Citrus Heights and Elk Grove (San Jose, Fresno: home, employment, construction)

[NorCal Dude]

Citrus Heights came into prominence during the aerospace boom of the 1960s. Suburban sprawl further encroached rural land during the 1970s that brought more development.

It is pretty much prototypical brady bunch/generation x era suburbia.

The majority of homes were built between 1960-1980

Unfortunatley newer burbs and urban renewal has left many burbs like the heights stuck in the middle.

Lacking that Donna Reed era charm of older burbs like land park, but not having all the bells and whistles of newer burbs like Roseville.

There are some trashy neighborhoods, but most seem fairly decent. You have to remember that there are a lot of Great Depression/WW 2 babies, who are too old to up keep landscaping like they used to.

A lot of homes are rentals too. Only about 56% of housing is owner occupied, the rest are renters.

Lots of strip malls, many of which appear to be in decline and could use some sprucing up.

It is mostly white (with a decent sized and growing latino minority) and is blue collar- lower middle class.

The schools range from mediocre to not so hot.

Ell Grove's nicer areas actually have better schools than Citrus Heights.

If not for the schools, I would consider it a reasonable choice.

[hd4me]

Originally Posted by NorCal Dude

Citrus Heights came into prominence during the aerospace boom of the 1960s. Suburban sprawl further encroached rural land during the 1970s that brought more development.

It is pretty much prototypical brady bunch/generation x era suburbia.

The majority of homes were built between 1960-1980

Unfortunatley newer burbs and urban renewal has left many burbs like the heights stuck in the middle.

Lacking that Donna Reed era charm of older burbs like land park, but not having all the bells and whistles of newer burbs like Roseville.

There are some trashy neighborhoods, but most seem fairly decent. You have to remember that there are a lot of Great Depression/WW 2 babies, who are too old to up keep landscaping like they used to.

A lot of homes are rentals too. Only about 56% of housing is owner occupied, the rest are renters.

Lots of strip malls, many of which appear to be in decline and could use some sprucing up.

It is mostly white (with a decent sized and growing latino minority) and is blue collar- lower middle class.

The schools range from mediocre to not so hot.

Ell Grove's nicer areas actually have better schools than Citrus Heights.

If not for the schools, I would consider it a reasonable choice.

Well I think you hit the nail on the head. That's pretty much CH!

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by renngrrl

Citrus Heights before Elk Grove definately. EG is a slum waiting to happen with all the pot houses and foreclosures. CH seems to be holding up much better.

Really? I still see Elk Grove as a cut or two above Citrus Heights. That said, incorporation has substantially improved both places.

Citrus Heights is older, most home construction 1960's and 1970's vintage. It also lacks good road access.

[shelato]

The major employment clusters in Sacramento are downtown Sac, the highway 50 corridor and in Roseville along 80 and highway 65. Citrus Heights is comparative close to all three, whereas Elk Grove is quite possibly probably further from all three than Citrus Heights. What is remarkable about Elk Grove is that for an area with so much new construction that it has had so much trouble landing major employers. One of the things that I think has held Elk Grove back is that there isn't a freeway that goes from Elk Grove to 50 that would bypass downtown Sac.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by shelato

The major employment clusters in Sacramento are downtown Sac, the highway 50 corridor and in Roseville along 80 and highway 65. Citrus Heights is comparative close to all three, whereas Elk Grove is quite possibly probably further from all three than Citrus Heights. What is remarkable about Elk Grove is that for an area with so much new construction that it has had so much trouble landing major employers. One of the things that I think has held Elk Grove back is that there isn't a freeway that goes from Elk Grove to 50 that would bypass downtown Sac.

Which brings us back to the terrible folly of the 1970's that cancelled proposed freeway routes, and worse, sold off the land so that they could never be built:

California Highways (www.cahighways.org): Sacramento Freeway Development

[hd4me]

Originally Posted by shelato

The major employment clusters in Sacramento are downtown Sac, the highway 50 corridor and in Roseville along 80 and highway 65. Citrus Heights is comparative close to all three, whereas Elk Grove is quite possibly probably further from all three than Citrus Heights. What is remarkable about Elk Grove is that for an area with so much new construction that it has had so much trouble landing major employers. One of the things that I think has held Elk Grove back is that there isn't a freeway that goes from Elk Grove to 50 that would bypass downtown Sac.

