Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanadvocate
Do we still rely on that relationship with SF? It appears to some extent yes. I have noticed people in the area are often dreaming of moving to SF or SD. However, I have also noticed post grads returning to the area hoping to make a change. Has this always been the case or have individuals begun to view this region differently over the last decade? I would be curious to track where graduates from UC Davis land themselves. . . I would not be surprised if more end up in SF or LA than in Sac.
|
Our relationship with SF isn't quite the same as it was then, but I think there is more to be gained by cooperation with other regions of California than competition. As one of those postgrads who moved back to Sacramento after college (actually, I never lived in Sacramento growing up around here, not until after graduation) specifically because I wanted to live here, I am quite sure there are plenty of reasons to stay--they just aren't as well-publicized as they should be. And that's really the key: because of various events in our past, and the era when Sacramento experienced the most growth, it often doesn't feel like the city that it is, which causes confusion when we experience big-city problems. If people think we're a suburb, they're more likely to try to shove those problems under a rug (How can we have that problem if we're not a city?) or assume that it is some fault of our civic identity (We must be a really awful place to have city problems while not being a city!) rather than addressing them.
There is plenty of room for growth and density in our infill areas. Many cities put limitations on growth in areas where they don't feel growth is appropriate--we're not alone in that, Sacramento didn't invent zoning. Generally, cities that direct new growth to specific areas end up successful. Just allowing "open season" on development actually makes things worse--they don't get any more development than cities who focus and plan their growth, but it usually ends up being growth the city is less happy with in the long run.
So, what now? Start by marketing the things that we haven't marketed, and promoting our real past (Sacramento as industrial/transportation center) instead of the false agrarian myth (Sacramento as suburban farm town.) None of this rules out having pleasant residential neighborhoods--lots of big cities have pleasant residential neighborhoods, along with bustling downtowns. They aren't mutually exclusive, and actually work together quite well. Generally, "return to the urban core" means "return to historic areas in the urban core" first and foremost--new growth FOLLOWS restoration of existing urban fabric, it doesn't lead the way.
Yes, there is plenty that needs changing--simplified and comprehensible zoning codes, a more proactive and prescriptive building department that lets customers know what to expect and responds in timely fashion, and incentives that promote adaptive reuse, like Los Angeles' adaptive reuse ordinance that tripled downtown LA's population in eight years. But, as we found out when we tried it the last time, cities don't reach their potential by demolishing them first...they do so by promoting what is great about what is already here, and building on it.
The more we assert that identity, the fewer grads (and businesses) we'll lose to other metro areas--and the more from other areas we'll attract. It's already happening, as elements of Sacramento's identity are in fact being marketed with very positive results. We're already on the right track, in many ways.