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.
Back to the original question. Neither folks from the Bay Area, nor SoCal, like living in Sacramento. Some are very vocal about it, but have a job there. Others accept it, and are getting out of town EVERY weekend to go to Bay Area or the mountains.
As a lifelong Bay Area resident, I have to disagree with this. My best friend and his wife moved from the Bay Area to Sac about 8 years ago and couldn't be happier. My father in law also moved from the Bay Area to Sac 10 years ago and is happy there as well.
I've spent an extensive amount of time all over the Sacramento area for many years and I like it too and will probably end up moving there once I decide to purchase a home. As much as I love the Bay Area, I also appreciate the Sacramento area for what it is.
As a lifelong Bay Area resident, I have to disagree with this. My best friend and his wife moved from the Bay Area to Sac about 8 years ago and couldn't be happier. My father in law also moved from the Bay Area to Sac 10 years ago and is happy there as well.
I've spent an extensive amount of time all over the Sacramento area for many years and I like it too and will probably end up moving there once I decide to purchase a home. As much as I love the Bay Area, I also appreciate the Sacramento area for what it is.
Robert just seems to like to paint with a very broad brush Hell, I lived in Santa Barbara for 8 years (a fact that often leads to some exasperation among the landlocked), had good jobs, knew great people, had a great apartment that I paid a relative pittance for. But, all told, I love living in Sacramento. And for some reason, perhaps low expectations(!), most everyone who comes to visit enjoys it too and several of my immediate family has mentioned that they're considering it for their next move.
As for getting out on weekends, isn't that what everyone does if they can? Certainly all my Bay Area friends with the means shuttle off to wine country or Tahoe on most of their free weekends. It just happens to be more convenient here (less traffic, closer to the mountains, no toll roads).
As a lifelong Bay Area resident, I have to disagree with this. My best friend and his wife moved from the Bay Area to Sac about 8 years ago and couldn't be happier. My father in law also moved from the Bay Area to Sac 10 years ago and is happy there as well.
I've spent an extensive amount of time all over the Sacramento area for many years and I like it too and will probably end up moving there once I decide to purchase a home. As much as I love the Bay Area, I also appreciate the Sacramento area for what it is.
Robertpolyglot is not from the bay. He is from smell-A.
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.
-It does not matter what the history is, how about some rational reasons as to why nothing was fixed? Tons of cities like Chicago and SF ruined vast swaths of water front and were able to redevelop it. The problem with Sacramento is the people. The politicians have no interest in fixing the water front, and quite frankly neither do the voters.
I never said sac did not do anything with it's water front, that was another poster. But I do understand what they are essentially getting at. The water front is a lame-shame.
We are not half the size of San Diego, SD has over a million people. And the Gaslamp is much larger than 2x the size of old town. Gaslamp is 16 and a half blocks of solid nightlife, topped off with a MLB baseball field. Old town is like 6 blocks and a mere 1500ft x500 ft. There is absolutely no comparison. You could fit at least 4 or 5 old towns in the gaslamp. Not that I don't like old town sac.
I don't think people are looking in the wrong places. I think you just have rose colored glasses. People on the grid do not want a new stadium, they wanted to scale down second saturday for being to "rowdy" (they could never handle a real rowdy big city event like the bud bilken parade or the south side irish parade in chicago), and they even tried to oppose a holiday rink. The grid is filled with tons of nimby kill joys.
The era of railroads and gold bygone and Sac is not filled with dreamers and risk takers anymore.
That's not how people get ahead in Sac these days. Sac is a gov't town. It is a yes man town. A town where rather than accept responsibility, you make excuses and pass the blame and the buck. In sac it is better to sit and do nothing, rather than dare to stand out. That's the type of town Sac is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
So NorCalDude, were you thinking something more like this?
As to a dozen or so riverboats like the Delta King, that's not exactly simple. ..... 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?
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.)
Sac does not need to have a bunch of authentic boats. Hell use some old fishing boats, or military barges and pontoons collecting rust. Use tarps for a ceiling if you have to be cheap. Put it all there right on the boat launch by the tower bridge.
