Sacramento compared to Fresno: my limited observations (Los Angeles, San Diego: income, living)

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Camphor trees do drop leaves and twigs year-round, but it's a trade-off. Deciduous trees drop a huge amount of leaves in about a month's time, whereas camphor trees are evergreen and are always dropping a little bit all the time. We had lots of them growing up in Walnut Creek, and my previous neighborhood in San Diego also had a lot of them. As far as root systems go, they are actually considered pretty well contained for sidewalks and won't cause much buckling for decades. I suspect the tree in question that's causing problems maybe very very old. Compared to most deciduous trees, however, their root systems are actually much more contained. Personally, I think they're a perfectly nice looking tree, and along with other Evergreens like Southern Magnolia and citrus, they provide some nice variety during the winter when deciduous trees would otherwise be bare. It's good to maintain variety.

You should see the volume of leaves that come off this camphor tree. It is as bad as a tree that loses its leaves in the period of a month, except it goes on year round. Throw in the season where little branches come down followed by their fruiting.

I don't know what you mean by contained. Trees typically don't 'contain' root development. Some trees have deep taproots and a few lateral roots (pine trees, some oaks). Some send out roots laterally. Trees that send them out laterally may send them out near the surface. These are usually trees like alders, willows, birch, many maples. They tend to prefer rich soils and moisture. Camphor trees send out huge roots laterally, but not directly on the surface. They will still lift concrete in time. Some of this has to with where they are planted. Lawn trees get used to lawn irrigation and develop roots just below the thatch. At any rate, it isn't a tree I would recommend unless it has a lot of room.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

You should see the volume of leaves that come off this camphor tree. It is as bad as a tree that loses its leaves in the period of a month, except it goes on year round. Throw in the season where little branches come down followed by their fruiting.

I don't know what you mean by contained. Trees typically don't 'contain' root development. Some trees have deep taproots and a few lateral roots (pine trees, some oaks). Some send out roots laterally. Trees that send them out laterally may send them out near the surface. These are usually trees like alders, willows, birch, many maples. They tend to prefer rich soils and moisture. Camphor trees send out huge roots laterally, but not directly on the surface. They will still lift concrete in time. Some of this has to with where they are planted. Lawn trees get used to lawn irrigation and develop roots just below the thatch. At any rate, it isn't a tree I would recommend unless it has a lot of room.

When I said camphor trees can be contained, I meant that they are considered suitable for planting strips adjacent to sidewalks and Roads, because compared to many other species of trees, they don't tend to lift concrete as severely or as much. Their root systems can be contained by root barriers and / or concrete. But I think over time, almost any tree will develop enough of a root system to be somewhat of a problem, and I could see that very large old trees could be an issue. Nevertheless, I've seen them planted very successfully for 40 years on certain streets in Walnut Creek without any major sidewalk damage, and there are many older ones in Pasadena as well. Unless you stick to dwarf trees or shrubs in those kind of settings, you're always going to have the trade-off with a full size tree near a sidewalk. If they are adjacent to a sidewalk, than they are often on city property, so hopefully the city would take care of them.

[KC6ZLV]

Originally Posted by tstieber

When I said camphor trees can be contained, I meant that they are considered suitable for planting strips adjacent to sidewalks and Roads, because compared to many other species of trees, they don't tend to lift concrete as severely or as much. Their root systems can be contained by root barriers and / or concrete. But I think over time, almost any tree will develop enough of a root system to be somewhat of a problem, and I could see that very large old trees could be an issue. Nevertheless, I've seen them planted very successfully for 40 years on certain streets in Walnut Creek without any major sidewalk damage, and there are many older ones in Pasadena as well. Unless you stick to dwarf trees or shrubs in those kind of settings, you're always going to have the trade-off with a full size tree near a sidewalk. If they are adjacent to a sidewalk, than they are often on city property, so hopefully the city would take care of them.

The camphor tree here is about 30 years old, about 45 feet tall, and about as wide until a branch came down from one side of it. I've seen camphor trees in Fresno that were planted between the sidewalk and the street not only lift the sidewalk, but also lift and displace the curb and lift the asphalt on the side of the street.

So, I'm not sure we are thinking of the same tree. I'm thinking of Cinnamomum camphora.

And if you do a search about this tree you will find many posts about the problems they can cause:

https://www.arboristsite.com/communi...-roots.263840/

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

The camphor tree here is about 30 years old, about 45 feet tall, and about as wide until a branch came down from one side of it. I've seen camphor trees in Fresno that were planted between the sidewalk and the street not only lift the sidewalk, but also lift and displace the curb and lift the asphalt on the side of the street.

So, I'm not sure we are thinking of the same tree. I'm thinking of Cinnamomum camphora.

And if you do a search about this tree you will find many posts about the problems they can cause:

https://www.arboristsite.com/communi...-roots.263840/

Definitely the same tree. It's not generally considered to be among the worst sidewalk lifters as far as trees go, but if you're getting the problems, then that sucks. I would imagine that the way it's watered and pruned year after year could make an enormous difference in the long term root growth pattern.

