[innov8]

I thought this was a well done article talking about some of the issues
concerning our city. Only 1 in 10 jobs are located in the city core and also how
people who live and work in their suburban communities actually have
shorter commutes than those who live in the central city.


The Conversation: Sacramento 2020

Not everyone seeks an urban-core lifestyle and not all jobs are downtown, either. Suburbs have an important regional role

By Joel Kotkin - Special To The Bee
http://www.sacbee.com/325/story/1127379.html


http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/1948/towersft3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The failures of such high-profile projects as The Towers and the region's stagnant rental market do not suggest a seismic shift toward denser living.

Even in the best of times, Sacramento tends to be a prisoner to low self-esteem. The region's population and economic growth have been humming along nicely for the past decade, drawing ever more educated workers from overpriced coastal counties, but the region's leaders have often seemed defensive about their flourishing town.

So perhaps it's not surprising that the mortgage meltdown, which has hit the area hard, has sparked something of an identity crisis. Yet in trying to cope with hard times, it's important that the region not lose its focus on what paced Sacramento's past success: its ability to offer affordable, high-quality, largely single-family neighborhoods for middle class families.

Sadly, the dominant narrative among many planners, politicians and developers in Sacramento today is to try to shed the family-friendly image. There's a growing consensus that low-density neighborhoods are passé and that the region's future success lies in retrofitting the region along a high-density, centralized model. Suburban areas like Rancho Cordova or Elk Grove, some believe, are destined to become the "the next slums" as middle-income homeowners, fleeing high gas prices, flock to the urban core.

http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/299/movein2qc4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
A unit at the Whiskey Hill Lofts at 22nd and @ streets in midtown Sacramento is on its way to being occupied last week. Such high-density urban living is fine for some, says Joel Kotkin, but it's not for everyone.

Although a healthier downtown with reasonable density is good for the entire region, the high-density focus does not make a good fit for a predominately middle class, family-oriented region such as Sacramento. Unlike an elite city like San Francisco, Sacramento's growth has been fueled by an influx of educated, family-oriented residents – the populations that have been fleeing such high-priced places where the housing supply is constrained.

Long-term demographic trends, and perhaps common sense, suggest that most people do not move to Sacramento to indulge in a "hip and cool" urban lifestyle. If someone craves the excitement, bright lights and glamorous industries of a dense city, River City pales compared with places like San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles.

The fact Sacramento has fared far better than these cities over the past 15 years suggests the region's recent problems lie not in a lack of downtown condos and nightlife, but with a housing market that, as in much of California, has been totally out of whack. Once a consistently affordable locale, by the mid-1990s Sacramento's housing prices jumped almost nine times income growth, an unsustainable pace seen in a few areas such as Riverside, Miami and Los Angeles.

As a result, the refugees from the coastal counties who had been coming to Sacramento for affordable housing stopped arriving. Net migration to the region, more than 36,000 in 2001, fell to less than 1,000 in 2006.

Ultimately only a housing market correction will again lure the people who have come to Sacramento seeking single-family houses – the type of home favored by about 80 percent of Californians – back to the region. Evidence that these people, or current suburbanites, might flock back to the core city is thin at best. The failures of such high-profile projects as The Towers and the region's stagnant rental market do not suggest a seismic shift toward denser living.

One key reason has to do with patterns of job growth. Since 2000, suburban communities in the largest metropolitan areas have added jobs at roughly six times the rate of the urban cores.

This pattern has had profound and often counterintuitive effects on commuting distances. Planners and journalists tend to think of cities in traditional concentric rings, with distance from the core as the key measurement of distance from jobs. But in most regions, the vast majority of employment is outside the core. Even in Sacramento, a state capital, only about 1 in 10 jobs are in the city center. Exurban employment growth since 2000 has been the fastest regionally, expanding at nearly twice the rate for Sacramento County.

This means commuting distance – and thus exposure to higher gas prices – reflects more than proximity to the central core. In such diverse regions as Los Angeles and Chicago, the shortest average commutes exist both in the affluent inner-city neighborhoods and those suburbs and exurbs, where much of the employment growth has clustered. People who live in Irvine or Ontario in Southern California, or in the western suburbs of Chicago, for example, actually have shorter commutes than those residing in the barrios around downtown Los Angeles or in the Windy City's fabled South Side.

These trends suggest a radically different response to high gas prices than the knee jerk downtown-centric approach now widely supported. Instead of cajoling people downtown, perhaps it would make more sense to accelerate employment growth in those suburban and exurban areas where the region's skilled work force is increasingly concentrated.

These suburban nodes, both in and outside of Sacramento County, may very well become more important in the near future. With the state facing a perpetual budget deficit, state government – the dominant employer in the central city – may not expand and even could contract in years ahead. Perhaps a wiser approach would be to focus on the biotech, electronics and other firms, many concentrated in suburban areas, as the region's best hope for the creation of new high-wage jobs.

Does this mean the region should invite unbridled, uncontrolled growth to the periphery? Not in the least. Successful suburban communities – think of Clovis outside Fresno or Irvine or Valencia in Southern California – provide a high quality of life to their residents. This suggests the need for greater investments in such things as developing lively town centers, expansive parks, wildlife and rural preserves, as well as maintaining good schools, which are often the key factor for families deciding where to live.

This vision focuses not on one selected geographic area but on a broad spectrum of places across the region. It concentrates not exclusively on dense urban neighborhoods but on fostering a series of thriving villages from close-in city neighborhoods to places like Folsom, Roseville and even Elk Grove. Ultimately the suburb needs not to be demonized, but transformed into something more than bedrooms for a central core.

In terms of reducing vehicle miles driven, a greater emphasis on telecommuting, including by state employees, would likely also do more than an expanded, very expensive light-rail system. Although more than 12 percent of commuters to and from downtown take transit daily, less than 2 percent of those commuting elsewhere do so. Given the structure of the suburban regions, with multiple nodes of work and a weak bus-feeder system, notions of turning Sacramento into a transit mecca like New York or even San Francisco are far-fetched at best.

The central city will continue to maintain important functions, not only as a state capital but as a physical and cultural hub. But there needs to be recognition that "hip and cool" dense urbanity does not constitute the core competence of this region. For the foreseeable future, Sacramento's advantage against its coastal competitors will lie in providing affordable and highly livable modest-density neighborhoods for California's increasingly diverse middle class.

[wburg]

Interesting...1 in 10 jobs are located in the central core. But if the figures we have used before about central city population (about 20,000) are any indication, only 1 in about 22.5 Sacramentans lives in the central core--so we'd need to roughly double population density in the central city in order to achieve job/resident parity.

Such a balance, matched with job growth in the suburbs, would greatly reduce traffic (fewer commuters who live in one place and work in another) and would, theoretically, change the roles of suburbs from bedroom communities to urban centers in their own right. In each case, public transit's focus would have to shift from the radial-spoke model (which becomes less efficient as distance from the core city increases, in a "pi x R^2" way) and focus more on providing transportation within comparatively dense local communities.

This "The Conversation" series sounds a lot like the sort of discussions that take place here on Skyscraperpage (and if you read the Comments section, they've even got the screaming and calling each other commies part!) and other local development weblogs, but it's always nice to have more voices chiming in on this stuff.

[otnemarcaS]

Great article. Reiterates what some of us on this forum have said (with many others in denial) that the blanket one size fits all approach is simply nonsense. Not everybody wants to, needs to, or has to live, work and play downtown/midtown.

[BrianSac]

I think this article is just an excuse to build more elk grove's, rosevilles and natomases in the next 20 years. He is making the case to keep downtown densities low, boring and the same. Its an excuse to build more roseville like office parks and malls.

The idea of building high density condos, apts, and lofts downtown is to give people in Sacramento a truely urban pedestrian friendly environment which currently barely exists, not so people can be "hip and cool".

He is playing into the hands of midtown nimbys who are afraid of density. He undermines the efforts of developers who have taken chances by building in the core. No one is trying to shed the family friendly image of Sacramento by building one multi storied loft building. Our high density building 'boom' has barely begun and this guy wants to stop it?

[tronblue]

Who is Joel Kotkin I could google, but I'm too lazy. He's from LA so he must be okay with sprawl since he writes about it and seems to understand so much about the type of people that live in sac. He seems to try talk about things he knows about like how to use the word "hip". I think he's an out of touch babyboomer that has no business talking about what younger folk are doing. I would argue that there are a lot of 20 and 30 somethings that are in Sacto and not leaving and are in fact movers and shakers that would like to continue to live here and make a place here. One might argue that these age groups do represent a "seismic shift toward denser living" its part of who we are and how we plan to live. I think I can say this and speak for my generation about how much we are indebted to Sacramento suburbs, but at the same time they are too slow and inconvenient for us.
He also mentions: "Suburban areas like Rancho Cordova or Elk Grove, some believe, are destined to become the 'the next slums' as middle-income homeowners, fleeing high gas prices, flock to the urban core." I would argue that Rancho has been a slum for a long time. He must be on top of his research to make such a statement. I think he ment Gold River? but some of that is trash too.

