HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #161  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2007, 7:23 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
No, I am not of that opinion. Personally, I like Thomas' idea of height limits in the immediate vicinity of the Shops buildings.

I'll post the link rather than the pic, because the pic is big:
http://www.sacramentorailyards.com/a.../landLarge.jpg

The area with the black cross-hatching is the proposed preservation district. The area with the gray cross-hatching in the opposite direction is Thomas' proposed transition zone, with height restrictions. The buildings there will also be constructed in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's standards regarding buildings adjacent to historic structures.

Anywhere outside that area, hey, go tall.
According to the article: You understand the Railroad Museum Foundation, Old Shitty Association and other preservationist groups have a DIFFERENT plan, right?? That DIFFERENT plan (which has a larger boundary for the historic district and a greater area of height restrictions than the map you posted) is what bothers me. That DIFFERENT plan (and the method they are using to force it on Thomas Enterprises) is what's at issue. You understand that, right? You realize why I said Daigle can suck it, right?

I have no problem with height restrictions and historic preservation - as long as it is the will of the developer. However, I do have a problem if a group of preservationists goes above the head of a developer and files to have a LARGER area than proposed by the developer certified as a federally protected district.

Hopefully, the filing is meaningless. Hopefully the feds tell the preservationists to suck it.



econgrad:
Is it really important to preserve a few rail yard buildings? The answer depends on your perspective. I understand how a person could say "YES!" and how another could say "NO!"

Majin illustrates the "NO!" perspective well, let me take a shot at the "YES!" perspective:

Personally, I think those old railroad buildings have a lot of charm. Renovated and reused properly, they will be a nice anchor for the rail yard development. Besides, it's the "Rail Yards", it would be nice to have a rail theme. Those old buildings meet that goal pretty nicely if you ask me. Now, do I think the buildings deserve (as though an inanimate object deserves something) height buffers, special treatment and government protection? Hell no! But that is just my opinion, Thomas Enterprises (the OWNER and DEVELOPER) has every right to disagree with me and do its own thing. That is fine with me. Unlike many gadflies in this city, I actaully respect property rights.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #162  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2007, 8:00 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
snefnoc: I realize that you make such rude remarks about people because you have no respect for preservationists. Beyond that I care not to venture. I was asked for my personal view, and I gave it--I post here to express my own opinions, not to act as a spokesperson for SOCA or the Railroad Museum.

As to my own opinion of why those buildings deserve preservation: PROFIT. History is marketable. People are interested in it, and the easiest way to draw those interested in history is with a concrete, physical object: typically, a building or other structure. They catch your eye and hold them. Despite the disparaging remarks I hear about Old Sacramento, millions of tourists come through every year because they like being around old buildings. Restored and reactivated, people will be able to interact directly with those buildings. If you ever get a chance to tour the inside of those buildings, jump at the chance! The interiors of the larger shops remind one of a cathedral, with their tall window openings or long views: a Railroad Museum exhibit on the Shops described them as "Cathedrals of Labor."

Now, some might argue that you can make more profit by knocking down those Shops and building new buildings there--but that isn't necessarily the point. There will be new buildings, and tall ones, in that neighborhood, and the needs of those who like tall, new buildings will be met within that neighborhood. But those who like historic structures, and are drawn to them, which is a good chunk of the populace, will find nothing that appeals to them in the Railyards if the Shops are destroyed. Essentially, if the buildings aren't preserved YOU'RE LOSING MARKET SHARE. And it's a kind of market share that no other city in the region can duplicate. It makes us unique, sets us apart, and helps to identify Sacramento as the historic and cultural core of the region. It is literally impossible for competing nearby cities to construct a new building that can compete with that. In other words, not just market share but EXCLUSIVE market share.

This is true all over: cultural heritage and history tourism is a big source of income. Beyond simple tourist dollars, it also brands a city in people's minds, cements a city's identity. What would San Francisco be without Coit Tower, the Golden Gate Bridge, or cable cars? This is true on a worldwide basis: in Beijing, for example, what a loss it would be if the Temple of Heaven or the Forbidden City was destroyed to make way for condominiums. Beijing is a city with 3000 years of history. A lot of China's historic structures were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, but China's historic architecture certainly counts as a national treasure.

