[BrianSac]

As suggested by Urban:

Here is our new thread.

Railyard proposal takes new shapes
Arena and canal are out as developer adds 1-acre parks and 2,000 housing units.
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, June 2, 2007
Story appeared in METRO section, Page B1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0) | Digg it | del.icio.us

The developer of the downtown railyard this week unveiled a new version of its plan for the 240-acre site -- one that better connects the proposed development to the city's existing streets, and replaces a planned canal with a string of 1-acre parks.

Curving boulevards and long blocks have given way to a grid that mirrors Sacramento. City officials and community activists say the shorter blocks would be more hospitable to pedestrians.

"Before, it was much more of a suburban type subdivision with wide boulevards and cul-de-sacs," said Assistant City Manager Marty Hanneman.


The canal idea was scrapped because of concern about people falling in, and also the potential difficulty of keeping the water clean, he said.

Another 2,000 housing units were added to the plan -- bringing the total to 12,000.

A new arena for the Kings has been deleted -- at least for now -- because voters last November rejected the idea of paying for one. The "sports and entertainment zone" contained in the last version of the plan has been turned into a "West End" district of stores, housing and a hotel.

One thing hasn't changed, however. A giant Bass Pro fishing emporium will be one of the first things built in the converted railyard. It's planned for the northwestern edge of the site closest to Interstate 5.

The evolving vision for the railyard now includes a major performing arts complex and conservatory -- dubbed the California Academy of the Arts. Developer Thomas Enterprises is working with major arts groups in town, along with California State University, Sacramento, and the University of California, Davis.

"We want to attract students from all over. We want to become the West Coast Juilliard (School)," said Richard Rich, development director for Thomas Enterprises, the Georgia-based developer that in December bought the property from Union Pacific.

Rich also is working with representatives of the city Asian American community to create a memorial -- they are now pushing for a museum -- that would document the history of Yee Fou (or Second City), the Chinese neighborhood that once bustled just south of the railyard. It also could recall the contributions of Chinese workers to building the transcontinental railroad.

The city of Sacramento plans to solicit public comment on the new plan -- which will guide development in the railyard over the next 20 years -- at a workshop Thursday, from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. in the Amtrak depot on I Street.

"We want as many people as possible to come and give us their feedback," Hanneman said.

The city took title to the depot at the same time that Thomas Enterprises bought the rest of the railyard, ending nearly 150 years of railroad ownership. The city plans to build a new transit center in the railyard, just south of the historic shops.

City leaders have adopted an aggressive timeline for getting the railroad development on track toward construction. The schedule calls for an environmental impact report to be issued by August, and for a final City Council vote on the project by fall.

"In the next six months, we're going to be moving at warp speed," Hanneman said.

Major financial hurdles remain before construction can begin, however.

Thomas Enterprises and the city are working on a financing plan they can use to cobble together the $530 million for streets, sewers, power lines and other infrastructure that will be needed in the railyard as it gradually builds out to become a major extension of downtown.

Another $300 million -- about a third of which already has been identified -- is needed for the city to build its planned multi-use transit center for trains, light rail and buses. Part of that plan is to move the historic depot about a block to the north and make it part of the new complex.

Finally, the developer also will be looking for funds to help restore the historic brick railroad shops into a public market, restaurants and entertainment venues.

The state, meanwhile, is working on its own plan to transform some of the buildings as an extension of the California State Railroad Museum that would showcase railroad technology.

City leaders and executives of Thomas Enterprises are busy meeting with politicians in the Capitol -- getting in line for money from state bonds approved last fall to help transit-oriented development.

"We're getting a lot of attention at the state level," said Thomas Enterprises Vice President Suheil Totah.

These days, as they begin the daunting task of pushing their vision toward reality, Totah and Rich are spending much of their time giving tours of the railyard, which was long shuttered and off-limits to the public.

Marj Dickinson, assistant vice chancellor of UC Davis, took a tour on Wednesday. She was charmed by the old shop buildings, a warren of 19th-century brick structures lined with arched windows and separated by narrow alleys.

"I kept wandering around looking at those buildings and saying, 'Who would ever build industrial buildings with all those wonderful arches now. They're beautiful. Aesthetically you can imagine all sorts of exciting space that just brings people in."

[urban_encounter]

Here's a rundown and a few photos form the Downtown Sacramento Construction thread in the City Compilations forum to help get it started..

UP Railyards (Sacramento Gateway)
240 acre redevelopment includes
12,000 residential units
Low, mid and high-rise towers of up to 40 stories
3 million square feet of office space
1.3 million square feet of retail
Performing Arts Center
Arts Academy
Public market
Railroad Technology Museum
Bass Pro Shop signed letter of intent May 2006)
Developer: Thomas Enterprises (Atlanta)
Architect: Jon Jerde
Construction Status: Thomas Enterprise closed escrow on the 240 acres in December 2006.
Accelerated cleanup of contaminants over the next two years.
http://www.sacbee.com/static/rich_content_images/17973-milennia250x203.jpghttp://downtownsac.org/uploads/projects/railroad_tech_museum.jpg
http://www.sacramentorailyards.com/assets/slideShow/slide4.jpg

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=83685

[BrianSac]

From the Sacramento Bee:

http://img457.imageshack.us/img457/5300/449railstandaloneprodafqb3.jpg

[ozone]

The evolving vision for the railyard now includes a major performing arts complex and conservatory -- dubbed the California Academy of the Arts. Developer Thomas Enterprises is working with major arts groups in town, along with California State University, Sacramento, and the University of California, Davis.

"We want to attract students from all over. We want to become the West Coast Juilliard (School)," said Richard Rich, development director for Thomas Enterprises, the Georgia-based developer that in December bought the property from Union Pacific.

Rich also is working with representatives of the city Asian American community to create a memorial -- they are now pushing for a museum -- that would document the history of Yee Fou (or Second City), the Chinese neighborhood that once bustled just south of the railyard. It also could recall the contributions of Chinese workers to building the transcontinental railroad.

wow these addtions would be great

[wburg]

That is some great news...I definitely hoped that there was room for some kind of educational institution in the Railyards property. Aside from satellite campuses like USC, the central city doesn't have any colleges, and it could sure use some. I'm definitely looking forward to the Railroad Technology Museum: the shops buildings are just amazing, and until those buildings are officially under State Parks' control they can't start repairing them.

[petescafe]

Greetings all.

I thought I'd post these photos of what the rail yard shops looked like when the Southern Pacific was still around.

The photos where taken by me when I was a Docent at the California State Railroad Museum. A tour was arranged for members of the Docent Association and given by a Southern Pacific representative. Photo taking was encouraged.

The tour consisted of a complete walk through of the SP Sacramento yards as they existed then. As you will see in the photos, the inside of these buildings are huge.

I'll try and explain what these photos are depicting, but my memory is a little fuzzy. Also I can't remember what year this was taken. I want to say it was around 1988 or 1989 but I can't be exactly sure.

Anyhow, on with the show.

The first photo is looking west toward the 5 fwy.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards001.jpg



This shot is looking eastward, in the distance you can see the old channel 3 transmission tower.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards003.jpg



This picture shows the tour group, with the same older brick building in the previous shot.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards004.jpg



This is the west side of the main locomotive building. Notice the sideways moving transfer table.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards006.jpg




The next three photos give you a feeling of the size of this building.

Here we're inside the locomotive building looking north.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards010.jpg



Here is the same area further back.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards009.jpg



Now the group is on the south side of the Locomotive shop.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards011.jpg



This is the other building. It's just as impressive.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards005.jpg



Another shot inside the second building.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards012.jpg



I had to splice two photos together to get this shot.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards002.jpg



And here is the group leaving the SP yards after a fun day of walking around the yards.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards007.jpg


Finally, an old photo of the Sacramento passenger train platform.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b340/TheGhostlyGreatDunn/SacRRYards008.jpg


Hope you like them.

[aufbau]

Fantastic pictures, petescafe! (and welcome to the forum). It's odd to see life and activity in a place I only know as being derelict and not from terribly long ago either.

The amtrak platform doesn't look all too different:haha: Although not related to the railyards, do you have any skyline shots from back then? There wasn't much to look at, I imagine, but i'm still very curious what it looked like in the 1980s.

[NewToCA]

Thanks for the photos, it gives me a much better idea of what we are dealing with here. Based on what I see, it looks like a Baltimore Harbor Place development would work with these buildings, along with something like in the Ferry Bldg in San Francisco.

Looks like we still have a lot to be excited about, just got to get the shovels moving.

[foxmtbr]

Yes, very cool shots, and welcome!

[neuhickman79]

Fantastic shots! Thanks for posting them...and as aufbau said, any pics of the 80's skyline would be neat if you had them, too!

[petescafe]

Thanks for the welcome.

I don't think I have anything from the 80's but I'll look through the archives and see what I got.

I think both structures are registered national historical landmarks.
Doesn't that limit what can be done to them?

I think the brick engine house is over 100 years old. Can't image what the earthquake retrofit will do to it.

[ltsmotorsport]

Thanks for the historic pics. Really enjoyed them.

[wburg]

I don't know the historic landmark status offhand, but the still-standing Shops buildings are between 100 and 140 years old. Sometimes it's kind of hard to gauge because many of the structures were built, expanded and rebuilt over the years.