[janellen]

Originally Posted by DougStark

I was in Fresno last year for the first time for a few days. Without knowing a lot about Fresno, I anticipated it to be a smaller, less expensive version of Sacramento (similar climate, landscape, proximity to mountains.) Unfortunately, I left Fresno a little disappointed.

While I didn't see the entire Fresno region, what I did see didn't remind me of Sacramento significantly except for the vegetation/tree species and generally flat terrain. My impressions of Fresno were that it is indeed a city with an important agriculture component, like Sac. I drove through many miles of farmland and orchards surrounding the Fresno area. But I didn't see the oak/grassland countryside outside of Fresno like I've seen on Sacramento's eastern outskirts. However, maybe I missed it.

As for the city, I didn't get the impression that growth and improvement was happening there to the degree that I'd consider "vibrant." Many of the older neighborhoods looked just "average." I also visited some older neighborhoods near downtown, anticipating more urban character like Sacramento's. And while the homes looked reasonably kept up, had mature trees and looked like walkable neighborhoods, I didn't get the impression that gentrification was happening to the degree it has in Sacramento, or my town, Phoenix. I didn't drive around downtown proper because I don't know the streets and didn't want to get lost. But I didn't see any construction cranes, new high rise buildings going up, or urban revitalization. If I'm mistaken, please correct me.

One afternoon I visited some new home communities on Fresno's NE side (Clovis.) Nice homes, reasonably priced. The new homes didn't even have Mello-Roos taxes either, which was a nice surprise. Generally, no complaints on this topic--I see this housing affordability as Fresno's main advantage. However, even though this new home community was on Fresno's eastern fringes, I don't recall being able to see any mountain views of the Sierras. But, if I'm not mistaken, views of the Sierras from Sacramento aren't the norm either (whether it's due to haze/smog or due to the very gradual rise in elevation to the east which doesn't make for dramatic mountain backdrops like can be seen in Los Angeles, Salt Lake or Denver.)

Since I'm a tree lover, I admired and took pictures of some beautiful mature cedar trees (Cedrus) around Fresno. This reminded me of Sacramento since Sac also has many beautiful mature cedar trees. Too bad they don't thrive in Phoenix

Thanks for reading and I welcome your input on this subject!

Yep, you missed it.

oaks/grassland just east of downtown Fresno in Friant:

View of the Sierras from Fresno.

Granted lots of time it's too hazy to get a view like this. Both cities are close to pretty foothill/mountain areas. Take your pick.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by janellen

Yep, you missed it.

oaks/grassland just east of downtown Fresno in Friant:

View of the Sierras from Fresno.

Granted lots of time it's too hazy to get a view like this. Both cities are close to pretty foothill/mountain areas. Take your pick.

I've only been to Fresno once for a few days, and it had its charms, but the vibe is definitely more laid back and more strictly agricultural than Sacramento, as Sac obviously has all the government. I imagine without the government, Sacramento and Fresno would be much more similar.

Fresno isn't without its charms, though, and access to three major National Parks is certainly among them. It seems like a place with a lot of hidden finds if you're willing to look for them.

[JohnS_15]

Fresno gets a bad rep. It is much more economically depressed than Sacramento. It does deal with a lot more pollution issues. The weather generally feels hotter and conditions dustier than Sacramento. The city itself is a bit of a sprawl with less character and neighborhood feel. However as others have pointed out it definitely has its charms. There's some great Mexican food to be had. Some good beers. The foothills are really pretty. The proximity to Yosemite and Kings National Parks is a HUGE positive. White water rafting, mountain biking, backpacking etc. The environmental conditions of Fresno would concern me but otherwise I could live there no problem.

[Chimérique]

Best Cities to Keep Fit in USA

1. Chicago
2. Portland
3. San Francisco
4. San Diego
5. Seattle
8. Denver
13. Sacramento
14 Philadelphia
15. Orlando
16. Boston
17. Austin








35. Phoenix






88. Fresno



97. Bakersfield

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article192867119.html

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by DougStark

^^^Good replies so far. Thanks.

Hey Doug,
More on Sacramento.

Sacramento also has much stronger history of an educated workforce than Fresno.

Besides the Railroad, Gold Rush and being the Capitol. Sacramento used to have two Air Force Bases(Mather and McClellan Air Force Base) that also employed Civil Service Fed workers who serviced military aircraft. In the past 30 years Sacraemnto had one of the largest retired military populations in the nation.

Sacramento also has a long Aerospace history as well. Google Aerojet. Aerojet employed up to 10,000 people at its Rancho Cordova headquarters in the 1960's.

Just recently a Roseville Drone-aircraft company was awarded a $93million dollar military contract.

[WizardOfRadical]

Sac is Fresno on steroids.