Taken from the Wikipedia entry on Beijing:
Quote:
In recent years, the expansion of Beijing has also brought to the forefront some problems of urbanization, such as heavy traffic, poor air quality, the loss of historic neighborhoods, and significant influx of migrants from poorer regions of the country, especially rural areas.
And here's a bit from the Wiki entry about the Beijing city wall:
Quote:
As the call for a restoration of ancient culture grows stronger and Beijing becoming the host city of the upcoming 29th Olympiad, there have been many demands for a complete or partial reconstruction of the original "凸"-character-shaped city defence system. The recently completed reconstruction of Yongdingmen is one such example, and will most certainly be followed by others in the near future. A restoration of the city's Inner and Outer city moat system which will become part of the public waterway network, reconstruction of the three gates on the south of the city's central axis (and possibly all of the nine gates and three corner guard towers of the Inner city) are already on being discussed by officials. However, most of the original sites of the gates have become sites of major developments since their dismantlement, such as Fuchengmen, Chaoyangmen, and Xuanwumen, which are now busy roads with high rises. This presents much difficulty if the city government were to start reconstruction work there. There have also been some alternatives of reconstructing them at a nearby site where it is less crowded. Some of the more likely projects are the restoration of the remaining fortifications, and the reconstruction of parts of the city walls, which are less daunting and require much less funding. Between 2001 and 2003, the remaining section of the southern Inner city city wall's eastern sections located in the south of the Beijing train station were completely restored and opened to the public as the "Ming dynasty city wall site public park". Between 2005 and 2006, the remaining sections of Beijing eastern Inner city city wall's south section were restored and merged with the "Ming dynasty city wall site public park". Currently, the Southeastern corner guard tower is being restored, and when completed will join the southern wall east section and eastern wall south section as the "Ming dynasty city wall site public park". Restoration of Beijing Ancient Observatory's sections of the city wall and its enemy sight tower are under planning, as well as Zhengyangmen's barbican[28].
I'm sure Beijing is a bustling, modern city. But it is also a city with three millenia of history--TWENTY TIMES the historic legacy of Sacramento. So, yes, I'd suggest that Beijing's move towards modernity also includes recognition, appreciation, preservation and marketing/promotion of its historic sites.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #163  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2007, 8:30 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
econgrad:
Is it really important to preserve a few rail yard buildings? The answer depends on your perspective. I understand how a person could say "YES!" and how another could say "NO!"

Majin illustrates the "NO!" perspective well, let me take a shot at the "YES!" perspective:
econgrad: Let me take a shot at it too. I greatly agree with sefenoc's point above.

Also, from a developer's view, you always want to be able to differentiate your project from all others. This is difficult for a variety of reasons. One being that in a franchised society, it's hard to find something unique. Another is that economic demands, physical constraints and government regulations/review process truly limit the extent of what you can realistically accomplish on any particular site.

At the Railyards, these historic buildings are one-of-a-kind. As I alluded to earlier, they can't be duplicated anywhere today. This industrial complex was the largest west of the Mississippi River. By preserving its core and enhancing the cultural aspects, residents and visitors will be afforded an opportunity to enjoy an experience unlike any other in the world. It won't appeal to everyone with the same degree of success, but millions will come to Sacramento just for the experience. It will be uniquely Sacramento.

Without these buildings, the Railyards project could be anywhere.

Last edited by travis bickle; Sep 18, 2007 at 9:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #164  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2007, 9:02 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Daybreak (So. Jordan), UT
Posts: 788
I promised myself I wouldn't add my two pence in here, and yet, here I go. I'd like to point to the Ferry Building in SF as a point of preservation and the general area there. The Ferry Building complex is exactly how I envision the workshop buildings could be! I look out my office window at the buildings right over there and think what a wonderful daily experience it would be to walk/bike over to the Railyard Emporium Shops enjoying great Sacramento fare and shopping.

I also think that the Railroad Musuem Preservationalists are suffering from cranial-rectal inversion by trying to expand the developer's very reasonable height restrictions. I return to the Ferry Building model. If those same height restrictions had been imposed on that area would we have 1 Ricon Hill? Any of the dramatic architecture evident there by the Bay Bridge? No, I don't want another SF, but I'm tired of every oportunity for our skyline to become exciting being chopped down to uniform height by the Ronco Nimby-whacker (c)... will we every break the 500ft level???

Regardless, Kathy Diegle's legal actions are causing me to seriously consider dropping my membership in the Sacramento Railroad Museum.

