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.
100%. There's no debating that Sacramento's profile is rising as a city, and deservingly so. Ditto for what Oakland has turned into...
Sacramento's profile as an extension of the Bay Area is what has risen. I know this from my travels over the past decade, and that was inevitable. The region is slowly unifying.
And Oakland is just more interesting, far more walkable, more urban, has an incomparably better climate and a natural setting that puts nearly every other major US city to absolute shame--these are all facts, and despite whatever narrative outsiders want to push, Oakland is still a huge magnet for educated and affluent people literally from all over the world. I meet them every day.
At some point, the realization needs to be made that this is actually and apples to oranges comparison.
Sacramento has a fantastic climate, it's near identical to Oakland 10 months out of the year, and very very comparable. Also, consider half of Oakland's suburban locales are nearly as toasty with summer high temps very comparable to Sacramento.
And, Sacramento's climate beats pretty much 95% of the rest of the nation.
Keep in mind, folks, that the Bay Area is one of the most provincial areas in the nation, their vision only goes so far.
For example, when the Oakland A's decided to move to Sacramento for 3 years, many Bay folks completely freaked-out, never having the vision that Sacramento A's fans have been around as long as folks in the East Bay. The A's and the Giants were/are our MLB teams, too. It's like when the SF 49ers moved 60 miles to the Santa Clara Valley......the 49ers are still in the Bay Area and better for the folks in the South Bay. Same with Sacramento A's fans, we see it the same way, oh now the A's, a team we have supported for generations, will be in our backyard...no need to travel so far.
Some Bay folks have no idea how much Sacramentans partake in "Bay Area" attributes, often even more than folks who actually live in the Bay Area, why, because Sacramento is so much more affordable than the Bay.
For, years I've been a member of SFBroadway (a Broadway style theatre company in downtown SF). We go to the Bay all the time, by Ferry, driving, BART, Commuter train (Amtrak's Capitol Corridor).
Part of the Bay Area snobbery is to completely disassociate themselves with Sacramento, it's a cultural thing that will never go away. It's like the same snobbery that New Yorkers have for Philly, or for the Bridge and Tunnel crowd from New Jersey or Long Island.
Sacramento is a mid-size metro, that is steadily growing moderately (a good thing, not too fast). It's just barley far enough away from the "Bay Area" to be considered not part of it.
But, the Bay Area is quite huge and often culturally and physically disconnected because its is so spread out...easily making Sacramento, well, really part of the Bay Area, but with our own distinct attributes, personality, and separate economy....although more than half of Sacramento's large private sector tech companies are from the Bay Area.
Here's another plus for Sacramento, over Oakland and San Jose:
Sacramento will always be 2 to 3 hours closer to the Sierras, Lake Tahoe, and world class Ski resorts, snowy winter recreation, and Mountain High summer, spring and fall recreation.
the Sacramento Metro is 45 minutes to 1 hr away from several Sierra Ski resorts.
and there is PLENTY to do right here in Sacramento should you have no desire to go to either the Bay, the Coast or the Sierras.
I like Oakland, primarily and often times Only because of its natural setting, and then there is alot to dislike about Oakland too.
For one, the attitudes, but I'll digress about that, just when I can't stand another SF/Oakland attitude, I'll think about my last trip to Brooklyn, Manhattan, Boston, or even LA and I'm reminded how small and provincial the Oakland/Berk/Bay attitude can be and roll my eyes.
Population in Largest Contiguous Land Mass with a Walk Score of 90 or Above:
Chicago 710,714
San Francisco 434,360
Los Angeles 320,314
Hudson County 280,507
Philadelphia 225,736
Boston 205,736
Washington DC 156,444 East Bay 128,459<--OAKLAND
Hollywood 109,544
Cambridge-Somerville 102,960
Seattle 96,676
Baltimore 63,952
Long Beach 62,022
Honolulu 61,254
Santa Monica 55,657
Portland Eastside 45,657
Newark 45,475
Denver 42,776
Twin Cities 42,535
Portland 41,190
Pittsburgh East End 39,549
Miami Downtown 34,134
San Diego 34,017
Miami Beach 32,937
Culver City 30,284
Seattle Fremont-Ballard 29,004
Glendale(CA) 27,165
Seattle Univ. District 26,712
Richmond 26,045
Arlington VA 25,930
Oakland is just after DC and this is evident in person. The urban footprint of Oakland far surpasses that of what finds in entire metro areas with millions of people, let alone Sacramento.
