Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[ltsmotorsport]

indeed

[goldcntry]

My co-worker just bought one of the SoCrap lofts (to borrow snfenoc's turn of phrase). We're going to go down and tour his model and actual building this week, so I'll snag some shots then...

[snfenoc]

When I say the model for So Crap looks a little cheap, I mean the exterior. The inside could be freaking Buckingham Palace for all I know. I'm just not a big fan of the stucco (it think it's stucco). I'm just worried the buildings will look a little tired and dingy in 5-10 years.

[wburg]

I haven't heard anything further about moving the Greyhound station, but the main obstacle will be finding someplace for it to move to. It needs to be someplace relatively central with good access to transit. If the plan is to move it to Richards (a common speculation), don't expect it to relocate until Light Rail is up and running nearby. If the plan is to move it to the intermodal station (another common speculation) don't expect it to be relocated until the intermodal station plan has been worked out.

[ozone]

Well if centrality and light rail connection are the criteria to moving the bus depot then why not move it to a lot under the freeway (between X and Y) near the Broadway station? Or under the freeway between R and S, 29th and 30th? Or how about near Dos Rios/Loaves and Fishes? Birds of a feather and all that.

[ltsmotorsport]

Looking at this picture again, are the people redeveloping the Firestone Building can't put that highrise back in, before it's too late?

[wburg]

Under the freeway at R/S 29th/30th is currently being turned into a parking area for the medical office building on 30th and Q. There is no light rail stop in the vicinity of Loaves & Fishes, and it isn't that great a location given the greater distance from freeways (the other part of the equation, since Greyhound buses run on freeways.) Under the X/Y freeway at 20th/21st is technically possible, except of course Land Park, Curtis Park and Poverty Ridge would form together into a giant robot and crush the idea with a blazing laser sword.

[uzi963]

Bob Shallit: Downtown's big hole getting 'aesthetic' facade
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D4

There's a flurry of activity at the defunct Towers condo site in downtown Sacramento.

No, the high-rise project at Third and Capitol Mall hasn't been revived. Nor is anything new rising from the site quite yet.

What's under way is stabilizing work on the sidewalks surrounding the site's gaping hole, says Assistant City Manager John Dangberg. Eventually, contractors will put up an "aesthetic" facade around the excavation site and may do some landscaping, Dangberg says.

What's ahead for the prominent corner, where developer John Saca bailed on his vision of building the West Coast's tallest luxury condo building? Dangberg says he's heard that CIM Group of Los Angeles is working on long-term plans with property owner CalPERS, Saca's former partner on the project.

Michael Ault, director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, also has heard that various alternatives are under review.

"But I don't know if we'll end up with some smaller residential project or whether it will be offices," he says. "But clearly it will be less significant than 53-story (condo) towers."

* * *

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by uzi963

Bob Shallit: Downtown's big hole getting 'aesthetic' facade
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D4

There's a flurry of activity at the defunct Towers condo site in downtown Sacramento.

No, the high-rise project at Third and Capitol Mall hasn't been revived. Nor is anything new rising from the site quite yet.

What's under way is stabilizing work on the sidewalks surrounding the site's gaping hole, says Assistant City Manager John Dangberg. Eventually, contractors will put up an "aesthetic" facade around the excavation site and may do some landscaping, Dangberg says.

What's ahead for the prominent corner, where developer John Saca bailed on his vision of building the West Coast's tallest luxury condo building? Dangberg says he's heard that CIM Group of Los Angeles is working on long-term plans with property owner CalPERS, Saca's former partner on the project.

Michael Ault, director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, also has heard that various alternatives are under review.

"But I don't know if we'll end up with some smaller residential project or whether it will be offices," he says. "But clearly it will be less significant than 53-story (condo) towers."

* * *

probably another surface parking lot on the way

[arod74]

Originally Posted by wburg

Under the X/Y freeway at 20th/21st is technically possible, except of course Land Park, Curtis Park and Poverty Ridge would form together into a giant robot and crush the idea with a blazing laser sword.

Nice wburg, you just made me spit up my dr pepper all over my keyboard and monitor. The Land Park, Curtis Park and Poverty Ridge giant robot still would not be able to defeat a 3 headed robeast of Steve Cohn, Dave Jones, and ESMOAAAAD (East Sac McMansion owners against any and all developement). The body of course formed by the coming together of volvos, subaru wagons, and prius hybrids..

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by wburg

Under the X/Y freeway at 20th/21st is technically possible, except of course
Land Park, Curtis Park and Poverty Ridge would form together into a giant
robot and crush the idea with a blazing laser sword.

And with good reason. That would be a ridiculous fit for a bus station.
Why should it be moved at the detriment to an existing, prospective
neighborhood, when the downtown location is perfectly adequate for
their needs? Of course I say that in part because I live at Broadway
and 19th - but I'm as big a Downtown development booster as they come.