Oh and did I mention he is from LA so he is irrelevant. I like how the bee set him up like some sort of dignified sac-o-file that knows everything there is about us. Give me a break.

Let me try and answer some replies to this so I don't have to waste time in the future. I'm not saying that everyone needs to live densely many people take up too much of what they already have. This is why suburbs are good and why places like rio linda have large lots for people and all their trash. Yes rancho is our version of the projects trust me. Yes I am being closed minded of this guy's knowledgeable background on why people move to Sacramento. Bla bla

Sprawl is bad period and we have enough. What we don't need are parking lots, poorly built track homes that will, not might, turn into slums. we need to create a turnpike for people from Roseville that come into Sacramento. All proceeds will go to an RT line up to Roseville so we can curb our homeless problem down here.

[Majin]

Who is Joel Kotkin I could google, but I'm too lazy. He's from LA so he must be okay with sprawl since he writes about it and seems to understand so much about the type of people that live in sac. He seems to try talk about things he knows about like how to use the word "hip". I think he's an out of touch babyboomer that has no business talking about what younger folk are doing. I would argue that there are a lot of 20 and 30 somethings that are in Sacto and not leaving and are in fact movers and shakers that would like to continue to live here and make a place here. One might argue that these age groups do represent a "seismic shift toward denser living" its part of who we are and how we plan to live. I think I can say this and speak for my generation about how much we are indebted to Sacramento suburbs, but at the same time they are too slow and inconvenient for us.
He also mentions: "Suburban areas like Rancho Cordova or Elk Grove, some believe, are destined to become the 'the next slums' as middle-income homeowners, fleeing high gas prices, flock to the urban core." I would argue that Rancho has been a slum for a long time. He must be on top of his research to make such a statement. I think he ment Gold River? but some of that is trash too.

Oh and did I mention he is from LA so he is irrelevant. I like how the bee set him up like some sort of dignified sac-o-file that knows everything there is about us. Give me a break.

Let me try and answer some replies to this so I don't have to waste time in the future. I'm not saying that everyone needs to live densely many people take up too much of what they already have. This is why suburbs are good and why places like rio linda have large lots for people and all their trash. Yes rancho is our version of the projects trust me. Yes I am being closed minded of this guy's knowledgeable background on why people move to Sacramento. Bla bla

Sprawl is bad period and we have enough. What we don't need are parking lots, poorly built track homes that will, not might, turn into slums. we need to create a turnpike for people from Roseville that come into Sacramento. All proceeds will go to an RT line up to Roseville so we can curb our homeless problem down here.

Thanks man you have pretty much said everything that I have been too lazy to type out.

Welcome to club Majin :)

[Majin]

Sacramento 2020:

http://mcconnellmission.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/tokyo-skyline.jpg

[otnemarcaS]

Here's more of Joel Kotkin to love and hate from Prosper Magazine several months ago.

http://www.prospermag.com/video/246-2028

[econgrad]

The article is dead on. above are sad attempts to argue with it, bring some facts to the table like he did.

[TowerDistrict]

His arguments are exactly the trend in which cities like Sacramento are searching for ways to reverse - but only to a certain degree. It's not as black and white as "should we build in the burbs or the city - choose one". I don't think this author is at all familiar with the General Plan or SACOG's Blueprint. Addressing future suburban growth while building up suburban infrastructure is integral to the success of any region as a whole. What I assure you must happen as a result of regionally conscious growth, is that we will end up with much more "urbanized" suburbs. We will see satellite cities crop up to every direction of the compass... well.. we already are.

It doesn't mean that we can't have suburbs - but it does mean that we can't continue outward at our current rate.

Hell, I would figure that slowing outward growth would be embraced by the suburban homeowner. The only thing that maintains a suburban home's value, is the presumption that there isn't something bigger and newer within a reasonable drive away.

[econgrad]

^ Thats not what maintains home value, that's misguided. Its also misguided to assume that if one agrees with the article, means one is rooting for it. The article is stating that people came to Sacramento for its family friendly neighborhoods, that is what maintains the value of neighborhoods as well as location. As far as other cities sprouting up and becoming more urbanized, that's great for both home owners and outlying cities. What we are seeing and will be seeing in the future, is you cannot dictate the market no matter how hard you try. There is more than enough room to grow outward, if people buy into homes further out from the core, let them if that is what they want. If there is enough demand for inner city condos (over priced in my book) then build those, but do not whine and cry if the facts show that people do not live here for that so called 'Urban Lifestyle' .

[ozone]

"Long-term demographic trends, and perhaps common sense, suggest that most people do not move to Sacramento to indulge in a "hip and cool" urban lifestyle. If someone craves the excitement, bright lights and glamorous industries of a dense city, River City pales compared with places like San Francisco, New York or Los Angeles."

Er ..You think? This guy is frek'n brilliant. But his next statement is typical Kotkinan drible:

"The fact Sacramento has fared far better than these cities over the past 15 years suggests the region's recent problems lie not in a lack of downtown condos and nightlife, but with a housing market that, as in much of California, has been totally out of whack."

Sacramento has fared far better than San Francisco, New York and Los Angeles in the last 15 years? By what measure?

Joel Kotkin is probably the champion of suburbia in America.

From Wikipedia:
Kotkin argues that the model of urban development as exemplified by pre-automobile cities such as New York City and Paris is outdated in many cases. Kotkin believes in a "back to basics" approach which stresses nurturing the middle class and families. He states that the current trend of growth of suburbs will be the dominant pattern around the world. As a result, he believes rail transit is not always ideal for modern cities and suburbs.

I think it is old man Kotkin who is outdated. I've read enough of his twisted logic to know that he's got that cynical Ex-New Yorker spin on cities. Too bad. His arguments have never been very convincing to me. I can understand why people, businesses and public officials in the suburbs would like to believe (him) but there is a danger in accepting his reality. I agree that the growth pattern in the last 60 years (all over the world) has been towards the suburban model but that doesn't mean that this trend will continue or that it is the best model for living. All his anti-city rants over the years has yet to convince me that suburbia is the paradise he imagines it to be. And notice how Kotkin uses the code word "family" over and over and over again in his writings.

As you can see from the response here those who are suburb lovers will gladly accept his version reality while those who are urban lovers will not. BTW his "facts" are definitely refutable.

We who champion urban living are not whining when we point out that for the last 60 years a disproportionate amount of taxpayer money has gone to build suburbia’s automobile based infrastructure. And that if the same amount were put into urban-supportive infrastructure we'd wouldn't be having this debate.

Many of the problems people cited for originally wanting out of the city can be said of most suburbs today as well as a few new ones that are peculiar to the burbs. Today suburbs do not provide the sense of community, ease of living, or escape from urban life that was promised. But what is undeniable is that suburbia has lead to our over-consumption of everything, made us dangerously dependent on foreign oil, destroyed many once thriving small towns and tradtional cores, covered over millions of acres of farmlands and is largely responable for the economic and social mess we are in today.

I believe the future of cities will be a hybrid of the old urban cities and suburbia. Kotkin kind of argues for this too but his vision clearly emphasises suburbia and the car. BTW I think it's interesting how many teenagers today don't care that much about getting their driver's license or their first car. When I was a kid we could hardly wait.

[bennywah]

The suburbs are there, and in reality we cannot change enough peoples minds about living in denser neighborhoods to make enough of an impact to move. What we can do is make those suburbs there own real cities with there own nightlife, identity, culture, and public transportation systems, put the jobs where people are and better use the land around those exburbs and suburbs.

The central city which is seeing its own growth, re-use and new development will continue with younger, and more urban friendly residents, but not addressing the suburbs that are already there will do nothing to address, higher gas prices, traffic, and sprawl, those communities also need pioneers to re-evaluate there designs and purposes, and create the villages which make an area a city.

with populations over 100k those cities need to focus on making themselves into real cities that can sustain them selves better than by track malls and housing but by jobs, transportation, and something that goes beyond the mcmansion. We as an educated diverse group do nothing to make those places better by only focusing on a small core of a large area, the message needs to reach those not familiar with walkable, livable places, and with the current mess that california and the u.s is in, we have that opportunity to present new ideas to people who might not have listened 5-10 yrs ago when things seemed great.

any and all ideas on the table have to be looked at and compromised on and eventually over time things start to take place. New york, San francisco, london, paris weren't built overnight and if you look beyond there dense cores also have suburbs and sprawl like old/new cities like Sacramento. or phoenix, ect. Ideas, and common sense sometimes takes time to catch on and change but will eventually happen.

