and politically, the Bay Area and its hinterlands in the Central Valley have become.

"The railways, the freeway overpasses and the dockside facilities at the Port of Oakland may not handle nearly the volume of shipping as the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, MTC acknowledged. But unlike Southern California, they send out about as much in exports as they receive in imports."

"In "The Northern California Megaregion," a study written by Gabriel Metcalf, San Francisco Planning and Urban Research's executive director, and Egon Terplan, SPUR's director of economic development and governance policy, area residents and officials are urged to come to terms with this new reality.

"We've outgrown the original boundaries of the Bay Area," begins the study's subtitle. "It's time to face this fact and start solving problems at the scale of the megaregion."

That designation puts the area anchored by Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco and San Jose into a category shared by 10 other megaregions in the United States."

"This giant entity, as populous as Southern California, is knit together with interests shared by its residents and businesses, superior economic prowess and political muscle that hearkens back to an earlier century, when San Francisco was California's only metropolis.

And whatever it may yield politically, Metcalf is also hesitant to celebrate the emergence of the megaregion.

All those long commutes make it much harder to curb the region's greenhouse gas emissions, and a continued lack of affordable housing in the Bay Area's urban core will only exacerbate the commuting problem, he said."

[econgrad]

This is no surprise to me, and this is why I was saying that the High Speed Rail system will come to Sacramento. This is great for economic growth, as long as the state of California continues its slow progress towards a more business friendly state. This will not effect us for some time though..

[urban_encounter]

Honestly I have always been staunchly opposed to the notion that Sacramento cozy up to close to the bay area for fear of becoming just another Valley bedroom community. But the reality is the growth is already here linking the regions from Vallejo to Fairfield, Vacaville, Dixon, Davis and West Sacramento with only acreage separating the above mentioned cities.

The Port of Oakland is the only reason why the Port of Sacramento is alive today and is the best hope for its future and the best hope for alleviating truck traffic from an already crowded I 80.

I guess my fear is Sacramento becoming a bedroom community like Modesto, Stockton or Tracy. Although admittedly i think the region has done well to position itself as a nearby alternative for HP, Intel, NEC and many back offcie operations such as Franklin Templeton; or other bay area companies looking regionally for exapnsion or relocation.

I also think Sacramento's best hope for obtaining improved and badly needed rail connections is to improve cooperation with the bay area MTC and other bay area entitites and whether that means pressing bay area politicians to help push for Sacramento to be in the first phase of the HSR system linking the regions or improved Capitol Corridor or an expansion and linking of BART and RT LR; I believe the regions needs improved rail serivces and need to work closely together to come up with a solution.

Deny as I would like, you look at a Google Earth Map and
the Bay Area and Sacramento regions are growing together into one large entity.. As a former resident of San Antonio I have to chuckle when SA and Ausitn forum members talk of SA and Austin merging into one super metro area. There's 73 miles between the two cities and almost the same exact disatance between Oakland and Sacramento and there is a heck of a lot more urban development connecting Sacramento and the Bay Area than Austin and San Antonio. As somebody mentioned in the cities discussion forum recently; there's still mostly cattle separating SA and Austin.

There are many benefits that can be reaped by closer cooperation with the bay area. My only hope is that Sacramento doesn't lose itself in the process.

[Majin]

I feel the same way as urban.

San Framento over my dead body.

[creamcityleo79]

I feel the same way as urban.

San Framento over my dead body.

I prefer Sacracisco! ;)

[urban_encounter]

I feel the same way as urban.

San Framento over my dead body.


Thanks Majin, but lets be clear, while I do not wish to see Sacramento lose it's identity, I do think Sacramento needs to start working more closely with the bay area political muscle, be it at the state or federal level. By 2050 the population of the Central Valley is estimated to be approximately 15 million.
But Sacramento will still be a lot closer to the bay area than it is to Fresno, Bakersfield or Modesto for that matter.


I've waited my whole life to see the Valley develop its own identity; but let's face it there are stark differences just between the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys. Sacramento looks a lot more like the bay area economically and culturally given Sacramento's diversity than it does the rest of the Valley.


The thing that scares me though is the Sacramento region's rapid expansion east. The Bay Area is also pushing further east closer to Sacramento in terms of growth patterns.

I'm not sure California wants to see a Megaopolis that stretches from the Golden Gate to the Sierra.


But Sacramento given its proximity to the Bay Area and the shared economic and transportation interests need to work closey in order to bring more of those state and Federal dollars home.

Without bay area politcal muscle joining with Sacramento area politcal represnetatives, it will be sometime before Sacramento get's a fair shake in terms of transportation and other state and federal funding.

