PDA

You are viewing a trimmed-down version of the SkyscraperPage.com discussion forum.  For the full version follow the link below.

View Full Version : Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 [33] 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

Majin
May 20, 2008, 5:39 PM
He claims that there are just as many resources going into their downtown property as the expanding mall in Roseville.

Wow shut the fuck up :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

goldcntry
May 20, 2008, 6:25 PM
Must be a full moon today, 'cause I'm agreeing whole-heartedly with Majin. I remember the wonder and giddiness the last time that DTP was renovated, walking through there everyday of the construction. It's a real let-down now to walk through there. Between the dwindling businesses and the shrinking food court, DTP is toast if Westfield doesn't get off their keester soon...

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/sleepytomato.gif

creamcityleo79
May 20, 2008, 9:06 PM
Considering the "Plan" to demolish the building G&B is in, that shouldn't be a surprise and we all knew about Morton's.

River City Brewing would be a nice business to have in any project. I have to imagine they will find a home somewhere. An old brick building like 14th and R would be a nice spot.

I couldn't help but laugh at the last paragraph.

________________________________________________________________

More Businesses May Leave Westfield Plaza
(http://cbs13.com/local/westfield.plaza.defections.2.728029.html)ACRAMENTO (CBS13) ― More big name retailers and restaurants could be on their way out of Sacramento's Westfield Plaza, a significant blow to downtown Sacramento.

The lights are off at 26 spots in the downtown plaza shopping center, and there could be more vacancies on the way.

"I've noticed a lot of stores have shut down and there's not as much selection as there used to be," said one shopper.

After eight years of business, the manager of River City Brewing Company says he and his partners are checking out all their options. They'd like to stay, but Steve Cuneo is frustrated with mall management and the city of Sacramento.

He says they're not doing enough to keep businesses here, and he blames that for less foot traffic and a dip in his own business.

CBS13 has also learned that two more long-time tenants could also be packing their bags. The lease is up for Grebitus and Sons Jewelers, and the family-owned business is going month-to-month as they negotiate with mall owners. They've been downtown for more than 80 years, and are planning to stay in the area, just not necessarily in the same spot.

Every mall merchant we talked to Monday says Morton's Steakhouse is jumping across the street to the new US Bank building. A company spokesperson did not return our calls today.

Westfield, the company that owns the mall, didn't want to answer our questions today. A spokesman says there are big plans ahead for the mall, they just can't reveal specifics yet. He claims that there are just as many resources going into their downtown property as the expanding mall in Roseville.
First they disregard DT Sacramento as a piece of garbage and now they flat out LIE about the resources they are putting into it. Westfield is garbage and I wish they would just go back to Australia and let us have this prized chunk of land back in OUR DT. They are, in effect, holding our CBD hostage while allowing this property to go into such a horrible state! This is just as bad as Mohanna, if not worse!! What a shame! :hell:

Majin
May 20, 2008, 9:15 PM
While not there yet, if they don't do anything to the property and let it decay for about 2-3 more years it will officially be a repeat of florin mall right smack in the middle of downtown.

creamcityleo79
May 20, 2008, 11:17 PM
While not there yet, if they don't do anything to the property and let it decay for about 2-3 more years it will officially be a repeat of florin mall right smack in the middle of downtown.
And while it's not ideal to have to wait 2-3 years for this, it would actually be a good thing for DT, and the grid as a whole, if DT Plaza died and were demolished like Florin Mall. Of course, we don't want a Mervyn's or a WalMart in there. But, I think we'd be able to get something great. Also, with talk of reopening K St to cars, if we tunneled under the Convention Center and reconnected K St Mall to the rest of K St it would be an AMAZING and much needed shot in the arm for the CBD!

TWAK
May 21, 2008, 7:06 PM
Of course, we don't want a Mervyn's or a WalMart
wal-mart is affordable for people like me, it's the only place I can go and get food anymore because it's too expensive to get elsewhere.

Trojan
May 21, 2008, 10:22 PM
I think a combination of Neiman Marcus (or any luxury dept. store) + a Target would be nice. Westfield did this at their mall at Topanga I believe.

Majin
May 21, 2008, 10:27 PM
wal-mart is affordable for people like me, it's the only place I can go and get food anymore because it's too expensive to get elsewhere.

Then stay in the suburbs.

TWAK
May 21, 2008, 11:00 PM
Then stay in the suburbs.
but don't the "urban centers" need "diversity". You can't have "diversity" with rich white people the only ones able to afford downtown.

creamcityleo79
May 21, 2008, 11:09 PM
Then stay in the suburbs.
That's rude!!! DT should have options for all income levels. WalMart should NOT be in the Grid or anywhere close to it. But, that doesn't mean those who shop there should stay out of the grid. That's a very elitist attitude!

Majin
May 21, 2008, 11:22 PM
but don't the "urban centers" need "diversity". You can't have "diversity" with rich white people the only ones able to afford downtown.

I'm not white.

Majin
May 21, 2008, 11:23 PM
That's rude!!! DT should have options for all income levels. WalMart should NOT be in the Grid or anywhere close to it. But, that doesn't mean those who shop there should stay out of the grid. That's a very elitist attitude!

I didn't say DT should only be for the rich. I also think DT should represent all income levels. I just don't want DT to represent the suburbs along with it.

Big Box retail that way ->

innov8
May 23, 2008, 3:18 PM
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/6356/831lstreet5officekq4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Friday, May 23, 2008

City OKs office building on L
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

The Greyhound station's move out of downtown couldn't come at a better time for The Cordano Co.

The developer is near approval for a 13-story office building one block away at 831 L St.

The project has been approved by Sacramento's planning and design commissions. Barring an appeal by the public or a "call-up" from a city councilmember, the office building has a green light.

But given the slow office leasing market, The Cordano Co. likely won't build until there's a sizeable tenant signed up, several real estate experts said.

"I can't imagine that in today's market they would 'spec' that building," said John Frisch, managing partner of Cornish & Carey Commercial's Sacramento office. Frisch said the Cordano family has extensive experience in developing retail centers but a limited background in high-rise office buildings. The company will likely move cautiously now that there are two new Class A buildings on Capitol Mall still looking for tenants.

Cordano representatives could not be reached for comment.

Greg Levi, an office broker with CB Richard Ellis in Sacramento, said the L Street location is prime for redevelopment.

"It's a great site," he said. "One of those sites that has been ignored for so long. You're a block and a half away from the Capitol."

This week, the Sacramento City Council approved terms with Danny Benvenuti, owner of the Greyhound depot at 715 L St., to relocate that station to Richards Boulevard. The presence of the station downtown has been blamed for the lack of redevelopment activity nearby.

Levi said he believes these two developments -- the departure of the Greyhound station and the construction of an office tower -- will spur others into redeveloping property there.

The Greyhound station won't move immediately, however, as a new site needs to be built on Richards Boulevard.

The site for the Cordano building is now home to a nondescript two-story office building that would be demolished. The new building would have 219,000 square feet of usable office space and 8,000 square feet for ground-floor retail.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/05/26/story10.html

ltsmotorsport
May 23, 2008, 4:25 PM
Well, the office design was definitely better, but I was kinda hoping to see some kind of res. option there. If there were only an easy way to make the top couple of floors res. without sending it through the whole process again.

Majin
May 23, 2008, 10:21 PM
Whats with the setbacks and the lack of height?

innov8
May 23, 2008, 11:01 PM
Whats with the setbacks and the lack of height?

This part of L Street is still in the Capitol View Protection Area.

Wide sidewalks and outside eating area Majin, don't you like wide sidewalks at 800J?

Majin
May 24, 2008, 12:12 AM
Capitol View Protection Area

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Wide sidewalks and outside eating area Majin, don't you like wide sidewalks at 800J?

800J isn't set back is it?

innov8
May 24, 2008, 1:42 AM
Dope, triple post :(

innov8
May 24, 2008, 1:47 AM
edit :sly:

innov8
May 24, 2008, 1:48 AM
800J isn't set back is it?

Yup, it is set back more than the usuale 10'. I think it's okay since there will
be outside seating and a high foot traffic area. I think 800J is back a few
extra feet on the 7th and 8th Street sides.

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/1525/831lstreetsetbacksse6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

wburg
May 24, 2008, 5:46 AM
The setbacks also allow the existing street trees to be maintained, which will help foot traffic: shade and tree canopy make a street a lot nicer to walk. Kudos to the designer for that: folks sometimes forget that it gets a tetch hot here. It also includes enough room for patio dining or other close outdoor uses of the building.

urban_encounter
May 24, 2008, 3:22 PM
The setbacks also allow the existing street trees to be maintained, which will help foot traffic: shade and tree canopy make a street a lot nicer to walk. Kudos to the designer for that: folks sometimes forget that it gets a tetch hot here. It also includes enough room for patio dining or other close outdoor uses of the building.