[tronblue]

Ozone your on the ball. I agree with strengthening our pre-existing burbs. Take Arden-Arcade for example, maybe I'll take some crap for this, but I would say this is an example of a good suburb. It provides enough jobs to support its population and more. Something like 40,000 jobs to its almost 100,000 population. It has more than twice the density as Rocklin and almost twice Elk grove at about 5,000 per sq mile. It is laid out on a grid pattern as far as major streets are concerned. Economic, shopping, grocery choices and locations are close short 10 min or less drives. This is not the case, for example at my aunt's stucco blight home in Rocklin it takes 15-20 mins to reach safeway. From my buddy;s house off Walnut and Kenneth he can choose from: Raley's, belair, mike's discount, whole foods, eliots natural foods, safe way, ralph's etc all under 15 mins some are as close as under 5 and very walkable. I think upping the density and crating city cores is brilliant. Portland has this with many of their communities. I used to live in Brooklyn, and they are doing this all over the place. I've heard they now have a 4-5 floor max, but the infill seems smart affordable close to subway stops and bars. And as I pointed out above about younger folks, Young couples with strollers all over the place in dense living.

[wburg]

Here's an example of just what needs to happen:
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1134953.html

Cordova plans local shuttle service by fall
By Cathy Locke - clocke@sacbee.com
Published 3:10 pm PDT Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Residents and employees of Rancho Cordova's new neighborhoods and business parks may find peak-hour travel a bit easier come fall.

The city is preparing to roll out the first phase of a local transit system by early November.

The initial beneficiaries will be residents and employees south of Highway 50, where new developments have been assessed fees to support public transit.

Those fees, along with a $900,000 grant from the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, will fund a pilot shuttle service and development of a five-year transit plan, said Cyrus Abhar, Rancho Cordova public works director.

The shuttle, operated by Sacramento Regional Transit, will primarily travel the Zinfandel Drive corridor, connecting areas south of Highway 50 with the Zinfandel light-rail station north of the freeway.


In other words, Rancho Cordova is looking for ways to increase transportation mobility within their city, instead of focusing on transit to and from Sacramento. This, along with their efforts to build projects like a condo tower (the D&S project), support of light rail, building their town center, and new higher-density housing near local job centers, are a sign that Rancho Cordova is making a real effort to leap past suburbhood and carve out their own identity as a city. Good for them.

[urban_encounter]

Ultimately only a housing market correction will again lure the people who have come to Sacramento seeking single-family houses – the type of home favored by about 80 percent of Californians – back to the region. Evidence that these people, or current suburbanites, might flock back to the core city is thin at best. The failures of such high-profile projects as The Towers and the region's stagnant rental market do not suggest a seismic shift toward denser living.


But the point he fails to mention is that housing values have plummeted in many of the burbs while downtown and midtown have fared much much better.

I also think that rising fuel prices may also help lure people closer to the central city (even if it isn't their work center).

[snfenoc]

Downtown and Midtown may have fared much better, but have they fared better enough so people will pay a premium for a (usually) smaller home?

Can they even afford that premium?

What if I were test driving a KIA and the salesman told me, "Hey, a BMW will hold its value better." (I'm well aware there is a minimal chance of a KIA-BMW dealership.) Great. But I'm in the market for a KIA, not a BMW.

[wburg]

Plenty of people do pay that premium, and seem to be able to afford it I did, and I'm far from wealthy (heck, I can't even afford a new Kia, let alone a BMW!) Square footage (or acreage) is not the only determining factor when buying a house.

Most new suburban homes are unnecessarily oversized and really inefficient. I don't need five bedrooms, a formal dining room, or a third bathroom, nor do I need to heat and cool the air in a 14 foot cathedral ceiling. I don't need a big front lawn or a big backyard--that's just more crap to mow.

What I do want is a house that is beautiful and historic, in a neighborhood of similar beauty, within walking distance of coffee shops, parks, shopping, live music, inexpensive dining, friends, transit, and my workplace--in a word, community. And yes, that's absolutely worth a premium price--at least it is to me. They're the amenities of my neighborhood, rather than of my house.

And maybe that's why folks who live in those sorts of neighborhoods (ones that are enjoyable beyond one's own property line) tend to care about what happens in the neighborhood as a whole, rather than just what affects them personally.

[otnemarcaS]

:previous:
Good for you regarding what you want and got in a house but if your job was with Intel in Folsom or HP in Roseville or Apple in Elk Grove or EDS in Rancho Cordova, would you be singing the same tune? You can't always choose where your job is located or be close to it. If one in 10 jobs are located in the city center then why the hell do you want people to come and live in overprized city center homes just to be in a "cool, urban, hip" setting when they could be living closer to work? Yawn. I live in Natomas and work 4 miles away from home right here in Natomas so what benefit do I, or people in similar situations, derive from wanting to live downtown? Again, I am using only one factor (jobs) here as an example here.

[snfenoc]

wburg,

I'm glad YOU prefer "a house that is beautiful and historic, in a neighborhood of similar beauty." I'm glad YOU think it's "absolutely worth a premium price." I'm glad YOU think "most new suburban homes are unnecessarily oversized and really inefficient." I'm glad YOU "don't need five bedrooms, a formal dining room, or a third bathroom." I'm glad YOU don't "need to heat and cool the air in a 14 foot cathedral ceiling." I'm glad YOU "don't need a big front lawn or a big backyard--that's just more crap to mow." I pretty much agree with you, although a historic home is not necessary - I could live in the L Street Lofts.

However, you and I (and many others on this forum) do not represent everyone. Other people (and probably most people) have different priorities. They look at the lower cost of buying a suburban home and measure it against the cost of raising kids. They look at the extra space offered in a suburban home and measure it against the space needed to raise kids. The choice for them is clear. Although midtown and downtown homes held their value better than suburban homes and come with lower automobile-related costs, those pluses don't outweigh the minuses for a lot of people. Heck, in many cases there is a $100,000+ difference in cost. Add that to a unit with less space, and you can understand the attractiveness of paying an additional $750 in gas and car insurance prices to live in the suburbs. So, the point of my earlier post was to say I'm not sure we will experience the sea change urban suggested (I may have read far too much into his post, though). Yes, we may see more people moving into the central city, but a mass exodus out of the suburbs? I don't know about that. I think urban places too much value on resale and cheaper transportation costs.


I'd like to take exception with something you said (a surprise to you, I'm sure): "(I want a house) within walking distance of coffee shops, parks, shopping, live music, inexpensive dining, friends, transit, and my workplace--in a word, community." (There was a bunch more crap that followed.) That statement implies suburban homes are not close to a damn thing. While many suburban homes are not exactly within walking distance to all the destinations you listed, they are still pretty close. As a former suburbanite, I can tell you I had friends next door, I biked to parks and was within a 5 minute drive from shopping and dining. The statement (along with the final sentence of your last post) also implies suburbanites don't have a sense of community. Bullshit. Total bullshit. As a former suburbanite, I made lifelong friends, was involved in clubs, looked out for neighbors and the neighborhood, attended parties, etc. And I was not the only one. You think the lives of suburbanites are completely enclosed within their property line (sounds like someone is property-hating commie). Well, you are wrong. The suburban community may be different than the inner city community, and its people may be concerned with their personal finances and desire for space (how dare they!) more than your average urban douche bag, but it's still community. Perhaps if you got out of your own little shell and opened your closed mind you'd understand.

[bennywah]

I'm actually going to agree with steve on this one, I lived in Elk Grove from 95 till 03, and the neighbors on the st and us were always doing stuff together, we lived near a park, and the creek which had bike trails, and nature preserves, had 2 movie theaters within walking distance as well as my high school and various shopping within walking, or a 3 min drive, and belive it or not the citizens of that community didn't want over rampant growth. They actually wanted more jobs, better use of land and better transportation options and this was in the early part of the decade before gas was ridiculous.

My mom now lives in woodland, and at 7 pm last night I went to the store less than a mile away, and many families were walking to the park, enjoying the outdoors with their kids and their pets, I'll take a camera next time because it was amazing to see so many people out walking and talking to each other. Yes the central city may have more unique one of a kind restraunts, be more walkable to entertainment and such, but in both suburban neighborhoods I've been in in the sac area I was actually closer to grocery stores and retail than my friends in midtown.