We can parse over opinions regarding our personal likes and dislikes but there are other things that are irrefutable. Oakland and Sacramento cater to different kinds of people.
If you are looking for that "dense" urban footprint, a small part of the Oakland Metro will give you that, no doubt, but it's not nearly as large or dense as really large cities are, as the list suggests. I mean Oakland ain't no Brooklyn, Manhattan, Boston, for example. I mean even Hollywood is nipping at Oakland's heals, who would have thought that.
The dense urban part of the Oakland Metro is like only 15% of the entire East Bay Metro. But yes, I do like Oakland's and Berk's density. Occasionally, we've taken our bikes within the grid of Sacramento, hop on the Capitol Corridor train with bikes and get off in either Berkeley or Oakland for a change of scenery.
Now for downtown/midtown Sacramento, its original design is perfect for a highly dense environment. It's 2.5 x 2.5 sq mile grid with relatively small blocks, flat and very easy to walk and bike. But it has at least a decade before it will reach very dense numbers. It's already very very walkable though.
But not everyone, in fact, the majority do not like highly dense areas for various reasons including high rental/ownership costs.
If you are looking for that "dense" urban footprint, a small part of the Oakland Metro will give you that, no doubt, but it's not nearly as large or dense as really large cities are, as the list suggests. I mean Oakland ain't no Brooklyn, Manhattan, Boston, for example. I mean even Hollywood is nipping at Oakland's heals, who would have thought that.
The dense urban part of the Oakland Metro is like only 15% of the entire East Bay Metro. But yes, I do like Oakland's and Berk's density. Occasionally, we've taken our bikes within the grid of Sacramento, hop on the Capitol Corridor train with bikes and get off in either Berkeley or Oakland for a change of scenery.
Now for downtown/midtown Sacramento, its original design is perfect for a highly dense environment. It's 2.5 x 2.5 sq mile grid with relatively small blocks, flat and very easy to walk and bike. But it has at least a decade before it will reach very dense numbers. It's already very very walkable though.
But not everyone, in fact, the majority do not like highly dense areas for various reasons including high rental/ownership costs.
Hollywood is a very large and populous bloc that includes more than just Hollywood. I named it the Hollywood bloc within Los Angeles because that's the most recognizable chunk of it. For the US, the Hollywood bloc is very walkable in terms of availability of jobs, retails, and commercial establishments co-located with very high residential density and a lot of transit service in the buses and a rapid transit metro line. I'll also note that it's likely within the next several years that the Hollywood bloc merges with the Los Angeles core bloc as do the Santa Monica and Culver City blocs. That is to say, it would if walkscore continues to be updated though it has not updated in a while. In the list of standalone cores, Seattle is probably the best comparison though I'd note that obviously the Bay Area's main walkable core is in San Francisco which is pretty easy to get to.
Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx aren't even on the same scale as the other cities and certainly not the same scale as Boston. Boston is much, much closer to Oakland (East Bay) than it is to Brooklyn and Manhattan. On that kind of scale, then Boston is essentially on the same level as Oakland since Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx blow out the scale.
The high cost of dense urban areas in the US is offset sometimes by having much lower transportation related costs as car ownership and operations can be a fairy large part of spending. I also think part of it is because the US has such a notable dearth of truly high quality urban areas that they end up getting a massive premium due to that scarcity.
