K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[travis bickle]

Been away for a while and may have missed something.... but has anyone demanded preservation of the decrepit and derelict and all around nuisance and hindrance to developing a vital and vigorous downtown Greyhound bus station? wberg, if you have advocated support for that you're giving preservationists a bad name. That's the kind of ridiculous demand that colors every future cause and greatly diminishes your credibility.

If you haven't advocated that... well then... never mind.

[Majin]

I haven't been following this thread. When are the K street renovation projects suppose to start?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

Been away for a while and may have missed something.... but has anyone demanded preservation of the decrepit and derelict and all around nuisance and hindrance to developing a vital and vigorous downtown Greyhound bus station? wberg, if you have advocated support for that you're giving preservationists a bad name. That's the kind of ridiculous demand that colors every future cause and greatly diminishes your credibility.

If you haven't advocated that... well then... never mind.

Bottom line is I like old buildings, period. I'd rather see them busy, vital and in good condition than run-down and disused, but I'll take that (which can be repaired) over a pile of rubble (which can't.)

If you're asking if I am in favor of preserving the nuisance (the drug activity, the deferred maintenance, etcetera) then no, I'm not. I like the building. Some seem to think that "preservation" means "keep everything exactly the same forever." They're wrong.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

Bottom line is I like old buildings, period. I'd rather see them busy, vital and in good condition than run-down and disused, but I'll take that (which can be repaired) over a pile of rubble (which can't.)

If you're asking if I am in favor of preserving the nuisance (the drug activity, the deferred maintenance, etcetera) then no, I'm not. I like the building. Some seem to think that "preservation" means "keep everything exactly the same forever." They're wrong.

Well, I appreciate your appreciation of old buildings. But the Greyhound station looked like a temporary structure from the moment is was built. A couple of curved lines and lettering do not an Art Deco structure make. It appears to have built on the cheap and that part of it has stood the test of time. In my view there is little, if anything, worth preserving... Particularly if demands/threats by preservationists delay revitalizing that critical block of downtown.

Pick your battles wburg. Going to the mat on this issue damages your ability to fight the good fight later.

[wburg]

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Majin

I haven't been following this thread. When are the K street renovation projects suppose to start?

The K Street renovation projects started nearly 50 years ago and have yet to end. That's part of the problem.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

jeez - even the building's surface looks like papier mache.

[Deno]

Until the Greyhound station is moved and the area around cleaned up, that area will never improve.
When I was a young boy back in 1962 I took a Greyhound bus ride with my grandmother from San Diego to Seattle and we stopped in Sacramento. It was the first time I had ever been to Sacramento. We were able to get out of the bus and I walked out to the street to try to see the Capital. What I remember is that I thought that this was a dark and dirty city. There was trash all over the street and I saw some bums walking around. (we called them bums back then) A few years later my dad's job got transfered to Sacramento. I have been here ever since, but that area looks the same.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

What about the Greyhound station suggests that it was built on the cheap? Streamline Moderne buildings tend to be minimalist, with simple lines--it's a highlight of the style, and a reaction to the overly ornamented nature of earlier building styles. But that isn't the same as "cheap." Maybe you could be more specific?

I don't think the building is cheap either. Whether or not it should be saved or not, I defer to the majority, although I do like the building.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

The K Street renovation projects started nearly 50 years ago and have yet to end. That's part of the problem.

I disagree w.b. K Street's problem is not ongoing renovation - almost all the spaces what we now think of as great public places evolved over time -actually being continually 'tweaked with' until they reached their 'perfect' state -so it's not an ongoing process of renovation but rather a lack of renovations and restorations, insensitive remodels, cheap/poor design, and lack of maintenance that's the problem.

[wburg]

I did a bit of reading in the city's historic preservation ordinance, and these are the potential qualifiers for a building to be considered eligible for the Sacramento Register of historic buildings and cultural resources. A structure only needs to qualify under one of these conditions:

* Associated with historic events
* Associated with the lives of historically significant individuals
* Embodies the type, period or method of construction
* Work of a master
* High artistic value
* Has yielded, and is likely to yield more, archaeological information

Integrity of location, design and setting are lesser factors. These factors are also used for historic districts or contributing resources.