At my home and neighborhood in san diego I walk everywhere and live in a part of town where clubs, parks, shopping, and culture are easily accessible but it was through gentrification over the last 5 yrs that, that became so, and thats what I think the suburbs can begin to do to become more effective in being a less car driven society is to add the other parts of what makes the center city a city.

theres always 2 sides to a story and though the majority of us want to see historic, unique dense city centers, doesn't mean the evil suburbanites don't enjoy some of the same senses of community like those in urban centers, and its also difficult especially now to just up and move, especially if your job isn't near where you live and would counter act the notion of shortening commute times, and increasing public transportation. In san diego many condos and town homes exsist in downtown, but not as many jobs, and the trolley system doesn't run north where the vast majority of tech jobs are. so guess what? The commute pattern is opposite of most cities, in the morning lots of people leave downtown and drive north, and in the eve they return too downtown and are going south, which also goes to chula vista which is similar to elk grove in size, downtown also needs more jobs and companies willing to locate there before you can just plop to many houses and people and create reverse commutes, it then makes downtown its own suburb instead of a true city center.

[wburg]

:previous:
Good for you regarding what you want and got in a house but if your job was with Intel in Folsom or HP in Roseville or Apple in Elk Grove or EDS in Rancho Cordova, would you be singing the same tune? You can't always choose where your job is located or be close to it. If one in 10 jobs are located in the city center then why the hell do you want people to come and live in overprized city center homes just to be in a "cool, urban, hip" setting when they could be living closer to work? Yawn. I live in Natomas and work 4 miles away from home right here in Natomas so what benefit do I, or people in similar situations, derive from wanting to live downtown? Again, I am using only one factor (jobs) here as an example here.

For someone who works in Natomas, Folsom, Roseville, or Elk Grove, I'd suppose they would be better off living there too, ideally within walking, biking . I'm not suggesting that everyone live in midtown Sacramento--quite the contrary! I'm explaining why I think Midtown is a great neighborhood--and how those qualities can be pursued in suburban neighborhoods, in order to make them work more like a central city and less like a suburb. That means better pedestrian and transit connections, grid street patterns instead of cul-de-sacs and feeders, commercial uses interspersed within neighborhoods instead of concentrated in mega-strips, and homes of differing sizes and densities within a neighborhood. My point is that we *should* be able to choose a place to live that is close to work. That can mean telecommuting, or efficient public transit, or a short car drive, or a walk.

About the jobs thing:

The central city has about one-tenth of the jobs--10%.
The central city has about one twentieth of the population--5%.

If we assume that EVERYONE in the central city has a job (obviously not true but it makes for a worst-case scenario,) that means that at least (minimum) 50% of the people who work downtown don't live here. That means the population of the central city could at least double before anything like parity between central city residents and central city jobs is reached. This assumes that the number of jobs in the central city stays flat--a condition I consider pretty unlikely. Assuming some growth, one could even triple the central city population before reaching job parity.

snefnoc: I'm so glad you could tell that, in my post, I was expressing MY personal preferences rather than stating how I think everyone should live. The question was, "Will people pay a premium price to live in midtown?" (whether it's a new urban loft or an old bungalow) and the answer is "Yes, some people will." I don't think everyone will, and I don't think everyone should. I don't predict a mass exodus out of the suburbs--I predict an increase in central city population, an increase in suburban population density, and, hopefully, a slow decrease in the expansion of suburbs onto greenfield areas.

I grew up in the suburbs too, until my early twenties, so I'm saying this from my own experience, not the theoretical observation of someone who has never lived in the suburbs (I just never liked living there.) The "castle mentality" of the suburbs, where people tend to be more isolated from their neighbors and their community, is everywhere, especially in new developments. While there are some suburban neighborhoods that have some sense of community, especially those that grew up around smaller rural communities, they seem totally swamped by developments that lack the many important qualities that make a neighborhood liveable.

Growing up in Citrus Heights, I could walk on the streets, but generally they were either boring tract homes or busy car-choked feeder streets with huge parking lots between the sidewalk and the stores. In either case there wasn't a hint of shade, making summer walking no fun. I could ride my bike, and risk getting mowed down when I tried going to the comparatively interesting places like the mall. I knew some of my neighbors, but there wasn't much in the way of community spirit and while I may have recognized them in most cases I never learned their names. And I lived in an older fifties/sixties suburb, with somewhat permeable streets, on the edge of the tract homes relatively close to the retail strip, and some heritage of the old farming community still lingering around. New suburbs just seem like a blank slate filled with nothing.

edit: Bennywah, you give some good examples of small-town places, like Elk Grove up until a few years ago (sounds like you were around long enough to witness Elk Grove go from a small town into a new suburban city) and Woodland (Woodland has a great small-town downtown, and its own community feel.) Personally I don't think the good things about those communities' small-town heritage translates well into the new suburban tracts sprouting up around their small-town cores.

[econgrad]

The sad thing is about this debate is that there is so little construction and positive news right now that we actually have time have these types of debate.... Any good news of our cities progresses? Any city, Rancho, Folsom, Sac, Roseville.. anything?

[econgrad]

Loomis bucks Rocklin projects that come too close to town
By Art Campos - acampos@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, August 7, 2008

The people of Loomis are proud they were once able to slay a giant that they felt had gotten too close to the town boundaries.

It was their protests and a lawsuit in the 1990s that caused developers of a proposed large shopping center at Rocklin's Sierra College Boulevard and Interstate 80 to abandon the project.

The development later became the Galleria at Roseville.

The Loomis folks are battling again – this time against two more giants in Rocklin. The two major projects abut the Rocklin-Loomis boundaries.

Loomis Councilman Tom Millward said there is little his town can do to stop projects from coming to Rocklin.

"It's their city, and they can do what they want," he said. "But I feel we can still negotiate with Rocklin for the things that affect us. And if that doesn't work, we should go to court.

"So far, we've been talking with them, and they have been listening.

The projects are the proposed Rocklin Crossing at Sierra College Boulevard and I-80 on the south side of the freeway and a big-box store on the north side of I-80.

The 500,000-square-foot Rocklin Crossing would feature a Wal-Mart Superstore, a Home Depot and as many as 18 other tenants.

A housing project adjacent to the Crossing would bring a 177-unit subdivision currently known as Rocklin 60.

On the north side of the freeway at Granite Drive and Sierra College Boulevard, the developer garnered a conditional use permit from Rocklin's Planning Commission for a 138,000- square-foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center store.

Loomis appealed the decision to the Rocklin City Council, which is scheduled to hear the matter Tuesday.

Lowe's has since pulled out, but the owner of the 12-acre property, Paul Petrovich, has indicated he will pursue another tenant.

Despite Lowe's withdrawal, Loomis Town Manager Perry Beck said Loomis will continue the appeal because the size of the project would still affect his town.

Loomis officials are concerned about traffic, noise and air quality impacts, as well as visual blight, linked to developments bordering their town.

Until Lowe's backed away from the Rocklin site, one complaint from Loomis was that only a fence would have divided the store property from Loomis' Hunter Oaks residential neighborhood.

Lights from the store and parking lot would shine into people's yards, residents said.

Sherri Abbas, Rocklin's planning services manager, said an environmental impact assessment was conducted and that a series of mitigation measures will be required of the developer.

The measures include a soundwall and a 20-foot height limit on lighting, she said. The lights also will be required to point downward to avoid shining into yards, she said.

Meanwhile, Rocklin Crossing, the project on the south side of I-80, has hit a slight delay.

David Sablan, Rocklin's assistant planner, said developer Donahue Schriber of Orange County wanted to revise the project's environmental impact report, another document questioned by Loomis.

"We are recirculating the EIR," Sablan said. "There were issues that the applicant felt needed to be addressed – air quality and traffic. But the project itself has not changed."

Beck said the developer wanted to extend Dom-inguez Road so that it would cross the freeway and link with Sierra College Boulevard and into the proposed shopping center.

"But this would create a major arterial on the north side from Del Mar Avenue in Loomis because Del Mar becomes Dominguez Road when it reaches Rocklin," Beck said. "It could literally become a freeway."

Loomis officials felt that such a possibility had not been fully addressed in the environmental report, he said.

Sablan said no date has been set for the EIR hearing.

"It could be late summer," he said.

Loomis Councilman Walt Scherer said the latest developments give him the im- pression that Rocklin is "taking comments more seriously than in the past."

Scherer said his biggest concern with Rocklin's pending addition of the two pro- jects "is how to develop the Sierra College Boulevard corridor without destroying Loomis."

[ltsmotorsport]

I wouldn't call Loomis a suburb. They're more a rural community, and rural communities definitely oppose suburban-type developements.