I agree 100%.

The setbacks are something i admire about Sacramento's design standards, for all the reasons you pointed out above. It helps to create a more pedestrian friendly environment on the street level.

Now if they could just pay more attention to the garage element of a project and ensure the same design standards address all exposures of a project's facade and not just orienting towards Capital Mall. I get tired of these projects like 621 CM, Cal EPA, Matsui Federal Courthouse, the "Emerald City" and soon to be 500 CM to name a few, looking good from only one exposure.

urban_encounter
May 29, 2008, 3:10 AM
John Saca's Metropolitan (921 10th street) goes back before design review on June 18th.

It will be interesting to see what changes were made so that the tower appears less "sleek"..........

SacTownAndy
May 29, 2008, 5:30 PM
I just saw this linked in the Bee. Sacramento ranked #8 on Kiplinger's best cities to live, work, and play list for 2008.

http://www.kiplinger.com/magazine/archives/2008/07/2008-best-cities-to-live-work-play.html

TowerDistrict
May 29, 2008, 6:49 PM
That's a peculiar list. Maybe we should get a flight from Sacramento to Boise now? hahah

Just an observation... but all the photos of the cities on that list were very gorgeous shots and they were ALL supplied by their respective cities' convention and visitors bureau.

All except Sacramento. Which was pulled from a stock photo site, and really isn't the best photo of this city that I've ever seen, to say the least. What's up with that? I would hope this city has some potential imagery together to supply for these types of free publicity.

snfenoc
May 29, 2008, 7:11 PM
That's a peculiar list. Maybe we should get a flight from Sacramento to Boise now? hahah

Just an observation... but all the photos of the cities on that list were very gorgeous shots and they were ALL supplied by their respective cities' convention and visitors bureau.

All except Sacramento. Which was pulled from a stock photo site, and really isn't the best photo of this city that I've ever seen, to say the least. What's up with that? I would hope this city has some potential imagery together to supply for these types of free publicity.


No kidding. In the "At a Glance" section of the article, every other city has decent skyline or nature shots. We have a few couples making out around a garbage can.

We'd probably be much higher on the list, but our cost of living index is way higher than the rest of the top ten. Sometimes I curse our California statehood.

creamcityleo79
May 30, 2008, 3:49 AM
No kidding. In the "At a Glance" section of the article, every other city has decent skyline or nature shots. We have a few couples making out around a garbage can.

We'd probably be much higher on the list, but our cost of living index is way higher than the rest of the top ten. Sometimes I curse our California statehood.
Of the 4 big metros (6 if you count Riverside-San Bernardino and San Jose as their own metros), Sacramento has the lowest cost of living!

snfenoc
May 30, 2008, 4:35 AM
Yes, but of the Top 10 best places to live, we have, by far, the highest cost of living. I can't help but think that has something to do with our California association (none of the other top 10 cities are in Cali).

Pistola916
May 30, 2008, 5:10 AM
I was checking out City Data Forum and apparently some people find it laughable that Sacramento cracked the Top 10.

This is from DWong from Dallas area.
"Being that I saw Sacramento on the list I kinda wrote it off. People in CA who've been to Sac don't like it. Sure it's a booming area (was small 20 years ago), but it's not anywhere on the best places on the nation. Sac CA made it - that alone is a joke

ltsmotorsport
May 30, 2008, 5:34 AM
Well, a lot of people on that forum seem to be pretty ignorant about many things. Someone in the Sac section asked if Elk Grove to Rocklin in 1 hour at 8 am was realistic. :rolleyes:

creamcityleo79
May 30, 2008, 5:52 AM
I was checking out City Data Forum and apparently some people find it laughable that Sacramento cracked the Top 10.

This is from DWong from Dallas area.
"Being that I saw Sacramento on the list I kinda wrote it off. People in CA who've been to Sac don't like it. Sure it's a booming area (was small 20 years ago), but it's not anywhere on the best places on the nation. Sac CA made it - that alone is a joke
Ignorance! I've heard EXACTLY the opposite from almost every person who I've talked to who lives somewhere else and has been to Sacramento (and I work in a call center and I talk to a LOT of people!)!!! It's always "It's so beautiful there!", "I love the trees!", "Old Sac is great!", "the river is beautiful", and on and on!

ltsmotorsport
May 30, 2008, 6:41 AM
Well the guy obviously doesn't have any first-hand knowledge and is basing his moronic opinion on hearsay.

wburg
May 30, 2008, 4:41 PM
I post there occasionally myself but didn't see that--can you provide a link?

Personally, I don't mind that some people--even most people--don't care for Sacramento. I know I like it here, and don't really need external validation to know what I like about it. Besides, articles like these tend to be dreadfully inaccurate, and written by people looking at statistics who probably haven't even been to the city, or base their experiences on one visit and the places they happened to discover.

Pistola916
May 30, 2008, 8:48 PM
I post there occasionally myself but didn't see that--can you provide a link?

Personally, I don't mind that some people--even most people--don't care for Sacramento. I know I like it here, and don't really need external validation to know what I like about it. Besides, articles like these tend to be dreadfully inaccurate, and written by people looking at statistics who probably haven't even been to the city, or base their experiences on one visit and the places they happened to discover.

http://www.city-data.com/forum/dallas/341148-kiplinger-s-10-best-cities-houston.html

urban_encounter
May 31, 2008, 12:14 AM
I was checking out City Data Forum and apparently some people find it laughable that Sacramento cracked the Top 10.

This is from DWong from Dallas area.
"People in CA who've been to Sac don't like it. Sac CA made it - that alone is a joke



Well for staters the guy is from Dallas and i don't think Dallas is likely to be on any top ten lists anytime soon. (which is probably why Wong is bitter).

On another note, somebody in California must like Sacramento, because the region has added about a milion people in the past 20 years, mostly from the bay area and Southern California.

snfenoc
Jun 1, 2008, 5:09 AM
I went on my walk this afternoon / evening - burned a s$%t-load of calories and took a few pictures. Here is a quickie update of some projects:



Trammell Crow is moving forward..........slowly:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_1.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_3.jpg



Fire proofing that artsy Sutter office building:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_4.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_5.jpg



Hopefully we will see some cladding on the Sutter Foundation building:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_6.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_7.jpg



The So Crap Lofts continue to expand toward filling the entire block:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_18.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_19.jpg



The Craper Art Museum site is a confusing array of stuff, none of which is going vertical:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_20.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_21.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_22.jpg

Foundation work = Boring



K Street Cabaret:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_23.jpg



Roos Atkins:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_24.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_25.jpg



It looks like they are starting to build the sidewalk extension thing wburg hates so much:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_26.jpg

Soon it will be full of people:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_27.jpg



I really dig Retro Lodge (I sure hope some people choose to live there):

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_28.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_29.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_30.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_31.jpg

Love the signs:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_32.jpg












Oh, yeah, and that 500 Crapitol Mall thing topped out. I guess that's big news:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_8.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_9.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_10.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_11.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_12.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_13.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_14.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_15.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_17.jpg

Yes, I took the stairs to the top of the Sheraton for the last one. You may all begin to worship me.........now.




That's it.







http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_33.jpg

econgrad
Jun 1, 2008, 9:34 AM
^ great pics as usual..

doriankage
Jun 1, 2008, 10:38 AM
I went on my walk this afternoon / evening - burned a s$%t-load of calories and took a few pictures. Here is a quickie update of some projects:



Trammell Crow is moving forward..........slowly:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_1.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_3.jpg



Fire proofing that artsy Sutter office building:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_4.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_5.jpg



Hopefully we will see some cladding on the Sutter Foundation building:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_6.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_7.jpg



The So Crap Lofts continue to expand toward filling the entire block:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_18.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_19.jpg



The Craper Art Museum site is a confusing array of stuff, none of which is going vertical:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_20.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_21.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_22.jpg

Foundation work = Boring



K Street Cabaret:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_23.jpg



Roos Atkins:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_24.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_25.jpg



It looks like they are starting to build the sidewalk extension thing wburg hates so much:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_26.jpg

Soon it will be full of people:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_27.jpg



I really dig Retro Lodge (I sure hope some people choose to live there):

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_28.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_29.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_30.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_31.jpg

Love the signs:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_32.jpg












Oh, yeah, and that 500 Crapitol Mall thing topped out. I guess that's big news:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_8.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_9.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_10.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_11.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_12.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_13.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_14.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_15.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_17.jpg

Yes, I took the stairs to the top of the Sheraton for the last one. You may all begin to worship me.........now.