[BTinSF]

^^^I think you guys can relax. At this point, the inner Bay Area has grown together more extensively with San Jose than with Sacramento and I don't detect any tendency for SJ to lose its identity. There really is a pretty much continuous urbanity along US 101 and/or I-880 between the two.

As a matter of fact, I think SJ makes a logical southern end of the NorCal megalopolitan crescent and Sacramento makes its logical northern end.

PS: My cat's from Marysville and she agrees (she better, it's almost time for another can of Fancy Feast).

[TowerDistrict]

These designations seem like a good thing to me... There's nothing worse than the product of urban areas refusing to work with each other to solve problems that they share. If this mega-region can earn some serious coin to fund projects and studies that improve connectivity and encourage cooperation between these urban areas, than what's the problem?

The thing I guess that frightens me, though, is that counties like Sacramento, Yolo, and Solano can use this attention and money to encourage further growth (sprawl) along the 80 Corridor. Anytime a road is not filled to it's capacity, some city/county will use it as an excuse to say it's a "prime growth area".

[wburg]

Eventually, though, development along the 80 corridor will run into the fact that we're a river valley. The Yolo Causeway was built for a reason, and there are plenty of chunks of Yolo and Solano County that carry an awful lot of water downstream in winter, and soak it up like a big sponge through the rest of the year. We're already having a tough time keeping the river at bay in North Natomas, and the problem only gets compounded as development expands. That, plus the mountains between here and the Bay Area, will guarantee a certain amount of distance.

Many areas just as far from San Francisco as Sacramento already consider themselves part of the Bay Area, the real divider is the coast/inland split.

There are pluses and minuses to aligning ourselves with the Bay Area. The plus is being considered part of a very large megalopolitan region, and possibly being able to access pools of money that get divided between the Los Angeles region and the Bay Area region (the lion's share) and the valley (the scraps.) This happened already with 1C funds: the Bay Area gets 45%, LA gets 45%, valley gets 10%--we're included in the Bay Area 45%, but now instead of competing with Fresno and Bakersfield for the 10%, we're competing with San Francisco and San Jose for the 45%.

The down side is that we lose a certain amount of civic identity, and end up like Orange County, whose sense of urbanity is largely based on their proximity to Los Angeles, or most of the Bay Area, whose residents consider themselves urban because they live in counties near San Francisco. One of Sacramento's strong points is that we have our own civic identity, even if part of that identity is being a bit touchy when people bring up San Francisco.

[Majin]

I don't care what the pros are I still say no to this proposition.

[econgrad]

^ I do not believe we are in danger of losing our identity, one: We are the capitol. two: There are many people trying to establish more identity for Sacramento, and these people have a strong pride in this city... I see it on this forum everyday. Orange County has it's own identity to the people who live in LA metro, although most cities blend into each other because they are connected it is hard to recognize to many. Also, won't we always be separated by the Yolo Causeway, and the UC Davis buffer zone? Leading into our Downtown and West Sacramento's newly developed Downtown (Say..15 years from now?). We will look like our own city.

[TowerDistrict]

I think that divide is a lot more fragile than we tend to think. Do you all remember the Tsakopoulos proposal of last year? 2,800 acres of Yolo county farmland for a measly little stem cell research center? That's over ten times the size of the Railyards development in prime farmland.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/245736.html

[Michael Kramer]

Eventually, though, development along the 80 corridor will run into the fact that we're a river valley. The Yolo Causeway was built for a reason, and there are plenty of chunks of Yolo and Solano County that carry an awful lot of water downstream in winter, and soak it up like a big sponge through the rest of the year. We're already having a tough time keeping the river at bay in North Natomas, and the problem only gets compounded as development expands. That, plus the mountains between here and the Bay Area, will guarantee a certain amount of distance.

Many areas just as far from San Francisco as Sacramento already consider themselves part of the Bay Area, the real divider is the coast/inland split.

There are pluses and minuses to aligning ourselves with the Bay Area. The plus is being considered part of a very large megalopolitan region, and possibly being able to access pools of money that get divided between the Los Angeles region and the Bay Area region (the lion's share) and the valley (the scraps.) This happened already with 1C funds: the Bay Area gets 45%, LA gets 45%, valley gets 10%--we're included in the Bay Area 45%, but now instead of competing with Fresno and Bakersfield for the 10%, we're competing with San Francisco and San Jose for the 45%.

The down side is that we lose a certain amount of civic identity, and end up like Orange County, whose sense of urbanity is largely based on their proximity to Los Angeles, or most of the Bay Area, whose residents consider themselves urban because they live in counties near San Francisco. One of Sacramento's strong points is that we have our own civic identity, even if part of that identity is being a bit touchy when people bring up San Francisco.