One of the main points of discussion is how much of the existing Shops building will become part of the Railroad Technology Museum. The two buildings on the far west of the lot, the Boiler Shop and the Erecting Shop, are currently used to store, maintain and restore the CSRM's equipment, and the Sacramento Southern's maintenance of way, signals, and other departments work out of there. They have rebuilt the transfer table and use it to shuffle equipment between the two shops.

The rest of the buildings, including the blacksmith shop, a car shop, the paint shop/traction motor shop, and the lavatory, are kind of in flux right now. CSRM would like to have control of most or all of them to really expand the Railroad Technology Museum, and because they are a public agency they would have access to restoration funds that aren't available to private organizations like Thomas Enterprises. Thomas has expressed some interest in having part of the Shops under their control, but probably not the Boiler Shop/Erecting Shop, and has made public statements that they are willing to spend $100 million to do restoration work on the structures. Exactly who gets what and what goes where is going to be...interesting.

I'm currently a CSRM docent and have been through the Shops several times. It's a neat place, although things are considerably scruffier now and a lot of the buildings in those shots are gone. Just replace all those SP bloody-nose units with an assortment of equipment ranging from 1870s steam locomotives to 1960s era diesel-electrics, stacks of spare parts and tools and assorted heavy-duty gear of all sorts.

One of my pet peeves is when people refer to them as the "Union Pacific shops." All UP ever did there was shut the place down, let it go to pot and sell it off. Southern Pacific (and its predecessor Central Pacific) were there for over a century, and built the place up from a swamp.

It's not a "skyline" shot, but I do have this gigantic 4'x4' aerial photograph of downtown Sacramento from the early seventies that shows the shops, K Street, assorted state buildings, and the sea of parking lots that were a legacy of development. The Delta King is barely visible on the West Sac side of the river. The shops are clearly visible and there was quite a bit of activity, although of course not as much as during their heyday. The place was HUGE--biggest industrial complex on this side of the country, one of the biggest steam locomotive construction shops anywhere in the nation and the biggest employer in town by quite a margin.

[BrianSac]

wburg,

:) great pics of the railyards, thanks for this history lesson as well.

The way I remember it from California History 101. Union Pacific was mostly out of LA and southern cal.

SP and CP were SF based, Northern Cal. While Sacramento had the huge railyard, repair yard, and shops.

Stanford built a grand mansion in Sacramento, so did Crocker. What about Huntington and Hopkins. Did they build anything grand in Sacramento or Stockton?

[wburg]

The Pacific Railroad (more commonly known as the Transcontinental Railroad, technically the Overland Route) was built by Central Pacific, starting from here, and Union Pacific, starting from Omaha, Nebraska. They met at Promontory Summit (not Promontory Point!) and UP technically had the eastern half.

Central Pacific was based out of Sacramento originally, but they moved their offices to San Francisco. The main shops were still located here. For a variety of legal reasons, Central Pacific purchased a company called "Southern Pacific," incorporated in Kentucky (for tax purposes), and used it as a holding company. Southern Pacific was pretty much the dominant economic and political force in California until around 1900.

SP had a line down to southern California, and their "Sunset Route" through the Southwest was actually more reliable than the Overland Route (less likely to get snowed in in winter.) Their first competitor in southern California was the Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe--Union Pacific didn't enter southern California until much later (maybe 1920s?)

Leland Stanford bought his mansion in Sacramento (it was already built when he moved in) and greatly expanded it after becoming governor and building the railroad. He later moved to San Francisco when CP/SP relocated its headquarters to San Francisco--but when the line was originally built, you couldn't stay on the train to San Francisco, you switched to riverboat at Sacramento.

The Crocker home/gallery wasn't built by Charles Crocker, who was one of the Big Four--it was built by his brother, E.B. Crocker, who was Central Pacific's principal attorney. Charles Crocker and C.P. Huntington built homes in San Francisco, along with Stanford. Mark Hopkins built a house in San Francisco at his wife's insistence. I think all four of the mansions they built in San Francisco were destroyed in the 1906 earthquake, so really the Stanford Mansion is the only home of the Big Four left.

None of them built homes in Stockton (and why would they?). Stockton wanted to be chosen by CP as the site for their division point, where traffic headed up the peninsula to San Francisco would depart their main line. However, Stockton didn't offer enough to CP for the privilege, so CP started their own town a few miles from Stockton to support the division yard, named after Leland Stanford's in-laws--the town of Lathrop is still there.

[BrianSac]

:previous:
interessting stuff!

Regarding Stockton, I was thinking of the "Haggin" Musuem who had nothing to do with the Big Four.

I always thought the Crocker Museum was a built by Charles Crocker not E.B.........you set me straight on that.

Good to know Sacramento has the last standing Mansion of the Big Four. Too bad Stanford didn't build "The Farm" (Stanford University) in Sacramento. :yes:

[travis bickle]

Wow! Great stuff wburg. Thank you for every sentence. My grandfather worked for the SP in Roseville, but I don't recall any visits to the Sacramento yards. So Petescafe, I greatly appreciate the pictures.

I have real hope for the railyards. It seems that there is a truly world class team in place. It seems that they are in tune with some cultural/commercial elements lacking in Sacramento. It seems that they see the city as a destination and not just a stop on the way to somewhere else.

In short: they are everything Westfield isn't.

[ozone]

For those of us who's eyes and ears wax over when people talk about railroads I hope the entire shops do not become Old Sacramento North. As the reporter for the New York Times said when visiting Sacramento -"No I won't be going to the Railroad Museum".

[fatchocolatecow]

As of right now, only the two western most shops are to be the Railroad Technology Museum with the remainder of the buidings being retained by Thomas Enterprises and transformed into a variety of uses including arts and retail. I for one am glad they will be utilitized as something other than a museum that will be utilized and enjoyed by a larger portion of the population.

[downtownserg89]

i'm so late, but yeah those throwback pics were sweet.


loves it.

[neuhickman79]

i'm so late, but yeah those throwback pics were sweet.


loves it.

That's hot!

[petescafe]

It's not a "skyline" shot, but I do have this gigantic 4'x4' aerial photograph of downtown Sacramento from the early seventies that shows the shops, K Street, assorted state buildings, and the sea of parking lots that were a legacy of development.

I would very much like to see that!:)

[wburg]

ozone: Yeah, but the NYT reporter knew about the Railroad Museum. We already have one of the best in the world, with the RTM we *will* have the best in the world. Railroads built this town and were its driving force for a century--like cars built Detroit. I know that not everyone is into trains (my eyes glaze over the same way when people talk about sports) but the expanded RTM is a big deal. It, and Old Sacramento, are the local equivalent of Fisherman's Wharf: the tourist place where locals don't go, but people from out of town tend to know about it, and tend to have a great time when they go there.

I assume we'll end up with some sort of compromise, with some part (probably at the very least the paint shop) in private hands and part in public hands, with a mix of uses.

Incidentally...this Saturday morning is the Sacramento Old City Association's quarterly "Preservation Roundtable," and it is being held *in* the Paint Shop, and it concludes with a tour of the rest of the Shops complex. I'll post the rest of the details tomorrow...

[wburg]

I hoped to have a map to post today...I'll add it once I get it, but here's the skinny:

The Sacramento Old City Association presents its quarterly Preservation Roundtable, Saturday June 9 at 9:00 AM. Admission is $5 at the door.

The Roundtable will be held in the paint shop of the Southern Pacific Shops. For those unfamiliar with the Shops, it is the building farthest to the right in the Shops complex when facing north from the Amtrak passenger platform.

How to get there: By car, take I-5 to Richards Blvd. and turn towards the river (left if you're coming from downtown, right if you're coming from the north.) Turn left on Jibboom Street and look for the UP signs. Follow the signs through the Shops past the Paint Shop, where there is a large open area for parking.

By light rail, take the Gold Line to the Sacramento Valley station. Walk a bit east to the end of the platform, cross the tracks and just walk across the field to the Paint Shop, which is the building farthest to the right.

The Preservation Roundtable includes various speakers from the city of Sacramento, the local development community and those involved in historic preservation activities. Thanks to Thomas Enterprises, who have made the Shops building available for this event.

At 12:00 PM, the meeting will conclude with an exclusive tour of the Shops complex, led by California State Railroad Museum staff.

[ozone]

I'm not so sure that the reporter from NYC actually knew about the Railroad Museum before arriving in Sacramento. I imagine someone from Sacramento said to him "...and you'll have to visit our Railroad Museum!" To which he replied...er..no.

Hey don't get me wrong I really like the CSRM and I understand the importance of railroads to Sacramento and think the RTM will be great community asset. I just don't want us to become a 'one track town'. What's going to happen to Old Sacramento when the Railyards and other riverfront venues get going?

The fact that Old Sacramento is the local equivalent of Fisherman's Wharf doesn't make me nor anyone else I've ever talked to about very happy. Old Sacramento like every other place in the city belongs first to the people of this city. Never should we surrender a district to the tourists. San Francisco is not always the best model. The 'gee the out-of-towners are having a great time so we must be doing it right" mentally makes me mad.

