A Different Look: Las Vegas, Oakland, and Sacramento... (living, cost, better)
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.
Three other cities. Sacramento, my hometown, spent most of October thru December back there. Oakland, the former and in some ways fading heavyweight. And Las Vegas, the upstart...
Let me start by saying that much of the social ills happening in The Bay are an indictment on Bay leadership and continue to disproportionately effect the less advantaged. But as it is, Oakland has some serious issues with the steadily rising homelessness STILL, out of control cost of living, corporate relocations over the past 8 years or so, and these aren't just limited to the sports teams...
Oakland of course, historically was a larger, more prosperous city than the other two, so it has some built in advantages the other two don't. Still, for my money, I'm arguing here that both Sacramento and Las Vegas have caught up to Oakland in stature, if not already surpassed Oakland, which is more debatable. They are definitely on par with Oakland, though...
Vegas has the Nashville thing going on, it's an international pop culture draw, bright lights, biggest attraction for miles around. But like Nashville, I'm not sure how much popularity correlates to importance---->it does to some degree but I don't think it's a full 1:1 correlation...
Oakland has both of these cities in urbanity still, and will for awhile, it's just been more built up and developed for far longer. Alot of that is owed to its location across the bridge from San Fran, and it's okay to say this----->Oakland didn't grow as some city independent of SF the way the other two did, and I think that keys into some advantages for the other two...
I think Sac is a little more urban than Vegas but not substantially so, I just think it's clear once you leave The Strip Vegas more quickly devolves to Strip Land-Ville. Sac retains its urban character longer, but again not by a wide margin...
All three struggle with homelessness but Sac, which is worse now than last time I was home 5 years ago, is not even close to as bad as Oakland or Vegas. It's terrible and heart-wrenching in those cities. I also think, Downtown Sacramento continues to make strides as a destination. Downtown Oakland maybe isn't stagnant, but it's not growing at the rate Sac's is, and Downtown Vegas isn't impressive compared to the other two at all...
Demographically all three are similar. One city has a few more of this, one city a few more of that, but these are similar cities in demographics. I'll be back in a minute to highlight some more strengths/weaknesses, and similarities, of each!
Oakland's hard to talk about because it's not the primary city of its region unlike the other two. If you're just going by municipal boundaries, then technically Oakland is the smallest and least populous of the three. However, I don't think doing that makes much sense.
Oakland and the East Bay in general, and the Bay Area even more generally is still quite a bit more expensive, but they're still overall a much larger and more "major" city than Sacramento and Las Vegas by a large margin. I do think the East Bay in general is a better place and I think the large amount of TOD that BART is now a lot more open to substantially changes things for the better. I do hope Oakland takes a tip from neighboring Berkeley though and allow much denser mixed-use zoning which would do a lot in having more affordable housing with simply having more housing in general. There might also be something done with I-980 which cuts up the urban fabric quite a bit. It's a shame that I-880 isn't on the chopping block yet.
Oakland's hard to talk about because it's not the primary city of its region unlike the other two. If you're just going by municipal boundaries, then technically Oakland is the smallest and least populous of the three. However, I don't think doing that makes much sense.
Oakland and the East Bay in general, and the Bay Area even more generally is still quite a bit more expensive, but they're still overall a much larger and more "major" city than Sacramento and Las Vegas by a large margin. I do think the East Bay in general is a better place and I think the large amount of TOD that BART is now a lot more open to substantially changes things for the better. I do hope Oakland takes a tip from neighboring Berkeley though and allow much denser mixed-use zoning which would do a lot in having more affordable housing with simply having more housing in general. There might also be something done with I-980 which cuts up the urban fabric quite a bit. It's a shame that I-880 isn't on the chopping block yet.
Sacramento County is will pass Alameda in population by 2030, which I think is a significant city. The central city of Sac is and has been seeing more investment than Oakland for a good while now, so once Sac County surpasses Alameda, I think it aids the change in how we speak of them in relation to each other...
I will agree that Oakland is more of a major city than both but I absolutely don't agree that there's a "large" margin. I think the fact that Sac and LV support themselves independent of a larger city a bridge away, gives them a leg to stand on here. More and more outlets and people are beginning to recognize Ssc's strengths, and Vegas will always benefit from Cal expats and a center of entertainment...
Are you talking city proper? Whenever some cities(Sacramento, phoenix, etc) get brought up, boosters always change the debate to metro area quickly. so, is this a true city vs city or is metro talk allowed, op. Edit: or are we talking urban area? Let us know.
I would NOT say Oakland/East Bay is more of major city than Vegas and Sacramento, rather Oak/East Bay is just MARGINALLY larger.
---------
I often like to separate-out Oakland and the East Bay apart from the larger Bay Area, not only as a stand alone area within the Bay Area, but as if it were the only populated and developed area in the Bay Area, as if....
...the Santa Clara Valley, i.e. San Jose/South Bay/Silicon Valley didn't even exist in its present form, rather the Santa Clara Valley was still an agriculturally beautiful bucolic Coastal Valley filled with orchards and farms....
and as if,
...and the SF/Peninsula, the City itself, and the entire peninsula didn't exist in its present developed form, rather it was barren sandy hills, groves of redwood, oak and eucalyptus trees, completely rural with the only reason to go "out" there was as if the Cliff House Resort and Sutro Baths existed as a Northern California rural-coastal "vacation" spot.
I know Crazy but,
in this vision, the Bay Area which would comprise only of Oakland-Berkeley-Richmond and their suburban cities and towns ......it would feel like San Diego early 2000's or Seattle early 1990's.