__________________
Giant Meteor 2024
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #165  
Old Posted Sep 18, 2007, 11:56 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
I, also, believe the railyards buildings should be preserved, yet I really dont know that much about them. Could be they be replicated? What is so special about them? What style of architecture is it? What type of materials were used?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #166  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 12:25 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
If Thomas Enterprises WANTS to preserve these buildings then I would not dare interfere (you guys already know my stance in my Major thread about non-interference), but econgrad I totally agree with you, I am not sure why there is such a desire to save old buildings in bad condition...

I think it was you who mentioned earlier about how much Beijing has changed so much in the past 10 years. I agree, much of the world (especially Asian countries) is changing drasitcally. What used to be 3rd world countries with poor cities are not becomming technologically advanced world class cities that is passing up just about every city in the country save NYC and Chicago.

China, Taiwan, HK, South Korea, Japan.... I know the last two were devistated by war, but damn near all of these countries have gone from nothing to building super cities on par with NYC in the past 50 or so years. Have any of these super cities been created by saving every single crappy "histrocial" structure and endless layers of beuaracrary?

Do you really think people visit Taiwan and say "wow, this place didnt save any of its old histrocial buildings, this place sucks"? No, they are amazed of the progress they have made and how much they moved forward. Like I said, I am NOT against companies wanting to save and rennovate histrocial structure if they choose to, but in all honesty, we want to build to attract people and business here. That isn't going to happen delaying projects into obilvion by preservation and beuracracy. Let the developer build and leave the government out of it.

Well said, Manji,

I truly believe Sacramento as way too many anti-growth and anti-development folks. They use the our design and approval process to delay projects into a blackhole. The balance of power is on their side. Nimbys hinder and limit urbanity, vibrancy, and density because of their own selfish needs and simply because the don’t want a developer to earn a profit. Preservationists limit and hinder urbanity, vibrancy and density because they do not allow developers the freedom to proceed as they wish. Do we really need preservationists? Developers already understand the need and benefit to preserve historic structures yet they are smart enough to not let certain details and structures limit projects from moving forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #167  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 3:23 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Can the Railyards be replicated? That is completely beside the point: we can "replicate" the Mona Lisa, but no replication, no matter how accurate, can replace the original.

Do we need preservationists? Put it this way: if you were out on Second Saturday and saw the huge crowds, you would have noticed they were all in Midtown, not downtown. Why? Midtown, where the buildings are neat and old, attracts people, and the creative midtown community formed largely because people liked the great old buildings. The reason why we have this groovy Midtown is because preservationists made some pretty huge efforts over the past 30-40 years to save the buildings and neighborhoods from developers who certainly did not "understand the need and benefit to preserve historic structures." During downtown's redevelopment, it was developers, in collaboration with the city, who literally kicked out 75% of the central city's population and destroyed a large percentage of the housing stock. Some have figured out the error of their ways, but plenty of them don't, as evidenced by their actions.

Historic preservation IS smart growth. Our existing historic neighborhoods are the model for smart growth, not an obstacle to them. Preservationists in the central city understand urbanity, vibrancy and density because we're already living in it. Thomas Enterprises understands that preservation, in combination with smart growth, is the key to success in the railyards.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #168  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 9:08 AM
leftopolis leftopolis is offline
Earthling
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: San José
Posts: 1,360
And there you have it...A Sacramento preservationist has compared the freightyard/toxic-dump to the Mona Lisa!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #169  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 1:00 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Can the Railyards be replicated? That is completely beside the point: we can "replicate" the Mona Lisa, but no replication, no matter how accurate, can replace the original.

Do we need preservationists? Put it this way: if you were out on Second Saturday and saw the huge crowds, you would have noticed they were all in Midtown, not downtown. Why? Midtown, where the buildings are neat and old, attracts people, and the creative midtown community formed largely because people liked the great old buildings. The reason why we have this groovy Midtown is because preservationists made some pretty huge efforts over the past 30-40 years to save the buildings and neighborhoods from developers who certainly did not "understand the need and benefit to preserve historic structures." During downtown's redevelopment, it was developers, in collaboration with the city, who literally kicked out 75% of the central city's population and destroyed a large percentage of the housing stock. Some have figured out the error of their ways, but plenty of them don't, as evidenced by their actions.

Historic preservation IS smart growth. Our existing historic neighborhoods are the model for smart growth, not an obstacle to them. Preservationists in the central city understand urbanity, vibrancy and density because we're already living in it. Thomas Enterprises understands that preservation, in combination with smart growth, is the key to success in the railyards.
And none of the above is any justification whatsoever for Kathy Daigle of the California State Railroad Museum Foundation to attempt to steal 25 acres of Thomas Enterprise's land and take control of it.