Moving the Greyhound station only makes sense if the new location is
better than the previous. Why else would it be moved? To please visitors
to the downtown area? To make way for an attractive office tower??

It's certainly not to please the residents around the Greyhound station.
They'll be gone soon anyway. And let's remember that Aura didn't get built,
the Towers didn't get built, 700 block of K Street didn't get done, and neither
will be the Saca / Mohanna 800 K towers. Moving the Greyhound is moot.

But I'll be constructive and add that there is only one location where the
station should move to, and that's the Intermodal. Anywhere else would
be slamming a square peg in a round hole.

[wburg]

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! Thank you, TD, for hitting the nail on the head. The intermodal station is the logical place for a Greyhound station, in terms of location and proximity to other transit modes. But it's going to take a while.

arod74: I drive a Volvo and my last car was a Subaru station wagon. I don't really care for Priuses though (I'm a station wagon guy.)

[TowerDistrict]

I guess that's a valid question then... what's the status on the intermodal?

There was the big uproar about the land aquisition and the moving of the
depot... The City has some solid looking plans prepared. I didn't think there
was any clean up required for the site - is it an issue of whether or not the
City can secure federal funding for the project?

[ltsmotorsport]

That's a good link for all the original alternatives, and here is the pdf for the final design chosen.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/gene...11_Sec3-12.pdf

[wburg]

The first step is to move the tracks. That is comparably easy: according to a presentation given at the joint commissions meeting last Tuesday, it will cost around $800,000 and could be done by early 2009.

The next part is the hard part: either move the station to meet the tracks, or build a new station. Much has been said about moving the station, but personally I don't think that it would cost as much as creating a new building, and you'd eliminate a lot of discussion over how such a building would look. Moving such a building is difficult, but not impossible, and would free up two city blocks of primo downtown land. Selling that land (for, say, a skyscraper) would help offset some of the costs that the intermodal project will incur.

Relocating the light rail tracks is easy: the track currently next to Amtrak is modular panel track, designed to be unbolted quickly and moved out of the way.

Once the station is relocated (either a new building or the moved old building) then you can relocate Greyhound. And yes, a lot of this depends on the city getting funding assistance (state, federal or private) to help do all this great stuff: as soon as the money's there, it can happen.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

The first step is to move the tracks. That is comparably easy: according to a presentation given at the joint commissions meeting last Tuesday, it will cost around $800,000 and could be done by early 2009.

The next part is the hard part: either move the station to meet the tracks, or build a new station. Much has been said about moving the station, but personally I don't think that it would cost as much as creating a new building, and you'd eliminate a lot of discussion over how such a building would look. Moving such a building is difficult, but not impossible, and would free up two city blocks of primo downtown land. Selling that land (for, say, a skyscraper) would help offset some of the costs that the intermodal project will incur.

Relocating the light rail tracks is easy: the track currently next to Amtrak is modular panel track, designed to be unbolted quickly and moved out of the way.

Once the station is relocated (either a new building or the moved old building) then you can relocate Greyhound. And yes, a lot of this depends on the city getting funding assistance (state, federal or private) to help do all this great stuff: as soon as the money's there, it can happen.

How long have they been talking about this, 10/15 yrs?

Sort of like the Tower Bridge Sidewalk......we are going on 8yrs now to complete that project....geez.

I'm on a rant........if they can light the Railyards buildings all night long, then turn on the friggin Ziggurat Building lights, the EPA building lights and the Fed courthouse lights all night long.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

How long have they been talking about this, 10/15 yrs?

More like 20 years

But in another twenty years there will still be no intermodal station (for one of the busiest rail stations in the country)..

There will be a couple more charettes, workshops and community meetings.

But an intermodal station??

Ha!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

More like 20 years

But in another twenty years there will still be no intermodal station (for one of the busiest rail stations in the country)..

There will be a couple more charettes, workshops and community meetings.

But an intermodal station??

Ha!

Hey, urban, now that you have been enjoying the big city for so long, doesn’t downtown/midtown seem incredibly tiny. But, of course, when you have been away from Sacramento for so long you appreciate what is great about it. Any thoughts?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Hey, urban, now that you have been enjoying the big city for so long, doesn’t downtown/midtown seem incredibly tiny. But, of course, when you have been away from Sacramento for so long you appreciate what is great about it. Any thoughts?

Downtown is very tiny in comparison to Chicago. But so is San Francisco and most downtowns in the U.S. save for New York.

Midtown is a treasure for Sacramento and most people don't even realize it. If Sacramento can move some of the vibe of midtown into the downtown area, Sacramento will have an impressive downtown.