That's it.







http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%205-2008/DSC_33.jpg
Great update.
I really do think Sac has a beautiful skyline. Could be better and will get better.
The 3rd to last and 2nd to last I really like. Shows that South Capitol Mall and the area south of it is really becoming a cluster of high rises. Now, only if the Council would capitalize on this and bring more to the area.

arod74
Jun 2, 2008, 7:30 PM
Nice work snfenoc. Good to see some activity other than panhandling proceeding on K street. I just hope some of the existing businesses can hang in there while the buildup continues and we just might achieve a critcial mass. 500 CM is looking better than I thought it would so far. There are some nice angles that would have looked even better had they gone a bit higher with smaller floor plates. The stone facade looks to be red and tan so it will interesting to see how the window tinting blends in. Aren't they going with blue tint???

goldcntry
Jun 2, 2008, 9:53 PM
Great shots snfenoc... but I have one question:

How in the Heck did you avoid the photo-hog prima donna Darth Vader building???

;)

:tomato:

snfenoc
Jun 2, 2008, 11:37 PM
Great shots snfenoc... but I have one question:

How in the Heck did you avoid the photo-hog prima donna Darth Vader building???

;)

:tomato:


Editing. I had to throw out 99% of my shots.

goldcntry
Jun 3, 2008, 6:04 PM
:lmao: :previous: :lmao:

creamcityleo79
Jun 11, 2008, 8:04 PM
I thought this was kind of cool.
City launches Web portal with information on projects under review
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

The city of Sacramento has launched a new service that uses Google Map technology to provide the public with information about development projects submitted to the city. The new service is available online at www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/reference/maps/active-projects.

Users can see specific information about a project as well as a map showing all projects citywide. Clicking on a project will display relevant information. The map will be updated monthly.

The city plans to add projects going through the design review or preservation application process by the end of the year.

ltsmotorsport
Jun 17, 2008, 5:02 PM
So is anyone free to check out the council meeting tomorrow night for the Metropolitan? I'm interested to see what changes Saca might have done to make it "less sleek". :rolleyes: Maybe he added some more height to spite the council.

urban_encounter
Jun 18, 2008, 3:17 AM
So is anyone free to check out the council meeting tomorrow night for the Metropolitan? I'm interested to see what changes Saca might have done to make it "less sleek". :rolleyes: Maybe he added some more height to spite the council.



It's going before Design Review, not the council, (in case anybody was wondering)..

Cynikal
Jun 18, 2008, 3:28 AM
Metropolitan shouldn't be going to council if memory serves. I don't think there was an appeal filed or a call up by council. I'll look into that.

urban_encounter
Jun 18, 2008, 5:32 AM
Metropolitan shouldn't be going to council if memory serves. I don't think there was an appeal filed or a call up by council. I'll look into that.


The Metroplitan was already called up for council review, due to an appeal and Mayor Fargo's statement that she will call up every large project until height limits are established in the central city.


The council directed the project go back through Design Review and the planning commission.

Once it clears those two government bodies look for the council to take another look at it, just to ensure their views of the Capitol Dome aren't blocked.

snfenoc
Jun 18, 2008, 6:47 AM
Checked tomorrow's agenda (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/design/2008/DC_Agenda_6-18-08.cfm) for the Design Commission - No mention of the Metropolitan.

Checked the agendas for the Planning Commission and found a mention on the May 22 agenda (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/PlanningCommission5-22-08.cfm). I also checked the Minutes (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/CPC_Minutes_5-22-08.cfm) from that meeting and found the Metropolitan was approved with amended conditions. After looking at the staff report (you can download it from the agenda page), the Metropolitan does not look different.

Am I missing something?

Cynikal
Jun 18, 2008, 4:56 PM
Metropolitan was pulled off of the Design Commission agenda for tonight because the Planning Commission decision was appealed by Kopper. The Design Commission will hear the item at the next meeting following the Council date. I don't think it currently has a date scheduled.

But if you want to attend tonight anyway, Target on Riverside and Broadway is going and should bring the usual dialog from the LPNA.

Trojan
Jun 21, 2008, 11:42 PM
I am curious about what is being built on Capitol and 20th or so? I don't know the exact cross street, but it looks like an old Auto shop is being torn down?

ozone
Jun 22, 2008, 2:55 PM
Yep I was really surprised to see that yesterday morning on my way to work. Thought they would leave the Mission-style facade -but by early afternoon the entire lot was down. Mike Heller who is the guy behind the MARRS project is planning something -but as far as I know there is nothing yet proposed and approved. I suspect that they moved fast on the demo because there was some talk about the historical value of the building and they might have worried that the preservationists would hold up the project -increasing the costs, or be made to change their plans. I'd be interested to get wburg's take on that.

wburg
Jun 22, 2008, 3:25 PM
My take is "WTF"?

Apparently they got a demo I&R through, which is nonsense because that building is (well, was) a listed city landmark structure. It was about a century old. You can't just knock a building down, especially a landmark, you have to get permission to do so from the city. I'm pretty surprised that this was resolved at staff level--I assume there was some political pressure to push it through rather than have it go to Preservation Commission hearing.

Cynikal
Jun 22, 2008, 3:43 PM
I was surprise at how fast that Demo I&R went through. I don't think its been 45 days. I also drove by yesterday and stopped and watched. I frequented Steve Rex's shop for years and was really sad to see it being torn down.

Heller is planning a 4 story building with similar to MAARS in use but very different in design. There are no renderings yet, but they have a concept in mind.

They will have significant parking issues with that site and I'm curious how they will combat that. The neighborhood groups will be watching this one closely I'm sure.

wburg
Jun 22, 2008, 5:04 PM
There was a brief mention of it a while back on David Watts Barton's blog:

A few blocks away, at 20th and Capitol, another businessman who has long defined midtown - bicycle manufacturer and all-around repair guy Steve Rex - is being booted out of his all-too-central location to make room for a new Mike Heller development. Rex, who has been at the location seemingly forever, will be moving over to 18th and E Street, near the New Roma Bakery at the end of May.

According to Rex, Heller and partner Paul Thiebaud (son of...) are going to build a "heritage building" in honor of their developer and painter fathers. According to Rex, Heller and Thiebaud plan to tear down the more than 100-year-old building that has long housed both Rex Cycles and A&A Auto Repair, a building that was originally built as a livery just as the "horseless carriage" era dawned.

Will the city building department that routinely makes life so difficult for some people to change the slightest thing on buildings half its age allow Heller to tear this one down? It's not a good-looking building right now - the place doesn't appear to have been repainted since it was built - but perhaps at least the facade could be combined, post-modern-style, into what ever Heller has planned? I say this will full recognition of the great work Heller has done around town, most notably his excellent transformation of an old storage facility into the dazzling MARRS Building further down 20th, at J. And the "heritage" hook is hearsay, admittedly. But what about our heritage? I'm not particularly versed in this, and I'm happy to be corrected by Messrs. Heller or Thiebaud. But this isn't looking great from street level, guys. At least, not yet.

http://bloggingthegrid.blogspot.com/2008/04/second-saturday-morning.html

BrianSac
Jun 23, 2008, 1:01 AM
^^^^^
Are we talking the southwest corner of 20th and Capitol?

I have always thought that would be good lot for a more attractive mixed-use development.

I recall a "toolshed like" one-story building on that lot. It appeared to have aluminum siding or tin siding all up and around it. I don't recall a Mission style building there. I could be mistaken of course.

wburg
Jun 23, 2008, 1:09 AM
http://bp3.blogger.com/_y674eG9qZW8/SAD9_2zSTEI/AAAAAAAAAQk/UJtmQ2LUDag/s320/DSC07449.JPG
From the David Watts Barton weblog.

Not exactly a Mission-style building, but not aluminum siding either.

SactownTom
Jun 23, 2008, 2:54 AM
This is a f*cking outrage. I can't believe they were allowed to demolish that building? Who allowed this to happen?

BrianSac
Jun 23, 2008, 5:48 AM
http://bp3.blogger.com/_y674eG9qZW8/SAD9_2zSTEI/AAAAAAAAAQk/UJtmQ2LUDag/s320/DSC07449.JPG
From the David Watts Barton weblog.

Not exactly a Mission-style building, but not aluminum siding either.

Wburg, Thanks for posting the pic. So what style is that? "The Old West", looks like a saloon or hardware store could have been there. I hope they make this a mixed-use edifice, at least 4 stories.

wburg
Jun 23, 2008, 5:04 PM
The north facing (on the right) does have Mission features (the overarching shape of the roof and the diamond-shaped accents around the roof vent) that would be in line with what I have head about the buidling's construction date. Mission Revival is certainly a possible style from what I have heard about the construction date of the building (1890s.)

People associate false-front buildings generically with the "Old West" due to their use in old westerns, but often buildings of that simple style appear in moveis because they're cheaper to construct than the scrollwork-heavy Italianate and Queen Anne styles that most western cities threw up pretty quickly. My guess is that the building was a livery stable or blacksmith shop, later becoming a bicycle and automotive shop.

