4 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dan // Aug 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm

  Wow, I didn’t realize the average home size was that large! I guess it makes sense though. Out in the middle of the country they are selling 3ksf houses for $110k.

  When I read the title of the post, I immediately thought it would be questioning if we need to expand the footprints of our cities. Most Cities in the USA aren’t anywhere near as dense as the large cities in the world. The market doesn’t say so, but theoretically Sacramento could grow to its GP build-out population without increasing the area of the city.

• 2 wburg // Aug 30, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  Perhaps it is connected to the growing girth of Americans as a whole–like goldfish that grow to the size of their aquarium? Perhaps the trimmer city dweller simply needs less space because our waistlines are better suited to sub-1000 sf dwellings?

  One of the hoped objectives of the new General Plan is to achieve build-out in the city’s existing footprint, with a small number of border expansions that will hopefully take a smarter approach than recently-completed projects *coughnatomascough* did.

• 3 dan // Aug 30, 2007 at 9:02 pm

  Good point about the waistline size. Smaller houses also mean you probably spend less time in them. In the city, that means walking to “third places” which helps community and keeps you fit.

  The City General Plan Update is looking much better than the previous one so far. Developments like Delta Shores still look pretty much like Natomas.

  Outside the City of Sac, SACOG’s Blueprint hasn’t been doing so hot, with the approval of a lower than Blueprint density Placer Vineyards and some projects in Sutter and Yolo Counties.

• 4 Jim // Sep 6, 2007 at 12:41 am

  I’ve added another data point and a graph.

Leave a Comment