HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2141  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 4:52 PM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I agree with everything you wrote Mike.

My one concern, is the pattern of highrise development in Sacramento is for the design to highlight one side of the building and leave the remaining three to mediocrity.

I hope that they don't intend to do the same with MII.
I've noticed that. Most notably I guess would be with US Bank. I wondered why they put so much effort into the design facing Capitol Mall, and the rear looks really awkward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2142  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 4:53 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
I'm glad there will be no delay. I seriously doubted this whole thing would cause any noticeable slowdown in an already really slow process. However, I am still annoyed, and my annoyance is based on principle. It bothers me that a compromise had to be made. (I certainly hope this compromise does not affect Thomas Enterprises' plan to build waterfront high rises.) I believe Daigle and the "Suck It! Brigade" had no right to make a historic claim on land they do not own. Even if they will eventually control a portion of the land, that portion (or any other historic area, for that matter) is not entitled to a buffer. In addition, I don't believe the government has the authority to enforce the preservation of historic sites.

You say historic preservation has nothing to do with ownership of the land: Does that mean you think historic preservation is more important than property rights??? I hope not. Don't get me wrong, I love historic buildings and historic areas, but individual rights are very important to me (heck, it's the reason our country was founded), and the "needs" of preservationists should never get in the way an individual's (or, in this case, a company's) right to do what he wants with his land.
From the demands here to use eminent domain on Mo Mohanna's land, it sounds like people don't mind usurping Mo's rights to his property if it serves the public interest. This isn't quite the same, but the theory works the same: preserving the Railyards serves the public good. This isn't merely a demand made by a handful of agitators, but following policies set down in state, federal and local law that specify the importance of preserving aspects of our naional heritage.

Historic preservation districts are not nominated based on land ownership: they are, maybe not surprisingly, based on the historic character of the buildings. In the case of the Railyards area, the historic district listing also has to do with the importance of historic events that took place there, as well as the architectural character of the buildings. Generally, they are based on architecture and regulate modification, demolition and protection of buildings. If the city ever gets off its butt (see, I don't entirely disagree with you cats that the city does stuff very slowly) and implements the Mills Act, there will also be property-tax incentives to maintaining historic buildings within these districts, and other "carrots" to go along with the "stick."

The nice thing about the Railyards discussions is that Thomas Enterprises were the ones who initially nominated a portion of the railyards, and then created a "transition zone" around the railyards. What they didn't know at the time, but they have since learned, is that the features of this "transition zone" were in no way at odds with the features of historic preservation districts. The portion by the river will not be part of the district, except for the route of the Transcontinental Railroad itself. This will be commemorated by a historic walk (another idea that Thomas put forth) that will lead from the river and Old Sacramento through the heart of the Railyards' new shopping district, and will end up adjacent to the historic buildings.

Thomas, I think, assumed that an HPD meant that buildings had to look faux-old, like in Old Sac, when in fact, Secretary of Interior standards discourage this strongly, except in very specific circumstances. Their plans, to build these buildings within specific height limits and follow Secretary of Interior standards regarding structures near historic buildings, actually fit very well--so there's no harm done by adding the historic district specification.

The purpose of the preservation district proposal was NEVER to slow down the process: all of the preservation groups involved want to see the Railyards buildings stabilized, maintained and preserved, as do Thomas Enterprises. They just want to see it done right.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2143  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 8:37 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
So what you are saying is preservation of historic areas trumps ownership rights. And you are happy with that? Not me. Something needs to change.

You keep harping on Thomas Enterprises' nomination of the shops area. But that was never the problem (although, I maintain it is not purview government to maintain (enforce onerous regulations) the historic nature of an area). The issue is the nomination of a larger area than preferred by Thomas Enterprises (the property owner) by the "Suck It! Brigade". Thomas Enterprises' nomination of 14 acres (I think) of land does not justify the unwanted nomination of 39 acres by the "Suck It! Brigade".


By the way, I do not support the use of ED on Moe Mohanna's property. Individual rights are far more important than the public good.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2144  
Old Posted Oct 13, 2007, 9:36 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
snefnoc: You have a right to your opinion regarding government's power to create historic districts, but they disagree with current law. And yes, to a limited extent, preservation trumps property rights. I am aware that this doesn't sit well with everyone.