I had kind of hoped to do a full assessment and building history, but there's no building now so there isn't much point, other than a postmortem of sorts.

edit: According to the Sanborn map, there were a couple of small, probably residential structures there in 1895. By 1915 there were two adjacent buildings: a Chinese laundry on the corner, and a veterinary hospital next to the tracks (which went in around 1909.) The corner cut-out wasn't there yet. At some point after 1915 but before 1950, the buildings were consolidated into a single business, an auto body/painting and auto upholstery shop. The upholstery shop was where Rex Cycle was located.

I'm going to have to look into this a bit further: at a couple of points in Sacramento history, adding "Old West" elements to a building became temporarily popular. The earliest was in the 1920s, during the "Days of '49" celebrations on the grounds of where the Southern Pacific passenger station is now. The other was during the "Roaring Camp" summer in 1939. A lot of businesses, hoping to get extra attention from the many tourists there for Roaring Camp and the giant 1939 State Fair events that went on all summer long, renamed themselves or redecorated in an "Old West" theme. The Clayton Hotel was renamed the Marshall Hotel (after James Marshall,) a lot of places took on the name "Sutter" this-or-that, and some businesses made an effort to "Westernize" their facades. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the corner facade was the result of such a "renovation."

Hm. If I get some time tomorrow I may have to go hit up the city directories...

ltsmotorsport
Jun 24, 2008, 8:53 PM
Can't say I will really miss this one. Sure it was an old building, but it didn't look like it had much going for it other than that. The facade was cheap and the building itself hardly meets the street at all. Like Brian said, something at least four stories would be nice. Are there any documents at all as to what might go in there or is it too early?

wburg
Jun 24, 2008, 9:39 PM
Hardly meets the street? The auto shop opened directly onto the sidewalk, and the bike shop's front door was on a triangular concrete pad next to the sidewalk, with a place to park bikes! I'm not sure how you could meet the street more directly than that.

The cool thing with developers these days seems to be the purchase of commercial properties, immediately followed by the demolition of the property, and then sitting on said vacant lot until their intended project is ready to go. We're seeing the same thing on S and 18th, where the plating works and other buildings were demolished without any submitted plan for what will replace them. The developers there have talked about their planned 8-story mixed-use tower thingamabob, and are apparently working with staff, but there's nothing formally in the pipeline.

On residential land, buildings can't be demolished until a project has been formally approved to replace the existing structure. Commercial buildings don't have that protection, even if they are fully occupied and currently utilized, the way that A&A/Rex Cycle was. It's a bit tough for a developer to give the standard line that a property is "vacant and blighted" when there are operating businesses on the site, but a vacant lot, even if it's vacant because the owner tore the buildings down, is an easier sell.

snfenoc
Jun 24, 2008, 10:39 PM
I wouldn't say the building was blighted, plus it had a decent look - not great, but decent. In some way I would have prefered it be left in place - I don't like seeing ugly, over-grown vacant lots (see Cemo Midtown). However, I'm glad it's gone - one less opportunity for the preservationist special interest to hold up a good (I assume) project. Had Heller left it in place, an organized, influential effort to save the building (or at least make development at the site difficult) may have taken root by the time he had the money/plans to start development. I say, strike while the iron is hot. Now, the preservationists will have to obsess over some other silly little building.

wburg
Jun 24, 2008, 10:53 PM
snefnoc: "Blighted" only means that a building isn't worth as much as a developer would like it to be worth. It generally has nothing to do with the physical state of the building itself.

You also seem to be making a big assumption that whatever is planned for that block is a good project: you know essentially nothing about what the developer has planned, but assume that it must be good? Why?

As to the demolition of the building as a preventive move, it seems like a really mean and spiteful thing to do--even though a building is currently in use, useful, and a city listed landmark, we're going to knock it down anyhow just in case someone might try to make a case to protect the building at some point in the future!

Cynikal
Jun 24, 2008, 11:26 PM
Actually, it looks like all the proper permits were pulled and reviewed. There was a 3rd party review of the site and a determination was made by City staff. The concerned groups downtown were even notified.

Burg, you said that it was a listed landmark? Are you sure about this?

wburg
Jun 24, 2008, 11:52 PM
It is listed in the 2007 Sacramento Register, in the NCIC "Historic Properties Directory for Sacramento as of September 2006." Bottom of page 182 of the PDF of the Sacramento Register--1926 Capitol, A&A Auto Body & Paint Work.

Which concerned groups were notified? The building is within the Winn Park/Capitol Avenue Neighborhood Association area.

ozone
Jun 25, 2008, 12:37 AM
Since my business is less than a block away I would walk by it every day. I will miss that funky little hold out. It did have character. However, it also was poorly maintained and sometimes dangerous. Of course, it could have been spruced up but it was still a fairly poor use of urban space -in an area that is evolving and densifying. A living city is always changing. Maybe it would have been nice if they had saved the Mission Revival facade and incorporated into a new building BUT it's certianly not worthy enough to jeopardize redeveloping the site.

Meanwhile the empty lot down the street, next to Dragonfly's near 18th and Capital, is about ready to see construction. Julie Young, a former project manager for Mike Heller (of the MARRS building) has teamed up with midtown architect Ron Vrilakas and plans to build the first mixed-use LEED certified structure in the City. It will be a three-story building with four lofts that sit over street-level retail. The ground floor will be retail - possibly a restaurant, boutique and/or upscale market. A large courtyard will be constructed in front, setting the project back from the street to make room for the 'green space'. Each upper floor unit will have its own outdoor green space including two 700 square foot roof gardens and possibly a pool on the second floor. Young is planning on providing two fuel-efficient Smart Cars from Neillo to make available to tenants.

http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/9596/scan0002775917kw1.jpg

snfenoc
Jun 25, 2008, 1:38 AM
I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic. While the building was not an amazing looker, and it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants), I agree with you - it was NOT blighted. If your point is developers often pull the "blighted" card to avoid onerous preservation rules or start the eminent domain process on a property they want (to steal), then I also agree with you. In my opinion, the "blighted" card should be needless - there should be no preservation rules, and there should be no eminent domain (with very few exceptions).

I think Mr. Heller has done a number of great projects - MAARS, the Elliott Building, the 01 Lofts, the Sutter Brownstones, and Retro Lodge (maybe, we shall see how this one works out – I have good feeling) come to mind. In my opinion, a project building's status as “existing” or “new” has only a little to do with the project's success. It's the ideas, tenants and overall spirit of the project that are more important. I think Mr. Heller has a decent grasp on what constitutes a good project, and I have faith he will make whatever building he has planned into something great. Oh, by the way, it seems you assume if a "historic" building will be replaced, a project must be bad. Why?

If preservationists did not exist, the mean and spiteful act of knocking down one's OWN building as a preventative measure would not be necessary. Alas, this town is crawling with gadflies, so sometimes one has to take "extreme" measures allowing him the opportunity to build his vision on HIS property. ("Extreme" was in quotes, because we are talking about a dumb little so-so building - Perspective, please.)

Oh, well. It's not like there aren't other so-so "historic" buildings for the preservationist gadflies to save from the evil grasp of unhindered private ownership. It's a good thing, too. Those people don't actually produce anything. They have to find some way to give their lives meaning.

BrianSac
Jun 25, 2008, 2:55 AM
I wouldn't say the building was blighted, plus it had a decent look - not great, but decent. In some way I would have prefered it be left in place - I don't like seeing ugly, over-grown vacant lots (see Cemo Midtown). However, I'm glad it's gone - one less opportunity for the preservationist special interest to hold up a good (I assume) project. Had Heller left it in place, an organized, influential effort to save the building (or at least make development at the site difficult) may have taken root by the time he had the money/plans to start development. I say, strike while the iron is hot. Now, the preservationists will have to obsess over some other silly little building.

Very well stated, I agree 100%

BrianSac
Jun 25, 2008, 2:59 AM
I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic. While the building was not an amazing looker, and it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants), I agree with you - it was NOT blighted. If your point is developers often pull the "blighted" card to avoid onerous preservation rules or start the eminent domain process on a property they want (to steal), then I also agree with you. In my opinion, the "blighted" card should be needless - there should be no preservation rules, and there should be no eminent domain (with very few exceptions).

I think Mr. Heller has done a number of great projects - MAARS, the Elliott Building, the 01 Lofts, the Sutter Brownstones, and Retro Lodge (maybe, we shall see how this one works out – I have good feeling) come to mind. In my opinion, a project building's status as “existing” or “new” has only a little to do with the project's success. It's the ideas, tenants and overall spirit of the project that are more important. I think Mr. Heller has a decent grasp on what constitutes a good project, and I have faith he will make whatever building he has planned into something great. Oh, by the way, it seems you assume if a "historic" building will be replaced, a project must be bad. Why?