From what I gather from talking to people in Old Sacramento the problem is that there is no consensus about what Old Sacramento should be. The Historic Old Sacramento Foundation, Old Sacramento Management, the City, the State Parks and the merchants all have their own, often competing agendas. The articles I've read, inlcuding yours, just confirms my suspicions about some of the people in charge. When people like Baxter of the OSF equate Old Sacramento with Disneyland I know we're in trouble. I've been to a few meeting of the OSF and think some of these people are bit delusional in thinking that Old Sacramento should or could be a West Coast version of Williamsburg. Give it up people. I never ever feel like I'm stepping back to the gold rush days -even during the Gold Rush Days. I feel like I'm on a Burbank movie set next to the 101 surrounded by tacky WT bubba's from Valley burbs and their plump kids.

[travis bickle]

Hey don't get me wrong I really like the CSRM and I understand the importance of railroads to Sacramento and think the RTM will be great community asset. I just don't want us to become a 'one track town'. What's going to happen to Old Sacramento when the Railyards and other riverfront venues get going?

I actually see this waterfront as having a real potential into becoming a sort of museum promenade anchored by the RTM/CSRM on the north, the greatly expanded Crocker in the middle and the Towne on the southern end.

Far from a one-track town, I think that's pretty impressive.

If the talked about I-5 bypass is ever actually built and that land returned to the city, a true promenade could take its place, add some additional attractions and create one of the most compact, beautiful and exciting museum/arts districts in the country.

Even if I-5 remains where it is as it is - those three oustanding anchors along the Sacramento will make for a great urban scene.

[ozone]

Oh you know I not opposed to using hyperbole to get my point across -;).

Speaking of the Towe Auto Museum. I remember during some the public mettings on the Railyards they were always there pushing for a spot for a new location -since they'll probably have to move when the Docks is built-out- but no one seemed to care much. Since it's an automotive musuem I've always thought it should be located along a major street and not stuck off in the corner of nowheresville. I know it's not downtown but I've always thought it would be cool near the Tower Theater or somewhere in the TD. How about Cal DMV giving up a section of their huge parking lot along Broadway for the musuem? What better place for auto musuem than a next to the DVM HQ? They could make it look like an classic auto showroom/garage.

[wburg]

I guess I just have an easier time having fun in Old Sacramento. I was there much of Saturday night--started out at a private event at the Railroad Museum, afterwards we stopped for coffee on the Delta King and watched the fireworks at the end of the Rivercats game, then went to a nightclub and called it a night at around 1:00 AM. It wasn't super-crowded but the streets were busy and active, and felt pretty safe because it wasn't a ghost town. I didn't take a survey or anything but I don't think that it was all tourists, either.

And yeah, Old Sac does kind of lack focus. Why wouldn't it? It's a Gold Rush themed area consisting of mostly 1860s-1880s era buildings and a handful of modern reproductions, whose most distinct features are a 1930s bridge, a 1970s museum, a 1960s freeway and a 1920s riverboat. Basically, it is a collection of the handful of the West End that Sacramento managed to save from the wrecking ball, like someone grabbing a handful of most-cherished items on their way out of a burning building. So it's a little out of focus in retrospect, but it's safe to assume that the items saved from the flames have at least some personal importance, on their own if not in relationship to each other.

[ozone]

I'm not saying I couldn't have fun in Old Sacramento. But once you've been there a couple of times it's pretty boring IMO. I think if they don't do something that once there are other options -like the Railyards, they're going to lose business.

You cited objects but I citied people and their organizations as the main reason for Old Sacramento's lack focus. I do not believe the physical environment has very much to do w/ it. From what I've been able to pick up from the various people I have talked to it's the people who run things in Old Sac that's the problem. But not the only problem to be sure.

The shops and restaurants don't appeal to me at all. What's there to buy if you don't like tacky T-shirts and candy? I know I'm going to sound like a snob but I live in Midtown..why would I go to Old Sac to eat overpriced medicore food with a bunch of rednecks? I'm fine with a mix of people but don't expect to get my dollars when you cater to a small socio-economic demographic. Phil Jackson was wrong calling all of us rednecks but there certianly are still redneck-ish places here and Old Sacramento is sort of one those places.

I say get rid of parking meters and make everyone entering Old Sacramento get a ticket (like at the airport) -then they pay an attendant on their way out. Plant trees! It gets f'kn hot in Old Sacramento too. Old Sacramento used to have huge trees -some right in the middle of the street. It's ridiclously inconsiderate to make visitors suffer. Some restaurants should open up the tall windows so that they can have an indoor-outdoor feel. Allow drinking on the wooden sidewalks. Allow merchants to use neon in the signs. Build a kids playground in the park..... these things would do a hell of lot more than "branding" would.

[travis bickle]

know I'm going to sound like a snob but I live in Midtown..why would I go to Old Sac to eat overpriced medicore food with a bunch of rednecks?

You don't sound like a snob... more like a punk.

Midtown's great. Old Sac's not for you. Fine. No need to display your own ignorance while insulting those who may enjoy it.

[wburg]

I live in Midtown too (and consider myself a total midtown snob, btw), and admittedly there isn't a whole gargantuan lot of reason for us midtowners to go to Old Sacramento during the day. We've got the historic buildings, trees and walkable places to eat and shop covered already. However, you have to admit that Old Sac is the one part of downtown that (unlike, say, DTP and K Street) actually draws people from the suburbs and other outlying areas, even if they are "rednecks."

And the things that draw me (other than the trains) are generally nightclub/band oriented activities, which have been on the upswing lately. No tacky T-shirts involved, although I do sometimes get the urge to go buy candy cigarettes. I also noticed that a lot of Old Sac retail businesses are staying open until 10:00 PM or thereabouts, an idea that could bear some copying in Midtown.

The idea of removing parking meters and instead having an attendant has merit, although it would increase the physical separation of Old Sac even more because you'd have to pay to get in/out.

[ozone]

But I love to display my ignorance while insulting others..travis bickle. It's my inner punk.

You're right about the shops needing to stay open later in Midtown wburg. Although I think there's probably more late night restaurants in Midtown than in Old Sac..but of course how would I know? I will admit I am ignorant of Old Sac's nightlife scene. I just can't see myself there but maybe I should try it out. You also make a good point about the meters/parking -you're probably right. Ok Ok I feel myself losing this one..so I'd better go.

[travis bickle]

But I love to display my ignorance while insulting others..travis bickle. It's my inner punk.

Well... at least your consistent. Suppose someone on this board said they didn't like midtown because of all the "fags." Would you find that funny?

I don't either.

Amazing how some can laugh off bigotry as long as it's the right kind. Right ozone?

[ozone]

:rolleyes:

[wburg]

hey now travis, play nice. Ozone is expressing his opinion, and he hasn't said anything offensive in the process. I respect that. Besides, we're both midtown snobs, so I am sure we have plenty of common ground.

But now I will scream "TAKE THIS THREAD TO CUBA!" and continue to comment.

Midtown has a lot of restaurants open later now, but there isn't a lot of retail (places that sell stuff, rather than places that sell food) that stays open late. There are obvious reasons for this, but there's getting to be enough stroll-through traffic where it seems like a few businesses might consider it. I have noticed an upswing in businesses that keep their lights on in the evening, which both helps illuminate the street (more safety) and advertise the stores. I suppose that as midtown starts to wake up again we'll see more business, and someone (probably one of the little indie shops) will start staying open late on evenings other than Second Saturday and start making a mint, then others will follow suit.

Now, as to the comment by travis bickle, if someone posted that on here (assuming a moderator didn't step on them before I had the chance) my response to them would be "well then, STAY OUT OF MIDTOWN!" One of the things that drew me to midtown was its tolerance: I grew up in Citrus Heights, and got tired of the sort of things people would yell at me from pickup trucks...heck, I once got hassled by a guy who decided that my socks weren't manly enough.

[travis bickle]

hey now travis, play nice. Ozone is expressing his opinion, and he hasn't said anything offensive in the process. I respect that. Besides, we're both midtown snobs, so I am sure we have plenty of common ground.

But now I will scream "TAKE THIS THREAD TO CUBA!" and continue to comment.

Midtown has a lot of restaurants open later now, but there isn't a lot of retail (places that sell stuff, rather than places that sell food) that stays open late. There are obvious reasons for this, but there's getting to be enough stroll-through traffic where it seems like a few businesses might consider it. I have noticed an upswing in businesses that keep their lights on in the evening, which both helps illuminate the street (more safety) and advertise the stores. I suppose that as midtown starts to wake up again we'll see more business, and someone (probably one of the little indie shops) will start staying open late on evenings other than Second Saturday and start making a mint, then others will follow suit.

Now, as to the comment by travis bickle, if someone posted that on here (assuming a moderator didn't step on them before I had the chance) my response to them would be "well then, STAY OUT OF MIDTOWN!" One of the things that drew me to midtown was its tolerance: I grew up in Citrus Heights, and got tired of the sort of things people would yell at me from pickup trucks...heck, I once got hassled by a guy who decided that my socks weren't manly enough.

Listen, I already had way enough of this. But if people are going to squeal about stereotypes... well, that should include all stereoypes, not just the ones you are anyone else are comfortale with. I've found that for all of us - even midtownies - if your looking for bigotry, the first place to look is in the mirror.

