How similar or different (in feel) is Sacramento from San Jose, CA? (San Francisco: renting, mover)

[Screw Sacramento]

Originally Posted by nmnita

Anyone who thinks Sacramento is trailer trash, low income, redneck has seen a part of Sacramento many of us never have.

Then I guess you've never been to the California State Fair? Or Rio Linda? These are virtually right around the corner from the nicer, newer developments (like Del Paso near the Arco Arena and beloved Natomas), making them kind of hard not to integrate with and see.

[wburg]

All of Sacramento's suburbs were built on top of former farm country, but then, so were all of San Francisco's suburbs, and as a suburb abuts a still-rural area one runs into a rural feel, if one is lucky. People move to the suburbs because they want to feel like they are moving to the country (though generally without actually being in the country.) Some suburbs were actually intended as 'agri-burbs' in the 1920s and 1930s, selling plots of a few acres intended not for large-scale farming but small orchards or truck gardens. Some outer Sacramento suburbs, like Del Paso Heights, Carmichael and Orangevale, were marketed this way, and only later became auto-centric commuter suburbs.

The California State Fair gets people from all over the state of California, and despite our massive cities, much of the state of California is still ag country--the Sacramento Valley produces half the nation's fruit and vegetables and more than its share of just about anything else people eat. Because many people from many parts of the state are literally in the country, if you come from the State Fair you're as likely to run into rural people as city people.

Part of why the perimeter of Sacramento isn't "developed" into suburbs is because it is such good agricultural land...just turning it into suburbs is a waste of an irreplaceable resource. Farmers are good hard-working people, and whenever I go to San Francisco people make a very big deal out of local fresh produce and farmer's markets (heck, there's a farmer's market in the Metreon) but apparently actually living in a city that is adjacent to farms and farmers makes one "redneck trailer trash"?

Rio Linda is way out on the urban perimeter. I personally like the place, but then I like "country" people more than upper-class snobs. It was even farther out in the country until Natomas ("beloved"? Says who?) was built up in the past decade or so. Oh yeah, part of why there is so much "undeveloped" land near Sacramento is because Sacramento is a massive floodplain, and most of it still floods. Natomas, as a matter of fact, probably should have never been built--its levees were recently decertified and nothing can be built there unless it is on a 33 foot berm!

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, Del Paso Bl feels country-so does that area along the American River near Downtown, so does North Highands, so does 65th St as you drive from 50 to Florin, Even Roseville in its older areas looks seedy, , and the drive up 80 between Truxel and Madison is not flattering at all. If you take Arden past Business 80 that's not too nice either, A bit trashy looking if you ask me. Just across the river from DT, West Sacramento has a desolate feel to it too. You always feel like your right next to nothing. Heck even Land Park seems to be on the edge of emptyness. San Jose abutting hills really aids to it being more dense than Sacramento.

18Montclair: It seems like you are including a lot of places that aren't even in the same county as Sacramento as part of Sacramento. Would you claim that San Francisco is "country" because the Marin Headlands aren't completely covered with suburbs? West Sac is in Yolo County, it is still very actively agricultural and located next to a gigantic weir (the "nothing" you refer to) which is impossible to build on even if one really wanted to get rid of valuable agricultural land. Roseville is in Placer County, it was a little railroad town until about 20 years ago. North Highlands is outside the Sacramento city limits, its reason for existence was the Air Force base until it closed. Highway 50 past 65th Street is also just at the edge of the Sacramento city limits.

Del Paso Boulevard is part of what used to be the city of North Sacramento, absorbed as part of Sacramento in the 1960s. I suppose it does feel a little like a valley town that was based on agricultural and small local industries, because that's really what it was--in addition to being one of Sacramento's second wave of streetcar suburbs. The fact that it retains some of its historic character is a good thing, in my opinion.

80 between Truxel and Madison is a mixture of former ag land in the process of becoming Natomas suburbs, and a large regional park (Del Paso Park.) The American River north of East Sacramento and downtown is also a parkway. The American floods every year, it would rampage through the city if we had not redirected the mouth of the river and built massive levees along its banks, so it won't ever be "developed" because anything you built there would just end up downstream. North of Business 80 is the old city dump, you can't build on that because it is still farting methane, enough that it is used to power the lights at the Blue Diamond plant.

I don't know, it seems like some people here consider anything that isn't a shiny new condo or an Applebee's to be "country," and consider things like useful farmland "country," a parkway or natural wilderness "nothing," and see neighborhoods of historic homes as "seedy." In my mind, those are the best things about our region, and the things I am drawn to in any city. It would be horrible if every bit of greenery was paved over, leaving no place for farmland or parks, or if every character-filled older home or wonderful old dive bar knocked over and replaced by a McMansion or a wine bar. I suppose that makes me a trailer trash low-income redneck--so be it.

[NewToCA]

Just a few points here, wburg.