[tronblue]

I say good for Loomis having some balls. Rocklin has become this morbidly obese posture child of why sprawl is bad. Fro what i remember growing up, Rocklin was this small out of the way place to go swimming in quarries where in, you might luck out and find a half submerged dead body.

[neuhickman79]

Loomis bucks Rocklin projects that come too close to town
By Art Campos - acampos@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, August 7, 2008

The people of Loomis are proud they were once able to slay a giant that they felt had gotten too close to the town boundaries.

It was their protests and a lawsuit in the 1990s that caused developers of a proposed large shopping center at Rocklin's Sierra College Boulevard and Interstate 80 to abandon the project.

The development later became the Galleria at Roseville.

The Loomis folks are battling again – this time against two more giants in Rocklin. The two major projects abut the Rocklin-Loomis boundaries.

Loomis Councilman Tom Millward said there is little his town can do to stop projects from coming to Rocklin.

"It's their city, and they can do what they want," he said. "But I feel we can still negotiate with Rocklin for the things that affect us. And if that doesn't work, we should go to court.

"So far, we've been talking with them, and they have been listening.

The projects are the proposed Rocklin Crossing at Sierra College Boulevard and I-80 on the south side of the freeway and a big-box store on the north side of I-80.

The 500,000-square-foot Rocklin Crossing would feature a Wal-Mart Superstore, a Home Depot and as many as 18 other tenants.

A housing project adjacent to the Crossing would bring a 177-unit subdivision currently known as Rocklin 60.

On the north side of the freeway at Granite Drive and Sierra College Boulevard, the developer garnered a conditional use permit from Rocklin's Planning Commission for a 138,000- square-foot Lowe's Home Improvement Center store.

Loomis appealed the decision to the Rocklin City Council, which is scheduled to hear the matter Tuesday.

Lowe's has since pulled out, but the owner of the 12-acre property, Paul Petrovich, has indicated he will pursue another tenant.

Despite Lowe's withdrawal, Loomis Town Manager Perry Beck said Loomis will continue the appeal because the size of the project would still affect his town.

Loomis officials are concerned about traffic, noise and air quality impacts, as well as visual blight, linked to developments bordering their town.

Until Lowe's backed away from the Rocklin site, one complaint from Loomis was that only a fence would have divided the store property from Loomis' Hunter Oaks residential neighborhood.

Lights from the store and parking lot would shine into people's yards, residents said.

Sherri Abbas, Rocklin's planning services manager, said an environmental impact assessment was conducted and that a series of mitigation measures will be required of the developer.

The measures include a soundwall and a 20-foot height limit on lighting, she said. The lights also will be required to point downward to avoid shining into yards, she said.

Meanwhile, Rocklin Crossing, the project on the south side of I-80, has hit a slight delay.

David Sablan, Rocklin's assistant planner, said developer Donahue Schriber of Orange County wanted to revise the project's environmental impact report, another document questioned by Loomis.

"We are recirculating the EIR," Sablan said. "There were issues that the applicant felt needed to be addressed – air quality and traffic. But the project itself has not changed."

Beck said the developer wanted to extend Dom-inguez Road so that it would cross the freeway and link with Sierra College Boulevard and into the proposed shopping center.

"But this would create a major arterial on the north side from Del Mar Avenue in Loomis because Del Mar becomes Dominguez Road when it reaches Rocklin," Beck said. "It could literally become a freeway."

Loomis officials felt that such a possibility had not been fully addressed in the environmental report, he said.

Sablan said no date has been set for the EIR hearing.

"It could be late summer," he said.

Loomis Councilman Walt Scherer said the latest developments give him the im- pression that Rocklin is "taking comments more seriously than in the past."

Scherer said his biggest concern with Rocklin's pending addition of the two pro- jects "is how to develop the Sierra College Boulevard corridor without destroying Loomis."
With people like you running around spouting nonsense about exurban crap that we shouldn't care about on this forum, count me in as a Majinist! I'd rather see concrete high-rises covering downtown than your ideal Sacramento! :yuck:

[Majin]

With people like you running around spouting nonsense about exurban crap that we shouldn't care about on this forum, count me in as a Majinist! I'd rather see concrete high-rises covering downtown than your ideal Sacramento! :yuck:

Welcome to the club :cool:

[econgrad]

With people like you running around spouting nonsense about exurban crap that we shouldn't care about on this forum, count me in as a Majinist! I'd rather see concrete high-rises covering downtown than your ideal Sacramento! :yuck:

All we should have, is what the free market dictates. Anything else would not done freely.

[neuhickman79]

All we should have, is what the free market dictates. Anything else would not done freely.
Free to make everyone else around you gag! Welcome to America!...land of the most free, most entitled, and most selfish people in the world! Enjoy your stay! :rolleyes:

[innov8]

With people like you running around spouting nonsense about exurban crap that we shouldn't care about on this forum, count me in as a Majinist! I'd rather see concrete high-rises covering downtown than your ideal Sacramento! :yuck:

WOW Neuhicky, you’re inability to tolerate others not like you’re self says volumes about YOU.

Seriously, don’t you neuhickman live and work in the Sacramento suburbs?
You certainly don’t practice what you preach. Aren’t you the one who thinks
Rancho Cordova is the next big thing? You even started a thread about it.
I don’t think you understood what econgrad was pointing out with that
news article, that people in the burbs do care about there community unlike
what wberg was stating earlier.

[ozone]

Here's my thing about the suburbs vs urban debate. I don't care if people prefer to live in the burbs. It's their life and their choice.

For me it's not so much that I hate the suburbs but rather it's that I am bored with them. I grew up in Brady Bunch suburbs in Southern California and hung out at the mall. For many so-called "new urbanites" like myself it's a case of Been There, Done That. We are just way over the whole suburbia thing.

Growing up in middle class all-white suburbs I would often hear negative remarks about those people 'downtown'. They didn't look or talk like us and their neighborhoods seemed like they where in another country. How could I care about them and their needs when I only went downtown on occasion? Since college I've mostly lived 'downtown' and it is here that I have found my place. I have lived the heart of two cities over 7 million and in the backwoods. It's the in-between lands, where I grew up, that hold zero appeal for me today.

So I do not want to subsidize the suburban lifestyle while services and amenities that would support my lifestyle, my neighborhood, and my business are neglected -which is the case here in Sacramento.

And I do not want suburban-minded people making decisions about how the central city should be. And the way this city is structured that's exactly what's happening.

Sacramento is mostly suburbia so the problem here is that we do not have a real urban environment in the Sacramento area in order to attract talented people who are often repelled or bored by suburbia. It's about choices and the economy -stupid. Are we not allowed a choice? Why can't we have both?

We can have both -but the two lifestyles do come into conflict. We cannot have a functioning urban environment without a good public transportation system that is specific to central city and supports the person on foot more than the person in a car. We cannot have a robust urban economy based on car communting suburbanites -which is what we've had for the last 30-40 years.


Oh BTW there are things going on in the central city -even a high-rise going up. Not boomtown but some nice infill and remodels.

Shhhh... nobody tell econgrad that truly 'free markets' have been extremely rare or never have really existed. If they have it was always for a short period and on a small scale. Completely free markets, like collectivism and utopia, sound good in theory but do not work in reality. It’ s amazing how many professional economists over the years have been so wrong on the economy. Yes I'm saying free markets are a complete fantasy. Free market is neither the answer nor the question.

[tronblue]

"We can have both -but the two lifestyles do come into conflict. We cannot have a functioning urban environment without a good public transportation system that is specific to central city and supports the pedestrian. We cannot have a functioning urban environment based on car commuting suburbanites -which is what we've had for the last 30-40 years."

Both my grandparents were state workers and from the time they moved to Sacramento and settled by American River college, till they retired, they rode the bus. Who rode with them? Other state workers and the bus was always full. They new many people that commuted during the 60's and 70's by bus or alternative to car. I think much of this has to do with generational mentality. Baby boomers tend to drive every where and so do older gen xer's its not justbecause you can stereotype them and say they are lazy and tend to indulge in themselves too much, because that would be too easy. Its just not in their mental makeup to make those kinds of sacrifices often to: save money, enjoy the comforts of commuter friends and other community members that ride transit, give in to time constraints, the lack of trust in others, bla bla list goes on.

Now you have young gen xers and other younger gens that will avoid driving with more ease and use transit, but its not because they have the mentality of their depression era grandparents,no way. They use alternatives for different reasons mostly because they've been taught about alternatives through out their educational career. So if this is the case, and future gens will except transit than we should be building more of this type of infrastructure now, because it will pay off big time in the future. But as is, people in power think with limitations and about how much it will cost us now bs. Sacrifices must be made now to solve not just current issues but those that will haunt us to a greater extent in the future.