[wburg]

Update about the SOCA Preservation Roundtable and Shops tour: the tour of the Shops will happen at the BEGINNING of the event, not at the end--therefore, get there NO LATER THAN 9:00 AM and BRING YOUR CAMERAS! The tour will be led by CSRM director Cathy Taylor and Thomas Enterprises' Richard Rich.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/projects/railyards/events/06-09-2007-preservation-roundtable/

Tour of Railyards Paint Shop by Sacramento Preservation Roundtable
When
Saturday, June 9, 2007
9:00am to 12 noon
Meeting Agenda
Where
Jibboom Street Gate of Railyards
See map (PDF - 171 KB)
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/projects/railyards/events/06-09-2007-preservation-roundtable/documents/preservation-roundtable-map.pdf
What
You are invited to attend the ROUNDTABLE to discuss the current & future state of Historic Preservation in Sacramento. This is a rare opportunity to see these historic shops bldgs! BRING YOUR CAMERAS. A thanks to Thomas Enterprises, Inc.

Parking available - see map w/Agenda for directions. Carpooling strongly preferred. Walking or Biking is not permitted because of terrain, fences, & tracks (liability issues).

$5.00 Donation Fee, payable at the door. Complimentary coffee, juices, and pastries will be provided.

[ozone]

Well I might be a little agro since I'm going through nicotine withdrawals...but in my mind 'rednecks' can't be equated homosexuals. To me ‘rednecks’ come in all races, economic and educational levels. To me ‘redneck’ is an unsophisticated worldview and not somebody’s innate nature which they have no control over. If I offended you travis bickle I'm sorry. That was not my intent. That's all I'm going to say.

Getting back on track…..

Am I the only one who thinks moving the historic depot is a colossal waste of money and time? Couldn’t the money that we would spend moving the old depot be better spent on making the new terminal really a showpiece so when people arrive the say “wow, this is Sacramento”? Some people have got it stuck in their heads that the old depot and the realigned tracks must stay together. I don’t get it.

Despite councilmember Lauren Hammond’s guarantees that it (the old depot) couldn’t be adapted to other uses I think it could be reused for other purposes -like a museum, City College, a lobby for a new hotel, etc. SOD is only considering the building itself – but what about it’s relationship with old Express Building and surrounding city? Isn’t taking the old depot out of it’s historical context more egregious than using it for purposes other than transit? Plus we will just be creating another empty lot downtown -which would most likely be turned into a huge parking lot until some developer decides to build something there.

I’m also not sure why they are talking about building a temporary facility. Why waste the money build an interim station? Can't the new station be built simultaneous with the track relocation?

[innov8]

Well I might be a little agro since I'm going through nicotine withdrawals...but in my mind 'rednecks' can't be equated homosexuals. To me ‘rednecks’ come in all races, economic and educational levels. To me ‘redneck’ is an unsophisticated worldview and not somebody’s innate nature which they have no control over. If I offended you travis bickle I'm sorry. That was not my intent. That's all I'm going to say.

Sounds like your confused about what the term redneck means: red·neck (rěd'něk') n. Offensive Slang

1) Used as a disparaging term for a member of the white rural laboring class, especially in the southern United States.
2) A white person regarded as having a provincial, conservative, often bigoted attitude.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved., © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/redneck


Am I the only one who thinks moving the historic depot is a colossal waste of money and time? Couldn’t the money that we would spend moving the old depot be better spent on making the new terminal really a showpiece so when people arrive the say “wow, this is Sacramento”? Some people have got it stuck in their heads that the old depot and the realigned tracks must stay together. I don’t get it.

Despite councilmember Lauren Hammond’s guarantees that it (the old depot) couldn’t be adapted to other uses I think it could be reused for other purposes -like a museum, City College, a lobby for a new hotel, etc. SOD is only considering the building itself – but what about it’s relationship with old Express Building and surrounding city? Isn’t taking the old depot out of it’s historical context more egregious than using it for purposes other than transit? Plus we will just be creating another empty lot downtown -which would most likely be turned into a huge parking lot until some developer decides to build something there.

I’m also not sure why they are talking about building a temporary facility. Why waste the money build an interim station? Can't the new station be built simultaneous with the track relocation?

I agree, moving the historic depot is a colossal waste of money and time.
There are other uses for it that can preserve the essence of the building
and still make it functional.

[wburg]

Well, yeah, moving the depot ismeans a lot of time and money, but it probably wouldn't be more expensive than building a new station in its place. The whole reason why a new depot was built in the 1920s was threefold: to make use of land previously occupied by Lake Sutter/China Slough, to have a train station that was closer to the heart of downtown, and to physically separate freight trains from passenger trains. The freights were run on the old tangent alignment (and location of the 1890s era station), and the passenger yard was placed in the current location to parallel the new station.

In my mind, that might be the best possible alignment: run a tangent track so freights don't have to slow down, and passengers won't have to dodge freights on the platforms. However, the final deal which allowed the city to take control of the station included an agreement to relocate the tracks to the old freight tangent, and there are safety concerns about switches and diamonds (which could increase risk of derailment for trains operating at speed) so close to the I Street Bridge.

Part of the appeal of moving the station is that the city would then own two blocks of relatively vacant downtown land, which would be good places for tall towers, and the station's new orientation would be closer to the Railyards while still close to downtown. It would also allow CSRM to transfer equipment to the Shops without using their current method of temporarily laying a piece of track across the UP mainline to shuffle equipment across within a ten-minute window. So there are pluses and minuses in both directions...

[ozone]

Has it really been determined that a completely new station would cost more than moving and refurbishing the old depot? Or is this just what some people conjecture? From the pleminary plans it look like there would be this enormous curved shed not only over platforms but even over the old depot. What is that going to cost?

It's not very likely that your prefered alignment will be used since even with safety concerns UP and City have already made their decision right?

By moving the station the city would then own two blocks of vacant downtown land for development. Well call me cynical but if the past is any indication of the future then I'm afraid we'll end up with two blocks of surface parking lot for a long time. Won't the city own the depot and surrounding area either way? So they'll still get money for it if its developed. I'm not sure why tall buildings at that site are so important...but maybe it would be cool. I just don't have a lot of faith that it would end up good.

I'm not confused about what redneck means to me. The Fourth Edition of American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language has their definition, I have mine. Although a person (of any color) with provincial, bigoted attitudes would be a redneck in my mind. OK this is really the last thing I say about this ...really..

[travis bickle]

Well, yeah, moving the depot ismeans a lot of time and money, but it probably wouldn't be more expensive than building a new station in its place. The whole reason why a new depot was built in the 1920s was threefold: to make use of land previously occupied by Lake Sutter/China Slough, to have a train station that was closer to the heart of downtown, and to physically separate freight trains from passenger trains. The freights were run on the old tangent alignment (and location of the 1890s era station), and the passenger yard was placed in the current location to parallel the new station.

In my mind, that might be the best possible alignment: run a tangent track so freights don't have to slow down, and passengers won't have to dodge freights on the platforms. However, the final deal which allowed the city to take control of the station included an agreement to relocate the tracks to the old freight tangent, and there are safety concerns about switches and diamonds (which could increase risk of derailment for trains operating at speed) so close to the I Street Bridge.

Part of the appeal of moving the station is that the city would then own two blocks of relatively vacant downtown land, which would be good places for tall towers, and the station's new orientation would be closer to the Railyards while still close to downtown. It would also allow CSRM to transfer equipment to the Shops without using their current method of temporarily laying a piece of track across the UP mainline to shuffle equipment across within a ten-minute window. So there are pluses and minuses in both directions...

On balance, I think forcing the city to spend enormous sums of money to move the depot is wasteful. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that a major preservationist demand was that the building could only continue as a functioning station. There must have been alternatives - I would imagine all of them cheaper - that would have kept the building for a variety of uses while preserving the architectural heritage that didn’t involve this costly move.

I have to ask what the goal was - preserve a beautiful and integral part of Sacramento history - or force a big developer and city to give up a pound of flesh.

Now we are asking an architect to somehow tack on a new spectacular station to a relic that was probably undersized from the beginning - and certainly is now.

[wburg]

Calling the SP depot "undersized" implies that it is fully utilized now, which it isn't. Much of the depot is vacant or underutilized, and even the portion in use isn't generally crowded. Busy, yes--one of the busiest in the state--but crowded or stretched beyond capacity, no, not even close. Add a bus terminal, a couple of restaurants and a gift shop, and who knows?

SORD originally advocated for maintenance of the original rail orientation and station position, but the city decided that the "Sacramento Northern" plan, one of four proposed plans, was the best one, and SORD signed on--it wasn't their idea.

Here's the city website with more background:
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/generalservices/sitf/faqs.html

I'm not sure what the point of the big triangular shed is either, personally I'm hoping that gets value-engineered out in favor of sheds closer to the current style.

About keeping the depot building where it is and building a new station, call me cynical but if the past is any indication of the future the station would sit vacant, a "homeless person" would start a fire inside "to keep warm" in the middle of August, and we'd have a parking lot for a couple of decades anyhow.

I think you may be overestimating the amount of authority and power that preservationists have in Sacramento, which is pretty minimal. At best it's like fighting a holding action.