And wow, you named the riverboat as a hotel. I guess you don't see the Embassy Suites sitting prominently on the riverfront, or the Holiday in on the other side of the freeway.
I'm not sure how you can say the riverwalk will not end up the way I envision it. I have not even given you my vision. I never said it was going to be a San Francisco warehouse rave district. It will have places to eat, drink, and probably some lofts to live. As the west sac mayor put it, "something like midtown, but with a view".
You claimed that all the hotels by the waterfront were chains. Holiday and Embassy Suites are chains (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but you seem to think it is) but, fact is, it's not true, I just supplied the facts.
I'm not sure how putting a baker's dozen assorted boat hulks with tarps on them would class up the waterfront. "Just throw a bunch of boats out there, who cares where they came from?" sounds exactly like the same sort of cheap half-effort you're accusing the city of taking.
Midtown is a neighborhood of century-old single family and apartment buildings and low-rise businesses with rows of mature trees. Is that what you think the West Sac riverfront should look like? Sounds a little modest to me.
The Gaslamp District is 38 acres, Old Sacramento is around 15 acres. So a bit larger than twice as big--and, as you point out, San Diego is a bit larger than twice as big as Sacramento. So they're proportional. Sacramento blocks are bigger than the Gaslamp blocks--320 feet long vs. about 250 feet long--so comparing block by block isn't an accurate comparison--each half-block in Old Sac is about the same size as a whole block in the Gaslamp.
And, once again, the history matters, because that's where you find the facts. Facts don't matter if you're just making things up with your imagination, but unfortunately imagining things doesn't make it so. Sacramento's riverfront was razed and not replaced because the people in the region with money had no interest in the waterfront, or even in downtown--they were all about the suburbs. Which is a big part of why I don't live there!
You claimed that all the hotels by the waterfront were chains. Holiday and Embassy Suites are chains (not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but you seem to think it is) but, fact is, it's not true, I just supplied the facts.
Where did I say ALL the hotels were chains? I don't recall complaining, that is Sac cities issue, not mine. No one cares about the boat hotel. It is the smallest hotel and generates the least amount of revenue with the lowest amount of annual visitors. You can try and spin it anyway you want to. But the chain hotels dominate Sac's river front. Of course you don't see anything wrong with it, but you probably are oblivious to the existence of places like the Fairmont in Sf or The Drake in Chicago.
Quote:
I'm not sure how putting a baker's dozen assorted boat hulks with tarps on them would class up the waterfront. "Just throw a bunch of boats out there, who cares where they came from?" sounds exactly like the same sort of cheap half-effort you're accusing the city of taking.
[LEFT
Well lets see, you have a bunch of people out on barges, cooking and selling food, selling booze, playing music, selling homemade goods (think market st in sf on the homemade goods). I'm not accusing sacramento of a half effort. Even a half effort like I am suggesting would be more than Sacramento or you have to offer.
Which seems to be, sit here do nothing, and story tell about the gold rush era.-Gee that will bring more people to the water front!
Quote:
Midtownwn is a neighborhood of century-old single family and apartment buildings and low-rise businesses with rows of mature trees. Is that what you think the West Sac riverfront should look like? Sounds a little modest to me.
Spare me the facetious nonsense. The west sac mayor was talking about night life and vibrancy. People going out and having a night on the town. Is that really that hard for you to comprehend? Apparently so.
Quote:
The Gaslamp District is 38 acres, Old Sacramento is around 15 acres.
Source?
Quote:
So a bit larger than twice as big
Assuming old sac is 14 acres, that would make the gaslamp closer to 3x as big than 2x as big. So not proportional.
Quote:
Sacramento blocks are bigger than the Gaslamp blocks--320 feet long vs. about 250 feet long--so comparing block by block isn't an accurate comparison--each half-block in Old Sac is about the same size as a whole block in the Gaslamp.