For example, I live in a historic preservation district; my home is a contributing structure. Because of this status, I am limited in the sort of exterior modifications I make on this house. This is because while I am the owner of the property, I am also the steward of a historic structure.

As to the nomination: Actually, the nomination was for a National Register Historic District, not an expansion of the city preservation district. The two are very different things: for starters, a National Register Historic District nomination requires the approval of a majority of the property owners in the district. If the district has one owner, and they say no, a district cannot be established.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2145  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 5:46 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Been away for more than a week and haven't had a chance to read all of the posts, but this just jumped out at me...

Quote:
The purpose of the preservation district proposal was NEVER to slow down the process: all of the preservation groups involved want to see the Railyards buildings stabilized, maintained and preserved, as do Thomas Enterprises. They just want to see it done right.
This, of course, is pure bullshit. Sorry for the language, but sometimes I just get tired of wburg's "who-'lil ole me?" shtick. It is ALWAYS the purpose of opposition groups to threaten - either directly or indirectly - to delay a project. They know that delay can be, and often is, fatal to any project. They know that nothing frightens a developer more than delay and uncertainty. Despite what wburg would have you believe, opposition groups have become masters of the process and well know-how to manipulate it.

Kathy Dongle and her goose-stepping preservationist goons are no exception. I'd like to see what this compromise entails before I comment on the specifics, but to claim that delay was NEVER in the opposition plans is simply laughable. It's part of the way people like her work. It's what they do. I'm sure Ms. Dangle had attorneys ready to go if Thomas didn't jump through this hoop.

If her efforts were all in good faith, then why did they make the request for additional land without Thomas's knowledge? Wouldn't it have been easier, and more ethical, to just call Thomas and express their concerns? Of course it would have... but that's not the way you operate if you want to be able to threaten to delay a project. And Doogle wanted to have that hammer in her hand before she began talks with Thomas.

So just save it wburg. No one's buyin...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2146  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 6:01 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
travis: Did the tinfoil fall out of your hat or something? Thomas Enterprises and the Railroad Museum have been in constant communication throughout the process. If anyone wanted to use a delaying tactic, there are probably better ways than a historic-district nomination process that expressly requires the consent of the property owner!

You're also wrong in assuming that any of the groups involved oppose development of the Railyards. Nobody wants to see the Railyards land sit unused, least of all the Railroad Museum, whose future plans center around two of the Shops buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2147  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 6:32 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
travis: Did the tinfoil fall out of your hat or something? Thomas Enterprises and the Railroad Museum have been in constant communication throughout the process. If anyone wanted to use a delaying tactic, there are probably better ways than a historic-district nomination process that expressly requires the consent of the property owner!

You're also wrong in assuming that any of the groups involved oppose development of the Railyards. Nobody wants to see the Railyards land sit unused, least of all the Railroad Museum, whose future plans center around two of the Shops buildings.
Apparently during all of that "constant communication," Dogle and her group somehow failed to mention that tiny detail that they were applying for an additional 25 acres for Historic Designation. "Oops! I guess it just slipped our minds..."

Thomas has indicated that they had no idea that Ms. Dogs and her group had applied or were applying for the designation until it became public.

That's not exactly good-faith communications now is it? Of course, it wasn't supposed to be.

And where exactly do I assume any of the groups oppose development of the railyards? I'm talking about the threat of delay here and you're laughably ridiculous assertion that that was "NEVER" part of the plan. Be specific and do try to hurry, I have to be on the road in a few.

As usual wburg, you're claiming people say things that they haven't. Another typical tactic of opposition groups.