[travis bickle]

SORD originally advocated for maintenance of the original rail orientation and station position, but the city decided that the "Sacramento Northern" plan, one of four proposed plans, was the best one, and SORD signed on--it wasn't their idea.

Are you saying that the CITY is forcing the station's move?

About keeping the depot building where it is and building a new station, call me cynical but if the past is any indication of the future the station would sit vacant, a "homeless person" would start a fire inside "to keep warm" in the middle of August, and we'd have a parking lot for a couple of decades anyhow.

Well, there is some cause for that cynicism, but many of us love the old station including city leaders and local developers/planners and it would have made an ideal venue for a variety of retail or cultural uses. Tax credits and other funding sources and public demand would have made the right deal not just possible, but likely.

My point is that a concerted effort to preserve that station in its present location with a complimentary use is a better solution than to spend millions moving and renovating an obsolete facility. I know the word "obsolete" is a hot-button issue for preservationists, but force-feeding a smaller, early 20th Century station onto a 21st Century market/infrastructure is problematic at best and will most likely lead to a confusing and cumbersome solution. At the very least it will be far expensive then it had to be.

[wburg]

Are you saying that the CITY is forcing the station's move?


Yes, absolutely. SORD is just a small advocacy group, and really doesn't have the power to force anyone to do anything. The city makes the decisions on this matter, and at most they take what preservationists say under advisement, if they listen at all.

The depot was built in the 1920s, when rail transit was the primary mode of long-distance transportation in the United States, Southern Pacific was still the wealthiest and most powerful railroad in the western United States, and Sacramento was an important hub of the American railroad network. The original passenger yard occupied about three times as many tracks, so if anything the current track configuration is far, far less than the capacity of the 1920s era depot: the interior of the station, as I mentioned, is highly underutilized and could handle considerably more traffic than it currently does.

On what information do you base your assessment that the station is obsolete, or undersized?

[travis bickle]

Yes, absolutely. SORD is just a small advocacy group, and really doesn't have the power to force anyone to do anything. The city makes the decisions on this matter, and at most they take what preservationists say under advisement, if they listen at all.

Well then I need more education. I would never have thought that the city would vote to spend fat cash to move the station. In fact, I recalled that the preservationists groups had forced the city to move it. I stand corrected and I appreciate your input. But it seems pretty irresponsible for the city to spend money on a superfluous item like moving the station.

On what information do you base your assessment that the station is obsolete, or undersized?

Just when I (infrequently) use it. Always seems to be bursting at the seams. If rail/light rail travel increases as I hope it will (of course, no HSR in Sac.), the facility's size and layout becomes more of an issue.

[wburg]

As mentioned before, preservationists really can't force anyone to do anything. We can cajole, plead, beg and make the case for why it's often better to preserve buildings than knock them down, but that's about it.

I suggest taking a look at the City's website: I'm pretty sure that their analysis, including staff reports, of all four possible alternatives are there, and wouldn't be surprised if they included some cost breakdowns.

I'm at the station once in a while, and my main complaint is that the lines are long because Amtrak is so understaffed. There is the potential to add quite a few more service windows, and, as mentioned before, if they actually used the rest of the station they would add a whole lot more capacity and throughput--and I share your hope that rail travel will continue to increase.

Oh yeah, one element of the rail reorientation plan is to leave lanes open for a potential future HSR link with the station, although I'm certainly not holding my breath for that to arrive.

[fatchocolatecow]

From my understanding (and this could be hazy since it's been so long), the City is planning to move the depot only because SORD did not want it used for any other purpose than as the station itself. Since as part of the sale agreement, UP wanted the tracks to move north, the only way to accomplish the same use for the depot was to move it next to the tracks.

I think the depot is a very nice building and should be preserved, but there is no need to keep it's use as the rail station. I think it would be a horrible waste of money. That said, I don't think it will actually happen. We'll see.

[wburg]

The impression I got from travis bickle was that preservationists were somehow FORCING the city to do this, when they really don't have any way to apply such force. The alternatives presented by the city were basically "move it or lose it," so SORD said "well, okay, move it then" and supported the "Sacramento Northern" plan (the relocation of the existing station) and the city picked that plan. That's about the extent of SORD's influence on the decision.

As to whether or not it will actually happen, who can say? It's kind of a weird idea, but it isn't impossible--and a lot of the structural stuff that would have to be done, like interior bracing and putting the building on rollers, are things that would be required for seismic upgrades anyhow. We'll see.

[TowerDistrict]

the problem will turn out to be the massive amount the city has pledged to spend on the land deal for the intermodal, combined with the maasive cost to move (straighten) the tracks, then the cost of moving and renovating the old station.... then they have to actually build the new station.

i hope everything on that list can happen without delaying the new station. but that seems a tall order.

here are multiple concepts for the intermodal area. (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/generalservices/sitf/sketchbook.html)

[wburg]

Well, paying for it is always the rub...personally, I hope they can find a way to do it on the cheap, do a simple renovation & utilization of the current station in its current location, skip the track realignment and thumb their noses at UP. What are they gonna do, ask for their station back?

I suppose that if they can figure a way to get traffic and pedestrians under the mainline they can use the space beyond the current tracks for more parking: it would utilize the space, fill a need, and not obstruct the view of the Shops buildings. Maybe cover the lot with solar collectors too?

I have a sneaking suspicion that there is more going on here than any of us know about--considering that there are other organizations involved in all this Railyards/Intermodal plan who CAN force the city to do things, who have a hell of a lot more power and money than a couple of dozen railroad buffs.

[travis bickle]

The impression I got from travis bickle was that preservationists were somehow FORCING the city to do this, when they really don't have any way to apply such force. The alternatives presented by the city were basically "move it or lose it," so SORD said "well, okay, move it then" and supported the "Sacramento Northern" plan (the relocation of the existing station) and the city picked that plan. That's about the extent of SORD's influence on the decision.

As to whether or not it will actually happen, who can say? It's kind of a weird idea, but it isn't impossible--and a lot of the structural stuff that would have to be done, like interior bracing and putting the building on rollers, are things that would be required for seismic upgrades anyhow. We'll see.

The way I remember it was that preservation groups were forcing the city to move the station and use it exclusively as a functioning terminal through the threat of a lawsuit.

This is a common ploy among anti fill-in-the-blank groups. They know that the window of opportunity for every project is limited. If you want to kill a project, you tie it up in the courts, or incessantly appeal, or demand more hearings or any number of other ways to drag a project out without actually having to go on the record of opposing it.

That is what I recalled as happening, preservation groups had threatened to sue and instead of fighting them and potentially losing critical federal/state funding the city capitulated to this extortion and agreed to move the terminal.

wburg has corrected my recollection and I am grateful.

But that is what I meant by forcing the city to move the station. If SORD didn't use it here, they certainly are aware of the tactic as every preservation group with which I have dealt has implied, if not overtly stated, this tool was at their disposal.

[wburg]

I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility, but generally lawsuits require money, and such groups are not particularly deep-pocketed. Also considering the fact that the city council approved this plan several years ago, knowing that it would probably be years before the sale actually went through and more years before it was executed, the idea of a lawsuit as a delaying tactic seems almost redundant.

[travis bickle]

I suppose it's not outside the realm of possibility, but generally lawsuits require money, and such groups are not particularly deep-pocketed. Also considering the fact that the city council approved this plan several years ago, knowing that it would probably be years before the sale actually went through and more years before it was executed, the idea of a lawsuit as a delaying tactic seems almost redundant.

Usually what happens is that the "aggrieved" party gets attorney’s fees included in any settlement. That is the way it has happened in every single instance with which I have been involved. It becomes a question of how long a city/developer/project can hold out. But the "injured' party pays virtually nothing and the lawyer is paid by taxpayers.

C'mon wburg - you know how the game is played.

[fatchocolatecow]

Well, paying for it is always the rub...personally, I hope they can find a way to do it on the cheap, do a simple renovation & utilization of the current station in its current location, skip the track realignment and thumb their noses at UP. What are they gonna do, ask for their station back

Since the track relocation is part of the sale agreement, the city and Thomas Enterprises would certainly be sued by UP if they tried to back out of the relocation. Even though Stan Thomas is a rich man, UP has more money than God and could outlast both parties in a lawsuit, and would probably get the station back if they wanted it.

wburg: Do you know why preservasionists/SORD are so adamant about not changing the use of the station?

[petescafe]

There's been talk of relocating the tracks further north for some time.

Southern Pacific wanted to do this for years. The track does an "S" turn east of the depot, which limits the speed of the trains going through that area. Also the S turn is very tight for some freight trains to maneuver through.

When I was volunteering at the CSRM, a train did derail in that S turn area due to the tight turns of the track.
The track relocation idea has been on the drawing table for a long time.
There was an idea at the time to build a new station along the new tracks, and use the old station building as the lobby for a new hotel that would be built on to the back of the old station.

Another thing the Southern Pacific didn't like was the I Street bridge. Especially when it broke down while it was either opening or closing. This would shut down the mainline completely.

This is a bit off topic, but what's going to happen to that rickety bridge?

[travis bickle]

There was an idea at the time to build a new station along the new tracks, and use the old station building as the lobby for a new hotel that would be built on to the back of the old station.