Do you have a Source stating the size of blocks in both districts?
Quote:
And, once again, the history matters, because that's where you find the facts. Facts don't matter if you're just making things up with your imagination, but unfortunately imagining things doesn't make it so.
I never made anything up. That was another poster, and I think you were being overly literal with regards to what they said.
Facts matter when you tell the whole story. But again, you only explain why Sacramento got the way it was, not why anyone bothered to change it. And why would you not use your imagination, thats how things get done. The china basin in SF and the Gaslamp would not exist if someone had not used their imagination. When you don't use your imagination, you get a city that looks like Sacramento-complete with a dilapidated rail yard, vacant lots, and an underwhelming water front... all in the central city.
Quote:
Sacramento's riverfront was razed and not replaced because the people in the region with money had no interest in the waterfront, or even in downtown--they were all about the suburbs. Which is a big part of why I don't live there!
It's funny you talk about "facts" and then you go and make something up to suit your personal agenda. Private investment and outside residents had nothing to do with Sacramento's lack of municipal water front.
In fact the same neighborhoods in Sac that were considered the most wealthy back in the old days, are still the most wealthy (Land Park, Curtis Park, East sac).
The reality is Sacramento got nothing done because the city council and the voters were simple mided people with no vision- That's what happens in a cow town. They had ample resources when the general fund was robust and when redevelopment funds were ample. If anything it is outsiders who constantly have to remind Sacramento residents of how underwhelming the riverfront is. It seems the residents are quite content with their boring, country river front.
Man, you really seem to have a powerful loathing for Sacramento. I doubt anything I can say could shift your opinion, so you are welcome to keep it, as wildly inaccurate as I consider it to be. Instead, I will continue enjoying my city, and you are free to continue hating it.
Man, you really seem to have a powerful loathing for Sacramento. I doubt anything I can say could shift your opinion, so you are welcome to keep it, as wildly inaccurate as I consider it to be. Instead, I will continue enjoying my city, and you are free to continue hating it.
I don't hate it at all. I think Sac has a lot of potential, it just does not want to live up to it.
I don't hate it at all. I think Sac has a lot of potential, it just does not want to live up to it.
You both make some excellent points, and you are both correct within your own paradigm. Some people won't settle for anything less than Mercedes, while others love the economy and simplicity of their Ford or Toyota. There is no right or wrong, just a matter of personal preference.
I agree with NorCal in that imagination goes a long way toward reaching the potential of a waterfront, but i'd also agree with wburg in that "history matters" and it's not all about making excuses. Maybe being in a "high flood risk" zone also has something to do with it.
People want to make money, so if there is a viable way to do so on the riverfront, then it seems that someone with imagination and some capital would have already tried it.
wburg describes the populace as a bunch of simpletons and yes-men, but if that's the case, then let it be the way that they like it. Some people like the charm of a rustic simple lifestyle that an urban "cow-town" has to offer. But i'd agree that some spiffing up and imagination on the waterfront would also be a good thing. . .
I sure hope I don't give that impression of the populace, because that's certainly not what I think of my fellow Sacramentans! NorCalDude is the one who seems to think we're all a bunch of small-town simpletons. Instead of moping about how we're not Los Angeles, I find ways to celebrate our city and encourage residents and visitors to enjoy everything it has to offer. I spend probably too much time here on C-D advising people on where we're hiding the cool stuff, because there is a lot of it, and more cool things seem to appear every week or so. Not a whole lot that is rustic or simple.
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.
Hell, I lived in Santa Barbara for 8 years (a fact that often leads to some exasperation among the landlocked), had good jobs, knew great people, had a great apartment that I paid a relative pittance for. But, all told, I love living in Sacramento. And for some reason, perhaps low expectations(!), most everyone who comes to visit enjoys it too and several of my immediate family has mentioned that they're considering it for their next move. 
I never said it was going to be a San Francisco warehouse rave district. It will have places to eat, drink, and probably some lofts to live. As the west sac mayor put it, "something like midtown, but with a view".