If preservationists did not exist, the mean and spiteful act of knocking down one's OWN building as a preventative measure would not be necessary. Alas, this town is crawling with gadflies, so sometimes one has to take "extreme" measures allowing him the opportunity to build his vision on HIS property. ("Extreme" was in quotes, because we are talking about a dumb little so-so building - Perspective, please.)

Oh, well. It's not like there aren't other so-so "historic" buildings for the preservationist gadflies to save from the evil grasp of unhindered private ownership. It's a good thing, too. Those people don't actually produce anything. They have to find some way to give their lives meaning.

Again, very well stated, PERSPECTIVE, s.v.p.!

BrianSac
Jun 25, 2008, 3:25 AM
Can't say I will really miss this one. Sure it was an old building, but it didn't look like it had much going for it other than that. The facade was cheap and the building itself hardly meets the street at all. Like Brian said, something at least four stories would be nice. Are there any documents at all as to what might go in there or is it too early?

I agree, just because it's old, does it need to be preserved? I think not.

Mission revival, what a joke, if that's Mission revival then half the suburban homes in north natomas are spanish revival that should forever be preserved.

BrianSac
Jun 25, 2008, 3:39 AM
-in an area that is evolving and densifying. A living city is always changing.

Yes, I agree a LIVING CITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE.

Most of these "preservationists" do not want midtown to become more dense.

wburg
Jun 25, 2008, 4:28 AM
Most of these "preservationists" do not want midtown to become more dense.

Midtown doesn't need to become more dense--the density is needed downtown, in the infill areas. What midtown needs is full occupancy of the existing housing and commercial stock, and infill on vacant lots of complementary scale. But you're wrong if you think that the preservation community doesn't support infill, new uses for old buildings, and the renaissance of Midtown. Preservation is about making old buildings used and useful again, not keeping them empty--or making them into kindling.


I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic.

No. If you look at the use of the term over the years, and even in the modern context, "blight" becomes a catch-all for any of a number of problems, real or perceived. "Blight" can be used to describe an abandoned vacant lot, or a building that needs a coat of paint. It can be used to describe a century-old building, or a building 20 years old. It is used to describe a building whose current owners or occupants don't match someone's ideas of who or what should be on the lot: "blight" was often used to describe a building whose owners or occupants were non-white, for example.

The term "blight" also predates most modern preservation laws and the contemporary preservation movement. It was introduced in the 1920s as a way to describe neighborhoods that were not actually slums, but were areas that might possibly potentially turn into slums because their residents were the wrong race. This was used as justification to level these neighborhoods and turn them into new expansions of downtown central business districts, a process that didn't really reach full tilt until the redevelopment era of the 1950s.

it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants)
Paint's pretty cheap. If someone seriously argued that a building should be knocked down because it needs a paint job, I wouldn't just question their argument, I'd question their sanity. As to the tenants, one tenant, Rex Cycles, was a custom-builder of high-end racing bikes, of the "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it" variety. Doesn't sound too gritty to me.

snfenoc
Jun 25, 2008, 6:31 AM
Do you even pay attention to what people write? Seriously, arguing with you is annoying. If I make points A, B, C, and D, a normal person would respond by addressing points A, B, C, and D. You, on the other hand, address part of A, all of Y, half of X, three quarters of U, and 10% of 69. I don't get you.

Hmmmm. I don't understand why you are arguing with me over the meaning of the word "blight". Would you agree that it should refer to major physical deterioration and not to the color of the owner's skin, or his ideas, or his choice of tenants? Because that's my point. I find it laughable for someone to suggest that building was blighted. It wasn't. It think "blight" has become a word developers, city planners and politicians like to slap on a building or area so they can force their preferred development. However, this whole argument is moot - I don't think Mr. Heller ever said the building was blighted.

Also, I want to make sure you understand I never said the building was blighted. I said it could use a paint job. I also said, the tenants were gritty and I would prefer different ones. I'm sorry, I did not realize expensive bikes were supposed to neutralize the grease monkey feeling that building gave me.

wburg
Jun 25, 2008, 6:44 AM
snefnoc: No, I don't agree that it should refer to physical deterioration--if someone wants to describe a building as physically deteriorated, they should say that, rather than using a term that originated in a disease of plants. If someone wants to get rid of a building because they don't like the color of the occupants, they should say so, so the rest of us will know their real motivations and realize that they are jerks, rather than having them cover it up with BS terms like "blight."

As you may have noticed, the definition of the term "blight" is kind of a sore spot for me. You're right, I shouldn't have gone off on a tear on that subject in your general direction.

Although, by the definition I put forth, the building was "blighted": the developer wanted to put something else there. So that's that.

ozone
Jun 25, 2008, 3:18 PM
This thread has deteriorated and is becoming "blighted". This is a legitimate debate and should be talking place somewhere, but probably not here.

I strongly disagreee with you wburg when you say that "Midtown doesn't need to become more dense". Why do you say that? Downtown and Midtown are by far the most walkable and transit-supportive areas of the city. This is precisely where we should building right now. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "midtown needs is full occupancy of the existing housing and commercial stock"? There's a few empty commerical spaces but they are probably empty because the owners are asking way to much and/or not being very accomodating. There is not a lot housing vacancy in Midtown.

I'm not a fan of scale for scale thing. Those brutalist senior housing mid-rises around Midtown don't bother me nearly as much as all those ugly low-rise dingbat apartments on a more "complementary scale". IMO we could use 10 more L Street Lofts in Midtown. Obviously, I wouldn't want to plop down a eight story condo in the middle of a neighborhood full of turn-of-the century homes but there are a lot of places left in Midtown which are underutilized or poorly developed. I don't think we should limit infill to vacant lots.

In the Central City -we should have a tax on surface off-street parking that is over a certian size and charge a "community blight fee" for property which sit vacant (without a legit proposal in the pipeline) for more than two years.

Just a bit of digression for a moment:
The City and Downtown/OS merchants and boosters have never really made the connection between Midtown and Downtown. And they've never really courted Midtown residents. Mostly I think that's because they are themselves suburbanites and therefore (depite the rhetoric) still think of downtown only in terms of a place to commute into or visit and not as a place to live. I think this has been a big mistake and has contributed to downtown's depression. We need to see the Central City as a whole, a particular entity -the Manhattan of Sacramento if you will.

SacTownAndy
Jun 25, 2008, 3:18 PM
I'm not sure of the specifics in Sac, but from my experience here in Denver working with city planners, my masters classes in planning, and my work with DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority), the term "blight" most definitely refers to the physical condition of a building or area.

In fact, here in Colorado, for an area or building to be officially recognized as "blighted", there are a set of criteria the state has set forth in which the particular subject has to meet- all pertaining to physical condition. And an official "Blight Study" is conducted. If the subject property meets 4 of the 11 criteria, it can officially be considered "blighted". This of course can open a whole 'nother can of worms- once an area or building here is recognized by the state as being blighted, we can start talking emminent domain, etc...

I'll see what I can dig up for Sacramento, but here's an excerpt from DURA's website:


"How does DURA determine if an area is blighted?

State law requires that 11 factors be used to determine blight. They include things such as unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deteriorated or deteriorating structures or site, the existence of conditions that endanger life or property, and environmental contamination. In most circumstances, four of 11 must be found to exist."


Based on the criteria we have here, and if my memory serves me correctly, that building, at least by Colorado standards, wouldn't even have come close to being considered blighted.

wburg
Jun 25, 2008, 4:23 PM
This thread has deteriorated and is
I strongly disagreee with you wburg when you say that "Midtown doesn't need to become more dense". Why do you say that? Downtown and Midtown are by far the most walkable and transit-supportive areas of the city. This is precisely where we should building right now.

That's why Midtown doesn't need to be demolished and replaced. It's the part of the central city which works the way a city should! City planners have tried to "revitalize" K Street through multiple phases of demolition and reconstruction, and you can see the results today--a bunch of half-finished projects, half-demolished buildings, and half-assed ideas. Midtown doesn't need to become dramatically more dense because it is already the densest part of the city. Studies of the neighborhood as part of the new General Plan proved that. Midtown is a model to follow for urban development in the rest of the city.

IMO we could use 10 more L Street Lofts in Midtown. Obviously, I wouldn't want to plop down a 10 story condo in the middle of a neighborhood full of turn-of-the century homes but there's a lot of places left in Midtown which are underutilized or poorly developed. I don't hink we should limit infill to vacant lots.

There really aren't ten more spots in Midtown that could fit a building that size, except ones that are full of turn-of-the-century homes. Personally, I would *way* rather see four 25-story towers (or two 50-story towers, etc) downtown, where there ARE vacant lots and where tall-building context is in abundance, than ten 10-story mid-rises in Midtown. Would you want to see those ten 10-story buildings in Midtown, instead of in the Railyards?