Yes, Elk Grove, I believe, leads the County in construction of new housing but has had less success in attracting major employers.

Roseville has the opportunity to close in on Sacramento as the major employment center in the region. Rounding out the top 3 would be the Rancho Cordova-Folsom corridor.

SACOG came out with a report stating that commuting to Rancho for jobs is expected to increase by 50% and Roseville by 40%

[shelato]

When you are trying to lease up an office building, what you are going to advertise is how many people of a given demographic live with a certain radius from the property (roughly how many people life within say a 20 to 30 minute commute). Why most new office space is built a long freeways is that freeways are the principle way people in this region get to and from work, so if the office is just off the freeway, that gives you access to all of the people who live near that freeway. Why downtown Sac is still a major office center in the region is that most of the freeways tend to converge on downtown. The problem with Elk Grove as an office location is that there isn't a good way to get from Elk Grove to Folsom/Rancho Cordova without driving through downtown, so the effective commuting distance is getting too high. What makes highway 50 an enticing office location is that over the next 20 years is that a lot of the projected new growth in the region is going to be located inside Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence or in adjacent parcels like some of Aerojet's land that is working through the approval process to be developed. That Folsom is expanding South of 50, just furthers the corridor.

If there was a freeway that connected Elk Grove to Folsom or Rancho, everything along that corridor would be hot commodity. But Elk Grove right now is just little too far away right now for commuting purposes.

[Rob98LS1]

Originally Posted by shelato

When you are trying to lease up an office building, what you are going to advertise is how many people of a given demographic live with a certain radius from the property (roughly how many people life within say a 20 to 30 minute commute). Why most new office space is built a long freeways is that freeways are the principle way people in this region get to and from work, so if the office is just off the freeway, that gives you access to all of the people who live near that freeway. Why downtown Sac is still a major office center in the region is that most of the freeways tend to converge on downtown. The problem with Elk Grove as an office location is that there isn't a good way to get from Elk Grove to Folsom/Rancho Cordova without driving through downtown, so the effective commuting distance is getting too high. What makes highway 50 an enticing office location is that over the next 20 years is that a lot of the projected new growth in the region is going to be located inside Rancho Cordova's sphere of influence or in adjacent parcels like some of Aerojet's land that is working through the approval process to be developed. That Folsom is expanding South of 50, just furthers the corridor.

If there was a freeway that connected Elk Grove to Folsom or Rancho, everything along that corridor would be hot commodity. But Elk Grove right now is just little too far away right now for commuting purposes.

Do some reading of the Capital Southeast Connector project (there's your connection to EG and 50). Kammerer road is going to get punched out to I-5 as well. Elk Grove also has also made aggressive moves in adopting a city initiated specific plan for the last major undeveloped area of land within the city. The Southeast Policy Area plan is a focused plan which has will allow for the creation of over 20k jobs (including office) at buildout among other elements but this will be big for EG.

[shelato]

I did skim the connector project but the language is vague. I guess what I am trying to figure out is whether when its built if its going to be an actually limited access freeway or whether its going to be an Expressway in the way that 65th Street or Alta Arden are nominally called Expressways or whether its going to be a psuedo freeway like Watt Ave, Sunrise, Madison or Greenback. I would love to see an actual freeway. I have a feeling that they are building another Alta Arden.

But I don't think that a four lane thoroughfare with lots of stop lights is going to reduce commuting times between the two areas enough for them to function as one huge employment market. Right now if you are living in Folsom, I don't think you are going to take a job located in Elk Grove and if you are living in Elk Grove I doubt you would want to accept a job in Folsom. But if they built a freeway between the two areas you might and that would open up Elk Grove as employment destination.

[wburg]

Or, alternately, Elk Grove could try attracting some employers instead of serving as a bedroom community for Sacramento with aspirations of being a bedroom community for Rancho Cordova...