But the problem i see in Sacramento is

#1 Gutless local and state politicians without any sense of vision of what Sacramento can become.

#2 An apatheitc population in the Sacramento region as a whole. People overall could care less if the city has professional sports, higher academics, the visual and performing arts. (That's not to say everyone feels that way), but most people living in Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova or (name your burb) could care less about having a vibrant downtown. They'll complain about paying an extra $2.50 a month in taxes to build and support the kinds of facilities Sacramento lacks, but they wouldn't hestitate to spend a couple hundred entertainment dollars in the bay area. It boils down to a bunch of narrow minded and selfish people, more concerned about their 2500 sf suburban ranch home than contributing a couple bucks for the common good of the region.

#3 CEQA The very act meant to protect the evironment in California probably does more to prevent infill development and drive up the costs of building higher densities, thus promoting more and more sprawl. It needs to be be seriously overhauled.

#4 NIMBY groups. I've never seen so many NIMBYs in any city. It doesn't matter what is proposed somebody will complain that they don't like the look of a proposal, or the track alignment, or maybe complain about endangering a fairy shrimp. Some might have legitimate concerns. But most are obstructionsits or plain and simple NIMBYs.


Still all that being said, I love Sacramento and might be heaed back there soon. Not sure for how long though, since I would prefer a San Francisco summer to a Sacramento summer. But Northern California as a whole is the best place in the U.S. without exception.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Downtown is very tiny in comparison to Chicago. But so is San Francisco and most downtowns in the U.S. save for New York.

Midtown is a treasure for Sacramento and most people don't even realize it. If Sacramento can move some of the vibe of midtown into the downtown area, Sacramento will have an impressive downtown.


But the problem i see in Sacramento is

#1 Gutless local and state politicians without any sense of vision of what Sacramento can become.

#2 An apatheitc population in the Sacramento region as a whole. People overall could care less if the city has professional sports, higher academics, the visual and performing arts. (That's not to say everyone feels that way), but most people living in Elk Grove, Folsom, Rancho Cordova or (name your burb) could care less about having a vibrant downtown. They'll complain about paying an extra $2.50 a month in taxes to build and support the kinds of facilities Sacramento lacks, but they wouldn't hestitate to spend a couple hundred entertainment dollars in the bay area. It boils down to a bunch of narrow minded and selfish people, more concerned about their 2500 sf suburban ranch home than contributing a couple bucks for the common good of the region.

#3 CEQA The very act meant to protect the evironment in California probably does more to prevent infill development and drive up the costs of building higher densities, thus promoting more and more sprawl. It needs to be be seriously overhauled.

#4 NIMBY groups. I've never seen so many NIMBYs in any city. It doesn't matter what is proposed somebody will complain that they don't like the look of a proposal, or the track alignment, or maybe complain about endangering a fairy shrimp. Some might have legitimate concerns. But most are obstructionsits or plain and simple NIMBYs.


Still all that being said, I love Sacramento and might be heaed back there soon. Not sure for how long though, since I would prefer a San Francisco summer to a Sacramento summer. But Northern California as a whole is the best place in the U.S. without exception.

Yep, I agree with everything you said. You're views on Nimbys and CEQA have seemed to change a little since you lived here. Living (not just visiting) outside of Sacramento can do that.

In response to your comments:

#1 - In many ways our politicians are truly representing the people of Sacramento...i.e. Nimbys and Anti-development folks.

#2 - The population is mixed. A) Old-timers who are not really apathetic, they are actually quite effective in stopping or controlling development in their neighborhoods. B) Many (not all)Bay Area suburbanites who are escaping the congestion of the bay area; their mindset is not particularly urban, rather they want the huge house in the suburbs. These folks are still tied to the bay area in terms of culture and sports affiliations and have not really called Sacramento their home. These are the folks who live in Roseville and Granite Bay and are quick to claim they don’t live in Sacramento. C) A population that has finally experienced the pride and benefits of having a major league sports team to call their own, but has not really experienced it on the cultural level. A typical Chicago Cubs fanatic can be the same guy who boasts of the Chicago Art Institute….the two sorts have not really merged in Sacramento. D) Cities and regions that have much natural outdoor beauty, good weather, mountains and the ocean nearby tend to be more focused on getting away from the city, rather than enjoying urban attributes.

#3 – CEQA – Many folks use CEQA with one goal in mind, stopping all development. In any EIR or CEQA review, one option is always, “do nothing”. CEQA has a way of stopping or interrupting any synergism occurring in the central city like Sacramento.

#4 – Nimbys are simply against all development regardless of how they sugar coat it; Lately, they are just plain arrogant about how they want to control everything.

I, also, Love Sacramento and Northern California really is a gem compared to the rest of the U.S.