HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #201  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 4:46 AM
downtownserg89's Avatar
downtownserg89 downtownserg89 is offline
BUFF$LUT
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mansion Flats
Posts: 382
no! i wasnt referring to you!
__________________
facebook.com/buffslut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #202  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 3:44 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 779
Who'd'a thought a little wink about North 10th would get such a... *ahem* rise outta everyone! It's just one more reason why I love this forum. A quick update on the Towers Wetlands Restoration Project (Sponsered by CalPERS): Yesterday, the two ducks that have been frequenting the south tower pond were joined briefly by a white egret and three seagulls. Greenery is beginning to sprout with a vengence around the pillars creating a wonderland environment for various rodents and inner-city wildlife...

Thanks CalPERS...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #203  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 4:00 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
^that's funny!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #204  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 5:14 PM
reggiesquared reggiesquared is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 78
So I was driving into work today (4th and Q) from Natomas like every single day and I got to thinking as I looked over at the skyline: I don't think Sacramento will ever have a dense cluster of a downtown like most west coast cities. Even if all of the buildings get built. Downtown Sacramento is very Manhattenesque as opposed to DT LA or DT Seattle. Anyone else think that is not a bad thing either? I think it gives the area more character and the illusion of being larger than it is which is more pedestrian/live/work friendly. A dense cluster of office buildings with a small footprint is not as pedestrian friendly in my mind.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #205  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 5:51 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,164
Just saw this little blurb on KCRA's website:


Sacramento Redevelopment Plan Moves Forward
Input Sought On Alkali Flat Facelift


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A historic part of downtown Sacramento is getting a facelift with a little help from developers and their neighbors.

The recent sale of the Crystal Creamery on 10th and D streets will open up 10percent of the land in the Alkali Flat neighborhood, which started in the 1850's.

At a community meeting Thursday night, developers presented their vision of adding homes, retail and office space.

Christopher Company President Tony Giannoni said the meeting was important as escrow on the property will be completed soon.

"They have opinions of their own and desires of their own, and we want to make sure we're meeting as many of those desires as possible," Giannoni said.

Ron Tapping lives on 15th Street and said he's hopeful for the future of the property.

"Anything that improves the neighborhood is always welcome," Tapping said.

Redevelopment plans will be submitted to the City Council by May.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #206  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 6:05 PM
SacRising's Avatar
SacRising SacRising is offline
Capricamento
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Inner-Ring 'burb
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sacdelicious View Post
Now I know you just didn't call me old and straight.....
listen, from another straight and old(er than serge) guy on this forum, i was relatively entertained by the off-topic N. 10th St. red robin tournament. I was more forgiving of the discussion because it really has been a slow week, and it was a topic born directly from the Township 9 rendering. I just pictured the DTserge crew and some old bald white guys who look like Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" with the buttoned up white short-sleeve shirt and tie, circling each other like the gang bangers in the old 'Beat It' video until someone makes a move and heads off to the bushes.

And about Township 9, (nice segwey) I love the concept and the connectivity, but I would like to see either A)much more density (currently proposed 45 dua, could approach 60 dua) for such a large urban site that will someday have light rail and such close proximity to railyards and DT Sac. or B)the Goldrush Park idea take root north of Richards, and focus the new urban redevelopment to the south of Richards. I know Goldrush Park isn't a skyscraper or high-density housing, but it is very urban in that it will serve a need, providing open space (& a place for Saca's displaced ducks and swan) in an urban environment especially as Sac gets more dense at its core.

I also see the problem in this park idea, that land is too valuable from an investment standpoint to dedicate to park land. Property owners will want to get the most they can for their land and park development doesn't even come close. Which brings us back to option A, more density for the site, which might be the only residential development along Richards for quite some time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #207  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 7:07 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by reggiesquared View Post
So I was driving into work today (4th and Q) from Natomas like every single day and I got to thinking as I looked over at the skyline: I don't think Sacramento will ever have a dense cluster of a downtown like most west coast cities. Even if all of the buildings get built. Downtown Sacramento is very Manhattenesque as opposed to DT LA or DT Seattle. Anyone else think that is not a bad thing either? I think it gives the area more character and the illusion of being larger than it is which is more pedestrian/live/work friendly. A dense cluster of office buildings with a small footprint is not as pedestrian friendly in my mind.
interesting thoughts.

