Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sac has a higher population density and light rail. Those are usually two things used to gauge urbanity. I would conceed Richmond has a better historic core. Though it goes without saying, Sac's core was destroyed by a flood....TWICE.
Sac does have hot summer days, but I find it funny that you fail to mention that it cools down to 65-70 degrees when the sun goes down. That's a lot better than 80 degrees with 100% humidity.
Sac is not totally flat, even in the core. But surrounding burbs on river bluffs and Sierra foothills can get quite hilly. And warm dry summers are part of Sac's destinctive change of seasons.
Sac's core had made some really dramatic changes in the last couple of years, and the underwhelming vibe is really becoming passe. Nothing personal, but your post reads like someone who's knowledge is more based off google maps than a street level.
Sac is about 60 miles from the bay and Napa, and about 80 miles from Lake Tahoe. It's not exactly the land of oz, like say, Salt Lake. And honestly, Richmond would not be my first, or second, or 3rd, or 4th choice for east coast places to live. Calling it a part of the BosWash corridor is a huge stretch. They call it BOSWASH for a reason.
You again, I missed you @wizard!
I hate having to keep repeating this, and two posters have told me they are tired of hearing the sane, but I'm 'fairly' familiar with Sacramento. Nearly my entire family is there, I was born there, and I spent half of August there. I've shared this with you, too, so now that that's out of the way...
Good, Richmond isn't in your top ____ choices on the East Coast, Sacramento isn't in my top _____ choices on the West Coast. That anecdote was a response to the poster I quoted who said "it's in California", as if that means anything...
Sacramento certainly has a better transportation infrastructure. I won't debate that. I think it's questionable how much light rail lends to urban vibrancy in Sacramento, though. From the Consumnes stop all the way to 80/Watt, the vast majority of the light rail services suburban "city" areas. Not that this is all negative, but I think we're having a disconnect on exactly what qualifies as urban. By East Coast standards, literally the only parts of Sacramento I'd consider urban is Downtown and Midtown. It is a very suburban city...
Sacramento has a higher population density than Richmond, but Richmond has higher peak densities. They cancel each other out. However, I'd be curious to ask, what would you consider Sacramento's core neighborhoods?
Born in sac. Way too boring except for fun summers. Politics and crime is depressing. Way too much sprawl and gangs. I never been to Richmond but I think the east coast is way better then sac.
I hate having to keep repeating this, and two posters have told me they are tired of hearing the sane, but I'm 'fairly' familiar with Sacramento. Nearly my entire family is there, I was born there, and I spent half of August there. I've shared this with you, too, so now that that's out of the way...
Good, Richmond isn't in your top ____ choices on the East Coast, Sacramento isn't in my top _____ choices on the West Coast. That anecdote was a response to the poster I quoted who said "it's in California", as if that means anything...
Sacramento certainly has a better transportation infrastructure. I won't debate that. I think it's questionable how much light rail lends to urban vibrancy in Sacramento, though. From the Consumnes stop all the way to 80/Watt, the vast majority of the light rail services suburban "city" areas. Not that this is all negative, but I think we're having a disconnect on exactly what qualifies as urban. By East Coast standards, literally the only parts of Sacramento I'd consider urban is Downtown and Midtown. It is a very suburban city...
Sacramento has a higher population density than Richmond, but Richmond has higher peak densities. They cancel each other out. However, I'd be curious to ask, what would you consider Sacramento's core neighborhoods?
Look, I'm not saying Richmond is a bad place to and if that is what you prefer, bully for you. Being in California may not mean anything to you, but it does to other people. Accept and move on.
I am just clearing obvious misunderstandings you have about the city. For example, you claim light rail primarily serves the suburbs. Pretty much half of the light rail stops are in the central city, actually.
Having a dense core only means that. Richmond has a denser core. The rest of the city is insanely suburban. To the point that it is less dense than Sacramento. Richmonds urbanity is measured in blocks, not miles. So to sit there and lambast Sac for being suburban when Richmond has a sea of strip malls and low density neighborhoods stikes me as disingenious.
As for Sacs core hoods. I would say the central grid is the urban core. With 75% of homes being multi unit housing.
Look, I'm not saying Richmond is a bad place to and if that is what you prefer, bully for you. Being in California may not mean anything to you, but it does to other people. Accept and move on.
I am just clearing obvious misunderstandings you have about the city. For example, you claim light rail primarily serves the suburbs. Pretty much half of the light rail stops are in the central city, actually.
Having a dense core only means that. Richmond has a denser core. The rest of the city is insanely suburban. To the point that it is less dense than Sacramento. Richmonds urbanity is measured in blocks, not miles. So to sit there and lambast Sac for being suburban when Richmond has a sea of strip malls and low density neighborhoods stikes me as disingenious.
