Quote:
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.