Now that sounds like a great idea. What doesn't SORD like about that?

[wburg]

travis bickle: No, I suppose I don't know how the game is played. All I know, from my experiences, is that preservationists generally lose that game, or at best manage a stalemate.

fcc: I can't speak on behalf of the preservation community as a whole, or of SORD, but personally I think that removing the depot from the railroad context is more damaging than relocating it. The key point, when it comes to historic buildings, is that you can't just build another historic building in its place--they are a non-renewable resource. Cities' experiences seem to have varied when it comes to reuse of rail depots, but the patterns I notice is that cities that are still active rail hubs (like Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver) chose to renovate and reuse their depots, while cities that are no longer active hubs (like Salt Lake City and Omaha) chose to close their stations and provide passenger facilities out of small tilt-up or portable-type buildings, commonly known as "Amshacks." The depots themselves are often left to decay, although Omaha has an adaptive reuse project underway.

Given Sacramento's history and continuing importance in regional rail, it makes them most sense to me to continue the depot in its historic role. Whether that role is maintained by building a large concourse between the depot and the boarding area or moving the building is less important to me than the depot's preservation.

[travis bickle]

travis bickle: No, I suppose I don't know how the game is played. All I know, from my experiences, is that preservationists generally lose that game, or at best manage a stalemate.

fcc: I can't speak on behalf of the preservation community as a whole, or of SORD, but personally I think that removing the depot from the railroad context is more damaging than relocating it. The key point, when it comes to historic buildings, is that you can't just build another historic building in its place--they are a non-renewable resource. Cities' experiences seem to have varied when it comes to reuse of rail depots, but the patterns I notice is that cities that are still active rail hubs (like Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver) chose to renovate and reuse their depots, while cities that are no longer active hubs (like Salt Lake City and Omaha) chose to close their stations and provide passenger facilities out of small tilt-up or portable-type buildings, commonly known as "Amshacks." The depots themselves are often left to decay, although Omaha has an adaptive reuse project underway.

Given Sacramento's history and continuing importance in regional rail, it makes them most sense to me to continue the depot in its historic role. Whether that role is maintained by building a large concourse between the depot and the boarding area or moving the building is less important to me than the depot's preservation.

What other cities have done with or to their historic depots shouldn't have any bearing on what Sacramento does with hers as long as there is a viable, finaceable plan in place. Part of that would be a realistic schedule to be certain that the building doesn't sit empty for years. I haven't seen anyone asking to destroy a non-renewable resource. So I think that is a straw man argument at best.

Seems to me that being used as the opulent lobby for a new hotel is hardly the standard definition of decay. It could relatively easily be tied to a new station and serve as a grand entrance to Sacramento in all of its fully restored glory. I still don't see what's wrong with that and have heard nothing other than you feel it would be more destructive (how?) to use it as anything other than a station or that somehow using it as anything else results in Amshacks. I just don't see it that way.

A complimentary use - such as a hotel lobby - still gets you a beautifully restored integral part of Sacramento history and the city gets to save millions that can go to the construction of a spectacular 21st century station. That seems win-win to me.

[wburg]

Spectacular 21st century stations also need finance plans. You asked me why I considered the original station important, and I expressed my opinion. I am not in love with the depot-moving concept, but I can live with it, so if my defense of the plan seems fairly shaky it's because it isn't my plan.

If you take serious issue with it, I'd suggest talking to the City Council, or at least with city staff. I do it all the time, with mixed responses, and they might be able to provide the dollars-and-cents data on how much it will cost compared with other potential plans. Better yet, I'd recommend coming to tonight's meeting at the depot tonight and expressing your opinion--Thomas Enterprises and the city are having an open house on the railyards project (6-8 PM, in the model room) and they are looking for public input.

[TowerDistrict]

:previous:

The City of Sacramento invites you to attend the City Council & community meeting for the Railyards, which proposes to transform 240 acres of undeveloped infill land near downtown Sacramento into a vibrant mixed-use community.

Share your ideas about the latest proposed Railyards plan and learn more about the project’s history and next steps in the process.

Community Meeting
When: Thursday June 7 2007
Where: Southern Pacific Depot, Model Room, 5th & I Streets
Time: 6-8 pm

To view the new plan, check out the City's new Railyard website: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/projects/railyards (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/projects/railyards/)

[Schmoe]

Did anyone go tonight?

[ozone]

Yeah I went last night to the Railyards meeting. There wasn't anything really new. At this point it's pretty much the same people showing up and we are simply repeating ourselves.

The only thing new was that instead of an arena the space where the arena was/is supposed to go was something they called "Vista Park".

As for the whole depot thing. The city is planning on refurbishing the old depot where it is reguardless of whether or not they move it. I suppect that the study to determine the feasibility of moving the depot is really an "infeasiblilty study" to show why it can't be moved. I think the council has 'gone on record' as supporting the idea just to placate those vocal preservationists who are stubbornly unreceptive to any ideas except their own.

[brandon12]

re: moving the depot: you're probably right. I never thought of that angle before. I think I read somewhere it would be the largest building (or one of the largest) to be moved like that. To me, the entire concept is ridiculous. For 1/10th the cost, they could build a striking glass tube with a moving sidewalk inside that got people from the depot where it is to the re-aligned tracks. It might be a nice mix of old and new architechture. That being said, I also might be the only person who loves the new Soldier Field in Chicago...

[TowerDistrict]

It was quite a park for an arena replacement, since all the streets have been straightened out and changed around slightly. But they did have a detail of the new Vista Park. It has a couple entry ways, some changes in elevation, an ampitheater, a "technology walk" with some sort of Sac tech history displays, and a whole lot of trees to block out the water treatment facility behind it. Looked nice actually - quite big, but it wasn't just a huge patch of lawn.

They did have some slick 3D conceptual renderings of all the blocks and the various building massing. It really gives an idea of how flipping huge this development is. There isn't a mixed-use block there with a building under 5 stories. The main neighorhood/retail mix was probably between 5-10 stories, with a few 20-25 dispersed throughout. For all the skyscraper fans, the waterfront/hotel district showed about 3 towers that i would guess all to be over 600' tall.

Their inspirational photos to accompany the slides of the new land use plan looked like they fell in love with Denver. I'm not too familiar with that city, but I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of it last night.

They've changed around the parking as well. Now parking will be concentrated to fewer areas, instead of the previous plan to include parking absolutely everywhere. I think that's a good idea, because parking is generally ugly, and it will also get people walking around a bit more.

The EIR is scheduled to be complete later this year, then there will be a little time for more public comment... Then it's a go...

for the next 15-20 years :)

[wburg]

I went too, and yeah, it was basically the same stuff with a few new pictures and some shiny things like the big public park and the art school.

Assuming that the city decides moving the depot isn't feasible, then personally I'd agree that making the current depot the entrance to a larger depot that reaches from the current site to the tracks is a worthwhile idea. When I visited the Los Angeles union station this spring I'm sure that their walk to the tracks was at least as far as the planned stroll--by making use of the intervening space (Greyhound terminal, restaurants, etcetera) more goals might be met: continuing use of the existing depot structure, greatly expanded facility to facilitate intermodal use and future expansion, room for things like more boarding platforms and a parking structure, and you don't have to relocate the building.

I'm not sure why I keep getting placed on the opposite side of the discussion. For me, the highest priority is maintaining the use of the current depot, not necessarily rolling it. If the best way to do that is to build a big, big expansion on the back of the depot, then hey, I'm a happy guy.

And I think Soldier Field looks like an alien spacecraft buggering the Acropolis, but in many ways that's an acceptable irony in terms of the Columbian Exposition's effects on city planning over the past century.

[SacTownAndy]

Their inspirational photos to accompany the slides of the new land use plan looked like they fell in love with Denver.

:tup: ;)

Seriously though, if they're taking notes from the large infill projects going on here similar to the railyards (stapleton, lowry, metropolitan gardens, union station, central platte valley, etc) then the railyards are truely going to turn out spectacular. The amount and quality of infill going on right now in Denver sometimes boggles my mind.

[TowerDistrict]

my favorite part of the meeting was seeing the "December 2006" railyards plan. I never saw this released on any websites, and with good reason it probably wasn't made too public. there were the most ridiculous cul-de-sacs placed at the end of each of the numbered streets. it must have been some sort of inside joke.

and there were quite a few details presented there, that are relatively new. just no bombshells like an arena or a walmart. this is the first time i''ve seen traffic directions, sidewalk details, bike lane plans, amongst others. I also caught an interesting bit about connecting Alkali Flats via 10th Street with a pedestrian bridge over the tracks.

i spoke to the city's urban design manager, Bill Crouch, about the concern of homogenous buildings, considering there is only going to be one developer working these 250 acres. i was also assured that there would be many different architects working on this project in various phases, so the possibility of everything looking the same would be reduced to current trends in architecture. Much the same as the way the city was originally built, i suppose.

[wburg]

Connectivity over and under the tracks is key. A grid means lots of route choices for foot or vehicular traffic, and more small streets can carry the same traffic flow as a smaller number of big boulevards. I did notice that they named three streets after three of the Big Four but didn't name a street for Mark Hopkins.

