Bay Arean's Do you like living in Sacramento? (Los Angeles, San Diego: home, neighborhood)

[wburg]

So what's wrong with a tourist trap? So is Fisherman's Wharf, or Malibu Pier, or Navy Pier. The point of a tourist trap is that it traps tourists--and Old Sac does that pretty well. Old Sac also has nightlife venues, maybe you just aren't aware of them.

Do you rate waterfronts entirely on whether or not they have nightlife? I like nightlife as much as the next guy who goes out at night a lot, but seriously, when most people think about going to the waterfront they do it to walk or ride along the water and take in the sights and sounds of the waterfront. Nightlife venues aren't necessarily improved by the presence of water, and while I'd agree that Sacramento doesn't have enough, that is not the same as claiming they don't exist just because they don't happen to exist in a part of town that happens to be a floodplain or a Superfund site.

[NineOneSix]

Sacramento is building a Downtown Arena in the Railyards where the Kings will move into and all the other events that come along with having an Arena down there.

[wburg]

You mean the same events that have already been happening for the past 24 years at Arco Arena?

[NineOneSix]

Yep. Except now it's Downtown and there will be even more events in a world class venue. Near the River. Too bad, so sad for you. Thanks for your reply but I will no longer be responding to your posts, I'm not here to argue this stuff, as I can already tell what you are angling at. Good day.

[ryuns]

Quick recommendation--if you're going to post on city-data, you'll need thicker skin than that. You and wburg may disagree, but instead of trying to voice what could have been a legitimate point (e.g., that all the activity at the ESC will be good for the area, help spur the railyards redevelopment, etc), you just up and left.

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by wburg

So what's wrong with a tourist trap? So is Fisherman's Wharf, or Malibu Pier, or Navy Pier. The point of a tourist trap is that it traps tourists--and Old Sac does that pretty well. Old Sac also has nightlife venues, maybe you just aren't aware of them.

Do you rate waterfronts entirely on whether or not they have nightlife? I like nightlife as much as the next guy who goes out at night a lot, but seriously, when most people think about going to the waterfront they do it to walk or ride along the water and take in the sights and sounds of the waterfront. Nightlife venues aren't necessarily improved by the presence of water, and while I'd agree that Sacramento doesn't have enough, that is not the same as claiming they don't exist just because they don't happen to exist in a part of town that happens to be a floodplain or a Superfund site.

There is nothing wrong with a tourist trap as long as the only attraction is not a tourist trap. Old Sac has a few places to eat and drink (love o'mally's), nice museums, and even some nice lofts and rentals. But really we are talking about a few blocks.

It's not just these things that make the water front great. It's the sights and sounds and activities around the water front.

In SF you have everything from the marina district to the China Basin. It is epic. In Chicago you have beaches and high rise residential development alongside a robust downtown area. Tons of parks, an aquarium, and rec facilities near the water, and even an amphitheater.

Sacramento at the very least should have a dozen of those delta king type boats converted into bars and restaurants all along Front Street (now that would be a real river walk). It really would not be that hard to do something even "on the cheap".

Until then, it's hurry up and wait for suburban West Sac. Because they seem to have a real desire to develope the water front. To the point that they are laying down the roads...can't wait for some buildings to start popping up...

[NineOneSix]

Originally Posted by ryuns

Quick recommendation--if you're going to post on city-data, you'll need thicker skin than that. You and wburg may disagree, but instead of trying to voice what could have been a legitimate point (e.g., that all the activity at the ESC will be good for the area, help spur the railyards redevelopment, etc), you just up and left.

I didn't up and leave, and it's not about a thick skin for me. I'm just not going to interact with that person because It's obvious what "side" that person is on after ONE post, and that that person obviously wants to engage in that. I don't. I'm not trying to get into that Sac Bee BS CAVE discussion here.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

There is nothing wrong with a tourist trap as long as the only attraction is not a tourist trap. Old Sac has a few places to eat and drink (love o'mally's), nice museums, and even some nice lofts and rentals. But really we are talking about a few blocks.

It's not just these things that make the water front great. It's the sights and sounds and activities around the water front.

In SF you have everything from the marina district to the China Basin. It is epic. In Chicago you have beaches and high rise residential development alongside a robust downtown area. Tons of parks, an aquarium, and rec facilities near the water, and even an amphitheater.

Sacramento at the very least should have a dozen of those delta king type boats converted into bars and restaurants all along Front Street (now that would be a real river walk). It really would not be that hard to do something even "on the cheap".

Until then, it's hurry up and wait for suburban West Sac. Because they seem to have a real desire to develope the water front. To the point that they are laying down the roads...can't wait for some buildings to start popping up...

