Tag Cloud
Last night, the County Board of Supervisors approved the Cordova Hills project to create a new suburb in the eastern end of the County.
I watched some of the session on the project on television and was struck by a couple significant misrepresentations being oft quoted by the opposition which were fortunately corrected during the session.
One was that approving the project would threaten federal transportation funds, which was corrected by a former federal transportation official who found nothing in the project warranting such a claim.
Another was that the project should not be approved because it was so far away from everything else, which was corrected by the board chair reminding people that it was only far away if you live in the city of Sacramento, but for those people who live in Rancho Cordova and Folsom, it’s right next door.
Our organization doesn’t have any particular feeling about the Cordova Hills project as it is not adjacent to or even close to the American River Parkway, but we are concerned about suburban development in general.
The Parkway is surrounded by suburbs and the Sacramento region is largely a suburban region so the health of the suburbs is important to all of us and the approval of good suburban projects—which Cordova Hills appears to be—is good for the region.
The suburban home, lifestyle, and residents have been the recipients of criticism ever since people began moving from the congested, polluted, and dangerous cities out to the nice house in the country, and the call for the end of suburban living as if it is just-around-the-corner, is as much a fantasy as the validity of much of the criticism.
The typical urban planner in Sacramento probably looks out over the sea of suburban housing surrounding the American River Parkway and sees a lot of wasted space, but the people fortunate enough to live here—your author included—see sacred space; space devoted exclusively to their families and their private lives, space where their children are relatively safe and can grow to maturity within the most defining aspect of the American Dream, the California suburban lifestyle, the Sacramento Dream.
To the urban advocate, being a suburbanite is virtually always suspect, and it’s reflected in our language. The Oxford Dictionary has as one of its definitions of suburban: “2. Having characteristics regarded as typical of residents or life in the suburbs of a city; esp. provincial, narrow-minded, uncultured, naïve.”
However, being urbane, from urban, fares much better. “2. Having the qualities or characteristics associated with town or city life; esp. elegant and refined in manners, courteous, suave, sophisticated.”
Prejudice against suburban living as somehow living an inauthentic life is widespread and repeated regularly.
It was a stance I also held—though I was raised in the suburbs—when I was young and single, living in downtown or midtown Sacramento, when I was sometimes able to even forgo owning a car and during that period of my life, I truly enjoyed urban living.
However, once I was married and we had a child, the importance of more space, a back yard, and easy access to entertainment and shopping with free parking, and the relatively low crime rate in the suburbs, led to us living and remaining there.
While the car, among many members of the urban planning community, is largely tainted by the negative narrative of suburban living—and correctly the cause of some air pollution—much of the value of being in our own car as we tool around the community to work, play, and shop, is the way in which it provides an extension of our personal space and comfort, as a buffer against the often chaotic and hard-edged nature of the public space we all have to traverse daily.
It is also the only way you can really shop at Costco.
There is value in all types of living arrangements and the many arguments about why one is better than the other are generally more based on sincerely held ideological zeal rather than logical thought.
The two major environmental reasons given for the evil of the suburbs, air and water pollution—though urban environments have also long contributed to each—have largely been addressed by better technology.
Living in the suburbs is at the heart of the American Dream and virtually every day, I am reminded in some way of the great joy that is part of our family life largely resulting from our life in the suburbs, whether it is the busy chirping of the flocks of birds eating from our bird feeders or bathing in our bird baths, or the squirrels eating up the sunflower seeds sprinkled on the patio each morning, or the occasional hawk finding our back yard to keep the dove and squirrel population in check; or the warmth of the winter and early spring sun when sitting in the back yard, and the refreshing cool of the pool under the blazing Sacramento summer sun; and the peace and quiet largely surrounding us broken occasionally by a barking dog or the playing of the neighbors children or the murmur of a barbeque party; being able to jump in the car and within a couple minutes to be shopping in the grocery store or ordering in a restaurant for a spontaneous meal; or take the short walk to the river; it is all wonderful, all part and parcel of suburban life in the suburban communities surrounding the American River Parkway and the river flowing through it.
But, as much as I now love living in the suburbs, I will never forget how much I once loved living in the city, and for that reason, Sacramentans can be thankful we are blessed with an abundance of many ways of living our lives.
You seemed to have clued in to an anti-suburban mentality among the crowd. There surely are people with some disrespect for suburban living, though it probably pales in comparison to prejudices against urban life that have led to the blight of cities nationwide, prior to the last decade or two. Regardless, not all who oppose this project oppose the concept of suburban living, nor would they disagree that people can live fulfilling living in suburbs. Indeed, very little of this metro area is truly urban, with even much of grid representing something closer to "traditional suburbs" than urban.
There were many other reasons oppose this project, and I lack the time or background to elucidate all of them. Quickly though, greenfield development is not something we should wholeheartedly embrace. We also face an opportunity cost--when a developer stands to benefit substantially from a project that will pave over farmland and open space, are we, as a society getting an appropriate benefit? In this case, I find it inappropriate that the selling point of this project, a large university, has not and likely will never materialize.
I also want to point out that your quote above is somewhat misleading: You stated: "One was that approving the project would threaten federal transportation funds, which was corrected by a former federal transportation official who found nothing in the project warranting such a claim." Indeed, the project will not DIRECTLY jeopardize federal funding. It will, however, increase traffic and vehicular emissions as a whole, which could increase pollution. It also should be pointed out that the "former federal transportation official" is now a consultant for the developer, which seems to take away much of the credibility he earned from his previous job.