Keep in mind both for Oakland and Sacramento one needs to
include bordering, contiguous, urban incorporated cities and even non-incorporated urban areas
Oakland has:
Piedmont
Alameda
Berkeley
Albany
Emeryville
El Cerrito
Richmond
San Leandro
Hayward
Sacramento has:
West Sacramento
Rancho Cordova
Citrus Heights
Elk Grove
Davis - Davis and Sacramento are connected by a long bridge, the Causeway, there is even dedicated hourly Train Service-the Capital Corridor; Bus-City/County Regional Buses; and a dedicated FREE Bus - the Causeway Connection, connects UC Davis Main Campus with its Sacramento Campus.
Sacramento County is will pass Alameda in population by 2030, which I think is a significant city. The central city of Sac is and has been seeing more investment than Oakland for a good while now, so once Sac County surpasses Alameda, I think it aids the change in how we speak of them in relation to each other...
I will agree that Oakland is more of a major city than both but I absolutely don't agree that there's a "large" margin. I think the fact that Sac and LV support themselves independent of a larger city a bridge away, gives them a leg to stand on here. More and more outlets and people are beginning to recognize Ssc's strengths, and Vegas will always benefit from Cal expats and a center of entertainment...
It's certainly possible that Sacramento County passes Alameda County in population for the 2030 census. I think a lot of that has to do with how zoning changes work out in the Bay Area including in the East Bay. Berkeley got rid of parking minimums and allowing denser zoning and lo and behold it greatly expanded housing construction in the city and lowered housing costs. It's possible that other municipalities in the area including Oakland takes stock in that because the very high housing costs show that there's obviously demand.
The large margin is in reference to how Oakland is part and parcel of the Bay Area. It's more likely to get even *more* strongly integrated as a whole with the fare sharing agreement the various Bay Area transit agencies have signed and the expansion of BART to South Bay. I believe it's going to get increasingly more difficult to isolate Oakland from the rest of the Bay Area rather than easier. It's in that sense that it's hard to judge because Oakland is getting harder to separate from the larger Bay Area and the larger Bay Area is larger than the Sacramento metropolitan area and Las Vegas metropolitan area by a large margin.
It's certainly possible that Sacramento County passes Alameda County in population for the 2030 census. I think a lot of that has to do with how zoning changes work out in the Bay Area including in the East Bay. Berkeley got rid of parking minimums and allowing denser zoning and lo and behold it greatly expanded housing construction in the city and lowered housing costs. It's possible that other municipalities in the area including Oakland takes stock in that because the very high housing costs show that there's obviously demand.
The large margin is in reference to how Oakland is part and parcel of the Bay Area. It's more likely to get even *more* strongly integrated as a whole with the fare sharing agreement the various Bay Area transit agencies have signed and the expansion of BART to South Bay. I believe it's going to get increasingly more difficult to isolate Oakland from the rest of the Bay Area rather than easier. It's in that sense that it's hard to judge because Oakland is getting harder to separate from the larger Bay Area and the larger Bay Area is larger than the Sacramento metropolitan area and Las Vegas metropolitan area by a large margin.
Along those lines, you might as well include the Sacramento Metro into the larger Bay Area.
Stockton-Modesto-Manteca are already included into the Bay Area.
And then you have folks talking about how Austin-San Antonio are one; Milwaukee-Chicago, and so on...
I personally don't see it/agree wit it.
______
If one is talking simply urban, contiguous, higher-density, the most urban/dense would be:
I can sort of see it as a large mega region especially if Valley Rail / ACE extensions happen, but I don't think it's going to be anything along the lines of how closely Oakland is integrated into the Bay Area. It is not equivalent to what Stockton is to the Bay Area nor how Austin / San Antonio relate to one another or Milwaukee / Chicago, and I think making a distinction doesn't mean you have to slippery slope it into taking in all of California or North America. There's a pretty reasonable, human scale for what constitutes a metropolitan area where at some point it's pretty easy to agree on is outside of fuzzy boundaries.
The amount of crossings between San Francisco and East Bay is massive when you add them across all modes. The same goes with between San Francisco and South Bay and East Bay and South Bay (though slightly less so, but will likely change with the opening of BART to downtown San Jose). There is a contiguous ring of urbanization around the bay and multiple crossings. The OP acknowledges this and I suppose this can be a call for just municipal comparisons though it maybe makes sense to use the county level since the city level means Las Vegas loses out on most of what most people identify as Vegas.
I can sort of see it as a large mega region especially if Valley Rail / ACE extensions happen, but I don't think it's going to be anything along the lines of how closely Oakland is integrated into the Bay Area. It is not equivalent to what Stockton is to the Bay Area nor how Austin / San Antonio relate to one another or Milwaukee / Chicago, and I think making a distinction doesn't mean you have to slippery slope it into taking in all of California or North America. There's a pretty reasonable, human scale for what constitutes a metropolitan area where at some point it's pretty easy to agree on is outside of fuzzy boundaries.
The amount of crossings between San Francisco and East Bay is massive when you add them across all modes. The same goes with between San Francisco and South Bay and East Bay and South Bay (though slightly less so, but will likely change with the opening of BART to downtown San Jose). There is a contiguous ring of urbanization around the bay and multiple crossings. The OP acknowledges this and I suppose this can be a call for just municipal comparisons though it maybe makes sense to use the county level since the city level means Las Vegas loses out on most of what most people identify as Vegas.
Sticking with the OP's framework, this should work for contiguous density:
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.