Some cute ideas here, but while you discount them, things like the built environment, geography and history really do matter. Chicago was a city of a million people a century ago. The past really DOES matter, because that tells us where we've been and what we tried before. Saying things like "Sacramento never did anything with its waterfront" are untrue--this matters, because facts matter. We did plenty with our waterfront--and for various reasons, mostly having to do with the way most American cities wanted to re-create their downtowns in the mid-20th century, we demolished most of it except a six-block area. I certainly don't think that was a good idea, which is part of why (as you may have noticed) when people start talking about knocking down old stuff, I tend to speak up and say "Y'know, we tried doing that, and the result pretty much sucked. Why should we do it again and expect a different result?"

Chicago's a great city. That's my home turf, actually. But they were a city that grew up a lot earlier than Sacramento did, and a lot bigger. We do have some similarities with Chicago--we're both basically industrial towns built around water transportation and then railroads, based on turning the agricultural products of the region into manufactured goods and foodstuffs. For various reasons, they were able to stand above other cities in their region and became an economic powerhouse--they turned their industrial power into finance power. We didn't, so we never got the 3 million population and the 6 million person suburban ring, and the money and influence needed to build all the mighty stuff you find in Chicago.

Neither are we San Francisco. For a brief moment during the Gold Rush we were actually bigger than San Francisco, but that didn't last long--our port wasn't quite as good (being 90 miles inland) and our weather was worse, and the folks who made money here tended to move to San Francisco to build universities and opera houses. In some ways San Francisco never forgave us for getting the railroad, I suppose. They burned down slightly less often, and while the earth quaked it didn't flood. So they, like Chicago, grew faster and bigger, and got the toys and the built environment to go with it. San Francisco is also surrounded on three sides by water, so they really had no choice but to build up along their waterfront. Sacramento had lots of open space, and the land to the east doesn't flood, so given the opportunity we moved into the open space and turned our back on the riverfront. But, as I said, plenty of cities did.

Nor are we even San Diego--although, if you compare the size of SD to Sacramento, we're about half their size and Old Sac is about half the size of the Gaslamp, so proportionally I figure they're about equal.

The whole arena thing is a separate issue, I'll post more about it later. My other point is that the built environment really doesn't have all that much to do with the cultural life of a city. There is plenty going on here, you just have to find it--and it seems like a lot of people here are deliberately looking in the wrong places, then claiming nothing is going on culturally in Sacramento while it's happening right under their noses.

[wburg]

So NorCalDude, were you thinking something more like this?



The main problem is, obviously, that most of the waterfront was completely demolished by the construction of Interstate 5, and there isn't much point to rebuilding what was there once it's gone vs. building something new. As to a dozen or so riverboats like the Delta King, that's not exactly simple. For starters, there's only one other riverboat like the Delta King, the Delta Queen, and it moved to the Mississippi about 50 years ago (although they recently retired it from service, and if they're not using it they should give it back!) and there really aren't very many genuine Sacramento River riverboats left. Just getting the Delta King back here was a fairly ridiculous adventure--that boat was stolen once, sunk twice and spent a decade on dry land before being moored in Old Sac permanently. Just finding a dozen restorable riverboats (from places willing to give them up), and restoring them, would be an interesting project--but it would be expensive, it would be pretty difficult, and it wouldn't necessarily have an appropriate local context unless they happened to be Sacramento River riverboats. Maybe we should hatch a scheme to steal the Delta Queen back?

Oh yeah, speaking of the Delta King--you do know it's also a hotel, in addition to being a theater, restaurant, bar and ballroom, right?

Originally Posted by NorCalDude

Oldtown is more of a tourist trap. The nearby hotels are corporate chain hotels that can be found in any bay area or la suburb. Honestly the river front is a crying shame.

Please let me know what national chain of hotel operators uses actual riverboats as hotels.

I'm not so sure that West Sacramento's riverwalk will end up the way you envision it--typically, nightlife spots like dance clubs, theaters, live music venues and comedy clubs don't go into brand-new buildings, they go into older buildings adapted to the purpose (rents in old buildings are low, and entertainment is a low-margin business.) New buildings are either built very cheaply (modern shopping centers) or intended for high-margin but less exciting uses (like offices, financial institutions, and other things that close up at 5 PM.)

[ryuns]

Originally Posted by NineOneSix

I didn't up and leave, and it's not about a thick skin for me. I'm just not going to interact with that person because It's obvious what "side" that person is on after ONE post, and that that person obviously wants to engage in that. I don't. I'm not trying to get into that Sac Bee BS CAVE discussion here.

Sorry--didn't mean to sound presumptive. I just think you jumped the gun on assuming they would have their minds made up, and also that no other readers would gain anything from the conversation.