First off, folks don't move to the suburbs because they want to feel like they live in the country, many do so because they have a family and are seeking out places where their kids can participate in activities with peers and have good schools.

Your comment about farmland doesn't just apply to Sacramento. Don't you think that places like Indianapolis, Omaha and Kansas City also expanded outwards on farmlands?

Finally, the farmland and food comment was valid until this year. I have taken a few drives down I-5, and back on Rt 99, when visiting my kids in Los Angeles and can tell you that A LOT of farmland has been taken out of productivity, due to the unresolved water issues.

Many folks who live in the suburbs also appreciate the city, and what it has to offer. Some even move into a more urban environment when the kids grow up and leave home. I see no reason to run down folks who move to the suburbs, they generally have very valid reasons to do so. Unlike you, I don't see a trade off between the city and suburbs, I think both can do very well together. Redevelopment and rehabilitation both have a place in older core areas, and sometimes it does make sense to clear and older area and do redevelopment.

Like you, I detest the way freeways mar older areas, but that is the result of stupid decisions. Freeways and parkways don't need to be a negative, Sacramento just did a very poor job in design and construction.

[Majin]

I'm still confused about whats "country" about any of those pictures I posted, or how any of that area feels like you're close to running off into nothingness.

I'm also still confused on the definition of country people are using.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by Majin

...if SJ served as the urban center of the Bay area there would be at least double the crime. San Francisco has a score over double SJ's and is only about 200 points lower than Sacramento. Oakland is 5 times what SJ. SF and Oakland serve as urban centers for the Bay area. I think you can draw some kind of corelation.

So your argument is that since SJ does not have the same crime rate as SF or Oakland, it must not be an urban area? What, does a city need to have street cred to be considered urban to you? And since SJ doesn't, it's not a true urban area?

Originally Posted by Majin

...I guess consider the south bay a seperate metro with its own urban center (valid point since census considers SJ a seperate metro from SF).

Okay, so now we do agree then?

Originally Posted by Majin

Then we agree to disagree.

So I guess we don't?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Just a few points here, wburg.

First off, folks don't move to the suburbs because they want to feel like they live in the country, many do so because they have a family and are seeking out places where their kids can participate in activities with peers and have good schools.

Your comment about farmland doesn't just apply to Sacramento. Don't you think that places like Indianapolis, Omaha and Kansas City also expanded outwards on farmlands?

Finally, the farmland and food comment was valid until this year. I have taken a few drives down I-5, and back on Rt 99, when visiting my kids in Los Angeles and can tell you that A LOT of farmland has been taken out of productivity, due to the unresolved water issues.

Many folks who live in the suburbs also appreciate the city, and what it has to offer. Some even move into a more urban environment when the kids grow up and leave home. I see no reason to run down folks who move to the suburbs, they generally have very valid reasons to do so. Unlike you, I don't see a trade off between the city and suburbs, I think both can do very well together. Redevelopment and rehabilitation both have a place in older core areas, and sometimes it does make sense to clear and older area and do redevelopment.

Like you, I detest the way freeways mar older areas, but that is the result of stupid decisions. Freeways and parkways don't need to be a negative, Sacramento just did a very poor job in design and construction.

I think maybe you're mistaking me for other posters--other people claim Sacramento is "country" because of its proximity to farms and rural communities. I know Sacramento isn't unique in being a city in the middle of an agricultural region--I am from the Midwest originally, where pretty much every city is in the middle of an agricultural region. But then, you could say that about any city if you go back far enough--the southern parts of San Francisco were farms 100 or so years ago, as were the flat parts of Los Angeles and Orange County. 180 years ago, Brooklyn was remote farmland, until the new high-tech steamboats allowed commuters to live in the wilds of Brooklyn and work in Manhattan. Steam railroads and horse cars produced their own suburbs.

The suburbs are really a 19th century invention, tied to high-tech transit but based on very traditionally American ideas about the yeoman farmer. Early suburbanites were middle-class folks who aspired to be country squires, and the first designed suburbs followed the patterns of tastemakers like AJ Downing. The "City Beautiful" and "Garden City" movements worked to bring rural elements to the new suburbs: detached homes instead of attached tenements, expansive horizontal spaces instead of tall vertical neighborhoods, country roads with lawns instead of dense city streets, and a separation between workplace and home life. As I mentioned upthread, some suburbs were explicitly marketed as "agri-burbs," suggesting crops like citrus or walnuts to supplement the homeowner's income and provide a diverting hobby, or a pastoral form of employment close to city amenities but far enough from its degrading elements. These things aren't as obvious today, but the mentality that the suburbs are safe and healthy while cities are dangerous and unhealthy still permeates the modern suburban mindset, even when it can be shown to be untrue. It was more true a century ago (before things like public garbage collection, sanitary sewers, street paving, pollution regulations and building codes) than the present day, but the attitude (that suburbs are for families, cities are not) didn't go away. Fortunately, I see it starting to change.