Take for example Portland. Drive out on the 205 and the 84 toward Damascus, Gresham, Troutdale and Fairview, and you have not just highways, but transit lines and most importantly bike paths that run with the freeways, wow what a novel idea.

[econgrad]

oops. Mis-post.

[urban_encounter]

Free to make everyone else around you gag! Welcome to America!...land of the most free, most entitled, and most selfish people in the world! Enjoy your stay! :rolleyes:



:uhh:

[urban_encounter]

All we should have, is what the free market dictates.


I actually agree with this statement.


It's a far cry from what we want and what the market can handle as we have witnessed first hand in Sacramento.

[otnemarcaS]

WOW Neuhicky, you’re inability to tolerate others not like you’re self says volumes about YOU.

Seriously, don’t you neuhickman live and work in the Sacramento suburbs?
You certainly don’t practice what you preach. Aren’t you the one who thinks
Rancho Cordova is the next big thing? You even started a thread about it.
I don’t think you understood what econgrad was pointing out with that
news article, that people in the burbs do care about there community unlike
what wberg was stating earlier.

I was thinking the same. What's with neuhickman79's attitude here? Doesn't he live in Rosemont, which is not exactly a neighborhood in MT/DT Sacramento? Um, last time I checked that is near la suburb de Rancho Cordova. A surburbanite condemning the opinions of another suburbanite to make yourself appear as somewhat of an urban champion? :sly:

[Majin]

At least I pratice what I preach. You can't call me out on anything I say.

[goldcntry]

I was thinking the same. What's with neuhickman79's attitude here? Doesn't he live in Rosemont, which is not exactly a neighborhood in MT/DT Sacramento? Um, last time I checked that is near la suburb de Rancho Cordova. A surburbanite condemning the opinions of another suburbanite to make yourself appear as somewhat of an urban champion? :sly:


You must forgive neuhickman some of his angst: as a fellow Rosemontian, I can attest that we are saddend by the lack of love for our community. Rancho Cordova doesn't want us, Sactown forgot we exist, and the County only uses us as a dumping ground. Most of us here are on medication and suffer from separation anxiety. "Rosemont-malcontent" wasn't catchy enough, so they coined the "red-headed step-child" phrase to describe us instead. Smaller words and easier to remember...


*duck*


:tomato:

[econgrad]

^ That's terrible. I always thought Rosemont was part if Sacramento City. Hmmm, I wonder if any one will annex it...

[JVissle]

Downtown and Midtown may have fared much better, but have they fared better enough so people will pay a premium for a (usually) smaller home?

Can they even afford that premium?

What if I were test driving a KIA and the salesman told me, "Hey, a BMW will hold its value better." (I'm well aware there is a minimal chance of a KIA-BMW dealership.) Great. But I'm in the market for a KIA, not a BMW.


LMFAO!

I drive a red '03 Kia Spectra...

Wana buy it? :yes:

[Tiger Beer]

Everyone misses a point, people aren't flocking to Sacremento for their suburbs...if that were so, they'd just go to whatever cities they are already in and go to their own suburbs.

People go to Sacramento because they want to live in a CITY...and San Francisco has priced them out of the market.

For Sacramento to dismiss their city core as an alternative to San Francisco's city core...and instead try to get jobs in their suburbs, and therefore raise prices there, and make one big giant suburb that is already surrounding the Bay Area as it is, simply lacks logic.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Everyone misses a point, people aren't flocking to Sacremento for their suburbs...if that were so, they'd just go to whatever cities they are already in and go to their own suburbs.

People go to Sacramento because they want to live in a CITY...and San Francisco has priced them out of the market.

For Sacramento to dismiss their city core as an alternative to San Francisco's city core...and instead try to get jobs in their suburbs, and therefore raise prices there, and make one big giant suburb that is already surrounding the Bay Area as it is, simply lacks logic.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacramento/52890-sf-bay-area-roseville-2.html

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacramento/52890-sf-bay-area-roseville.html

Here is a sample from one of the Bay Area Transplants to Roseville:

Another Bay Area (Millbrae/San Bruno) transplant here. We -- me, wife, son (4) and daughter (1) -- just moved out here this month, living in an apartment for a couple months while our house in Westpark (large new development on the western city edge) is getting built.

Some random observations....

- The Heat: It has surprisingly been bearable. Of course, AC helps and so does the fact that I spent my first 18 years growing up in LA, where triple-digit heat waves were not uncommon. As they say, it's a dry heat here -- rarely the humid muggy heat that makes you feel yucky. I have historically always said that I prefer to be too cold than too hot, and perhaps that may still be true, but I have to say, I am really enjoying being able to walk outside in the evening in shorts and enjoy the warm air.

- Diversity: yeah, it's still primarily big white 'burb. (We're Chinese/Japanese American.) Often, we'll go out for a quick trip to the market and not see a single Asian face. But as others have mentioned, it's changing, albeit slowly. The population in our apartment community is actually very diverse. And as I drive down the subdivision of our new home, I'm seeing a good mix too. So things are changing. And at no point have I ever felt uncomfortable or unwelcome, anywhere.

- Dining: Well, get used to big chain restaurants. Going out and finding good authentic ethnic cuisine is a challenge, but something we're having some humor (and success) doing. So-called sushi joints like Mikuni serve up westernized sushi with too much sauce and fried stuff. Ugh. Thankfully, we did find a place in Rocklin that did serve up some Japanese cuisine to our liking, and even my wife's grandparents were quite happy. Next hunt will be for Cantonese, Vietnamese, Korean, Thai, Mexican (not the Tex-Mex stuff), and Middle Eastern. (I have a feeling we may have to drive a bit. LOL.)

- Living Here: Despite its reputation of sprawling suburbia (110,000 at last count), Roseville has planned its growth fairly well, I think. Wonderful parks and rec. Yes you pretty much have to drive everywhere. Of course every chain store you can think of has a presence here. Much has been said of Roseville traffic (freeway as well as surface streets), but honestly, it's not as bad as what I was dealing with on a daily basis in the Bay Area. I have also found it interesting that although the Bay Area has a great reputation for outdoor activities, we are spending more time outside here in Roseville than we ever did in the Bay Area (very likely due to climate -- it was often cold/windy where we were in the Peninsula).

- Get Out of Town!: I have always enjoyed Lake Tahoe (especially South Shore), but the 4 hour drive from the Bay Area has always been enough of an impediment to keep me from doing it regularly. Last weekend we made it there in 2 hours flat. North shore would be even shorter. We also go back to the Bay Area a few times a month, and that's a manageable 2 hours as well. I'm looking forward to enjoying Folsom Lake, 20 minutes away by surface streets.

No, we're not in the Bay Area anymore, Toto. But we knew that going in, and we take it all in stride. For all it offers, Roseville is the right place for us, for where we are in our lives right now.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/sacramento/52890-sf-bay-area-roseville-3.html

A wave from the Bay
Flood of newcomers is changing the face of the Sacramento region
By Phillip Reese and Jim Wasserman - Bee Staff Writers