Mid-rise development in Midtown can bleed off the necessary resources that could be better used downtown, in the Railyards, in the Docks. Developers like the idea of tearing out chunks of Midtown, because it's literally cheaper to buy and demolish a cluster of intact, functional buildings (and then demolish them) in Midtown than a vacant lot Downtown.


Just a bit of digression for a moment:
The City and Downtown/OS merchants and boosters have never really made the connection between Midtown and Downtown. And they've never really courted Midtown residents. Mostly I think that's because they are themselves suburbanites and therefore (depite the rhetoric) still think of downtown only in terms of a place to commute into or visit and not as a place to live. I think this has been a big mistake and has contributed to downtown's depression. We need to see the Central City as a whole, a particular entity -the Manhattan of Sacramento if you will.

You're right on the money there. Many people still consider midtown to be an inhospitable area, inhabited only by shopping cart pushing undesirables and crazed dope fiends. They consider it worthless, not worth saving, and simply an obstacle to the view that the central city is a place for office buildings and playgrounds for the wealthy, not a place for people to live. It is this attitude--which includes the basic attitude that old buildings aren't worth saving, and they should probably just be proactively torn down to prevent people from trying to save them.

From what I have seen, this view is changing: advocates of new-urbanist ideas are slowly working their way into city government and development circles. In my mind, this kind of urbanist mindset and historic preservation/adaptive reuse are inseparable partners, not opposite sides. But it's going to take some time--and some advocacy--for that to sink in. For folks like us who live and work in the central city, the seamlessness of downtown and midtown, as complementary halves, is obvious. I don't know if Manhattan is the model--but think of downtown as the equivalent of Market Street in San Francisco, and midtown as the Haight: the funky, lively, mostly residential and shopping (and not very tall) district within walking distance of the tall stuff.

Part of what has galled me about the most recent issue is that Heller has proved he can do good projects in old buildings, and has spoken at public functions about the value of historic preservation in contemporary development--and then does something like this. It's like finding out your hero kicks puppies.

urban_encounter
Jun 25, 2008, 11:51 PM
wburg the more I read your posts the more of an idiot I think you are



I understand what wburg is saying and i agree (to a point.)

Midtown is unique and there are many cities that would love to dupilcate its vibe. I will say that I think we should support high density housing in midtown where it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood, but under no circumstances should development be allowed to overwhelm the pedestrian feel of Midtown. I also think there are many ways to achieve higher densities, without overwhelimng the area..


I'm o.k. with th L street lofts, but i don't want to see 8 to 10 or 15 story towers all over midtown and i doubt (as wburg said) that there are many places where that would work. The one exception is R street and i still think it should be kept in scale with the neighborhood..

Midtown is unique and we really need to ensure that it doesn't turn into another cookie cutter urban destination (duplicated anywhere USA)..

Dakotasteve66
Jun 26, 2008, 1:15 AM
I think the L Street Lofts fit very well in midtown, but specifically for the fact that it is located in the J-K-L business district, where it is more appropriate. You move the Lofts a few streets north or south, and it just doesn't work.

So, saying 8, 10 or 15 story towers are appropriate or inappropriate for midtown is too gross a statement. I think it depends on the specific lot in midtown and its surrounding structures. The vacant lot on northeast corner of Q and 19th comes to mind. As previously stated, some lots along the R Street corridor. Possibly along W street where taller structures could buffer noise from the Highway 50. 27th and Q? or some of the properties in that vacinity near the Capital City Freeway.

However, I also agree, that if any of these projects detracted from larger scale projects in downtown or the railyard, it would have an overall negative impact on the central city.

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 1:37 AM
I understand what wburg is saying and i agree (to a point.)

Midtown is unique and there are many cities that would love to dupilcate its vibe. I will say that I think we should support high density housing in midtown where it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood, but under no circumstances should development be allowed to overwhelm the pedestrian feel of Midtown. I also think there are many ways to achieve higher densities, without overwhelimng the area..


I'm o.k. with th L street lofts, but i don't want to see 8 to 10 or 15 story towers all over midtown and i doubt (as wburg said) that there are many places where that would work. The one exception is R street and i still think it should be kept in scale with the neighborhood..

Midtown is unique and we really need to ensure that it doesn't turn into another cookie cutter urban destination (duplicated anywhere USA)..

I pretty much agree with what your saying here.

However, I do think Midtown could and should be denser, but that does not mean I want single story Victorians replaced or even buildings like MARRS replaced(before MARRS was MARRS). But I still understand, to a point, someone like Heller demolishing the pre-MARRS building if he knew preservationists were going to make it extremely difficult for him to do what he wanted to do with the lot. If Heller decided to knock down the pre-MARRS building instead adapting it because he wanted to add two more floors to it and create someting similar; I would be fine with that.

I see midtown with maybe 3 to 5 more L Street lofts type buildings (but with a smaller footprint), and I see SOME of those 60's and 70's narrow apartment buildings being replaced with taller structures, 3 to 5 stories tall. Decorative, ornate, deco, streamline (there are few near 16th street) craftsman style, victorian, real adobe-mission style, hollwywood bungalow type stuctures should stay, even some of those 60's and 70's apartment building should remain. I like variety.

I see downtown with more "sleek" taller/slim condo/apartment buildings. All cool cities have them, Seattle, SF, Paris, Chicago, even Amsterdam. Although Amsterdam may not have high-rise buildings. Amsterdam's 3-5 story buildings are very tall, taller than a typical 3-5 story western american building(The Dutch are very tall people on average).

All these preservationists and anyone with undue influence in Sacramento should be required to experience Paris, London, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Seattle, SF, SD to name a few cities.

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 1:46 AM
I think the L Street Lofts fit very well in midtown, but specifically for the fact that it is located in the J-K-L business district, where it is more appropriate. You move the Lofts a few streets north or south, and it just doesn't work.

So, saying 8, 10 or 15 story towers are appropriate or inappropriate for midtown is too gross a statement. I think it depends on the specific lot in midtown and its surrounding structures. The vacant lot on northeast corner of Q and 19th comes to mind. As previously stated, some lots along the R Street corridor. Possibly along W street where taller structures could buffer noise from the Highway 50. 27th and Q? or some of the properties in that vacinity near the Capital City Freeway.

However, I also agree, that if any of these projects detracted from larger scale projects in downtown or the railyard, it would have an overall negative impact on the central city.

Interesting ideas, perhaps some of the future structures that would border the 20th street/19th Street railroad tracks could be more along the 5 to 8 story range to buffer the noise from the train (although sometimes i like the roar of a train).

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 1:59 AM
[QUOTE=BrianSac;3633966]I agree, just because it's old, does it need to be preserved? I think not.

I think you are missing the point. It's not that any of these buildings are a superlative example of their respective architectural styles. It's that without the older buildings mixed in throughout the city, we would have a homogeny of building ages, style trends, building techniques and materials, and a homogeny of only those retail and restaurants that can afford new building rents, as well as a homogeny of the Residential demographic. When I think about the places that make Midtown and Downtown awesome--these are what comes to mind off the top of my head:

Cheap Thrills, Rubicon, Tapa The World, Zelda's, Ed's Threads, Aioli Bodega, B-Bop, Temple Coffee, Spanish Fly, Nationwide Freezer Meats (old and new locations), Luna's, Prevues, Taco Loco, Olipom, Bows and Arrows, Big Brother Comics, Golden Bear, Streets of London, Old Ironsides, Fools Foundation (before the city closed them down), Townhouse, B Sakata Garo, Muvaney B & L, Lumens, Bicycle Chef, Paesano's, Old Soul, Naked Lounge, Simon's, Metro Electronics, Lucky Cafe, Fox & Goose, Cornerstone, The Loft (before it shut down), Beer's Books, Art Ellis, Kru, The Beat, Hamburger Mary's (Patty's), Gifted Gardener, Jim Denny's, Michealangelo, Tonevendor (before they left the state), Postcards Etc, Joe's Style Shop (before the city closed them down), Matt Eric's practice space, True Love, Kasbah, Tres Hermanas, Ink. This doesn't even count the small businesses that aren't as open to the general public but still support the creative scene like small record labels, web design, photography, architecture, graphic design.

Something these all have in common---they are all in old buildings, and many are pretty crappy buildings. But the lower rents of these older buildings allow these little, unique, funky small to medium businesses to be in Midtown. If all of the buildings in Midtown not amazing enough for preservation were replaced with new buildings, I imagine we would lose way more of these businesses to other areas than anyone on this board would like to see.

TowerDistrict
Jun 26, 2008, 2:04 AM
Still think they're going into DTP? I dunno...