Obviously, tere are other reasons people to move to the suburbs--there are plenty of others, like white-flight self-segregation, and the idea that one simply must have a 3000 square foot McMansion with a huge yard in a cul-de-sac in order to raise children. I don't happen to agree with them. They are at odds, because suburbs assume a parasitic relationship onto cities by passing on the cost of everything from social services to public utilities.

Farmland has been taken out of productivity this year due to water issues--but it is still farmland that can be used, at least until it is paved over. Agricultural land laying fallow is still farmland. A temporary water crisis doesn't change that--although if it does go for much longer and more farmland goes fallow, we will learn just how important Central Valley farmland is to the nation's food supply--and maybe stop throwing suburbs on top of it!

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by wburg

I think maybe you're mistaking me for other posters--other people claim Sacramento is "country" because of its proximity to farms and rural communities. I know Sacramento isn't unique in being a city in the middle of an agricultural region--I am from the Midwest originally, where pretty much every city is in the middle of an agricultural region. But then, you could say that about any city if you go back far enough--the southern parts of San Francisco were farms 100 or so years ago, as were the flat parts of Los Angeles and Orange County. 180 years ago, Brooklyn was remote farmland, until the new high-tech steamboats allowed commuters to live in the wilds of Brooklyn and work in Manhattan. Steam railroads and horse cars produced their own suburbs.

The suburbs are really a 19th century invention, tied to high-tech transit but based on very traditionally American ideas about the yeoman farmer. Early suburbanites were middle-class folks who aspired to be country squires, and the first designed suburbs followed the patterns of tastemakers like AJ Downing. The "City Beautiful" and "Garden City" movements worked to bring rural elements to the new suburbs: detached homes instead of attached tenements, expansive horizontal spaces instead of tall vertical neighborhoods, country roads with lawns instead of dense city streets, and a separation between workplace and home life. As I mentioned upthread, some suburbs were explicitly marketed as "agri-burbs," suggesting crops like citrus or walnuts to supplement the homeowner's income and provide a diverting hobby, or a pastoral form of employment close to city amenities but far enough from its degrading elements. These things aren't as obvious today, but the mentality that the suburbs are safe and healthy while cities are dangerous and unhealthy still permeates the modern suburban mindset, even when it can be shown to be untrue. It was more true a century ago (before things like public garbage collection, sanitary sewers, street paving, pollution regulations and building codes) than the present day, but the attitude (that suburbs are for families, cities are not) didn't go away. Fortunately, I see it starting to change.

Obviously, tere are other reasons people to move to the suburbs--there are plenty of others, like white-flight self-segregation, and the idea that one simply must have a 3000 square foot McMansion with a huge yard in a cul-de-sac in order to raise children. I don't happen to agree with them. They are at odds, because suburbs assume a parasitic relationship onto cities by passing on the cost of everything from social services to public utilities.

Farmland has been taken out of productivity this year due to water issues--but it is still farmland that can be used, at least until it is paved over. Agricultural land laying fallow is still farmland. A temporary water crisis doesn't change that--although if it does go for much longer and more farmland goes fallow, we will learn just how important Central Valley farmland is to the nation's food supply--and maybe stop throwing suburbs on top of it!

No, my response was to you, and the initial sentence based on your comment:

People move to the suburbs because they want to feel like they are moving to the country (though generally without actually being in the country.)

Your backhanded dismissal of suburbia is somewhat at odds with the facts though. If you look at places like Rocklin or Folsom, you'll see many of the newer homes are actually sub 2,000 square feet, hardly "McMansions". Both Rocklin and Folsom currently have over 100 homes for sale below 2,000 square feet, and that doesn't include the repos. Also, crime rates in areas such as Rocklin, Folsom, El Dorado Hills, Fair Oaks and Lincoln are quite a bit lower than Sacramento itself.

As I stated, suburban living certainly has it's benefits. While I respect those who choose to live in urban environments, I think "looking down your nose" at suburban living is rather shortsighted. There is plenty of room for both, and the farmland is minimally impacted by this minor expansion.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by Screw Sacramento

Then I guess you've never been to the California State Fair? Or Rio Linda? These are virtually right around the corner from the nicer, newer developments (like Del Paso near the Arco Arena and beloved Natomas), making them kind of hard not to integrate with and see.

ok, lets back up: I was generalizing, every city of any size has some trash, but overall Sac is not full of trailer trash and rednecks like the poster (responder) claimed. As for Rednecks, I have lived in several areas with Rednecks, they are nothing like trailor trash. Most trailor trash people are rednecks, but most rednecks are far from trailor trash and I would rather be around most of them than a bunch of stuffy, elitist snobs...

Nita

[krudmonk]

Majin's assumption of a direct relationship between crime and urban form makes me wonder if he's living in 2009 or 1959. Party in downtown Richmond tonight!

[Ludachris]

3 different debates going on at once... cool!