Sacramento growth trends present and future (Citrus Heights, Roseville: credit, home builders, employment)

[Dave Coe]

I have heard that the fastest growing areas the last two decades have been to the south such as Elk Growth and Lincoln to the North East. I know the City can't grow west due to the flood plain. What direction will Sacramento grow in the next few decades?

[wburg]

The city has also been growing to the north--as in North Natomas--and they certainly didn't let the floodplain stop them, a decision that the city may or may not come to regret depending on how heavy it rains in the next couple of years.

"Elk Growth." Interesting irony in that.

Considering the oversupply of suburban housing, I don't expect a lot more outward growth, at least a lot of successful outward growth. Folsom and Roseville are busily expanding horizontally, in an effort to continue their growth-machine expansion, while Sacramento has plans for a bit more southern expansion in "Delta Shores" (basically between the little town of Freeport and the southern end of the city.) If horizontal growth is facilitated by freeway expansion, expect a bit more sprawl. If gas prices continue to climb, expect a bit more infill. If we actually manage better fixed-rail transit and maybe even get an urban growth boundary, expect more growth in a vertical direction.

[KC6ZLV]

Follow the money. Growth is going to be near the higher-paying jobs or cheap land. Employment stimulated growth in Roseville/Rocklin and Folsom/El Dorado Hills. A combination of employment growth and cheap land in Elk Grove persuaded development there. Persuading the city to abandon zoning restrictions in the flood-prone Natomas Basin by several developer-politicians opened up huge tracts of cheap vacant land to development up there.

I have hopes that people will abandon the idea of 2600 sq ft houses in favour of older homes less than about 1500 sq ft will help maintain some of the older neighbourhoods in the region.

[sacramento916]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Follow the money. Growth is going to be near the higher-paying jobs or cheap land. Employment stimulated growth in Roseville/Rocklin and Folsom/El Dorado Hills. A combination of employment growth and cheap land in Elk Grove persuaded development there. Persuading the city to abandon zoning restrictions in the flood-prone Natomas Basin by several developer-politicians opened up huge tracts of cheap vacant land to development up there.

I have hopes that people will abandon the idea of 2600 sq ft houses in favour of older homes less than about 1500 sq ft will help maintain some of the older neighbourhoods in the region.

True. Sometimes I meet a couple with no kids living in a 3500 SF house, and they say they need that space for their "stuff". Is that necessary?

[NewToCA]

Growth will be south of Highway 50 from Watt Ave all the way out to the Sacramento County line.

Eventually, Rancho Murieta won't be sitting out there in the southeast corner of the metro area by itself.

Additional significant growth will take place northeast of the Sacramento Airport and out towards Roseville, along Baseline Rd.

[Malloric]

The problem with growth in Sacramento is where's it going to occur? Aside from the grid, East Sac, Land Park, and maybe Pocket Sacramento isn't really desirable. There's not much room for more development in the Pocket area, East Sac and Land Park are most likely not going to be bulldozed for higher density. Not that there's any need, but there's still plenty of land left in Hopefully Not A Bathtub Natomas. Of course, Natomas is perilously close to blending in with its neighboring communities of Rio Linda and North Highlands. There's no shortage of development that could occur there, but why? Confounding that is jobs. Being a one-trick pony with 90,000+ state jobs, Sacramento's economy is going to drive even more people away than it did before. Just using Facebook as a barometer, few of my fellow alumni are still in the area.

While Folsom has attracted some jobs, Folsom/EDH are still primarily suburbs of Sacramento that are very much dependent on Sacramento's anemic economy.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by Malloric

The problem with growth in Sacramento is where's it going to occur? Aside from the grid, East Sac, Land Park, and maybe Pocket Sacramento isn't really desirable. There's not much room for more development in the Pocket area, East Sac and Land Park are most likely not going to be bulldozed for higher density. Not that there's any need, but there's still plenty of land left in Hopefully Not A Bathtub Natomas. Of course, Natomas is perilously close to blending in with its neighboring communities of Rio Linda and North Highlands. There's no shortage of development that could occur there, but why? Confounding that is jobs. Being a one-trick pony with 90,000+ state jobs, Sacramento's economy is going to drive even more people away than it did before. Just using Facebook as a barometer, few of my fellow alumni are still in the area. ...While Folsom has attracted some jobs, Folsom/EDH are still primarily suburbs of Sacramento that are very much dependent on Sacramento's anemic economy.

I do agree with you. I also have seen great potential for this city since arriving in 2003. But I often wonder if along with the claim of being mismanaged, if there are just an overwhelming number of people who not only do not wish to see Sacramento advance to a world class city [as in enrichment/development over sprawl], but realistically, just dont want to pay any more taxes to fund that kind of progress, and just how??

[CeJeH]

Sacramento has always been a "not in my backyard!" kind of place. People here don't want Progress they just want to go to work and go home so they can watch American idol.

[wburg]

The big fat dirty secret about Sacramento's employment base is that, as a metropolitan area, we really aren't a "government town" the way that everyone claims. Regionally, there are more construction workers than government workers in Sacramento County (//www.city-data.com/county/Sacr...-CA.html)--the main business of the Sacramento region has been construction of new suburbs. And since the closure of our military bases and the contraction of the housing market, those construction employees are a bigger economic problem for the region than the contraction of state government. The solution put forth by Sacramento-region cities? Build more suburbs!

Of course, building suburbs requires plenty of corporate welfare, but it's generally the sort that the suburban home builders prefer, like highway improvements and expansions (to make life easier for commuters.) If this continues as the status quo, expect more zombie subdivisions popping up on the current urban perimeter, and fewer tall things going up in downtown Sacramento (let alone in Citrus Heights, Roseville, Rancho Cordova or Folsom.)

[NorCal Dude]

There won't be any major growth until I am eyeing retirement (I'm 29).

The area was over built like crazy, with $pecuflipper hype and cheap credit guiding demand.

The building days are long gong. I know contractors that made 6 figures during the boom who have not had a solid gig in half a decade. Them's the breaks.