Try again...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2148  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 7:03 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Sutter Medical Foundation Building check out the Time Lapse here

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2149  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 7:14 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsf8278 View Post
I've noticed that. Most notably I guess would be with US Bank. I wondered why they put so much effort into the design facing Capitol Mall, and the rear looks really awkward.
I totally agree... I have been stumping this issue since 99'. The Fed Court
building and the EPA tower on I Street have been built the same way. My letters
the Design Commission have fallen on def ears. I might have to bring this to their
attention again, but with photos to show them what exactly were talking about.
It's not like these building are a few stories, their 350' or taller and can be seen from nearly every direction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2150  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 8:09 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffZurn View Post
Varied interests vie for inside track at railyard
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, September 13, 2007
Story appeared in MAIN NEWS section, Page A16

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)| Digg it | del.icio.us


Sacramento's downtown railyard is a blank slate, and everybody wants to write on it.

History buffs have asked for a 39-acre historic district surrounding the old railroad shops. Chinese leaders want a museum and perhaps a Chinese garden. Local arts groups envision a complex with performing arts venues and a kindergarten-12th grade arts conservatory.

A year after a failed city-county effort to build an arena in the railyard, a planned development of up to 12,000 housing units, a historic and cultural district, and millions of square feet of office and retail space is working its way through the approval process.

As it moves closer to approval, more people are trying to stake their claim on what's considered one of the most significant "infill" sites in the country.

The plans are big. And so are the problems.

Not only must developer Thomas Enterprises juggle the competing agendas of interest groups clamoring for a piece of the railyard, it must figure out how to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars needed to extend roads, utilities and other infrastructure to the site.

To that end, the Atlanta company is working with the city for quick approval of its development plan and environmental impact report, which was released last month.

If the project obtains the city's blessing by November, Suheil Totah, Thomas Enterprises vice president, said the project stands a better chance of winning up to $200 million in state bond funds.

"One of the criteria for the money is project readiness," Totah said. "We want to show that we're ready."

The situation in the railyard is still uncertain enough that the NBA has turned its sights to Cal Expo instead of the railyard as a possible arena location.

Still, Totah and community leaders who appeared at the city's first formal hearing on the railyard proposal Tuesday expressed considerable excitement.

If it obtains money from the state's $2.85 billion housing bond, Totah said that could pay for enough public improvements for the first phase to proceed.

He called the railyard a "marquee project" for the infill and transit-oriented pots of money in the state bond fund.

"The mayor has appeared before the Legislature to present the railyards as an example of a project that could be funded under them," he said. "We've had meetings with the Governor's Office. We're hoping that we can secure $100 million, but perhaps up to $200 million."

It took Thomas Enterprises six years to reach an agreement with Union Pacific to buy the railyard. Since the sale closed in December, the planning process has picked up steam.

On Tuesday, the city held the first of three joint hearings by its Planning, Design and Preservation commissions at the Sheraton Hotel. Normally, a developer would have to go before each commission separately, which can take many months.

City officials said it was the first time they knew of that the commissions had met jointly to consider a project. The idea is to get the railyard plan to the City Council by November -- warp speed by city standards.

Opening the meeting, Councilman Ray Tretheway said the redeveloped railyard would redefine Sacramento as the region's hub.

"It's going to have its own signature, its own specialness, and that's what we're going to try to carve out over these next couple of months," he said.

People have different ideas about what makes the railyard special, however.

Appearing before the commission, Steve Yee recalled its history as the site of Sacramento's former Chinatown -- Yee Fow -- on the banks of a slough filled in by Union Pacific. He is leading an effort to build a museum in the railyard.

"We cannot exclude the Chinese from this discussion," Yee said.

Richard Rich, development director for Thomas Enterprises, said he's enthused about the idea of a Chinese history museum. The development firm also has embraced the idea of a performing arts complex.

But Thomas Enterprises takes issue with an application filed last month by the California State Railroad Museum Foundation, the Sacramento Old City Association and other preservation groups to have 39 acres around the shops designated as a federally protected historic district.

The proposed district would stretch to the Sacramento River, where Thomas Enterprises proposes to build high-rises.

Totah said Thomas Enterprises already has filed to have about 14 acres designated as a local preservation district. This land encompasses the historic shops, two of which have been earmarked for the state to use as an extension of the Railroad Museum.

The developer also was considering a federal filing, but the museum foundation beat the company to the punch. The foundation is seeking a larger historic district that includes now vacant sites such as the former right of way of the transcontinental railroad tracks.