From the Planning Commish (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2008/PlanningCommissionAgenda6-26-08.cfm) (review and comment only)

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/target-1.jpg

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/target-2.jpg

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/target-3.jpg

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/target-4.jpg

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/target-5.jpg

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 2:17 AM
I pretty much agree with what your saying here.

However, I do think Midtown could and should be denser, but that does not mean I want single story Victorians replaced or even buildings like MARRS replaced(before MARRS was MARRS). But I still understand, to a point, someone like Heller demolishing the pre-MARRS building if he knew preservations were going to make it extremely difficult for him to do what he wanted to do with the lot. If Heller decided to knock down the pre-MARRS building instead adapting it because he wanted to add two more floors to it and create someting similar; I would be fine with that.

I see midtown with maybe 3 to 5 more L Street lofts type buildings (but with a smaller footprint), and I see SOME of those 60's and 70's narrow apartment buildings being replaced with taller structures, 3 to 5 stories tall. Decorative, ornate, deco, streamline (there are few near 16th street) craftsman style, victorian, real adobe-mission style, hollwywood bungalow type stuctures should stay, even some of those 60's and 70's apartment building should remain. I like variety.

I see downtown with more "sleek" taller/slim condo/apartment buildings. All cool cities have them, Seattle, SF, Paris, Chicago, even Amsterdam. Although Amsterdam may not have high-rise buildings. Amsterdam's 3-5 story buildings are very tall, taller than a typical 3-5 story western american building(The Dutch are very tall people on average).

All these preservations and anyone with undue influence in Sacramento should be required to experience Paris, London, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Seattle, SF, SD to name a few cities.

Actually, you are pretty much saying what I was saying about avoiding homogeny--I didn't see this post. But I really loved that (Rex) building everytime I walked to Rubicon, because of the sense of history, the reminder that horses used to be going down these streets instead of cars, and the little weird details of construction that aren't used anymore that give you a sense of time passing. And it's not just the facades of old buildings, but the insides, the floors, the beams--they sounds they make. I just don't agree about the pre-emptive tearing down of a building before anyone has a chance to notice. If everyone did that, it doesn't mean we would have a better city as a whole, but we could definitely lose some unique structures that give the city a sense of time.

On the other hand--the new infill structures should be really modern and awesome, and super-tall in the downtown area--and they should represent everything that is creative and exciting about this time in history, and not look like fake old buildings.

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 2:27 AM
That Target looks awesome! And it appears to be fronting both the Broadway and Riverside sidewalks. wow.
Are there any ideas of what the other retail uses will be?

Cynikal
Jun 26, 2008, 2:32 AM
That looks awesome! And it appears to be fronting both the Broadway and Riverside sidewalks. wow.
Are there any ideas of what the other retail uses will be?


No, this is the first time that Target has used this type of design so they haven't sought out tenants yet. I am very exited by this and what it will do for Broadway.

I'm curious to see what Planning Commission thinks of it.

BTW, LPCA submitted a 7 page letter tearing the project apart. I don't get what they are after.

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 2:37 AM
No, this is the first time that Target has used this type of design so they haven't sought out tenants yet. I am very exited by this and what it will do for Broadway.

I'm curious to see what Planning Commission thinks of it.

BTW, LPCA submitted a 7 page letter tearing the project apart. I don't get what they are after.

Hopefully enough people in favor of the project show up to tear the LPCA apart.

Pistola916
Jun 26, 2008, 2:37 AM
When is the Metropolitan going back to the Design and Review or was it the Planning commish?

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 3:08 AM
[QUOTE=BrianSac;3633966]I agree, just because it's old, does it need to be preserved? I think not.

I think you are missing the point. It's not that any of these buildings are a superlative example of their respective architectural styles. It's that without the older buildings mixed in throughout the city, we would have a homogeny of building ages, style trends, building techniques and materials, and a homogeny of only those retail and restaurants that can afford new building rents, as well as a homogeny of the Residential demographic. When I think about the places that make Midtown and Downtown awesome--these are what comes to mind off the top of my head:

Cheap Thrills, Rubicon, Tapa The World, Zelda's, Ed's Threads, Aioli Bodega, B-Bop, Temple Coffee, Spanish Fly, Nationwide Freezer Meats (old and new locations), Luna's, Prevues, Taco Loco, Olipom, Bows and Arrows, Big Brother Comics, Golden Bear, Streets of London, Old Ironsides, Fools Foundation (before the city closed them down), Townhouse, B Sakata Garo, Muvaney B & L, Lumens, Bicycle Chef, Paesano's, Old Soul, Naked Lounge, Simon's, Metro Electronics, Lucky Cafe, Fox & Goose, Cornerstone, The Loft (before it shut down), Beer's Books, Art Ellis, Kru, The Beat, Hamburger Mary's (Patty's), Gifted Gardener, Jim Denny's, Michealangelo, Tonevendor (before they left the state), Postcards Etc, Joe's Style Shop (before the city closed them down), Matt Eric's practice space, True Love, Kasbah, Tres Hermanas, Ink. This doesn't even count the small businesses that aren't as open to the general public but still support the creative scene like small record labels, web design, photography, architecture, graphic design.

Something these all have in common---they are all in old buildings, and many are pretty crappy buildings. But the lower rents of these older buildings allow these little, unique, funky small to medium businesses to be in Midtown. If all of the buildings in Midtown not amazing enough for preservation were replaced with new buildings, I imagine we would lose way more of these businesses to other areas than anyone on this board would like to see.

I'm not missing the point. I live in a 100 year old house. I understand the nostalgia, the so-called history, the sounds and smells. Read my post above about saving victorians, and other styles above. But I also believe a city should be allowed to evolve.

I support and enjoy all those businesses you mention above. No, I dont want to lose them. I guess there is no easier answer, if a well-monied developer wants to spend alot of money to build something bigger and earn bigger rents shouldnt he be allowed to; it is the American way. Manhattan or SF wouldn't be what they are today if preservationists were allowed to control developers. I want Sacramento to evolve. Balance is the key. Yes, I know SF in many neighborhoods has not changed much, but that is because many of these structures were originally built on a larger scale.

innov8
Jun 26, 2008, 4:00 AM
I think the L Street Lofts fit very well in midtown, but specifically for the fact that it is located in the J-K-L business district, where it is more appropriate. You move the Lofts a few streets north or south, and it just doesn't work.

So, saying 8, 10 or 15 story towers are appropriate or inappropriate for midtown is too gross a statement. I think it depends on the specific lot in midtown and its surrounding structures. The vacant lot on northeast corner of Q and 19th comes to mind. As previously stated, some lots along the R Street corridor. Possibly along W street where taller structures could buffer noise from the Highway 50. 27th and Q? or some of the properties in that vacinity near the Capital City Freeway.

However, I also agree, that if any of these projects detracted from larger scale projects in downtown or the railyard, it would have an overall negative impact on the central city.

Well said Dakotasteve66 :tup:

Once a building goes beyond the 8th floor, people on the street really don't
notice anything above that. The proposed East End Gateway tower at
16th and N St. is a perfect example. If it get's built, it will be the tallest
structure east of 15th Street and no one will even notice because of all
the activity on the street. Let's hope all the East End Gateway sites get
built, it will make for a fantastic stretch of 16th street.

Also, I won't be missing the torn down building at 20th and Capitol Ave. :whip:

ozone
Jun 26, 2008, 4:08 AM
I think this wringing of hands over the destruction the 'Rex' building is a bit over the top. DO NOT assume that just because a business is located in an old building that their lease will be less than one in a new one. DO NOT assume that people who are somewhat indifferent to the demise of the ‘Rex’ building would not support the preservation of truly worthy structures.

I do not see Midtown infill as competing with Downtown infill. That’s exactly the mentality I'm talking about. A more dense Midtown would only support downtown. It's the building on Natomas farmland that has really hurt downtown.

If you really go and look around Midtown you'll see just how many spaces there are where a midrise could comfortably fit in. No one is talking about ploping down a midrise next to a row of Craftsmans. As BrianSac pointed out many neighborhoods in San Francisco were originally built very dense so there's been less pressure to replace the old homes as the result Sacramento has very few blocks full of entact Victorian-Edwardian homes like you still have in San Francisco. Instead many Midtown streets have been infected with LA-style dingbat apartments of very mediocre design. I don't think tearing these out and replacing them with midrises is the answer either. The western edge of central Midtown (home of 1801 L, the Handle District, MARRS, L Lofts and the site of "Rex" building) already has as many businesses as residences so why not add more housing? It's about allowing more people to live closer to the Capitol and CBD. There is simply a greater demand at this point for more housing in Midtown than there is Downtown. Building up in the area closest to the CBD/Capitol will lead towards more downtown infill.