And, with all due respect, I do not think that being a consultant—I am one—necessarily precludes one from speaking honestly, and my sense, watching him present his material and respond to questions, is that he was being honest.
All of our guiding principles can be found on our website, www.arpps.org
Thank you for your comments.
I am not a huge fan of concrete either, and agree that infill should occur, but if the market isn’t there for it, then it either falls to government to do it, or the innovative developer who can make a profit on those types of projects, of which we have far too few in Sacramento.
Fortunately, most of the suburbs we do have in Sacramento have trails and green space, as it appears the Cordova Hills project also has.
Oh yeah, that's right, they didn't do that. Suburbs are entirely dependent on public subsidy, in the form of public highways--like the Capital Southeast Connector, which will run from Elk Grove to Rancho Cordvoa and Folsom right past the project site.
http://www.connectorjpa.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/ConnectorClientMap2c.pdf
Without the public-funded highway system, the auto suburb would dry up and blow away--and we'd be back to building what we now call "infill" but we used to just call "cities."
What useful infill development projects there are end up squelched by petty politics. Small wonder developers go elsewhere.
Cities, on the other hand, even modest and quiet ones like Sacramento, are not inherently more or less crime-ridden than suburbs, and the public realm can be a pleasant and comfortable place, not a scary thing to hide from, if its importance is acknowledged. They were also built to last, unlike the modern suburb, so handing them down from generation to generation is a gift to future generations, not rubbish foisted off on the poor.
Detached from reality, indeed.
Even though Bill does not expand on other "cities," there is a huge difference throughout the country in the health of those cities' urban cores. Some attract large numbers of affluent seniors--others do not. "Retirement" compounds are often built far into the suburbs but often lose their allure as aging and strict, inflexible rules take their toll. Finally, when I hear "demand" as a market factor, it reminds me that such demand is too often determined by what is available as it was for the last several decades prior to 21st century in Sacramento.
This is not to say I disagree with the underlying analysis. It makes sense for seniors to want to live in smaller apts/condos without big yards and be closer to the cultural amenities that appeal to them. Which would bode well for inner cities if they were well run. However,
(1) a good many inner cities are still unsafe and unpleasant.
(2) those prime of lifers raising kids will still flock to the burbs in droves. The successor prime of life generations will want to move into suburbia as it is, for the very reasons their predecessors did--family space, privacy, etc.
It would be pleasing if elder gentrification of the ghettoes occurred, and in a few cities it has, but I am not sure if that will happen for most of them. I hope it will, however. If the elders have the clout, all I can say is let "Gray Power!" drive out the ghettoes.
However, will quiet elders want the same kind of inner city that childless young hipsters do? Probably not. Perhaps they can split midtown down the middle between them?
This thread did get me to thinking--what if the City of Sacramento deliberately encouraged the elderly to move in to some of its neighborhoods?
Two candidate areas:
1. The north end of Oak Park. Ghetto, but close to the "Fabulous 30's-40's". Older homes that while they are single family, are rather dinky and cramped by suburban standards, but probably great for empty nesters. Also close proximity to Sutter Memorial, Sutter General, Mercy and UC Davis hospitals and associated clinics. Close to cultural amenities of downtown. Perhaps Business 80 could be the divide between the rowdy "rainbow" youngsters of Midtown and the quieter elders. This neighborhood could be "Walker--able", so to speak.
2. Del Paso Heights/North Sac. As I ride the trolley along this route, I notice all the vacant lots and storefronts. What if senior care centers, dialysis clinics, "Urgent Care" mini hosptials and the like were encouraged to go there? It would fill up the vacant buildings. What if Eskaton-like centers were encoouraged on the many vacant lots around Swanston? Haggin Oaks Golf Course could become "the poor man's Sun City".
Relative infrastructure demands:
1. Police. Initially, lots of cops might be needed to protect the elders, but the new inhabitants themselves are not likely to commit crimes, nor need crowd control.
2. Schools. Demands by elders would be minimal, save an adult education class or two. Crappy school districts would not be a problem.
3. Medical. Here, demands would be noticeably higher.
4. Tax base. Elderly on pensions are not lucrative, but they are preferable to slums.
It is amusing to see people who don't like suburbs, but seeing that most people do, have to concoct great conspiracies as to how the masses were "tricked" into living there.
“There is value in all types of living arrangements and the many arguments about why one is better than the other are generally more based on sincerely held ideological zeal rather than logical thought.”
The bottom line is that, each form of living, urban, inner suburbs, outer suburbs, exurbia, rural, etc, have great value for the people who desire to live in them according to their life circumstances and our general consensus, which most commenters shared, should be to respect and encourage each to life where they wish.
Throughout history, the choice of the majority has been the suburbs, and I suspect that will continue, for all of the reasons I outlined in the article.
Even beyond your skewed view of the urban vs. suburban debate (which is turning less into a debate and more into fact), I have to pick on your reasoning through the "American Dream". This idea that we're all here to work hard, get paid, and settle in the suburbs with children is seen as a joke to anyone not considered elderly. It simply doesn't work that way anymore and even you, Mr. Lukenbill, will live to see the day when the US is not the world's leading economy. We already trail far behind in terms of infrastructure, largely thanks to the policies and preferences that you seem to stand behind. Thanks for that.