How would you develop Sacramento?

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

Econgrad, I think folks are asking what is it about Pittsburgh that you think we should emulate?

Sacramento has a greater population than Pittsburgh, yet Pittsburgh has 151 highrise buildings. Here is a Wikipedia quote:

"The skyline features 151 high-rise buildings,[9] 446 bridges,[10] two inclined railways, and a pre-revolutionary fortification. Pittsburgh is known colloquially as "The City of Bridges" and "The Steel City" for its many bridges and former steel manufacturing base."

"In 2007, Forbes magazine named Pittsburgh the 10th cleanest city,[12] and in 2008 Forbes listed Pittsburgh as the 13th best city for young professionals to live.[13] The city is consistently ranked high in livability surveys. In 2007, Pittsburgh was named "America's Most Livable City" by Places Rated Almanac.[14]"

There is also a nice University near the heart of the city. The city is nicely compact in its downtown. Very nice buildings as well. I have been there twice, it is very nice. I have been to Portland hundreds of times, and it is not as well developed. I will post some pictures I took soon.

[wburg]

Pittsburg's population of 334,000 is down from a high of 676,000 in 1950. Its population in 1910 was bigger than Sacramento's population now: in 1910, Sacramento had a population of 44,000, and in 1950 about 130,000.

The older an American city is, the more likely it is to have a dense urban core. Pittsburgh was founded in 1758, long before steam railroads, and was a well-established city before the invention of the electric streetcar in the 1880s. Most people got around by walking, even after the advent of those modes of transportation. Tall office buildings and factories made a lot of sense for Pittsburgh because there were no cars or hard-surfaced roads (let alone freeways) that would let people live long distances from work and allow architecture to sprawl horizontally across the landscape. So they built office towers and residential buildings that let a lot of people live and work in relatively close proximity. Factories in Pittsburgh were often built very tall in order to provide more efficient heating, necessary in Pennsylvania's cold winters.

Sacramento was the second biggest city in California during the Gold Rush era, but it was rapidly eclipsed in the 1870s and remained a small city well into the 20th century. Our industries, railroading and agricultural processing, used different sorts of buildings than Pittsburgh's massive steel mills. While the Southern Pacific shops were a huge industrial facility that did everything but forge their own steel, railroading tends to take up a lot of horizontal space, and the broad, open plans of the surviving handful of Shops buildings make this clear. Similarly, Sacramento's breweries, canneries and lumber mills typically had expansive floor plans. Our mild winters meant that heating was not as important, but good ventilation in our scorching summers was.
Residentially, Sacramento's old core had comparatively high-density housing, and our early streetcar suburbs were closely built, with a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing. But the property values and housing needs of a city of 50,000 (Sacramento of 1910) is nothing like a city ten times its size (Pittsburgh in 1910.) So we didn't get a central city that looks like Pittsburgh's, and much of the high-density housing in the central city, along with most of our industrial infrastructure, was demolished during the redevelopment era.

Cities that saw most of their growth after the age of the automobile, especially western cities, expanded into horizontal suburbs instead of developing their urban cores. This was the case in Sacramento, and many other California cities. We expanded rapidly after World War II into former hop fields and orchards. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, contracted rapidly after World War II. They didn't need to build new suburbs because nobody was flocking to Pittsburgh. Half of the city's population has left over the past 50 years, while Sacramento's population has almost quadrupled in the same period. Since the vast bulk of housing development over that period was in car-centric residential suburbs, and most of Sacramento is a product of that era, that's pretty much why we look the way we do.

I would heartily agree that we need to get past the car-centric suburbs and return to building cities that are far more compact, based around walkability and public transit, so I think I see where you are coming from.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

Pittsburg's population of 334,000 is down from a high of 676,000 in 1950. Its population in 1910 was bigger than Sacramento's population now: in 1910, Sacramento had a population of 44,000, and in 1950 about 130,000.

The older an American city is, the more likely it is to have a dense urban core. Pittsburgh was founded in 1758, long before steam railroads, and was a well-established city before the invention of the electric streetcar in the 1880s. Most people got around by walking, even after the advent of those modes of transportation. Tall office buildings and factories made a lot of sense for Pittsburgh because there were no cars or hard-surfaced roads (let alone freeways) that would let people live long distances from work and allow architecture to sprawl horizontally across the landscape. So they built office towers and residential buildings that let a lot of people live and work in relatively close proximity. Factories in Pittsburgh were often built very tall in order to provide more efficient heating, necessary in Pennsylvania's cold winters.

