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hubs (like Portland, Los Angeles, Chicago, Denver) chose to renovate and reuse their depots, while cities that are no longer active hubs (like Salt Lake City and Omaha) chose to close their stations and provide passenger facilities out of small tilt-up or portable-type buildings, commonly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