Her little legal extortion attempt will damage this project if it is not stopped.

People like Daigle always presume they know better than everyone else. They feel in particular that they know better than the people actually risking their own money to to develop their own property.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #170  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 4:32 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
leftopolis: Have you ever been inside the Shops buildings?

All photos courtesy http://www.trainweb.com







We're not talking about the big piles of dirt here, but the Shops buildings. Are they beautiful? I think so, as examples of industrial architecture they demonstrate craftsmanship and skill. Are they historic? Yes, clearly, as the largest industrial facility west of the Mississippi, the only place where locomotives were built from the ground up in the western United States, and the industrial focus of the organization that built California from a backwater outpost to the economic engine of the nation. It also represents the workplace of generations of Sacramentans, and a powerful artifact of California history in all respects. But unlike the Mona Lisa, these were useful, practical buildings, not just a painting on the wall that does nothing but sit there. This was a working place.

With preservation and restoration people will be able to enter them, interact with them, experience the buildings directly. Part of the Shops will certainly be the Railroad Technology Museum, as an expansion of the existing Railroad Museum. Some of the buildings will become public structures of the sort we're discussing: the Paint Shop will almost certainly become a public market building like the Ferry Building in San Francisco. The three-story restroom, well, we'll see what they decide to do with that.

If you can look at these buildings and describe them as ugly garbage, I just don't know what to say. I think I assumed that people who post on a board dedicated to skyscrapers were people who had an appreciation for architecture as an art form. Plenty of people here seem to agree.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #171  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 5:59 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Wberg, you keep avoiding the questions about why it’s okay for this Dingle
lady to demand 25 additional acres on top of the 14 acres that have already
been agreed to? I realize that this has been a tough week for you, being
that more and more people here on this forum see you for what you are….
a self proclaimed “nut to cause trouble” preserving everything.

I mean really, compare the railyards to the Mona Lisa LOL

Your smooth well spoken manner turns into BS really fast, but in the end, you
know as we do, that this Dingle lady has made a threat to extort from Thomas.
I look forward to seeing the Shops redone… but not the way this Dingle lady
is now proposing and that will eventually stall the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #172  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 7:12 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Can the Railyards be replicated? That is completely beside the point: we can "replicate" the Mona Lisa, but no replication, no matter how accurate, can replace the original.

Do we need preservationists? Put it this way: if you were out on Second Saturday and saw the huge crowds, you would have noticed they were all in Midtown, not downtown. Why? Midtown, where the buildings are neat and old, attracts people, and the creative midtown community formed largely because people liked the great old buildings. The reason why we have this groovy Midtown is because preservationists made some pretty huge efforts over the past 30-40 years to save the buildings and neighborhoods from developers who certainly did not "understand the need and benefit to preserve historic structures." During downtown's redevelopment, it was developers, in collaboration with the city, who literally kicked out 75% of the central city's population and destroyed a large percentage of the housing stock. Some have figured out the error of their ways, but plenty of them don't, as evidenced by their actions.

Historic preservation IS smart growth. Our existing historic neighborhoods are the model for smart growth, not an obstacle to them. Preservationists in the central city understand urbanity, vibrancy and density because we're already living in it. Thomas Enterprises understands that preservation, in combination with smart growth, is the key to success in the railyards.
The railyards buildings are beautiful to a certain point. They are worth saving certainly. What is the difference between replication and duplication, really? If the Vatican were destroyed in an earthquake, they would simple rebuild it exactly the way it was originally built. Of course all the art in the building may not be replicated, but I don’t think there is priceless art in the Railyards buildings.

The buildings in downtown are just as old if not older than the ones in midtown, and with proper restoration they can be just as fabulous. The vibrancy of downtown has great potential. Maybe if all those SORs were located in midtown you might see a change in the vibrancy of downtown overnight. Besides all those Single occupancy residents could mingle with Second Saturday enthusiasts. (Free wine at the art galleries). For clarification: I am not serious about moving SOR's residents to midtown.

The developers of today understand and respect the benefit of restoration and saving “historic” structures.

