Am I the only one that's bothered by Fresno being slightly bigger? (Sacramento: how much, construction)

[GTFO]

jacksonville is like 3 times bigger in land area than nyc, does it mean it offers more than nyc? lol
same applies here

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by CeJeH

Anybody that has spent any time in Sacramento and Fresno knows unquestionably that Sacramento is the bigger city. Our metropolitan population is 2.5 times bigger than Fresno. We have more big city amenities and more of a big city feel. Even our fledgling under-developed downtown blows downtown Fresno out of the water. But for the last 2 decades or so, Fresno city limits has been just slightly larger than Sacramento's, and it bugs me.

The most recent Census Data from 2010 shows Sacramento as having a population of around 467k people in an area of just over 100 sq miles. Fresno is listed at around 495k people in about 112 sq miles. This gives Fresno the edge as being the largest inland city in California and the largest city in the Central Valley. Fresno overtook Sacramento in population in the 2000 census and has maintained a lead of about 30,000 people since then.

I know that this is a dubious honor and is relatively meaningless, but it annoys me that Fresno of all places has this distinction over Sacramento, which is in my opinion the superior city. Can't we just annex Arden/Arcade and South Sac and get this over with?

It shouldn't matter, but I'm with you, its just not right, SAC's the capital, and has always been more well known in TV, movies, history, and we do have the better reputation across the nation and California.

If it's any consolation, we are more populous than Oakland! Which is probably more well known across the nation than SAC.

[CeJeH]

Just to be clear I was being facetious when I say it bothers me. If only I weren't losing so much sleep over this I could formulate a full thought.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by pistola916

Honestly, I wouldn't want Sacramento City to annex Arden-Arcade but South Sacramento is something the city should consider. With being the state capital alone, that makes Sactown the most notable city between the two.

I'd like Sacramento to annex Arden-Arcade because it has some of the most attractive and monied neighborhoods in Sacramento County.

Beyond the fab 40's, Land Park, and other older established neighborhoods, Arden-Arcade is quintessentially Sacramento with large California Ranch and Mid-Century homes.

Many of the zip codes simply say Sacramento. The best private Jesuit school and a big chuck of American River Drive and the American River Parkway are located here.

[wburg]

Hey now, Fresno had its own miniseries!

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by pistola916

^
I'm not quite sure. Arden Arcade feels like being in the suburbs while South Sac, despite the lower income levels and high crime, feels I'm in Sacramento. It has the diversity, the grit, amazing ethnic food scene. It very much feels a part of Sacramento that for some reason I don't fine in Arden Arcade. I would like to see AA become a city ( with a name change of course) or a part of Rancho Cordova.

Ok, I understand what you mean. I have to disagree with you here though. Although my opinions on where the lines should be drawn in Sacramento County are probably a bit extreme compared to most people, I do think that Arden Arcade is just as much Sacramento as, say, Natomas is. AA has used Sacramento as an address for decades, and even though some older homeowners in wealthier parts don't want to pay slightly higher taxes, I think the area should be annexed into the city. It flows naturally with Sac State, Arden Fair Mall and Cal Expo already part of the city, and I think the rest of the area should be included as well.

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I'd like Sacramento to annex Arden-Arcade because it has some of the most attractive and monied neighborhoods in Sacramento County.

Beyond the fab 40's, Land Park, and other older established neighborhoods, Arden-Arcade is quintessentially Sacramento with large California Ranch and Mid-Century homes.

Many of the zip codes simply say Sacramento. The best private Jesuit school and a big chuck of American River Drive and the American River Parkway are located here.

I agree with this. Personally I think all of the unincorporated areas that use Sacramento as their address should be annexed into the city.

[wburg]

This is an old fight--the first effort to annex Arden-Arcade was in the 1950s, and the wealthy suburb resisted it, and has continued to do so, in my opinion largely because the people who elect Sacramento's mayor and city council (that is, their campaign contributors) largely live in unincorporated Sacramento County. The poor suburbs might welcome it, but it would cost the city more than it would gain.

The last time the strategy worked in a big way was when we annexed Oak Park, East Sacramento, Homeland and Highland Park, what is now Land Park/Curtis Park. Oak Park was relatively poor (they were a boom-era suburb that fell flat in an economic bust in 1893, then the developer disappeared and was never seen again a few years later) while East Sacramento and (now) Land Park/Curtis Park were comparatively wealthy, but there were more people in Oak Park. They all voted at once, and the wealthier neighborhoods (who opposed annexation) were outvoted by those who supported it. So maybe if we convince the county to have South Sacramento and Arden-Arcade vote at the same time?

Although, to look at the northern half of Arden-Arcade lately, things are looking pretty rough out that way!

[CeJeH]

Originally Posted by wburg

This is an old fight--the first effort to annex Arden-Arcade was in the 1950s, and the wealthy suburb resisted it, and has continued to do so, in my opinion largely because the people who elect Sacramento's mayor and city council (that is, their campaign contributors) largely live in unincorporated Sacramento County. The poor suburbs might welcome it, but it would cost the city more than it would gain.

The last time the strategy worked in a big way was when we annexed Oak Park, East Sacramento, Homeland and Highland Park, what is now Land Park/Curtis Park. Oak Park was relatively poor (they were a boom-era suburb that fell flat in an economic bust in 1893, then the developer disappeared and was never seen again a few years later) while East Sacramento and (now) Land Park/Curtis Park were comparatively wealthy, but there were more people in Oak Park. They all voted at once, and the wealthier neighborhoods (who opposed annexation) were outvoted by those who supported it. So maybe if we convince the county to have South Sacramento and Arden-Arcade vote at the same time?

Although, to look at the northern half of Arden-Arcade lately, things are looking pretty rough out that way!

I agree, which is why I think it might work this time. Cityhood was defeated soundly a few years back for Arden Arcade, the demographics and economy have changed. I think they would be more likely to annex now than the last time it was put to a vote. I think South Sacramento would come along much easier.

What are your thoughts on where the boundaries of the city limits should be?

[wburg]

I'm not all that interested in outward expansion. More interesting are the possibilities of growing upward rather than outward--increasing population density within the city footprint while also increasing livability and walkability. San Francisco has twice our population in half the space--an accident of history and geography that would be hard to reproduce, but proof of what is practical. Los Angeles has nine times the population in four times the space--overall, twice as dense despite their legendary sprawl. But Los Angeles also has enormous management problems that come from that 400 square mile footprint--including incorporated cities surrounded on all sides by Los Angeles. We simply don't have the wealth Los Angeles does, or, again, geographic reasons why the city is laid out the way it is that make such a large city possible, or necessary. It's a bit far out for the local planning community, whose latest general plan gives most of the outer city very low maximum densities, and unlike the central city, still has suburban-style minimum parking ratios based around accommodating the car in all things. All that room for roads and driveways cuts into room for people and places, until we can start rebuilding bike and transit infrastructure alongside the automobile corridors. Not Soviet-style apartment blocks like the "Agenda 21" paranoids envision, or demolition of Sacramento's most beautiful and tree-lined neighborhoods--but pleasant, convivial "streetcar suburb" neighborhoods more like those from a century ago, when cities and downtowns thrived, enhancing what is already there by filling in the blanks on the urban map. These denser but friendlier suburbs surround a more urbane urban core, having learned how to solve many of the urban problems that drove people to the suburbs in the first place.

And that's something Fresno can't match--their smaller metro population and even lower regional population density make the tide of sprawl harder to stem. They still have a horizontal ways to grow...we're reaching a tipping point.