2015: Natomas 3.0?
 

As I'm sure you guys aware the Natomas building moratorium is being lifted this year, I think April or so time frame. Now that Fargo is out of office and the seems the city has shifted to dense urban infill, any chance that Natomas will see a significant density increase in the next around of development? We already have one highrise in Natomas, why not add a few more for residential, even most 10 story buildings?

Anyone know what the plans are besides finishing off neighborhoods that were already under construction before the housing bust/moratorium?

Only if they also get a transit system--light rail, streetcar or BRT--that connects the neighborhood and provides a dependable transit connection to downtown. Without transit, they're pretty much stuck as a single-family suburb. Without transit, there is no escaping the need for big parking lots, wide high-speed boulevards and other auto-centric aspects that limit walkability and maximum density. But even then, one a neighborhood is built out it is very hard to retrofit.

Considering the recent construction of the building stock and the relatively high property value of that stock, it is unlikely that there will be any sort of effort to correct the horde of "exceptions" made by builders getting around the original transit-oriented/pedestrian-village plans for North Natomas. And there certainly isn't much will among the 50,000 or so Sacramentans who live there to start large-scale demolition or rezone for high density. If the Green Line finally makes it over the American River, expect a limited number of "transit villages" alongside light rail stops, similar to the sort of thing you see along BART corridors in the Bay Area--midrise apartment buildings and transit-facing retail.

And, of course, Mother Nature has other plans. The big pushes to recertify Natomas levees seem to arrive during long droughts. The next time we get a big rain, that situation could change--and I'm pretty certain that KJ doesn't have enough OT powers to stop rain from falling.

Unfortunately I think we'll be seeing a lot of the "same ole' same ole'" suburban sprawl in Natomas post-moratorium. You'll likely see more things that are very similar to what is already being built there. They are zoning a huge area by the airport for a massive industrial park, most of the areas along the freeways will be your typical big-box outlets, etc. They do want to extend the green line to the airport, but I think the area will build out before that ever comes to fruition. The only plus is once this area is built out, new sprawl won't have anywhere close to the core of Sacramento to go, so there should be more pressure to increase density in the core after Natomas is done. I don't think Sacramento City would ever annex outside of Sacramento County, so that would leave Sac to focus on infill instead of outward expansion.

I Know this is not going to be a completely popular opinion. But, while I don't really like how sprawl-y Natomas is, to the best of my knowledge Natomas is pretty dense. 6,000 ppsm? That's the density of a city like Milwaukee (a city I know very well that is primed for a rail system). What I'm saying is, it's not ideal; but, as far as density goes, it gets the job done! There's enough density in Natomas to substantiate major rail investment...and, for that reason, I'm ok with Natomas. Like I said, it's not ideal...but, it's what we have. Looking on the bright side, we can push for rail transit and more density (of all types) and look forward to a better Natomas in the future. Just my opinion...

6000 people per square mile means it's about half as dense as Midtown. And the way to build a dense neighborhood is to build the transit first, then the neighborhood. Natomas is already built around the automobile which means rebuilding it for transit means demolishing what is already there, and that's expensive and unpopular.

Legally it can't. A City cannot cross county lines as California law stands.

Well then that's that. I wasn't sure on the state laws, I am new here.

Actually there are still plenty of places Sacramento can sprawl outward, north of North Natomas and south of Delta Shores, but it's largely a question of whether or not we should, vs. focusing on infill--or annexing eastward into Arden-Arcade, or southeast along the Stockton Blvd. corridor. Because our city council and county board of supervisors are still largely elected by suburban housing developers, plan on more suburbs.

I think the Sacramento PD will do a better job policing and preventing crime SE along the Stockton Blvd corridor. It's amazing it's not already part of the city!


As for Arden-Arcade, why are they NOT already part of Sacramento!? Their mailing address does not say Arden-Arcade, it says Sacramento! They should be with the city they identify with...and reap the benefits of being a part of something larger that would have probably prevented the area from going downhill in recent years/decades. What has the county done/invested in Arden-Arcade that has bettered it over the years!? Being a part of the city of Sacramento would be so much more appropriate and, IMO, better for the area!

If Sacramento annexed (as I believe it should) the areas of Arden Arcade, La Riviera, Rosemont, Parkway, Lemon Hill, Florin, and the weird unincorporated/non-CDP along Stockton Blvd (basically everyone who already has a Sacramento mailing address who is not in the city limits currenlty), Sacramento would be at it's rightful population of almost 700,000 (FINALLY bigger than Fresno) and have more influence over regional affairs (as it totally should as the core city).

Just my opinion...

This has been discussed over on City Forums Sacramento, and for the record you are absolutely right.

Sacramento County is odd relative to other California counties in that it has so much "un-City", namely, so much urban and suburban area that is unincorporated. The only reason the city of Fresno is slightly larger than the city of Sacramento, in spite of Fresno being a much smaller metropolitan area, is that just about everything (sub)urbanized in Fresno County is either (1) the city of Fresno, or (2) the smaller city of Clovis next to Fresno.

For the record, I was part of a sadly doomed campaign to incorporate Arden-Arcade (2010 attempted), just as Citrus Heights (1997), Elk Grove (2000) and Rancho Cordova (2003) incorporated themselves.

Since Arden Arcade rejected cityhood in their own right, it certainly would be fine with me for Sacramento to annex them, especially as the city of Sacramento proper surrounds Arden Arcade on three sides, just about.

What is this City Forums you speak of? City-data.com?

Affirmative.

Anyway, Sacramento city proper made a big mistake in the 1950's when it did not try to annex anything and everything developing around (then) McLellan and Mather airbases.

What if a more proactive City of Sacramento had also encouraged development along the American River and what is now the Route 50 corridor *first*, which at the time was many acres (square miles?) of gold dredge tailings, unsuitable for any "farm to fork" efforts?

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...velopment.html

Nothing in here about increasing density, connectivity or general urbanity. Disappointing.