I was also hoping to hear more about the Railroad Technology Museum: a lot of Museum staff were present, but weren't part of the presentation.

[innov8]

Did they say anything about whether this plan would all be built by one
developer or would it be built by several? My fear from the start
has been that if one team doe's the whole rail yard, the whole neighborhood
will look very similar. It would be cool to see it broken up with a variety
of architecture and themes by several developers for the different districts.

[TowerDistrict]

innov8... i remember to asked about that, as you've brought it up before. See my comment above.

Connectivity over and under the tracks is key. A grid means lots of route choices for foot or vehicular traffic, and more small streets can carry the same traffic flow as a smaller number of big boulevards. I did notice that they named three streets after three of the Big Four but didn't name a street for Mark Hopkins.

yeah I noticed what i now presume to be your comment written on the board. "Change Camille to Hopkins…" cause he's burried here.

7th Street looks like it's going to be a big artery... was it one way traffic with four lanes? three for auto/bus and another for light rail. i can't remember now.

[innov8]

innov8... i remember to asked about that, as you've brought it up before. See my comment above.

Ah... I guess I did not process what you said. Thanks TD:D

[peanut gallery]

petescafe - wow, did those photos ever bring back memories for me. My great-grandfather and grandfather both worked for SP in the long-gone South City (SSF) yards many years ago. While a different location, your photos definitely capture some of the same feel that those yards had: the cavernous industrial buildings; the engines and other locomotive parts laying around like children's toys; the overall massive scale of everything. My grandfather used to bring us to the yards quite often and it was always an adventure. You can imagine the viewpoint of a kid who loved trains experiencing the thrill of "driving" engines (I was at the controls anyway), riding on the turntable, and exploring a fully-functioning, extremely busy rail yard. It almost seems like a fantasy now.

Anyway, thanks for sharing those photos. The railroads in general, and SP in particular, had a huge influence on the development of California. That, and my childhood experiences with SP, always gave the company a special place in my heart. I rarely have a sentimental reaction to the end of a brand name after corporate mergers, but I really hated to see the end of SP. Corny as it sounds, it felt like a part of my family history ended that day.

[NewToCA]

I'd like to see the Towe Museum and the Pacific Bus Museum merged into a transportation museum, and located somewhere in the downtown, oldtown or railyards area.

http://www.pacbus.org/

http://www.toweautomuseum.org/

[Grimnebulin]

...I also might be the only person who loves the new Soldier Field in Chicago...

I drove by it last month and it looked like a giant UFO landed right on top of the old Soldier Field! :haha:

Definitely unique...and that's not a bad thing.

[travis bickle]

Did they say anything about whether this plan would all be built by one
developer or would it be built by several? My fear from the start
has been that if one team doe's the whole rail yard, the whole neighborhood
will look very similar. It would be cool to see it broken up with a variety
of architecture and themes by several developers for the different districts.

I read Towerdistrict's response and that does surprise me. With a project this complex and expensive - and so much of that expense up-front - I expected Thomas to sell off some to other developers and act as a master developer to both generate cash-flow and to create more architecturally diverse neighborhoods. But, if they're aware of the issue and are convinced they can deal with it appropriately, this is a team that has, so far, earned the benefit of the doubt.

Also, re. moving the station: using the existing station as a front with long tubes to connect with the platforms or something along those lines could work very well: think of the neon tubes in the Untied terminal at O'Hare. It's spectacular and I'm sure is a shorter longer distance than what we'd need at the Intermodal station.

[wburg]

According to Richard Rich, there will be at least a dozen architects working on the various Railyards neighborhoods. The tour and presentation were pretty swell--I'll post some photos tomorrow.

[Web]

Richy Rich is in charge.....goody gumdrops:yes: :yes:

[urban_encounter]

I drove by it last month and it looked like a giant UFO landed right on top of the old Soldier Field! :haha: Definitely unique...and that's not a bad thing.


That's what they call it too; the 'UFO"..

But I actually like it and the effect the architectural influence of the Columbian Exposition and the Field Museum.

[Grimnebulin]

That's what they call it too; the 'UFO"..

But I actually like it and the effect the architectural influence of the Columbian Exposition and the Field Museum.

I really like architecture that makes you think, and that it does. :tup:

OT: Ended up going to the Bulls/Pistons game :( , the Cubs game and then 7 bars in Wrigleyville and Southport with a local friend of mine after the game. Also hit-up Buddy Love's (great blues) and Giordano's with a guy who grew up in Chicago and he liked it better than his old time favorite, the original Uno's. Thanks for all the tips!

[wburg]

got this today from Thomas Enterprises:


Jun. 25, 2007


Railyards Redevelopment in Sacramento Takes Faster Track


By Colleen Flannery
CREJ Staff Writer
With new potential funding in sight, efforts to reinvent Sacramento's historical rail yards into a model infill-development project appear to be rounding a crucial bend.


Thomas Enterprises Inc., which will redevelop the 240-acre rail yard site, has positioned itself to compete for November 2006 state infrastructure bond funding at a statewide level by speeding up its plans to develop the site, said Suheil Totah, the company's vice president of development. Totah said Thomas Enterprises expects to advance the plans for approval by the end of the year in order to compete effectively for the Proposition 1C transit-oriented development funding.
If approved by the state Legislature and the governor, new guidelines will spell out eligibility for transit-oriented development projects like the Sacramento Railyards. Projects closer to completion have a better chance of receiving this state funding than projects with slower timelines, according to local and state government officials.
Competition for funding under the November 2006 voter-approved bond measure will begin in 2008. If the project receives ample funding and the city approves the plans, infrastructure construction can commence next year.
"Proposition 1C funding is very important for projects like this," Totah said. "We are very hopeful we will be able to obtain funding."
Augmenting its competitive stance, the Sacramento Railyards project will integrate transit-oriented development features, including an intermodal transit station that will allow Sacramento residents to connect with Sacramento Regional Transit District transit options and with Amtrak trains. As many as 1.5 million people annually could pass through this station.
Smaller blocks in residential and retail areas allow roads to be built with fewer lanes, increasing their safety and multi-use appeal, Marty Hanneman, assistant city manager for Sacramento, said during a June 7 public meeting introducing the project's latest incarnation.
The city also asked Thomas Enterprises to scale back its planned traffic circles in order to improve its integration with the existing grid of city streets, and aimed for higher density of the project, which now sits at 67 units per acre.
Housing some 10,000 to 12,000 Sacramentans, the proposed project also has room for 2 million square feet of office space, 1.4 million square feet of retail and 485,390 square feet of "historic cultural specialty retail" that includes a newly proposed performing arts center.
These new ways of approaching transportation and infill development make the Railyards project a "viable" project that will prove very competitive for the Proposition 1C transit-oriented development funding, said Mike McKeever, executive director for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments.
"In the world of trying to promote infill development in the region, that project is a smart-growth grand slam," McKeever said.
Because of the size of the state and the anticipated breadth of the expected guidelines, other projects will be competing for the transit-oriented development funding, McKeever said.
Totah confirmed the project likely would face competition. However, he said he was encouraged by the fact that top legislative officials like Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez actually cited the example of the Railyards project during 2006 hearings regarding the placement of Proposition 1C on the ballot.
Lawmakers On Board
Delivery of this key funding will begin after the passage of Senate Bill 46, written by Perata, which drafts broad potential guidelines for the state to use when doling out Proposition 1C transit-oriented development dollars. As approved this month by the Senate, the bill lays the groundwork for potential approval of transit-oriented development funding by the state Department of Housing and Community Development. It next faces hearings in the Assembly.
Perata's bill offers broad provisions for allocating infill money to deserving transit-oriented development projects in order "to encourage the development of high-density infill housing and mixed-use development for all levels of income and locations near job centers and transit stations, thereby reducing vehicle trips, commute times, vehicle miles traveled and vehicle emissions."
Because of its "novel" approach to transit-oriented development, the project has the support of Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, the senator's chief of staff Jim Evans confirmed.
Senators commonly indicate their support for a project by drafting letters or sending staffers to attend hearings when state agencies consider favored projects for funding. Evans could not confirm whether Steinberg would do so as the Railyards project advances through the funding process.
In addition to this potential Proposition 1C funding, the rail yards redevelopment also might qualify for funding under Proposition 1B, a transportation initiative also supported by the voters in November 2006, according to Totah. The money could be used to fund the intermodal, which could even be used to link a future high-speed rail line to Sacramento.
Next Stop, Arts and Recreation
Beyond the transit aspects of the project, Thomas Enterprises recently added plans to create a regional center for the arts, which Totah said would include a proposed California Academy for the Arts. The academy would teach college-aged adults, but also could include a charter arts school for younger students.
"It will be the Julliard of the West Coast," said Totah.
Thomas Enterprises' latest version of the project has scaled back 2006 plans to create a canal system similar to the city of San Antonio, Tex.'s famed "River Walk," Totah said, citing regulatory red tape and technical problems. In lieu of the waterside space, the rail yards' residents will have access to several community parks and green spaces.
A full assessment of the project's traffic, noise and environmental impact is slated for August 2007 completion. Meanwhile, the city is taking comments on the version of the plans released to the community this month.
City officials want to make the project a reality, Sacramento City Council member Ray Tretheway said June 7 at the community meeting.
"We've gone beyond the rail yards, beyond the city of Sacramento," Tretheway said. "I've got to think the world is watching us."

