Sacramento Settlement Patterns and the Desirability Debate

A while back I gave a commenter a hard time when they made the following statement: "homes in the hills generally are more desirable and valuable than those in the 'flat lands.'"

I asked for something to back up this claim, because based on my knowledge of historical settlement patterns, the opposite seemed true. (Granted I am making some sweeping generalizations here with no research to back it up….so feel free to take a shot at me.)

Let me explain. In my field (aviation), supply tends to be a reflection of demand. For example, airline schedules tend to reflect passengers ‘desirability” (frequent flights between desired destinations and lots of flights in the morning and late afternoon to accommodate business schedules).

Now let’s apply this same logic to settlement patterns in the Sacramento Metro area. Initially I believe settlement patterns, and hence desirability, was based on 2 major factors. The first was access to a source of water, which our rivers provide. The second was transportation networks; originally the rivers, and later rail and major highways. These two factors appear to be fairly universal; hence most of the world’s major cities are located on major rivers, and coastal areas. Historically hill settlements tended to be the exception, only when no flat lands were available, or because of defense needs (easy to see the enemy coming).

Fast forward a hundred years or so, and many of the most desirable flat lands have been settled. Thus building began in less desirable suburban locations. However, the less desirable locations were often balanced out by the fact that the suburbs were newer, and the infrastructure in parts of city centers was starting to decay.

In Sacramento this phenomena seems a bit more dynamic because flood risk added additional criteria to the desirability. However, contrary to the belief of some, the entire Sac Metro area is not in danger of flooding. There are many respectable neighborhoods, not in the hills, that have a minimal risk of flooding. Of course, the high grounds nearest the city center were settled first. Eventually that was all filled in leaving, high grounds with a long commute (Rocklin/Roseville/Folsom etc), or areas in a flood plain with a shorter commute (say Natomas).

As for the desirability of the foothills themselves, it isn’t easy to build large swaths of affordable housing in hills. So by definition they tended to have custom homes initially. Thus the foothills appealed to those who could afford a custom home and were willing to live far from the city, and thereby bringing an air of exclusivity to the foothills.

In the last 7 years or so, what has made the foothills more accessible to the masses is better technology. Technology has enabled people like me to “work” without commuting into Sacramento. It has also made it relatively easier to build homes on a larger scale on hillsides. Of course the original “exclusivity” has been seized upon and nurtured by builders for marketing purposes. The newer infrastructure (schools, roads etc) is also very attractive when compared to many of the older parts of Sacramento.

So there you have it. I can’t really come up with any inherent arguments in favor of “hills” versus “valleys”, except perhaps a nice view. Based on observed behavior, valleys seem to win almost every time (until recently). Of course, I prefer the hills to the valley, but if I had to commute to work, a short commute would vastly outweigh any desirability the hills had to offer.