Historic preservation is smart mainly because most of these historic structures were built in the grid, and the grid itself is smart growth in collaboration with higher densities, not necessarily because the buildings themselves were built 150 years ago. The historic nature itself may have little effect on weather or not a building adds to urbanity, vibrancy or density. For example, The MARRS building was an eyesore of a 1970’s warehouse office building that because of proper density, creativity, and FREEDOM, the developer was able to redesign it in a relatively short time. If that warehouse/office building were built in 1870 with little to save or at an enormous cost, preservations would take control and delay the project at least a decade before it were restored defeating the synergism that is occurring on that corner.

Last edited by BrianSac; Sep 19, 2007 at 8:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #173  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 8:20 PM
michael4ski michael4ski is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 4
As a newbie to this site and to Sacramento itself, I can understand many people's frustration with the pace of development in this city. Nevertheless, I can't understand anyone thinking the railyard buildings should be torn down just to speed up the development. These building have not only historical significance, but they are beautiful as well. Yes, many cities have accelerated development by ignoring their historical structures, but those cities are generally far less interesting and certainly less beautiful than those that have preserved historic buildings.

As to the Railroad Museum's quest to expand the historic district to encompass more than just the buildings and their immediate vicinity, this would appear to be unwarranted. Given the development history of Sacramento it is going to be a difficult process to merely access sufficient funds to have any development whatsoever on this land. If additional restrictions or takeaways are imposed, it just may prove impossible.

This is somewhat akin to all the community activists in Oakland several years back who were complaining to Jerry Brown about the lack of affordable housing being included in all the new downtown housing developments. As Jerry had noted, Oakland isn't San Francisco and can't dictate the terms of development. Sacramento can't either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #174  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 9:22 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
The period when we had to beg developers to build anything here is over. Developers may still have a sense of entitlement because they're used to getting sucked off by city staff, and the current city manager could pretty much suck the chrome off a trailer hitch so they definitely expect it. We're not San Francisco, but we're Sacramento, dammit, and we're already on the radar. We are at the tipping point where we can start being picky, because the decisions we make will have lasting effects that we will all have to live with.

BrianSac: "Simply" re-creating the Vatican is a contradiction in terms. There are many techniques and materials which are impossible to duplicate, which have been lost over the centuries or simply no longer exist. There are still plenty of beautiful buildings downtown, but most of them are gone, because of redevelopment. And there is an abundance of priceless art in the Shops buildings: I didn't include many shots of the artifacts in the Boiler Shop and the Erecting Shop, but they are currently being used by CSRM to store many of their artifacts, including locomotives, passenger cars, station fixtures and windows, locomotive components, and so on. In addition, those buildings are the workspace for CSRM's restoration, repair, maintenance of way, and fabrication shops. There are a great number of irreplaceable pieces of art in there: from intricate woodworking to cast bronze and ironwork, stained glass, and more.

Oh, and the residents of downtown SROs certainly do come to midtown on Second Saturdays: they're only a few blocks apart! Plus, there actually are several SROs in midtown already. They just tend to be professionally run instead of being owned by slumlords.

P.S. BrianSac: The MARRS building is a 1940s historic structure (I have seen photos of it with trolleys running past on K Street), PRESERVED.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #175  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 9:29 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Yep, avoiding the question wberg... well done
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #176  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 9:41 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
I assume none of you ever haggle, then, because that's all this is: an offer and a counter-offer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #177  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 9:47 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
A offer and a counter-offer that will likely involve the courts, another layer of beuracracy and likely delay the project enough to kill it.

Do you support this?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #178  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 10:10 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
"By the beard of the Prophet, wise one! As much as I respect you, I could never accept such a low price, or my wife and children would starve!"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #179  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 10:11 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post

P.S. BrianSac: The MARRS building is a 1940s historic structure (I have seen photos of it with trolleys running past on K Street), PRESERVED.
Well I'm sure the facade was changed at least a few times by the time this recent remodel was accomplished. And who decided to preserve it: developers or preservationists?

Besides you are missing the point. This building has little if any "historic" ornamentation and if a similar structure were built today on the same lot it could have the same affect and house the same tenants adding vibrancy and urbanity to that neighborhood. Its "historic" nature has little affect to the average person, rather its open design, trees, decking, and tenants are what attract people to it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #180  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2007, 10:30 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
"By the beard of the Prophet, wise one! As much as I respect you, I could never accept such a low price, or my wife and children would starve!"
I’m sure wberg is grooming himself to be a politician. In stead of addressing
any questions posed to him by myself or others, he says something he thinks
is funny instead.

Don’t know what to say man, your off the charts in your historical world.

Last edited by innov8; Sep 19, 2007 at 11:18 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:44 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.