Sacramento was the second biggest city in California during the Gold Rush era, but it was rapidly eclipsed in the 1870s and remained a small city well into the 20th century. Our industries, railroading and agricultural processing, used different sorts of buildings than Pittsburgh's massive steel mills. While the Southern Pacific shops were a huge industrial facility that did everything but forge their own steel, railroading tends to take up a lot of horizontal space, and the broad, open plans of the surviving handful of Shops buildings make this clear. Similarly, Sacramento's breweries, canneries and lumber mills typically had expansive floor plans. Our mild winters meant that heating was not as important, but good ventilation in our scorching summers was.
Residentially, Sacramento's old core had comparatively high-density housing, and our early streetcar suburbs were closely built, with a mixture of single-family and multi-family housing. But the property values and housing needs of a city of 50,000 (Sacramento of 1910) is nothing like a city ten times its size (Pittsburgh in 1910.) So we didn't get a central city that looks like Pittsburgh's, and much of the high-density housing in the central city, along with most of our industrial infrastructure, was demolished during the redevelopment era.

Cities that saw most of their growth after the age of the automobile, especially western cities, expanded into horizontal suburbs instead of developing their urban cores. This was the case in Sacramento, and many other California cities. We expanded rapidly after World War II into former hop fields and orchards. Pittsburgh, on the other hand, contracted rapidly after World War II. They didn't need to build new suburbs because nobody was flocking to Pittsburgh. Half of the city's population has left over the past 50 years, while Sacramento's population has almost quadrupled in the same period. Since the vast bulk of housing development over that period was in car-centric residential suburbs, and most of Sacramento is a product of that era, that's pretty much why we look the way we do.

I would heartily agree that we need to get past the car-centric suburbs and return to building cities that are far more compact, based around walkability and public transit, so I think I see where you are coming from.

So, have you been there too?

[wburg]

No...but it's not too hard to find this information. Pittsburgh is a much older city, grew up to city size prior to the automobile age, and never needed big postwar suburbs because their population was dramatically shrinking while ours was dramatically expanding. So, they're going to look a lot different.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

No...but it's not too hard to find this information. Pittsburgh is a much older city, grew up to city size prior to the automobile age, and never needed big postwar suburbs because their population was dramatically shrinking while ours was dramatically expanding. So, they're going to look a lot different.

Even though it is an older city, that does not make it a worse model than Portland.

[wburg]

It's not a question of better or worse model, but one of dramatically different circumstances. Pittsburgh looks the way it does in part because of its age, and in part because half the city's population fled the city over the past few decades--a trend that has yet to reverse (Pittsburgh lost 30,000 people between 1990 and 2000, in the same decade Sacramento gained 40,000.) Normally those kinds of drops in population are signs of serious trouble--the kind we associate with cities like Detroit.

I also note that despite Pittsburgh's high-density housing downtown, its average population density isn't much higher: 5600 people per square mile vs. 4700 here in Sacramento. Considering that Pittsburgh had twice its current population in 1950, I wonder if there are vacant neighborhoods on the outskirts.

[Majin]

econgrad why do you sacride whatever republican is popular at the moment? You've gone from Palin to Reagan to Steele. Whos next, Rush?

[ltsmotorsport]

I would think he is more intelligent than that.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by Majin

econgrad why do you sacride whatever republican is popular at the moment? You've gone from Palin to Reagan to Steele. Whos next, Rush?

I have no idea what your talking about.....

[tone1657]

Give Rush a break. He's an entertainer.

[Korey]

Yay! Off topic bullshit!

[wburg]

yeah, this was just starting to get interesting before the aside: once again, why is a city whose population seems to be fleeing in droves a good model for Sacramento's urban development?

[Phillip]

Something Sacramento and Pittsburgh have in common: tomatoes.

We make Campbell's tomato soup. Pittsburgh makes Heinz ketchup.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by wburg

yeah, this was just starting to get interesting before the aside: once again, why is a city whose population seems to be fleeing in droves a good model for Sacramento's urban development?

I don't think econgrad is factoring population movements into the equation. I think his focus is more on looks. "I want Sacramento to look like Pittsburgh with its 151 highrises, 446 bridges, 2 inclined railways, university in the middle of town, etc." However, as you pointed out, population (population DENSITY is also important) and era strongly influence the way a city is put together. Also, let me submit geography and economics as other influences.