- E-mail Colleen_Flannery@DailyJournal.com


**********
© 2007 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved.

[urban_encounter]

The tour and presentation were pretty swell--I'll post some photos tomorrow.



wburg, where are those photos???

[wburg]

wburg, where are those photos???

I went and looked at the photos and I'm an awful photographer, they all came out looking like crud and I took fewer than I thought I did. The new Midtown Monthly will be out tomorrow, with my article on the latest Shops/Railyards news, and there will be some good photos in that (thanks to my editor, who takes good pics) along with a big 1920s aerial view of the Shops.

[wburg]

There will be a Review and Comment presentation on the Railyards this Thursday evening (July 12) at Planning Commission (Old City Hall) at 5:30. It's #10 on the agenda. No decisions to be made, just a solicitation of Planning's input (and public input) on the project and an update on any changes they have made since the last presentation.

[wburg]

The Railyards Review and Comment session didn't really produce much new in the way of news to what most of us have seen already, other than the reason for the name Camille Avenue in the street plan: the street is intended as a shopping street, and they figured that a feminime-sounding name like "Camille" would resonate better with women (who do more shopping) than the mostly masculine-sounding names that will be associated with the Railyards streets.

[neuhickman79]

The Railyards Review and Comment session didn't really produce much new in the way of news to what most of us have seen already, other than the reason for the name Camille Avenue in the street plan: the street is intended as a shopping street, and they figured that a feminime-sounding name like "Camille" would resonate better with women (who do more shopping) than the mostly masculine-sounding names that will be associated with the Railyards streets.

perhaps paying homage to the camellia...Sacramento's city flower. Maybe they should just name the street Camellia to begin with. That would be appropriate. I don't think there is one currently.

[Phillip]

the reason for the name Camille Avenue in the street plan: the street is intended as a shopping street, and they figured that a feminime-sounding name like "Camille" would resonate better with women (who do more shopping) than the mostly masculine-sounding names that will be associated with the Railyards streets.Well rodeos are masculine and the name "Rodeo Drive" doesn't scare away female shoppers.

"Camille" makes me think of a big hurricane.

[wburg]

Actually they felt that "Camellia" was already overused, and there is already a Camellia Avenue in Sacramento. Personally I think "Jane" would work (after Jane Lathrop-Stanford, Leland Stanford's wife.) But they're still testing names right now.

[jsf8278]

I can't help but think of Atlantic Station in Atlanta, whenever I hear/read/think about the Rail yards. If any of you have been to Atlanta recently you know what I mean. The project really changed the look of the city, adding high density housing, a few high rises, and nice stores all in a relatively small area. Overall it was very good for the city.

For people who didn't live at Atlantic Station, they used it more as a place to see a movie or go shopping. So in a way, it was just another place to shop. I just hope the Rail yards don’t turn into a big shopping mall surrounded by high density housing.

Check out Atlantic Station's website...I’m curious to see what some of you think.
http://www.atlanticstation.com/concept.php

[ozone]

Thanks for letting us know about Atlanta's major brownfield redevelopment project. It's interesting to compare the Railyards with that project. First off the Sacramento project is larger -138 acres compared to 240-acres. I couldn't get a soild number on the total housing units at built-out for the Atlanta project or the densities. But I did notice that while there are higher density areas it looks like there are also many low-rise condominiums and townhomes and a large man-made pond. Not very urban.

And I may be wrong but it looks like virtually nothing of the old mill was saved in the Atlanta project. One the outstanding features of the Railyards will be the preservation and reuse of the historic shops.

Although touted as such, Atlantic Station is not all that transit-oriented. There's no MARTA station so vistors have to board a shuttle bus to get to closest station (and few people take shuttle buses). Also much of it is actually built above huge parking garages. So with no direct rail and easy parking the vast majority of people use their cars. And one of the main tenant is IKEA which is a big traffic generator. Even if it had direct public transport nobody's going to take their new poang home on the train.

In contrast, the Railyards will be home the regional transit hub and is much closer (within walking distance) to the heart of the city and major tourist destinations.

While I like the Atlanta project I think the Sacramento Railyards will be much more urban, complex and interesting. We'll have to wait and see.

[wburg]

Not sure if any of you read the Sacramento Union but the latest issue has two essentially anti-Railyards articles. One claims that toxic remediation in the Railyards should stop because there might be a Chinese cemetery somewhere on the project site. It's kind of hard to tell from the tone of the article but they seem to simultaneously be arguing that (a) the railyard has a lot of toxics dumped in it (which we all know) and that (b) we shouldn't be moving all these toxics to Utah, even though by the standards of Utah and the feds, the material being moved aren't even considered toxic (although they are in California.)


The other is an editorial claiming that Measure A transit-improvement funds shouldn't be used to develop the intermodal facility site. (The previous editorial by the same author claims that the 15% low-income requirement means that the whole residential component will be Section 8 welfare projects--apparently she's unaware that "low-income" means someone making $36,000 a year.)

Anyhow, interesting reading from what I consider the local-press equivalent of Fox News...

[travis bickle]

anyhow, interesting reading from what I consider the local-press equivalent of Fox News...

You mean they report the truth unfiltered through liberal eyes?:tup:

Thanks for the tip!:cheers:

[wburg]

You mean they report the truth unfiltered through liberal eyes?:tup:

Thanks for the tip!:cheers:

Filtered through another bodypart, I think, far more southerly located. If it makes you feel any better, I consider the SN&R to be a slightly more left-leaning version of Pravda. Such is the fate of political non-Euclideans like myself...

Anyhow, they seem to be vigorously anti-Railyards development, and pro-freeway/sprawl, which seems like it might cost them a few points among the folks here.

[Ryan@CU]

One claims that toxic remediation in the Railyards should stop because there might be a Chinese cemetery somewhere on the project site.

Are they really serious? :haha:

[wburg]

Are they really serious? :haha:
The article wasn't written as comedy. Here are some quotes:
"But what about the possibility that this rapid progression may be disrespecting many Chinese people of Sacramento's early years, who lived in the railyards area and may have been buried in the very soil that is finding a new home in Utah?"

"Kanelos added that he is concerned that the community is not well informed about how highly toxic the soil is at the railyards, considering that the reason that soil is being sent to Utah is because of its highly toxic contents.
"An early railyards EIR report [sic] states that "landfills outside of California do not recognize California hazardous waste regulations" and "they frequently accept wastes that would be considered hazardous in California, but are not hazardous wastes according to federal standards."


The article presents some arguments that there may have been a Chinese cemetery somewhere in the vicinity of China Slough, but so far nobody is sure where the exact location of this cemetery might be, and nobody has found anything yet to pinpoint exactly where it is. They don't come right out and say that the railyards shouldn't be developed, but the main points of discussion are that (a) digging out the toxic material is somehow a greater environmental threat than leaving it in, and (b) there is a chance that human remains from an unknown graveyard might be shipped to Utah.

Reading the article as a historian, there are holes in the arguments that I could drive a truck through, but journalists are not held to the same standards as historians.

[travis bickle]

The article wasn't written as comedy. Here are some quotes:


The article presents some arguments that there may have been a Chinese cemetery somewhere in the vicinity of China Slough, but so far nobody is sure where the exact location of this cemetery might be, and nobody has found anything yet to pinpoint exactly where it is. They don't come right out and say that the railyards shouldn't be developed, but the main points of discussion are that (a) digging out the toxic material is somehow a greater environmental threat than leaving it in, and (b) there is a chance that human remains from an unknown graveyard might be shipped to Utah.

Reading the article as a historian, there are holes in the arguments that I could drive a truck through, but journalists are not held to the same standards as historians.

Well, as much as I like to, it's hard to argue with you here.

[BrianSac]

Well, as much as I like to, it's hard to argue with you here.

Sacramento seems to be the only place on earth where any project no matter what it is, or where it is, or who supports, is subject to so much scrutiny in the media, the public, special interest, nimby's, you name it, there is always someone or some group that attempts to stop projects one way or the other. Geesh, is there a place where this is not the case or its the opposite?

[ozone]

Calling the Sacramento Union "journalists" is being very generous. The little puny rag is a joke. Its the right-wing curmudgeon "newspaper" for pathological tightwads, seriously senile people who think Nixon is still in the White House, losers who think that by always being on the wrong side of an issue somehow makes them more hip and righteous to boot, religious weirdos who think the devil invented government (minus the military), and all kinds of NIMBYS and NAGS. It is however a great paper for house training a puppy or to line the inside of your bird cage.

[ozone]

w.b whatever the Union prints will have zero effect on anything -including the Railyards development.

[neuhickman79]

Calling the Sacramento Union "journalists" is being very generous. The little puny rag is a joke. Its the right-wing curmudgeon "newspaper" for pathological tightwads, seriously senile people who think Nixon is still in the White House, losers who think that by always being on the wrong side of an issue somehow makes them more hip and righteous to boot, religious weirdos who think the devil invented government (minus the military), and all kinds of NIMBYS and NAGS. It is however a great paper for house training a puppy or to line the inside of your bird cage.
I second that!