I've mentioned before how sac might develop two distinct cluster of skyline if many of the proposals we talk about get built. There would be a Capitol mall cluster between 3rd and 7th, then a JKL cluster between 8th and about 15th

But you're right, Sac will never look like SF, LA or Seattle. And like you said, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #208  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 7:14 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacRising View Post
I also see the problem in this park idea, that land is too valuable from an investment standpoint to dedicate to park land. Property owners will want to get the most they can for their land and park development doesn't even come close. Which brings us back to option A, more density for the site, which might be the only residential development along Richards for quite some time.
Gold Rush Park backers believe that the park can be economically viable. I don't know if I buy it, but here's how they explain it:

Land owners would have to cooperate and sell the portion of their property that would be turned into a park at a discount. In return, the portion of the land that they keep (the areas immediately adjacent to the park) would then become more valuable and so they would actually benefit.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #209  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 8:07 PM
fatchocolatecow fatchocolatecow is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 25
As I understand it, Gold Rush Park as it was originally proposed is just about dead. The concept is still alive, but it is changing. As was mentioned, the land is too valuable, and the idea came a little to late. Redevelopment of the area has been in progress for quite a few years, you just can see it yet. Developers own a lot of the land and projects are being planned, but as everyone knows these things take time. I think once Railyards and Township 9 are under way, the ball will be rolling and the "River District" as they are calling it will start to transform.

The new form of Gold Rush Park is for a "buffer zone" along the river between I-5 and Highway 160, and the larger Regional Park concept east of 160. If you look at the Townsip 9 plan, you will see the "buffer zone" in the form of the park on the north end of the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #210  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 8:48 PM
Fusey's Avatar
Fusey Fusey is offline
Repeat!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 5,496
From the Sac Bee:

Editorial: Careful with expansion

County must grow up more than out
Published 12:00 am PST Friday, March 9, 2007
Story appeared in EDITORIALS section, Page B10

Looking at how Sacramento County has been reviewing its growth strategy, it doesn't seem that much has changed from the long-gone day when land seemed infinite and traffic seemed a trifle. Supervisors are directing staff to eye expansions beyond what key planners have been telling the board were appropriate for the area's footprint for growth. It's not the way to lead a region that is trying to grow inward and upward more than outward. But the deeds aren't yet done, and there is time for a change in thinking.

The county is updating its blueprint for growth, its general plan. The plan has long attempted to set physical limits to the future path of growth by delineating a so-called urban services boundary. The boundary has been under attack for some time. And in this latest review, supervisors are either looking to grow right up to the line, or blow it up entirely on behalf of the region's largest and most influential developer, Angelo Tsakopoulos. In all, about 20,000 acres of undeveloped land are being eyed for future development.

Growth is a given unless regional planners are colossally off the mark. The area is poised to double its population in the next half-century. The question isn't whether our area will grow, but how. Through a landmark regional planning process known as the Blueprint, leaders who included Sacramento supervisors, embraced in concept a new way of growing. The idea was to stop relying nearly exclusively on single-family home subdivisions farther away from the urban core. Instead, the plan would make much more efficient use of land.

If the supervisors are practicing what they preach, it is hard to tell with this general plan process. Strangest of all is the desire by a new supervisor, Jimmie Yee, to review whether to urbanize land owned by Tsakopoulos that is south of Highway 50 next to El Dorado County. With no water and no roads to speak of, the land is hardly a logical increment of growth to consider now.

It's to be expected that landowners with ambitions will pressure supervisors to develop where they shouldn't. But don't supervisors have the word "no" in their vocabulary?

This planning exercise comes in the middle of the environmental review process. Final decisions lie ahead. But it feels like business as usual rather than a blueprint for a more sustainable future for Sacramento County.

Growth map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #211  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 9:05 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by fatchocolatecow View Post
The new form of Gold Rush Park is for a "buffer zone" along the river between I-5 and Highway 160, and the larger Regional Park concept east of 160. If you look at the Townsip 9 plan, you will see the "buffer zone" in the form of the park on the north end of the project.
i don't understand what you mean. I5 and 160 are nearly 16 blocks apart north of Richards. the "buffer zone" consists of a street running through the north side, and the pavillion and a small park that looks to be no more than 10-15,000 sqaure feet. this development is right up to the edge of the river. just about as close as possible. they probably would've built ontop of the river's edge if it would pass any regulations.

don't get me wrong, i like the Township plan better than GRP. I don't like big open spaces - i like thoroughly utilized, well planned communal spaces like that pavillion there. But this plan doesn't resemble GRP in the slightest. it's the polar opposite.