Kathy Daigle, associate director of the foundation, said the groups want to spur public discussion over the appropriate boundaries for the historic area.

"We think we have only one chance to get this right," she said.

Daigle said having a historic designation would not prevent Thomas Enterprises from building on the land around the shops, but would limit the height of buildings in the district, requiring that they be compatible with the 19th-century shop buildings.

"It just means you can't build high-rise buildings right next to these historic buildings," she said.

Representatives for Thomas Enterprises disagreed. They said the historic district designation could impose another layer of delay and bureaucracy on a project that's on the edge of being mired in difficulty.

Totah said his company already has spent nearly $150 million to plan the railyard development, buy the property and clean up contaminants left by a century of dumping.

"We want to build this plan, and it's got to be economically feasible," he said.


About the writer:
The Bee's Mary Lynne Vellinga can be reached at (916) 321-1094 or mlvellinga@ sacbee.com.



Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
2100 Q St. P.O. Box 15779 Sacramento, CA 95816 (916) 321-1000

I agree, the "Suck It! Brigade" is not seeking to delay the project. They just want to make sure it is done their way; because, of course, they know best.

Clearly, the Suck It! Brigade's federal nomination of 39 acres was unwanted by Thomas Enterprises (which was seeking to have 14 acres designated a local preservation district and was considering a federal filing).

wburg, you imply the federal nomination by the Suck It! Brigade carries little weight because it must be approved by the property owner (Thomas Enterprises). This seems to be the case.

Question: What was the purpose of the behind the back federal nomination??? Was it simply symbolic? There's got to be more to it than that.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2151  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 8:12 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Sounds like this should be moved over to the Railyards thread.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2152  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 9:48 PM
econgrad econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Sounds like this should be moved over to the Railyards thread.
Why?
We have too many threads as it is...
The Railyards are the most important development in Sacramento's history.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2153  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 9:55 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by econgrad View Post
Why?
We have too many threads as it is...
The Railyards are the most important development in Sacramento's history.
Obviously, so I can bamboozle you all with doublespeak I learned in Sociology 101.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2154  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 11:06 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I found this intresting, I never knew a building had to meet so many guidelines
to be Certified LEED. Click on the Gateway Tower PowerPoint Presentation to learn all about it



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2155  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 11:53 PM
reggiesquared reggiesquared is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 78
Been away for a while. Ho-LEE crap. wburg continues to spam the board with his chronicles of narcissism. So much fluff, so little time...

Guess the preservationists boards are a less exciting place to blow up 20 times a day...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2156  
Old Posted Oct 15, 2007, 11:55 PM
econgrad econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 795
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Obviously, so I can bamboozle you all with doublespeak I learned in Sociology 101.

bamboozle is a word I have not heard many peeps my age say...way cool, I need to start using that too.


I am on a search for some good, non-speculative news for us all...wish me luck!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2157  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2007, 1:01 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
I found this intresting, I never knew a building had to meet so many guidelines
to be Certified LEED. Click on the Gateway Tower PowerPoint Presentation to learn all about it



So the time line they have says it was supposed to start construction in August, but I haven't heard anything about it. Is it still at least going to start this year?
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2158  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2007, 2:30 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
It did start in August. The land has been groomed and marked with flags
and I think they have also finished driving the piles. The piles from the
freeway looked to be about 30 feet long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2159  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2007, 3:17 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggiesquared View Post
Been away for a while. Ho-LEE crap. wburg continues to spam the board with his chronicles of narcissism. So much fluff, so little time...

Guess the preservationists boards are a less exciting place to blow up 20 times a day...
as a preservationist, he probably still uses the Apple IIe
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2160  
Old Posted Oct 16, 2007, 4:38 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
If there's a Sacramento preservationist message board around I'd love to know about it, but so far I haven't seen one...I don't have an Apple IIe but I do still have my TRS-80 Model 100 proto-laptop. I used to have a Model II with 8" disk drives and 64K of RAM, I even used it for a while to access the Internet via text-only dialup connection, thanks to its 9600 baud RS-232 port and an external modem.
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



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:09 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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