Pittsburgh is 55 square miles. Sacramento is 95+ square miles. Even though Pittsburgh's population has dwindled significantly over the years (it does have a rather large metro population), it is still more dense than Sacramento. Also, it was even more dense 40 or 50 years ago when many of those highrise buildings were probably built. Everything else remaining equal, Sacramento will need to have a population of about 550,000 before it hits Pittsburgh’s current density. Don't even ask about approximating Pittsburgh's density in 1950. Sacramento's population is spread out; its skyline is evidence of this.

Pittsburgh "grew up" in an era when front yards, backyards and cars were considered luxury items. Sacramento "grew up" when front yards, backyards and cars were considered necessities. This difference in culture led to different demands for population density - back to population density again.

Although it is at the convergence of two rivers, Pittsburgh is very different geographically than Sacramento. Much of Pittsburgh is NOT flat; it is steeply sloped. I assume it is probably easier to build on flat land than on sloped land, therefore I would expect a "hemmed in" city like Pittsburgh to build upward. Sacramento is very flat, so it took the path of least resistance and it built outward.

Another major difference between Pittsburgh and Sacramento is economics. Pittsburgh has multiple Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies, which often invest in tall buildings, arenas, ball fields, universities and cultural crap. (Heck, the steel industry is/was located there - of course it Pittsburgh is home to some nice tall buildings.) In other words, Pittsburgh has a lot of money for those neat-o things we all drool over on this board. Sacramento has the California (managerial) State Government. Lots of money goes through here, but it does not stay.

In addition, I think California is a tough place to build anything. It costs big bucks to build up here and less to build up in Pittsburgh, probably.

Now, I'm not saying Pittsburgh can't be a model, I'm saying there is only one Pittsburgh, just like there is only one San Francisco, or Portland, or Seattle, or San Diego, or Chicago, or New York, etc. A city should try to be what it is, and be happy with what it is. No matter how hard we wish, I doubt Sacramento will get a funicular railway in the near future. Last time I checked, erosion and plate tectonics can be long processes.

There are few things more pathetic than a wannabe. We are what we are. The best thing Sacramento can do is get out of the way and allow development to happen organically. This isn't Sim City. This is reality.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

There are few things more pathetic than a wannabe. We are what we are. The best thing Sacramento can do is get out of the way and allow development to happen organically. This isn't Sim City. This is reality.

Nice Quote! Knowing the details and economic developments and history are different from Sacramento and Pittsburgh, as well as Sacramento and Portland are different. The city of Pittsburgh is a much nicer city than Portland. I was responding to so many articles written about using Portland as a model for Sacramento. We can all say the same things about Portland's economic history and population and geographic differences. So why do these articles say use Portland as a model? For these reasons: They developed some nice areas and redeveloped some nice areas into nice urban areas. Pittsburgh has done the same, I was there and saw it. I also have been to Portland many times. Pittsburgh is nicer, if many journalists opinions say model Portland, I am saying no, lets model Pittsburgh. I did not care at the time of its population history. Thanks Snfenoc. I didn't want to get into a huge discussion on the thread about Portland VS Pittsburgh.

[wburg]

There's a difference between slavishly copying trends and looking at other cities' development to gain ideas on how to proceed with development in one's own city. It shouldn't be necessary to reinvent the wheel in every city; we have the lessons of other cities, and the lessons of our own past, to draw from.

Businesses start with a business plan: they don't just grow organically without planning, and the larger the business, the more complex and detailed the business plans have to be to keep things running. Cities are no different: a city's general plan is the "business plan" for the city.

Modern Sacramento looks the way it does because much of its growth was unplanned, or not particuarly well-planned. In Sacramento's early history, we used coordinated plans to manage growth and overcome obstacles. During the Gold Rush, the city backed the claims of Mexican-era land grants in order to stop squatters from taking land from grant holders. This met with quite a bit of resistance, including riots where Sacramento's first mayor was shot (and you thought Fargo was unpopular!) The resolution of the Squatter's Riots was a victory for Sacramento's business interests, who worked in coordination with government to create an organized city. Our original grid street pattern was also a product of this coordinated government effort, rather than letting people put buildings wherever in a haphazard fashion.

The construction of levees and street raising was another effort that required a great deal of central planning and coordination. Many property owners were opposed to the public expense of the street raisings, arguing that businesses would find a free-market solution to citywide flooding, but the coordinated efforts of the city and county government carried out an expensive but effective plan that took decades to carry out but in the end spared the central city from disastrous floods.