Published 12:00 am PST Saturday, February 3, 2007

They brought the Bay with them: upscale shops, more government services, new restaurants. But also: More traffic, higher home prices, congestion. Almost 150,000 people moved from the Bay Area to the Sacramento metropolitan region from 2001 to 2005, a torrent of 80 newcomers a day, according to a Bee analysis of new federal IRS data. More people came here from the nine Bay Area counties during that time than from all other counties in the state combined.
The eastward migration is part of a longer-term trend, too. Over the past decade more Bay Area transplants have moved here than the permanent population of Reno plus all the gamblers and skiers visiting there on any given Saturday night. As a group, the newcomers who arrived in the five years ending with 2005 came with ample funds -- a combined annual income of $4 billion. Santa Clara County, home to the high-tech Silicon Valley, sent
the most new residents this direction: more than 40,000 in five years. That group also reported the highest average household income: nearly $69,000 a year.
The wealthiest Bay Area transplants tended to head straight for the suburban counties, while Sacramento County has attracted those less well-off. The newcomers' upside outweighs any drawbacks, according to economists and urban planners. For instance, collectively they contributed to a rise in taxable retail sales in the region of about 28 percent from 2001 to 2005, easily outpacing growth statewide, according to the State Board of Equalization.
"The economic benefit is obvious," said Michael Faust, Sacramento Metro Chamber senior vice president of public policy and advocacy. Businesses moved from the Bay Area and people followed, he said.
"Just connect the dots," he added. "Business attraction creates new jobs, new jobs build new homes, new homes feed existing business, and strong business environment attracts new business. "That equation is why Sacramento has been able to (maintain) a strong economic position in a slowing state and national economy."
Still, if you've tried to merge onto eastbound Interstate 80 near Roseville at 5 p.m. lately, the traffic might cause you to form a contrary opinion of the benefits. Or, if you want to buy a house with a typical local income, the Bay Area transplants may have helped price you out of the market.
"It's pretty hard to reach any other conclusion than that that influx had a significant impact on the run-up on housing prices in the region," said Mike McKeever, executive director of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
Take El Dorado County. About 14,000 Bay Area residents moved in during the five years ending in 2005, while only about 3,000 left for the Bay Area. The newcomers' average household income was about $82,000 -- far above the county's own average. That income, along with the equity from selling Bay Area homes, has contributed to the county's median home price rising from about $235,000 to about $480,000 since 2001.
The upward tick in housing puts Marilyn Orrick in a lurch. She's vice president of the board of directors at El Dorado County Habitat for Humanity, which provides housing to those who can't afford it. The number of properties the organization can afford has dwindled significantly.
"There is a scarcity of available property," Orrick said. "We're having to go up the hill and away from the populated areas."
For Bay Area transplants, homes here are a relative bargain. That is apparent in the city of Lincoln, a boomtown within a boom county, where growth has been driven largely by Sun City Lincoln Hills, a super-size retirement community with close to 7,000 homes. When Del Webb Corp. opened Sun City in late 1999, Lincoln boasted just 11,000 residents and a downtown street where jaywalking was the norm. Bay Area arrivals quickly made Lincoln the state's fastest-growing small city, pushing the population to nearly 35,000. Ralph and Shirley Green rode that wave. The Greens lived 40 years in the same San Mateo County house before they came to Sun City just after Thanksgiving in 2001, moving closer to a daughter who had left the Bay Area for Folsom in 1993. The Greens quickly found that their idea was far from original. How many of their neighbors are Bay Area transplants? "Like 70 percent," Ralph Green said. "I run into them in the Jacuzzi, playing golf, everywhere." Green, a retired private investigator, is comfortably settled in now, but remembers his first reaction to Placer County.
"I said, 'No way. I'm born and raised in San Francisco, and I lived in Belmont for 40 years, and there's no way I am going to come up to this hellhole with 110 degrees.' " Today, he calls it "great living." When Green drives north on Highway 65, his view of the Sierra foothills includes a seemingly endless
expanse of new single-family rooftops and fresh businesses. He says it's become easy to impress Bay Area visitors with his surroundings as Lincoln takes shape around him.
"People come up here and visit it and see it and say 'Oh, my God,'" he says. "Now, with the shopping and restaurants, it's even better."
Unfortunately, Green's Highway 65 vista is marred by lots of traffic in the foreground. The number of cars on the highway, which connects Lincoln and Roseville, increased about 117 percent from 2001 to 2005, according to data from the state Department of Transportation on average daily traffic counts.
Officials can hardly improve the road fast enough. Highway 65 also doubles as Lincoln's main street, and serious bottlenecks ensue. Besides annoying
those stuck in traffic, it's not much fun eating outdoors at a restaurant and trying to talk over the din of idling 18-wheelers.
"It's nuts," Green said. "I keep teasing everybody I'm going back to the Bay Area to get out of traffic." Elk Grove, too, has seen itself transformed by Bay Area arrivals. It's an entry point for newcomers who plan to commute back until they find work in Sacramento. Ryan and Thais Turner came from Fremont a few years back during Elk Grove's infancy, helping
replace dairy cows with single-family homes. They watched and supported the stores, restaurants, gyms, offices, hospital expansions -- even wine cellars -- that followed, making Elk Grove feel a little like one of those cities to the west. Ryan commuted for nine months to a Sunnyvale Fry's Electronics store 120 miles away. For two years, Thais drove to Antioch and climbed aboard a BART train to take classes at San Francisco State
University.
Today, Ryan runs the audiovisual department at Sacramento's Fry's Electronics. Thais is a technical writer and consultant on a pair of local projects related to substance abuse. And they're raising a 9-month-old daughter in a three-bedroom, two-bath house near a park. Among the attractions to Sacramento for Bay Area residents are political jobs. In 2002, Bay Area friends gave political consultant Julie Soderlund no more than three or four years in Sacramento "and you're going to be out of there."
"I've been here five years now," said Soderlund, who moved from Castro Valley to join a Republican consulting firm and later became Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign spokeswoman. "My life has really taken shape."
Soderlund met her husband-to-be in Sacramento, got married, and the couple recently bought a house in Land Park.
Residents who came here with metropolitan tastes have helped some specialized Sacramento businesses thrive -- places like 58 Degrees and Holding, a midtown wine bar. Owner Ian Smith, who came to the capital four years ago from San Francisco, says many Bay Area transplants moved into the lofts and new downtown housing near his business.
"When we designed the concept it was toward catering to that type of individual," he said. "They want something that's a little different."
Still, a large number of the transplants to Sacramento County are struggling to get by, tax records show. The average household income of the 90,000 Bay Area residents who came to Sacramento County --
only 31,000 left for the Bay Area -- was 7 percent lower than the average annual income of those already here. Poorer residents tend to gravitate toward urban centers, economists say, for cheaper housing and
better public transportation.
"Partly it's just the nature of the housing supply," said Hans Johnson, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. "Secondly, it's a reflection of where services are and where they aren't. ...
People without cars are certainly not going to be drawn to Placer County."
On paper, Yolo County migration appears to have the same economic challenges as Sacramento County. But a natural influx of college students -- who show up in IRS figures if they report a permanent address in Yolo County -- may skew those numbers.
The net increase of Bay Area residents in Yolo County -- where slow-growth policies in the two largest cities kept numbers small -- was almost 6,000 between 2001 and 2005. The Welch family counted for four of that number.
"Housing prices were much more reasonable," said Dana Welch, describing some of the reasons for her family's move. "We wanted a more mellow lifestyle that involved bike riding to sports practices."
The Welches came to Davis from Santa Clara County not just for more affordable housing, but also for a smaller community and better public schools. Today, Dana Welch organizes events part time for UC Davis; her husband, Paul, works for Hewlett-Packard in Roseville. But the family -- now numbering five with the arrival of a third son in Davis -- was able to trade a
three-bedroom, 1,400-square-foot home near San Jose for a six-bedroom, 2,900-square-foot home in central Davis. Because relative housing costs were a significant factor in the Bay Area influx, there is debate among
experts over whether the trend will hold now that the housing price gap has closed a bit. The 2005 migration figures show many more are still coming in from the Bay Area than heading in the opposite direction. But a slowdown in that migration has contributed to the cooling of the area's real
estate market.
In 2000, a typical Bay Area home cost more than twice as much as a typical Sacramento area home, according to real estate tracking firm DataQuick Information Systems. In 2006, the Bay Area's median home price was about 63 percent higher.
"You have lost a bit of that competitive edge," said Stephen Levy, director of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, based in Palo Alto. "Sacramento is still an attractive place, but my guess is that most of the people who would move there have moved already."
Others see the trend continuing for the foreseeable future. It remains, they note, much cheaper to live in Sacramento than in San Francisco.
"I don't expect this will reverse or anything dramatic like that," said Suzanne O'Keefe, a Sacramento State economist. "This region expects more and more people. We have more land to move into than the Bay Area does. We have a strong economy, a diversified economy. That will definitely attract more
people. This isn't a short-term trend."



Seems like people move here for the "suburbs" too...

[wburg]

I'm going to agree with Econgrad. Most of these Bay Area transplants didn't live in places like San Francisco or downtown Oakland: they lived in wealthy suburbs around the perimeter of the Bay Area and commuted. They might have gone into San Francisco to have dinner or see a show, but they wouldn't have actually lived there. Some of these transplants might mention that Roseville isn't that diverse, but the same folks might decide that San Francisco or Sacramento is, well, let's just say a little too diverse.

The person quoted in the top of the post is an excellent example. The Bay Area transplant was not someone who lived in an urban part of the Bay Area--they moved from Millbrae (population 20,000) or San Bruno (population 40,000), small suburbs, predominantly White and Asian. Here's the fabulous panorama of Millbrae:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/09/Millbrae_California.jpg/800px-Millbrae_California.jpg
And here's street life in San Bruno:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cb/SanBruno.jpg/800px-SanBruno.jpg

While I'm sure they are very nice places, and they do have a nice view of the bay, urban is not a term I would use to describe them.