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 4:10 AM
Hopefully enough people in favor of the project show up to tear the LPCA apart.

:cheers:

Losers Phor Clinton Admirers (LPCA)
Losers Phor Coulter admirers (LPCA).......Ann Coulter

otnemarcaS
Jun 26, 2008, 4:23 AM
I personally think folks are getting their panties in a bunch over demolishing of the 'Rex/Auto shop' building. Geez, there are many buildings in MT/DT worth saving and this building was NOT worth saving. I have passed it many times. Look, Sacramento has tons and tons of old buildings around the central city regardless of what people see or say. So what if a few here and there are demolished. It's insane to think we need to save every old building, good or bad. How do we create our own generation of buildings for the next 25, 50, 100 years if all we do is save and patchwork some buildings that are not worth saving? Sacramento must continue to evolve.

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 4:33 AM
[QUOTE=Darn Good City;3636088]

I'm not missing the point. I live in a 100 year old house. I understand the nostalgia, the so-called history, the sounds and smells. Read my post above about saving victorians, and other styles above. But I also believe a city should be allowed to evolve.

I support and enjoy all those businesses you mention above. No, I dont want to lose them. I guess there is no easier answer, if a well-monied developer wants to spend alot of money to build something bigger and earn bigger rents shouldnt he be allowed to; it is the American way. Manhattan or SF wouldn't be what they are today if preservationists were allowed to control developers. I want Sacramento to evolve. Balance is the key. Yes, I know SF in many neighborhoods has not changed much, but that is because many of these structures were originally built on a larger scale.

Yeah but most of Manhattan and San Francisco were built at a time when there were no massive sprawling suburbs, and so businesses took pride in their few buildings located in city centers--just think of old Walgreens buildings compared to new ones. There was less crap being built.
And actually, don't forget alot of the vital dense neighborhoods in Manhattan are still there because of Preservationists, protesting the Radiant City version of 60's Urban Planning---which was to tear everything down that looked disorderly or old-fashioned and build identical inward-looking separated-use fortresses to shun the "dangerous" streets of New York.
Sacramento would be better off if Preservationists had been able to stop the freeways from cutting off the waterfront and tearing down alot of the more spectacular Manhattan-like buildings that used to be there.

I think developers with no desire to do something exciting are the biggest threat to development in Sacramento. Current developers in Manhattan and SF are far more modern and statement-making in their designs than most of what we've got here. Less Ancient Rome in foam and more modern in wood metal and glass.

Yes, you said balance is important, and I agree, but we can always build new buildings on empty lots, parking structures, and in place of the really bad buildings, but we only have a finite number of old ones to maintain the other end of that balance with.

Yes, if multiple well-monied developers wanted to buy up and replace old buildings in Sacramento, and the correct permits are pulled, they can do it. It gets a little weird when the city gives subsidies to these well-monied developers to take over that land though.

innov8
Jun 26, 2008, 4:38 AM
:cheers: Welcome Darn Good City

Darn Good City, why do BrianSac quotes have your name as the original poster? It's confusing to follow the conversation when you do that.

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 5:02 AM
I personally think folks are getting their panties in a bunch over demolishing of the 'Rex/Auto shop' building. Geez, there are many buildings in MT/DT worth saving and this building was NOT worth saving. I have passed it many times. Look, Sacramento has tons and tons of old buildings around the central city regardless of what people see or say. So what if a few here and there are demolished. It's insane to think we need to save every old building, good or bad. How do we create our own generation of buildings for the next 25, 50, 100 years if all we do is save and patchwork some buildings that are not worth saving? Sacramento must continue to evolve.

We have almost the entire railyards to build brand spankin new, doubling the size of the downtown. We also have the Docks, and the River end of Broadway. Add skyscrapers and mid- and high-rises in place of all the surface parking lots, parking garages, and empty lots in Midtown and Downtown, and I don't think we will have trouble evolving. I'm thinking Sacramento is going to be huge and tall and the skyline will go right over the river into a huge and tall be-skyscrapered West Sac, like a big city should, and what might seem now like a ton of old buildings to those who can't see past Sacramento's current size will seem like a mere handful when Sacramento really gets going-----and we may wish we had more left, just like you wish you hadn't thrown away all your 80's clothing now that it's back in style.

Darn Good City
Jun 26, 2008, 5:06 AM
:cheers: Welcome Darn Good City

Darn Good City, why do BrianSac quotes have your name as the original poster? It's confusing to follow the conversation when you do that.

Thanks!

I have no idea how that happened. Dang

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 6:01 AM
[QUOTE=BrianSac;3636205]

Yeah but most of Manhattan and San Francisco were built at a time when there were no massive sprawling suburbs, and so businesses took pride in their few buildings located in city centers--just think of old Walgreens buildings compared to new ones. There was less crap being built.
And actually, don't forget alot of the vital dense neighborhoods in Manhattan are still there because of Preservationists, protesting the Radiant City version of 60's Urban Planning---which was to tear everything down that looked disorderly or old-fashioned and build identical inward-looking separated-use fortresses to shun the "dangerous" streets of New York.
Sacramento would be better off if Preservationists had been able to stop the freeways from cutting off the waterfront and tearing down alot of the more spectacular Manhattan-like buildings that used to be there.

I think developers with bad taste are the biggest threat to development in Sacramento. Current developers in Manhattan and SF are far more sophisticated than most of what we've got here--do any of them even live in Midtown or Downtown? Here--our developers go on a vacation in Tuscany and they come back and try to build cheap Tuscan knock-offs, and they don't understand that even the Italians aren't building like that anymore. Why can't they vacation in Milan or Japan or Berlin or Amsterdam----or Manhattan or San Francisco.

Yes, you said balance is important, and I agree, but we can always build new buildings on empty lots, parking structures, and in place of the really bad buildings, but we only have a finite number of old ones to maintain the other end of that balance with.

Yes, if multiple well-monied developers wanted to buy up and replace old buildings in Sacramento, and the correct permits are pulled, they can do it. It gets a little weird when the city gives subsidies to these well-monied developers to take over that land though.

Bienvenue, Darn Good City
Inno8, did you get that second batch of Paris pics I sent you?

Preservationists really do live in the past. The I-5 freeway was built in the wrong place, we all know that. We arent going to be making those kind of mistakes again. The Alhambra theater should never have been demolished. So when the time is right, we can demo the Safeway, and put up another faux nouvelle Morrocan theater (aka Alhambra theatre).

As Ozone said, Living cities evolve: Case in point. The Embarcadero elevated frwy cut off SF from the Bay. But, it wasnt re-built after the earthquake; instead the city evolved and redeveloped the embarcadero. Same thing with the elevated central frwy over Market St. It wasnt replaced;instead Octavia Street/Fell/Oak was redeveloped/reclaimed.

Sacramento evolve: Build the frigging I-5 Deck.

Keep in mind the preservationists of the 60's in NY were saving highly ornate structures in neighborhoods that were already highly dense. Sacramento preservationists are trying to preserve a small town and in so doing they are keeping it forever a small town with low densities. I'd like Midtown to become a little more dense. I'd like Downtown to become a lot more dense, on a much larger scale, like SD, Seattle, SF.

wburg
Jun 26, 2008, 6:17 AM
All these preservationists and anyone with undue influence :haha: in Sacramento should be required to experience Paris, London, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Seattle, SF, SD to name a few cities.

Hey, if you'll pay the airfare, I'd love to see London and Paris in person! Talk about your treasure troves of historic architecture! I've been to Chicago and San Francisco plenty, and wouldn't mind visiting the other cities you mention. Actually, you might be surprised to learn that people who like historic buildings also like visiting other cities, where one generally also finds historic buildings. Those trips help people understand how important those buildings are to economic vitality and a city's unique character and heritage!

BrianSac
Jun 26, 2008, 7:42 AM
Actually, you might be surprised to learn that people who like historic buildings also like visiting other cities, where one generally also finds historic buildings. Those trips help people understand how important those buildings are to economic vitality and a city's unique character and heritage!


Why would I be surprised at that?

The point of visiting these other cities is to gain some PERSPECTIVE, education, and real life experience about great architecture and density. Quibbling over and calling the Rex historic because it is 100years old, and has a cut out Hollywood backlot facade that resembles mission revival seems ludicrous in comparison to buildings in Paris that are 1,000 years old and made of ornately carved stone of enormous scale or even those the are on a much smaller scale.

The plain wood structures like the Rex that existed in Paris and London 1,200 years ago are all but gone, and nobody cares. Those wood structures made way for grander more dense and ornate architecture....thats why Paris and London are great cities(one of many reasons).

The urban renewal projects of Paris by Haussman destroyed some buildings. But the city evolved. They actually demolished structures much much grander than the Rex, yet Paris didn't lose its heritage, character or economic vitality. They simple built new grander districts.