The 20th century was not so well-planned. Sacramento grew its city limits by annexing suburbs that were planned and built by private developers. In the short term this made economic sense, as the city did not have to build infrastructure into places like Oak Park, East Sacramento and Land Park, but got the benefit of property taxes not paid when those neighborhoods were part of the unincorporated county. But annexing new areas becomes more expensive over time, as the city is then responsible for maintaining and updating that infrastructure. And in some cases, as in the annexation of North Sacramento, the annexation cost the city because the previously independent city of North Sacramento was already in rough financial and physical shape.

Suburb annexation set the pattern for Sacramento's development, and it is a pattern we have not yet broken. Looking at examples of cities in similar circumstances, especially ones that seem to have overcome the problems we are facing, can help. Portland is used as a model because they are a West Coast city of similar size that saw their own sprawl and decided to do something about it.

I can see why Pittsburgh could provide an interesting model: as a city that grew up earlier, their core might be healthier because they retained a lot of their original urban fabric. The issue of business loss is important: Sacramento was a place where a lot of people started big important businesses, but they generally relocated to the Bay Area after they made their cash. Remember, Central Pacific/Southern Pacific started here, but they moved to San Francisco for the better weather and closer access to financial markets and banks. SP was *the* dominant economic force in California for decades. How might things have been different if the Big Four had decided to keep the main office here? Albert Gallatin, the guy who basically started PG&E, also started out here (he built the historic Governor's Mansion.) He moved to San Francisco to follow the money, especially because his old bosses (the aforementioned Big Four) had done so.

As a result, Sacramento has not had a tradition of patronage or old money; the money leaves, the office buildings get built in San Francisco, the universities get built in Palo Alto. Now, the question is, is Sacramento a friendlier environment for business and development than the Bay Area today? Rather than asking how we attract an existing Fortune 500 company from outside, how do we retain the next Southern Pacific or PG&E (or Tower Records) that emerges from Sacramento?

[snfenoc]

Go push your big government socialism somewhere else. You just want an excuse to tell property owners and developers what to do.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by wburg

Rather than asking how we attract an existing Fortune 500 company from outside, how do we retain the next Southern Pacific or PG&E (or Tower Records) that emerges from Sacramento?

And how do we get them to locate in Sacramento instead of Roseville or Folsom? When Sacramento DID have a Fortune 500--I'm talking about Foundation Health Plan--they went to Rancho Cordova.

At this point though, jobs are good anywhere.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by Phillip

And how do we get them to locate in Sacramento instead of Roseville or Folsom? When Sacramento DID have a Fortune 500--I'm talking about Foundation Health Plan--they went to Rancho Cordova.

At this point though, jobs are good anywhere.

Like I said some 2 weeks ago. You have to create the infrastructure. Rancho Cordova had inexpensive new business parks at that time. It still does. I also stated to keep people here we need to think big. My details are all in previous posts...
Infrastructure is not just buildings, it is bringing the city more variety, opportunity and just more and more things to do. We also need to understand that we are all in this together. Folsom, Roseville, Rancho, Fair Oaks, West Sac, South Sac, Midtown, Citrus Heights, Orangevale, Downtown Sacramento, are all in this together. It is our region. It is all Sacramento. Getting a fortune 500 company in Folsom, will still benefit DT Sac, etc.

WBURG: I guess what I really mean is this, (IMHO): Portland sucks. I hope we can do better than that as the capitol of California. How about Austin then? Would that be a better economic historic model? Yes, fine. Its far better than Portland as well. Also, its nice you have all these facts on Pittsburgh, but you need to go there. Its really nice. It is something we do not need to mimic, but it is something worth while to shoot for than mediocre Portland.

[wburg]

Austin has more similarities to us, I suppose: flat terrain, state capitol, lots of sprawl (about half as dense as Sacramento), lots of postwar growth. They even have a "Capitol View Preservation Corridor." I also like the "Keep Austin Weird" campaign, it refers both to the city's unique character and support for local businesses.

econgrad: What do you mean by "variety, opportunity and just more and more things to do"? Those are kind of nebulous concepts, whereas infrastructure typically refers to concrete, physical stuff. Can you be more specific about the things to do you'd like to see more of in Sacramento?

I'd agree with your point on "understand that we are all in this together." That's the idea between concepts like regional planning and tax sharing proposals: currently, cities and counties find themselves in competition for tax dollars, making collaboration very difficult.

phillip: If tax sharing and regional planning were more fully implemented, location within the region wouldn't matter as much, making it more a matter of region vs. region. Two of the reasons why people moved away from Sacramento are less important now thanks to advances in technology (the heat and communication speed.) If I can come up with some really convincing arguments to get the next big Sacramento company to stay put I'll pass them along, but for now I'm still working on it...