City leadership, if this trend of denigrating the suburban living that is at the heart of the region, will do more harm than good by force feeding planning around density increases that, while obvious and right for areas like San Francisco with limited land and high attraction for singles, are not so for our region with a much more generous land mass to work with and more attractive to families.
The thought of including annexation in its plan, with the ability of cities to better provided municipal services than the County, is, however, a good one.
Urban plan, but city keeps options open
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The new general plan in the works for the city of Sacramento marks a big departure from growth as usual.
Rather than embracing a future of strip malls and single-family homes, a draft map endorsed by the Sacramento City Council in June envisions a far more urban Sacramento than exists today.
Twenty-four-story buildings would punctuate the landscape in satellite downtowns near Arden Fair mall and Arco Arena. A university town would bustle at 65th Street.
Tired-looking arteries now devoted mostly to shopping would be transformed with thousands of housing units.
"We're looking at a different way to accommodate growth; it's not just going to be out, it's going to be in," said City Councilman Rob Fong.
Mayor Heather Fargo said the idea is to "correct some of the suburban, less functional parts of our previous communities and add enough density that there are things to walk to, and they're safer."
Yet even as the city plans a facelift of its older neighborhoods, Fargo and other City Council members have directed their staff to study the pros and cons of annexing thousands more acres of farmland -- the key ingredient for suburban subdivisions.
