Quote:
Originally Posted by 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rail hubs (like Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver) chose to renovate and reuse their depots, while cities that are no longer active hubs (like Salt Lake City and Omaha) chose to close their stations and provide passenger facilities out of small tilt-up or portable-type buildings, commonly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.
|
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.