Sure Sacramento and the Bay Area will grow together to some degree, but more like Philly and NY. Sacramento is to the Bay Area like San Diego is to Greater Los Angeles.

I'll cite some examples:

Orange County and the Inland Empire have always watched LA television and with the exception of a few radio station in the IE, listen to the same radio.

San Jose is in one of the Bay counties. Their residents watch SF stations and mostly listen to SF radio stations

Sacramento residents watch only Sacramento area television and have done so since the early 50's. While 20 percent of Sacramento residents listened to SF radio stations like KGO, KFRC, KNBR prior to 1980, there's little listening by Sacramento residents to Bay Area radio.

San Diego in the same way is a separate market.


Michael
Los Angeles

formerly from (in order of most recent)...

San Francisco
Sacramento
San Mateo

[wburg]

Some excellent points, Michael. That's part of the cultural difference--about the only media connection between the Bay Area and Sacramento is that Bob Wilkins hosted late-night horror movie shows in both Oakland and Sacramento. I also like the San Diego and Philly analogies--nobody could call either of those cities second-rate, yet they are often overshadowed by neighbors a couple of hours away. Partially, it's because Philadelphia and San Diego have very distinct identities. Despite Econgrad's myopia, Sacramento already has its distinct identity, it's just a matter of telling people about it and spreading the word about the Big Tomato.

[urban_encounter]

These designations seem like a good thing to me... There's nothing worse than the product of urban areas refusing to work with each other to solve problems that they share. If this mega-region can earn some serious coin to fund projects and studies that improve connectivity and encourage cooperation between these urban areas, than what's the problem?

The thing I guess that frightens me, though, is that counties like Sacramento, Yolo, and Solano can use this attention and money to encourage further growth (sprawl) along the 80 Corridor. Anytime a road is not filled to it's capacity, some city/county will use it as an excuse to say it's a "prime growth area".


Eventually, though, development along the 80 corridor will run into the fact that we're a river valley. The Yolo Causeway was built for a reason, and there are plenty of chunks of Yolo and Solano County that carry an awful lot of water downstream in winter, and soak it up like a big sponge through the rest of the year. We're already having a tough time keeping the river at bay in North Natomas, and the problem only gets compounded as development expands. That, plus the mountains between here and the Bay Area, will guarantee a certain amount of distance.

Many areas just as far from San Francisco as Sacramento already consider themselves part of the Bay Area, the real divider is the coast/inland split.

There are pluses and minuses to aligning ourselves with the Bay Area. The plus is being considered part of a very large megalopolitan region, and possibly being able to access pools of money that get divided between the Los Angeles region and the Bay Area region (the lion's share) and the valley (the scraps.) This happened already with 1C funds: the Bay Area gets 45%, LA gets 45%, valley gets 10%--we're included in the Bay Area 45%, but now instead of competing with Fresno and Bakersfield for the 10%, we're competing with San Francisco and San Jose for the 45%.

The down side is that we lose a certain amount of civic identity, and end up like Orange County, whose sense of urbanity is largely based on their proximity to Los Angeles, or most of the Bay Area, whose residents consider themselves urban because they live in counties near San Francisco. One of Sacramento's strong points is that we have our own civic identity, even if part of that identity is being a bit touchy when people bring up San Francisco.


Very well stated TD and wburg...

[econgrad]

Some excellent points, Michael. That's part of the cultural difference--about the only media connection between the Bay Area and Sacramento is that Bob Wilkins hosted late-night horror movie shows in both Oakland and Sacramento. I also like the San Diego and Philly analogies--nobody could call either of those cities second-rate, yet they are often overshadowed by neighbors a couple of hours away. Partially, it's because Philadelphia and San Diego have very distinct identities. Despite Econgrad's myopia, Sacramento already has its distinct identity, it's just a matter of telling people about it and spreading the word about the Big Tomato.

Can you please explain my "myopia" or short sightedness please? I never said it has no identity (it being Sacramento). I stated we are in no danger of losing our identity, what is wrong with that?

[wburg]

Can you please explain my "myopia" or short sightedness please? I never said it has no identity (it being Sacramento). I stated we are in no danger of losing our identity, what is wrong with that?

Your idea of building Sacramento's identity involves destroying its history and its built environment, for which you have no appreciation or respect. The built environment is the most obvious and visible marker of a city's identity, its traditions, its institutions, its founding, and the labor of our forefathers.