As for Sacs core hoods. I would say the central grid is the urban core. With 75% of homes being multi unit housing.
Almost nothing you said about Richmond in this response is true:
-most of Richmond is "insanely suburban": not true...
-Richmond's urbanity is measured in blocks. Not true, either...
-"sea of strip malls and low density neighborhoods"--come on, nobody from Sacramento can criticize any city for seas of strip malls. Really?
Richmond is less dense than Sacramento because it is pulled down by a 70s annexation of suburbs into the Southside. If that land were ceded back to Chesterfield County, Richmond's sensory would be roughly equal as Sacramento...
You've never admitted it, but you continually worm your way into Richmond threads, where it's evident that you've never been to Richmond. You've never heard ANYONE describe Richmond as a "sea of suburbia" or "insanely suburban". It's clear that you have an inadmissible California bias, but you can at least fact check yourself before trying to sound knowledgeable with erroneous statements...
And I didn't say that Sacramento mostly serves the suburbs. In response to a suggestion that light rail in Sacramento contributes to urban vibrancy, I pointed out how it serves many "in-city" neighborhoods that are in fact quite suburban in nature. So, I feel like it's at least an arguable point to discuss how much or little light rail in Sac contributes to urban vibrancy...
Sacramento's light rail was largely designed to funnel people from the suburbs to the downtown grid, similar to BART and SF's financial district. Still, it carries 45K+ people a day, is expanding, and will likely link up with a streetcar in the near future.
The urban core of Sacramento is usually the 4 square mile "Grid" that's bordered by the Sacramento River to the west, the railroad tracks to the north, Alhambra Blvd to the East and Broadway to the south. Similar area to Richmond's downtown, Church Hill, Fan and Museum districts, and Carytown. These 4 miles squared have about 30K residents and a 100K person weekday workforce (this is where the rail lines come in handy). This is surrounded by a collar of "streetcar suburbs" that are 100+ year old neighborhoods, walkable, and seamlessly connect with the core grid.
Richmond definitely has a greater amount of old school urban architecture, WoR didn't deny that and few objective observers would. But still, Richmond's urban area is 953K people in 492 square miles, 1,938 ppsm. Sacramento fits 1,723K people in 471 square miles, 3,659 ppsm. Numbers don't lie.
Seriously, dude is trying to say "let's ignore a sea of suburbia, because Richmond annexed it"
Uh news flash, Sacramento annexed the city of North Sac and suburbs to the south that were unincorporated.
It's funny, when Sac does things, it's bad. When other cities do the same thing, it's okay. When you point out Sac has a higher density and light rail (with at least half the stops in the central core), well that doesn't count for urbanity because...Sacramento!
Rail transit apparently contributes to every city's urbanity, except Sacramento! Never mind every rail system is designed to get people to the central core, if Sacramento does this, it does not count!
Sacramento's light rail was largely designed to funnel people from the suburbs to the downtown grid, similar to BART and SF's financial district. Still, it carries 45K+ people a day, is expanding, and will likely link up with a streetcar in the near future.
The urban core of Sacramento is usually the 4 square mile "Grid" that's bordered by the Sacramento River to the west, the railroad tracks to the north, Alhambra Blvd to the East and Broadway to the south. Similar area to Richmond's downtown, Church Hill, Fan and Museum districts, and Carytown. These 4 miles squared have about 30K residents and a 100K person weekday workforce (this is where the rail lines come in handy). This is surrounded by a collar of "streetcar suburbs" that are 100+ year old neighborhoods, walkable, and seamlessly connect with the core grid.
Richmond definitely has a greater amount of old school urban architecture, WoR didn't deny that and few objective observers would. But still, Richmond's urban area is 953K people in 492 square miles, 1,938 ppsm. Sacramento fits 1,723K people in 471 square miles, 3,659 ppsm. Numbers don't lie.
I think that population density of the cities proper is probably the better metric for this particular discussion, as the "urban area" for Richmond includes the Tri-Cities (Petersburg/Hopewell/Colonial Heights) 15+ miles away from the city limits, as well as pockets of bordering Dinwiddie and Prince George counties. Sacramento still has a higher density in the city proper than Richmond, though.
I think that population density of the cities proper is probably the better metric for this particular discussion, as the "urban area" for Richmond includes the Tri-Cities (Petersburg/Hopewell/Colonial Heights) 15+ miles away from the city limits, as well as pockets of bordering Dinwiddie and Prince George counties. Sacramento still has a higher density in the city proper than Richmond, though.
That's what I thought. Sometimes, just because a city has a traditional east coast build and layout (small, narrow roads, row houses, etc. does not always guarantee it is denser than other types of cities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
