Earlier this year I found myself in Cincinnati, and now that I’ve seen that town I have some tough questions for Sacramento about the “city of trees” mantra that we like to repeat about our fair city to anyone who’ll listen. I was lucky enough to get a 19th story view of southeastern Cincy from a Hyde Park highrise and I have to tell you, Cincinnati looks more like a forest with a giant city hidden in its midst. It should be in the dictionary next to the word “nestled.” It kind of looks like Endor. (On an unrelated note it also has 3, count em, 3 downtown riverfront sports facilities (gulp).)
In addition to the anecdotal evidence of my 19th story observation, Cincy has a smaller population, which leads me to believe it’s possible that it probably has a lot of trees per capita, which is what we always say about our tree population. So what gives?
The Sac Rag 
Sacramento also looks like a forest with some buildings if you’re looking out from one of the windows of a downtown highrise, but Cincy might appear more foresty, I don’t know. Does our “City of Trees” nomenclature include the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County too, or just within the city limits?
You ladies out there can mark your calendar for the inaugural “City of Trees” all-women’s marathon coming up next April, sponsored by the Sacramento Police Department. It will be run along the American River Parkway, which is indeed heavily populated with trees:
Click to access CityOfTreesMarathon.pdf
LikeLike
one thing about Sacramento is that once you get past the city limits, in most directions, the forest look subsides. i mean, i am glad we have the abundant agriculture and all. but Cincinnati is forest to the horizon…
LikeLike
Umm..the climate of Cincinnati is completely different than that of Sacramento. We can’t have East coast or Midwest style forests here when it doesn’t rain for months at a time. To look like Cincinnati, we would need an even more untenable type of irrigation system than we already have.
LikeLike
Thanks for visiting!
LikeLike