Imagine San Francisco without Coit Tower, the Golden Gate, cable cars, the Presidio, or the many other physical embodiments of the city's history and uniqueness. There would still technically be a city there, but what made San Francisco the amazingly unique place that it is would be irrevocably destroyed.

[econgrad]

^
Oh! :haha:

When Sacramento builds a Coit Tower, A Golden Gate Bridge, Cable Cars, A Presidio base with the new housing, and many other notable structures, I will be the first in line to preserve them if they are ever in danger.

But run down old houses, dirty drug ridden low-rise apartments, abandon warehouses with broken windows, a museum that looks like the Adams Family house (I am kidding on this but I thought it was funny), and lets block off the streets from cars so the children and families that live in all those studio and 1 bedroom and maybe 2 bedroom apartments that add up to a gigantic 430 Square Feet priced at around $1100 with no garage so your car stereo gets stolen at least 6 times a month (the children part is called sarcasm, get it? There are really no children playing in the streets, cause there are not many families :jester: ) and your car itself takes a joy ride here and there... yep, lets preserve that and wonder why the people with real money live in Folsom.

Now Wburg, before you start whining or attempting to be witty in your next post by using words like "myopia", think of this: If some of these buildings you think are so precious, then why do preservationists have to hire attorneys and fight hard to save them? Please think of a better answer than "to protect them from greedy developers"...

[ozone]

All very interesting points (except to the idiot blather above) . But isn't this so-called megaregion based on continuing the wasteful (and increasingly outdated) suburban-type building practices?

I rather see us develop a series of strong high-density centers linked by high-speed rail and create more open space and farmland preservation areas in between.

We could start by upgrading the Capitol Corridor Amtrak to a high-speed ICE (InterCityExpress) and run that train over the Bay Bridge.

[I just have to laugh at the more ridiculous postings. Where do these knuckleheads come from? People who obvious don't know what they are talking about ---shouldn't. There are plenty of people with money and children within the Grid. I'm happy for you suburban guys who are so supportive of your little suburban enclave. You guys are really the only smart ones around here (not like us city dwelling dummies) because Folsom and Roseville are some the greatest places on the planet -full of upscale chains and stucco Mc Mansions --much, much better than here in nasty old Sacramento. Please, for your sake please do not grace us with your (occasional) presence.... as I feel such exposure to our sinful and socialistic ways will contaminated your soul.]

[econgrad]

^ Your nuts Ozone. My postings are supposed to make you laugh, and think (if that is possible). I know you and Wburg like to live in worlds without individual opinions, and that is just too bad. I am not going anywhere, and you have just inspired me to double my postings everyday, maybe even triple (evil and sinister laugh with too much reverb fills the room).

FYI: If you want to continue this conversation, move it to this thread:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=143061

I'll be waiting....(Evil laugh again, camera zooms in and out of the framed oil painting of Rush Limbaugh on the wall next to the shiny gun rack underneath the stuffed head of a Polar bear, that I ran over with my SUV and then shot for good measure while bringing bags of salt to help melt the polar ice caps faster in hopes that someday my house will be ocean front property.)

[wburg]

Gun rack? Cool! Whatcha got?

[wburg]

^
Oh! :haha:

When Sacramento builds a Coit Tower, A Golden Gate Bridge, Cable Cars, A Presidio base with the new housing, and many other notable structures, I will be the first in line to preserve them if they are ever in danger.

You're asking for the impossible. You can't build new historic buildings, only time gives you those. We weren't San Francisco so we didn't build those, we built the buildings we have (at least the ones that haven't been knocked down yet.) And while major landmarks are a factor in preservation, everyday buildings are just as important--San Francisco's profusion of Victorian-era residential homes are just as iconic as Coit or the Golden Gate.


But run down old houses, dirty drug ridden low-rise apartments, abandon warehouses with broken windows, a museum that looks like the Adams Family house (I am kidding on this but I thought it was funny)


You really haven't been down here in a while, have you? Many of the formerly "run-down" houses have been fixed up in a big way--take a look at the corner of 18th and N, where the owner of the "Trompette" line of baby-clothes stores is fixing up a grand mansion that sat decaying for many years. He bought it with the intention of turning it into Trompette's corporate office, but decided it was too small--but by then he had fallen in love with the beauty of the house and is restoring it. The same story is happening all over the central city.

You are right in that the Governor's Mansion does look like the Addams Family house (they're both Second Empire Italianates with mansard roofs) and it's getting a big restoration too.


Now Wburg, before you start whining or attempting to be witty in your next post by using words like "myopia", think of this: If some of these buildings you think are so precious, then why do preservationists have to hire attorneys and fight hard to save them? Please think of a better answer than "to protect them from greedy developers"...