Downtown/midtown Sacramento and its nearby neighborhoods could become a great urban environment (again). It's quite small as it is and it's terrible that the freeways cut them off from other neighborhoods and the waterfront. I don't suppose there are plans to address that anytime soon, eh?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-24-2024 at 11:12 AM..
Hollywood is a very large and populous bloc that includes more than just Hollywood. I named it the Hollywood bloc within Los Angeles because that's the most recognizable chunk of it. For the US, the Hollywood bloc is very walkable in terms of availability of jobs, retails, and commercial establishments co-located with very high residential density and a lot of transit service in the buses and a rapid transit metro line. I'll also note that it's likely within the next several years that the Hollywood bloc merges with the Los Angeles core bloc as do the Santa Monica and Culver City blocs. That is to say, it would if walkscore continues to be updated though it has not updated in a while. In the list of standalone cores, Seattle is probably the best comparison though I'd note that obviously the Bay Area's main walkable core is in San Francisco which is pretty easy to get to.
Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx aren't even on the same scale as the other cities and certainly not the same scale as Boston. Boston is much, much closer to Oakland (East Bay) than it is to Brooklyn and Manhattan. On that kind of scale, then Boston is essentially on the same level as Oakland since Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan/Bronx blow out the scale.
The high cost of dense urban areas in the US is offset sometimes by having much lower transportation related costs as car ownership and operations can be a fairy large part of spending. I also think part of it is because the US has such a notable dearth of truly high quality urban areas that they end up getting a massive premium due to that scarcity.
Downtown/midtown Sacramento and its nearby neighborhoods could become a great urban environment (again). It's quite small as it is and it's terrible that the freeways cut them off from other neighborhoods and the waterfront. I don't suppose there are plans to address that anytime soon, eh?
Most of Sacramento is more urban than most places in the US. These are not a suburban intersection:
And none of these areas are in Downtown or Midtown...
Downtown Roseville is also pretty well designed and walkable...
Obviously, I agree that Oakland is a level up in urbanity, but I think Sac has closed the gap, Sac is very pedestrian friendly and there are people out on the streets all the time. Transit is better in Oakland, Oakland also is more compact and less wide boulevards. But most places in the US, aren't as urban as Sacramento...
And none of these areas are in Downtown or Midtown...
Downtown Roseville is also pretty well designed and walkable...
Obviously, I agree that Oakland is a level up in urbanity, but I think Sac has closed the gap, Sac is very pedestrian friendly and there are people out on the streets all the time. Transit is better in Oakland, Oakland also is more compact and less wide boulevards. But most places in the US, aren't as urban as Sacramento...
I agree with you that Sacramento is more urban than most urban cores in the US. I'll also note that none of that conflicts with what I've said.
Sacramento is indeed a lot more urban than most cities in the US. Its downtown and midtown combination is also a more walkable area than that of San Jose by a fair margin. However, I'm of the opinion that the bar for the US often gets set pretty low and it goes down pretty rapidly after downtown and midtown. All of the google street views you've posted for myself I would not consider good walkable urban environments. I can certainly believe Sacramento has closed the gap with Oakland, but the gap is still going to be sizable in regards to the peaks and the overall coverage and linkage to other walkable urban cores.
I agree with you that Sacramento is more urban than most urban cores in the US. I'll also note that none of that conflicts with what I've said.
Sacramento is indeed a lot more urban than most cities in the US. Its downtown and midtown combination is also a more walkable area than that of San Jose by a fair margin. However, I'm of the opinion that the bar for the US often gets set pretty low and it goes down pretty rapidly after downtown and midtown. All of the google street views you've posted for myself I would not consider good walkable urban environments. I can certainly believe Sacramento has closed the gap with Oakland, but the gap is still going to be sizable in regards to the peaks and the overall coverage and linkage to other walkable urban cores.
I feel you, I'm okay viewing this differently. Sacramento is pedestrian friendly in most of tge city, I'm defining "most" as over 50% of the city. Transit coverage certainly has gaps, and the peak walkability isn't as great as it is in Oakland and a few other places...
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.
