[wburg]

urban encounter: The irony is that the SRO-type structures that aren't currently income-limited (like the Berry and the Marshall) that are the problem (in terms of poor maintenance and tolerance of bad behavior) while the income-limited and subsidized ones (like Pensione K, which is all low-income, but distributed between all three low-income categories) tend to be better-run, far cleaner, and a far better fit into the community.

Some might wonder how things got this way. Sacramento's downtown used to be a LOT more populated, but one of the objectives of our urban renewal plans was, quite literally, to depopulate much of the central city. The population of the redevelopment areas was reduced by about 75%, from an "overpopulated" 32 units an acre to a suburb-like 8 units an acre, through mass evictions, eminent domain proceedings, and wholesale destruction of housing. For the most part, even the 8 that remained weren't former residents.

The people in these buildings didn't vanish: they moved to other central city neighborhoods, including Alkali Flat, Southside, and Oak Park. There was a massive population of single men, mostly seasonal laborers, along the riverfront's hotels--the area was known as the "Labor Market" and it was a clearinghouse for seasonal labor in farms, canneries, etcetera. Because SHRA only considered families, not individuals, as requiring replacement housing, no allowance was made for these guys, and as a result they moved from hotels on the riverfront to hotels along J and K Street. Instead of solving the perceived social problem, they simply shifted it.

The solution, in my mind? Let's build a hell of a lot of housing in the central city! This requires some creative solutions, making use of existing infill lots and a lot of small/mid projects rather than a handful of big projects. This doesn't excuse bad-actor SRO landlords from cleaning up their properties, but one way to balance the incomes of downtown residents is simply to build more mid/high end housing, rather than eliminating the low-end.

Where would I like to see skyscrapers? Capitol Mall is a good start, and personally I'm not a big fan of the "view protection act" around the Capitol, but you'd have a tough time with that as I think it's a state measure, you'd need the state government to agree to do away with it. There are quite a few parking lots, legacies of old redevelopment areas, that could use some altitude on them. While I am an ardent (well, okay, rabidly foaming) fan of the remaining Southern Pacific shops buildings, outside of the Shops/Railroad Technology Museum area, much of the Railyards area could get quite tall and I'd be cool with it. Where don't they belong? I'll sum it up in three words: Historic preservation districts.

Finding the middle ground is always a challenge, and typically compromise means making everyone equally uncomfortable with the final plan...