So yes, Econgrad is correct: most of these Bay Area transplants are suburbanites looking for other suburbs. They are unaware of Sacramento's actual level of diversity because they don't go there, they are unaware of the great ethnic food along corridors like Stockton and Franklin because those neighborhoods probably scare the hell out of them.

Of course, those articles are from 2-3 years ago, before the economic implosion we're in had quite taken shape, so I'm not sure how the picture looks nowadays.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

The Suburbs’ Staying Power
June 10th, 2008 by Joe Hill

Oil prices are rising, which means we are getting the usual frantic search for scapegoats (speculators, oil companies, OPEC) and solutions (more efficient cars, alternative fuels, better public transport). One proposal being mooted is replacing suburban sprawl with higher density living - as Paul Krugman puts it, “changing how and where many of us live.”

The idea passes the sniff test. Public transportation works well in densely populated areas, but beyond a certain point, cars are the only way to get to work, school, or shopping. And of course, when you’re in a spread out area, the distances you need to drive are longer too.

But to hear some talk about it, the end of suburban sprawl is foregone conclusion. (This is often said with more than a little glee, the suburbs standing in for racism, conformity, low culture, and self-indulgence run amok. Support for managed growth is often an extension of urban prejudices.) But there is hardly a straight line from high oil prices to abandoned suburbs. No matter how much urban living makes sense to planners, a wide shift from the suburbs to the cities can only result from millions of individual decisions by suburbanites. And for those suburbanites, there are many reasons to stay where they are:

Urban living costs more
If all things were equal, and the choice were only between long commutes in the suburb and short commutes in the city, then everyone would live in the city. But all things are not equal. Housing is more expensive in cities than in the suburbs: “Per square foot, urban residential neighborhood space goes for 40 percent to 200 percent more than traditional suburban space in areas as diverse as New York City; Portland, Oregon; Seattle; and Washington, D.C.”

Taxes are higher in urban areas, too. For all our concern about high oil prices, we shouldn’t forget that housing and taxes cost the average American family 49% of its budget, against 8% for transportation expense - and that 8% includes not only the cost of oil, but also the cost of the car!

Breakdown of spending of Aaverage American

Even if oil prices did lead some suburbanites to move to the cities, the effect of increased demand for urban housing and decreased demand for suburban housing would only make the cities more expensive. That second-order effect will further increase the cost advantage of the suburbs, and mitigate any outward migration.

Believe it or not, many people prefer suburban living
Some studies do claim to show that urban living is actually less expensive. But the numbers only work by factoring in the much lower rate of car ownership in the cities, and that can hardly be called an advantage of city living.

Most people want cars. People prefer driving over walking, and like having the ability to do things like move big items or buy groceries without making separate trips to carry a few bags at a time. It is the high cost of parking in the city and frustrations of urban driving keeps urban car ownership down; not, generally, urbanites forswearing cars.

In other words, owning a car is not an expensive requirement of suburban living, it’s a benefit. That speaks to a larger point, which is that people don’t only move to the suburbs because it’s more affordable. They also move to the suburbs so that they can own cars and own larger houses. They move to the suburbs so that they can live in areas with open spaces, lower crime rates, greater shopping options, and better schools. These advantages don’t go away just because oil prices increase.

As we did before, let’s imagine that high oil prices do lead some suburbanites to leave for the “greener pastures” of the city. Thanks to higher oil prices, the number of miles driven in the US has already decreased by 5%. If you take even more cars off the suburban streets because people move into the cities, you start to see truly significant decreases in traffic and travel times. And that, in turn, makes the advantage of being able to own a car in the suburbs even greater.

Again, the second-order effect of people moving to the cities serves to make the suburbs more appealing, and mitigate any mass migration to the cities.

Commuting is not one way
Some will argue that having less traffic on your commute still leaves you with a commute. A major selling point of urban living is that it eliminates commutes, since most jobs are in the city. But this is an increasingly outdated argument. Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that:

“300,000 people who live in New York City and make their way to jobs in the suburbs every day, part of a fast-growing segment of the work force that has turned the traditional idea of bedroom communities on its head…the number of city residents working in the suburbs grew 12 percent from 2000 to 2005, according to census figures calculated by theQueens College sociology department for The New York Times. About one in 11 city workers has a job in the suburbs, and the number is growing faster than any other segment of commuters.”

Certainly, a person who lives in Washington, DC and has to commute to Reston, VA is no better off than the person who does the reverse. Paying for a more expensive house in the city, only to be no closer to work, is not much of an advantage at all.

Increased gas prices can be accommodated into most budgets
Given how much more expensive city housing is than suburban housing, oil prices would need to rise precipitously to overwhelm the cost advantages of suburban living. Certainly, a three-fold increase in prices at the pump in the past 8 years is a lot. But is it enough to make a move to the city worthwhile?

The average American uses 500 gallons of gas per year. The trebling in price we’ve seen means that the average American has gone from spending $700/year on gasoline to $2,000/year. That’s a lot. But consider that gas isn’t even the largest cost of car ownership. A 2008 American Automobile Association study found that car ownership costs more than $7,000 per year. If people were willing to pay $5,700 per year to own a car in 2000, they are likely to be willing to pay $7,000 per year in 2008 - certainly when compared to paying a 40-200% premium for urban housing.

Oil prices aren’t the only thing rising
Our closest analogue to the current oil spike is the oil shock of the 1970s. The evidence from that decade shows that even high oil prices do little to deter America’s automobile and suburb culture. As Joel Kotkin, a Senior Fellow at the New America Foundation, points out, “Suburbanization proceeded apace during the steep energy price rises of the 1970s; it has also accelerated in Europe and Japan, where energy prices are already sky-high.”

And although people moved to smaller cars in the 1970s, high oil prices did little to stop people from driving. Even in the cities, where mass transit is available, the proportion of passenger miles traveled by car continued its inexorable rise throughout the 1970s.

The explanation is simple - gas prices may rise, but over time, wages grow even faster. Today, gas is as expensive as it has ever been, yet CNN reported that, “In 1980, the average American had to work 105 minutes to buy enough gas to drive the average car 100 miles, David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s, said in a study last year. By 2006, the average American needed to work only 52 minutes, thanks in part to better fuel efficiency but mostly due to higher wages.” The price of gas has increased since 2006, but a gallon of gas today still costs a smaller portion of wages than it did in 1980. Therefore, if oil prices did not kill the suburbs in the 1970s and early-1980s, there is no reason to believe that they will now.

There is an upper limit on transportation costs
Of course, if the cost of oil went up enough, and there were no alternatives, people would eventually have no choice but to stop driving. But oil is merely the easiest way we currently have to power cars – not the only way. Numerous companies are working on both electric and hydrogen powered vehicles. Toyota, for example, is about to start leasing a car that can run 513 miles on a tank of hydrogen gas to the Japanese government. As these technologies mature, they create a maximum price for gasoline. Any higher than that price, and consumers will switch to cheaper (and cleaner) transportation fuels.

Switching to hydrogen or electric vehicles won’t be easy. For one, the cost of such vehicles today is far above the cost of gasoline-driven cars. But technology is advancing – nanowire batteries, for example, promise a 10 time improvement in energy storage over current battery technology.

It is also true that the infrastructure for recharging or hydrogen-fuel stations does not yet exist. But neither do the cities have the capacity to take an influx of suburbanites, nor do suburbs have the money to re-plan (and re-zone and re-build) around more central living. Is it more plausible to replace our oil-distribution network with a hydrogen-distribution network or to move tens of millions of Americans? My money is on the former.

It’s easier to sell the car than the house
Even if high oil prices made moving to the city appealing , they can’t make moving to the city easy. Selling the house, uprooting your family, finding a new house in the city, and moving are hard. Selling the SUV and buying a hybrid car is a walk in the park by comparison. For example, going from a Buick Enclave SUV to a Toyota Prius, increases fuel efficiency by 85% - equivalent to gas dropping back down to $2.17/gallon. For most suburbanites, that choice is a no-brainer.

Listen, I am not against the cities, nor am I against more smarter planning and better mass transit options. The mass transit system was one of the primary reasons I moved to the DC area, and I have been able to live in both the city proper and the suburbs without a car for over 5 years.

But the evidence suggests that there is not about to be a mass migration from the suburbs to the cities. We need to look for our solutions to our oil usage elsewhere.

They are unaware of Sacramento's actual level of diversity because they don't go there, they are unaware of the great ethnic food along corridors like Stockton and Franklin because those neighborhoods probably scare the hell out of them.
This is a quote from Wburg. Wburg, I agree with most of what you said above, but your fantasizing here. There is no evidence that people from the bay area suburbs or anywhere else that they fear these areas.