You're myopic because you can't see what's in front of your face, even when it is shown to you. Preservationists fight hard to save old buildings because THEY ARE WORTH IT. That fight can involve lots of "sweat equity" and money for a restoration job, or fighting City Hall to save a landmark that faces the wrecking ball.

I went to an event this week on the second floor of the Elks Building on 11th and J. There was a conference hosted by the American Institute of Architecture Students. A panel including Ron Vrilakas, developer Michael Heller Jr., Mike Feuz of Otto Construction, Chris Cabaldon, and Bill Crouch (Sacramento's urban design manager) spent a couple hours discussing why preservation of historic buildings and adaptive reuse was worth it. They made clear that it doesn't always make the most money for the developer, and it's not always the easiest thing to do, but it's still important for a variety of reasons: it helps make a city a distinct place, provides a historic model for new construction, and people like it and will pay more for it.

Sitting in a place as beautiful (even in its still-damaged, half-restored phase) as the Elks Lodge ballroom made the points pretty obvious.

[econgrad]

^ I strongly disagree. As you already know. Preservation is politically correct and not economically sound. You can create a distinct city by allowing new and better development to take place. The only reason new development seems cookie cutter and more generic is because of all the environmental studies and regulations and all the hoops and red tape (because of huge California and City Government bureaucrats) to get projects developed. This raises the costs of projects, and either kills them or dumb them down. Preservation is another arm of the bureaucrats than continues to strangle progress. Sacramento needs progress. It shouldn't take longer than 6 months to approve and move forward with large scale projects such as High-Rises or even Skyscrapers. We need to learn from China, who learned from us in the first place. Just build things and get things done. Out with the old, and in with the new. I will be returning to Beijing soon, and I already know about the many new projects completed in just 3 years. Saving old buildings does not make sense to me and many others. Unfortunately normal people are just too busy to know about "Historical Preservation" and the "New Urban Revival" ideologies that have infiltrated our public offices and continue to hinder progress. If people were able to quickly vote on every project, and vote on what to preserve, I am willing to bet that almost nothing (except for a few buildings that should be preserved, but I am not aware of many in Sacramento) will ever be voted around to be kept once the price tag is shown to the public. Wburg, its not being myopic, its disagreeing with you about the true value of older buildings. If we just let the market work, stay out of developers way, you will see newer and better things for our future. Unfortunately, because of too much regulation, preservationists are myopic about new ideas and new architecture and new technology's that can create amazing buildings that Sacramento should be building.

FYI: I really do not have a gun rack, that was just a flare for the dramatic. I don't even own a gun, or ever had....

[econgrad]

^ Wburg: Please reply to this (if you want to) to the other thread set aside for our discussion. I just realized we are on the SanFramento thread...my apologies to everyone else on this thread for being off topic.

[wburg]

Really? Oh well, that's just another thing that you and I don't have in common. I'm a member of the NRA.

It's very interesting that you consider a totalitarian communist nation with a hideous human rights record the model to follow. I suppose you think that Chairman Mao's "Cultural Revolution" (which actively worked to destroy as many of China's historic places as possible) was a step in the right direction?

Me, I see market forces at work when people are willing to pay $100,000 more for a beautiful historic home in midtown than a cookie-cutter suburban house in Natomas, for the same reason that a gourmet meal costs more than a fast-food dinner. People pay more for a higher quality product. I assume from your username that you're a graduate student in economics--did they forget to teach you about supply and demand? There's a large demand for historic buildings, and the supply is limited--thus, higher prices. Whether or not you consider it irrational is unimportant.

Historic preservation has absolutely nothing to do with most of the things you complained about in the last couple of posts (government red tape, seventies apartment complexes, new urbanism, the K Street pedestrian mall) so I don't see any need to address them. Despite your fears, preservation doesn't have anything to do with a gummit conspiracy to suppress skyscrapers.

[CityDataForumSUX]

I kind of feel like a sac bay corridor would be good. I really dont think sac would LOOSE its identiy. Places that loose their identity either had not much of an indentity to speak of or are just so similar to other communities it wont matter. Fair field, vacaville, dixon, all those places would effectivley be a bufferzone of bedroom communities linking the regions together, kind of like how south orange county meets north san diego county(minus the military base in the middle).

Sac isnt san berdooo or riverside. It is the state capitol and has its own identity, its own suburbs, its own flavor...you know what i mean? I dont look at is as much as sac becoming the inland empire (thats more the stockton modesto corridor), I look at it being more or less similar to how new york sprawls into philly, and how orange county sprawls into san diego.