Rick's Skyline: The proposal for 701 L Street is many years old. The Greyhound station won't be closed until there is another Greyhound station to replace it, and public transit to that point: currently, the city's proposed lot for a replacement depot at Richards and Sierra Pacific is just bare dirt, and while extending Light Rail to Richards Blvd. is coming up, it will probably take a couple of years. Personally I think it will be relocated to the vicinity of the Amtrak station once the track relocation is done: the new track alignment will leave plenty of room for an Amtrak/Greyhound/RT bus terminal that meets both Light Rail, regional Capitol Corridor/San Joaquin trains, and long-distance Amtrak trains.

As for the bus station itself, personally I hope they use the existing Streamline Moderne station as the entrance for a tower on that corner, along the same lines as what was done with a similar Greyhound station in Washington DC--or, more locally, the sort of facade retention done with the Public Market building or the Esquire Theatre.

As to Capitol Towers, there was a presentation on them last year. Like pretty much everything else, the national crisis we are facing has put a damper on much new development. Still, I am pretty certain that we will see the population of the central city triple within the next 20 years. Unlike some here, I am also pretty certain it can be done without much demolition of existing buildings.

I don't share the enthusiasm some have for putting Light Rail underground: personally, I enjoy being able to see the city as I ride the train (it's a lot more fun than watching the taillights of the car in front of you when stuck in traffic!) Why bother? Light rail goes plenty fast on its private right-of-way out into the suburbs, in the central city it goes as fast as auto traffic.

I keep hearing about the city putting Greyhound on Richards Blvd for a while until they come up with a permanent location. Won't Greyhound's new location, at some point, go in the Railyards next to the train station? Isn't that part of the master plan? Using the Streamline Moderne station as an entrance to an office tower? Hmmmm.....could be interesting!! I haven't heard much about the Capitol Towers since last year, either. I still hope they follow through with it once the economic situation improves, whenever that will be.

You're exactly right about this. The problem is that the site on Richards Boulevard is currently just a bare patch of dirt, and there is almost no public transit from that point: just two bus lines that don't run very often during the day, and not at all at night. So the station can't relocate until a new building is built, and public transit is there to take people getting off of Greyhound to wherever they're going in town.

At the rate things are going, the track relocation will be done and the depot ready for modification before a replacement building and Light Rail extension to Richards can be built: the track relocation is supposed to start later this year. So it might save money and time to just put the Greyhound station next to the depot in the first place.

I would use Pittsburgh as a model instead of Portland.

Hi, econgrad.

Pittsburgh instead of Portland as a model of what?

He wants Sacramento to model itself after Pittsburg instead of Portland.

I want Sacramento to not model itself after anything other than the visions of it's citizens. We have the intelligence and the drive as a city, let's not be imitators. See what other cities are doing well, yes, and adapt those principles, but not much further than that.

Remember articles like this:

I was simply responding to the hundreds of articles like this I have read, and countless people saying and wishing we would be like Portland some day. I think Pittsburgh is a better model for our DT, but I agree with Korey 100%! We should be unique. If we were using a model then Pittsburgh, I am for being our own style and identity first and foremost.

Econgrad, I think folks are asking what is it about Pittsburgh that you think we should emulate?

I've never been to Pittsburgh. I don't hear Pittsburgh mentioned much and I just wondered what about Pittsburgh Sacramento (or any other city) would want to emulate.

But pretty much every city is on the ropes now, struggling to fill what's already been built. I don't think any cities are striving to remake themselves or emulate any other cities now.

Envisioned Future
 

First, thank you Korey for starting this thread.

Sacramento is a family oriented city. We should capitalize on that strength. Anything built should not only attract tourists, but locals should enjoy them as well. How about a zoo that rivals San Diego's?

I know this might not be environmentally or structurally feasible, but creating a large lake year round in the Yolo bypass (at least in non-drought years) would really enhance the western gateway to the city. Hey, the valley used to be an inland sea.

Go vertical. I mean enough with the short squatty footprints already. I understand the higher you build, the higher the costs. That said, we have to have a presence. There are no really awe-inspiring buildings downtown.

Get serious about building the Railyards, the waterfront and Cal Expo. How about attracting Six Flags?

Whatever it is we build, green technologies should be a big part of it. To be able to showcase what we can hopefully create here as a manufacturing base would enhance our image as a green sector economy. Partner with the universities. We need to attract the best and brightest talent. We are a part of the Pacific Rim. Why not create the kind of economy that commands the world's attention? Having that foundation will help us develop the reputation as a destination city to be reckoned with, and not just a gas stop between SF and Tahoe.

http://aaabackyardoffice.blogspot.com/

You had me until this trendy political correct crap... :yuck:

Call it Political Crap
 

Hey Econ,

We don't have to see it as trendy, but there is money to be made in this 21 Century business model. Our manufacturing base is has been declining for the past 30 years. If we can build it and sell it to the rest of the world, why not. China is already investing heavily in alternative energies. They know the score. McClellan Business Park has already landed 2 large companies who came here because of the tax credits. If this creates jobs in the numbers people are predicting, we should be able to attract related businesses to Sac.

I would need more information than this to respond:

What are the names of the two companies?
What do they sell?
Are these companies profitable or are they more "green" phony companies surviving off of taxpayer money?