compare this to this
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #212  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 9:25 PM
friedpez's Avatar
friedpez friedpez is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: LA Area
Posts: 308
I personally believe that one of Sacramento's greatest assets is the American and Sacramento Rivers. I would really like to see more commercial development (restaurants, shops, etc) and high-density housing along the riverfronts. I think Old Sac and the Chevy's area off Garden Highway are great, but it's a shame that we don't have more on the American River (like Cliffhouse in Folsom).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #213  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 9:37 PM
downtownserg89's Avatar
downtownserg89 downtownserg89 is offline
BUFF$LUT
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mansion Flats
Posts: 382
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacRising View Post
listen, from another straight and old(er than serge) guy on this forum, i was relatively entertained by the off-topic N. 10th St. red robin tournament. I was more forgiving of the discussion because it really has been a slow week, and it was a topic born directly from the Township 9 rendering. I just pictured the DTserge crew and some old bald white guys who look like Michael Douglas in "Falling Down" with the buttoned up white short-sleeve shirt and tie, circling each other like the gang bangers in the old 'Beat It' video until someone makes a move and heads off to the bushes.
dude, that is sooo funny!! i love you for that one haha. and well, my crew hears about this forum all the time. i talk about it all the time, i keep them updated with latest development gossip.

so anyway, township 9 looks way cool. new neighbors, new parks to hang out at. love it 100%.

and gaww, i cant wait for the crystal factory on 10th & D to start making progress. i mean i live on 10th & E, so this makes me soo excited! i really cant wait to see a proposal rendering. and i really hope they do something with the parking lot accross the street from the factory, where all the workers park.
__________________
facebook.com/buffslut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #214  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 10:33 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The grid of course
Posts: 8,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fusey View Post
Like I said just recently, if they want to build SFHs south of Mather, why the hell isn't Hwy 16 being upgraded to accommodate it. The county's thinking is so frustrating
__________________
Rubicon Brewing Co. 1987 - 2017
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #215  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 11:07 PM
Grimnebulin's Avatar
Grimnebulin Grimnebulin is offline
Got Good Grub?
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Midtown Sacramento
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport View Post
Like I said just recently, if they want to build SFHs south of Mather, why the hell isn't Hwy 16 being upgraded to accommodate it. The county's thinking is so frustrating
I think your problem is with the use of the word "thinking" and Sac "county" in one sentence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #216  
Old Posted Mar 9, 2007, 11:25 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimnebulin View Post
I think your problem is with the use of the word "thinking" and Sac "county" in one sentence.
Amen... I really hate to think of how many crashes and deaths needed to happen before they finally recovered momentarily from Cranial-rectal-inversion and approved the signal light at the entrance to my neighborhood at Hedge and Jackson Highway... I can't wait for the light to be finished especially during the evening commute when folks seem to lose track of their synaptic connections...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #217  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 12:54 AM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
bay area refugee
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 2,956
from the phone (how i could get my thumb in most of the pictures is amazing for such a small camera)





__________________
nobody cares about your city
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #218  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 1:00 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
if any of you guys (or Los_lobo) are ever in the neighborhood, there's a place that just opened at 18th and P called the Sandwich Spot. The guy's name is Tom. He makes a good sandwich, but the main reason I'm telling you guys this is he has a STUNNING arial shot of Sac with the Sierra in the background. The photo must measure a good five feet across. It's worth stopping by just to take a look.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #219  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 1:34 AM
SacRising's Avatar
SacRising SacRising is offline
Capricamento
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Inner-Ring 'burb
Posts: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
Of course, since we are all just stating our dreams and goals for this fine city, this Goldrush Park rendering from TD actually shows that we can have both. We can have the park and trails and museums and whatever else go with it to the east of Hwy 160 (North 16th), and redevelop the River District (ripoff from Portland, OR) and T9 and whatever else may be proposed along Richards. I actually like the River District name vs. Capital Station or North Town or whatever else they were going to call it, and I hope that it takes more than the name from Portland. If Sac's River District could emulate the Portland River District (aka: Pearl District), Richards Blvd would become a very cool place. Unfortunately, if all this happens, then the N. 10th rendezvous point will have to find a new home. Sorry DTSerge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #220  
Old Posted Mar 10, 2007, 4:52 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,249
I'm not sure what you mean by "Downtown Sacramento is very Manhattenesque as opposed to DT LA or DT Seattle." Maybe it was a type-o? I see Sacramento more Chicago-esque whereas San Francisco is more like New York.

I don't really think downtown Sacramento looks larger than it really is. I can think of a lot of smaller downtowns that look bigger because the freeways are closer to the highrises-for example -Mobil Al.

I do agree with you that Sacramento will not have the same highrise cluster that we see in most west coast cities and that it is a good thing.

I think Capitol Mall is unique in that it provides more room between the towers so you can really get a good look at them. Too bad they are so bland..hopefully that will change. It's kinda like a pedestrian-friendly Century City.

Who knows how Sacramento will look in 20 years...maybe West Sacramento will get a supertall?
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 3:21 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.