And as far as your China reference:

China invests heavily in Sudan's oil industry
by Peter S. Goodman

LEAL, Sudan, Dec 23, 2004 -- On this flat and dusty African plain, China's largest energy company is pumping crude oil, sending it 1,000 miles upcountry through a Chinese-made pipeline to the Red Sea, where tankers wait to ferry it to China's industrial cities. Chinese laborers based in a camp of prefabricated sheds work the wells and lay highways across the flats to make way for heavy machinery.


http://digg.com/environment/China_In...Nuclear_Fusion

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/3753

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/B...in-africa.aspx


If the two companies you are referring to are profitable, then great! I do not believe any green companies are or ever will be profitable. If anyone can find one for me, that would be great. They do not exist yet.

Yes, China has been investing heavily in traditional energy sources around the globe.Like us, they are heavily dependent on fossil fuels. The competition for what was then a cheap energy source helped speculators drive the oil bubble, in what was Exxon's most profitable year. Of course that came crashing down as the world entered the recession. Cheap energy including coal-fired plants is what allowed them to manufacture and ship their products overseas to our consuming nation and others like us. But their is a price to pay. One look at the Olympics last summer told them that they were literally choking in their own poisonous world and that they would have to do something differently. When a population is unhealthy, production plummets and health care costs rise, not a particularly good prescription for sustaining their economy. Nuclear power is one option of which there are many. The plunge in oil demand and lowering prices has not assisted the alternative energy campaign. They're hurting too as a result.

Now there is a smart way to capitalize on the green initiatives. Become the innovator to the world. With oil past its peek, who should the world look to? Many companies are leveraging their future on it: From Baron's "To be sure, more public and private spending will benefit alternative-energy giants like General Electric (GE), the biggest U.S. supplier of wind turbines, and United Technologies (UTX), a leader in making buildings more energy-efficient. Johnson Controls (JCI), Honeywell (HON), AES (AES) and others that make sensors and systems needed to optimize HVAC (heating, ventilating and air-conditioning) also belong on any list of likely green winners. So do a handful of midsized players in the fast-growing wind-energy-generation supply chain, such as Kaydon (KDN), a maker of ball bearings critical to wind-turbine efficiency; Woodward Governor (WGOV) a specialist in energy-generation and transmission components; MasTec (MTZ), a builder of generation and transmission facilities, and Valmont (VMI), which makes transition towers and other utility structures. "All are profitable, old-line industrials projecting double-digit growth in 2009 and trying to reinvent themselves," says Ed Mitby, an analyst at Van Eck Associates.

But we consider ABB, Waste Management, FPL, Jacobs and Eaton a sort of green dream team, for all the reasons, and then some, explained below. They probably aren't the first names that come to mind when you think "green," but they have the products, technologies and, not least, the financial strength to deliver for investors. Even better, their stocks are bargains."

More on the solar industry:

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sa...04/story1.html

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/...ap6115509.html

http:
//online.barrons.com/article/SB123578882581298993.html?mod=googlenews_barrons&page=2

I think we need some kind of cover over I-5 at K St. We had a similar "interstate slash" in downtown Columbus, Ohio, and they solved it very well with something called "The High St Cap":

http://www.enhancements.org/download...ns/Vol8no2.pdf

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content...K.html?sid=101

http://columbusoh.about.com/library/blpic011.htm


Also, as an extension of this idea I'd like to see a very robust redevelopment of Downtown Plaza.

The idea of decking I-5 has come up before: K Street would not be the place to do it, as I-5 currently runs at about street level once it hits K, with a pedestrian underpass underneath (at the original Sacramento street level, pre-raise.) The plan was to deck over the "boat section" from about O to L Street.

Are there any images of how the "cap" works in Columbus? None of the links show really clearly how much was covered up, or how it works now, just a few shots from the top.

Thanks for the articles! We will agree to disagree for the moment, I see this going on and on into another huge debate on here. Which I am not in the mood for currently. I do appreciate your response. :cheers:

NEWTOCA: Great links! It makes a clear picture when you read the article. Yes, we should do something similar here. yes it has been proposed before. I just hope something big happens and not some sorry excuse for a foot bridge.

Pictures of cap, including from the air:

http://citycomfortsblog.typepad.com/.../i670_cap.html

Brief project summary:

http://casestudies.uli.org/Profile.aspx?j=7696&p=1&c=7

In addition, one of the most effective ways to see the project in terms of size and scale is to go to Google Map, and take a look at the section of High St (the major north and south st in the city) starting at Goodale St on the south side and then scroll north on High.

Econgrad and wburg, a cap with substance makes all of the difference in the world. The High St Cap was a catalyst in integrating the downtown area with the Short North area, which is High St from I-670 and then north for about a mile to the south side of the Ohio State University campus.

This integration really kicked off the massive Arena District development in downtown Columbus, because it created a positive link between the residential area and business areas. Here is some information concerning the Arena District, which is located just to the south side of the High St Cap, between High St and Neil Ave (about 1/4 mile to the west of High St):

http://www.pbase.com/ralf/cbus_arena

^ Its awesome! Thanks for the pictures! So am I being greedy for wanting something bigger in Sacramento?