For the Greyhound station, the third category, "embodies type, period or method of construction" is the applicable category: I won't try to argue that the station is the work of a master or has high artistic value (although I'd say "moderate.")

By the way, currently a request for demolition for any building over 50 years old triggers a review by preservation staff to see if a building qualifies as a historic structure under any of these qualifiers. If a building does qualify, staff starts the nomination process. So a project that called for the demolition of the Greyhound depot could trigger the events that would preserve it...unless, of course, the building was integrated into a larger, adaptive-reuse sort of design.

[ozone]

The BIG problem I have with qualifiers for buildings to be considered "historic" is that a building only needs to meet for ONE of the conditions listed. That's ridiculous. It should have to meet at least two condtions. A lot of schlocky buildings embody a type, period or method of construction. The Greyound bus station may qualify as a type/period but it doesn't have high artistic value IMO.

As for Greyhound -the business. There's a lot more going on here than people trying to improve downtown aesthetics. Because bus travel is cheaper, it's mostly our poorer citizens (who lack the money to use other means of transport), that take Greyhound. Some people are against it because they don't want any association with "those people". It's a class and racial prejudice as much anything else. Some of the people who ride Greyound or hang out around the station are on the margins of society but the vast majority of riders are decent people and it fills a vital transportation need. As for the criminal activity around the station -you can't blame Greyhound or it's riders because it's in a run-down part of town. That whole section of L Street from 8th to 3rd has been a no man's land for years. It's empty at night and is poorly lit so it feels more dangerous than it really is.

[otnemarcaS]

This is from the 21 Q blog on Sacbee.com's website. Man, downtown plaza just keeps going downhill with it's tenant mix as they keep losing stores to Arden Fair and/or Roseville Galleria.


J.Crew on the move

I've blogged before about the new stores coming to Arden Fair mall, including Aeropostale, Skechers, M.A.C Cosmetics and Abercrombie Kids.

Well, now, I've finally snagged a date for the launch of the much-anticipated J.Crew store. It's set to open its doors on Tuesday, Aug. 7.

Here's something you might not know. I found out a couple of weeks ago that the J.Crew store in the Downtown Plaza is closing today in anticipation for the big move. (There's a J.Crew in the Galleria at Roseville.)

I don't know what all my shopping friends out there think, but it seems to me like it's going to be slim pickins' downtown - unless you do all your shopping at Macy's.

Many of the other stores in the plaza also can be found in other area malls. J.Crew was the exception for folks who live in the downtown area.

It will be interesting to see two things:

* What will happen to the shopping space at the Downtown Plaza?

* Will the Arden Fair J.Crew carry more of the clothing options (and accessories) that are found online and in the catalog? I'm hoping so.

I'll check out the new store after it opens and report back here at 21Q. But feel free to send me your thoughts!

Posted by Leigh Grogan at 02:02 PM | Send e-mail | Comments (0)

Source: 21Q

[arod74]

Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

[reggiesquared]

Originally Posted by arod74

Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

You just described Florin mall RIP. DTP is on its way! Being a frequent lunchtime customer of DTP I really don't think the venue is so much the problem as the people. Shoppers don't want to be bothered by gold teeth and pan handlers while they shop or relax. Even though W.F. is watching this mall die, I don't think much will change in terms of sales when they remodel if loiterers still occupy most of it. They will just have a fancier mall to bother people, talk to themselves and litter at. But who knows, maybe the if you build it (higher class stores and venue) they will come model will work but I don't see that happening until more normal people are living downtown to offset the bums. Hopefully that will start happening and the k-street mall will turn into something like the santa monica promenade where you have a pedestrian mall that leads up to a real mall/department stores. K Street could be another 5th street San Diego but gawd its amazing how hard it is to do things around here.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

You just described Florin mall RIP. DTP is on its way! Being a frequent lunchtime customer of DTP I really don't think the venue is so much the problem as the people. Shoppers don't want to be bothered by gold teeth and pan handlers while they shop or relax. Even though W.F. is watching this mall die, I don't think much will change in terms of sales when they remodel if loiterers still occupy most of it. They will just have a fancier mall to bother people, talk to themselves and litter at. But who knows, maybe the if you build it (higher class stores and venue) they will come model will work but I don't see that happening until more normal people are living downtown to offset the bums. Hopefully that will start happening and the k-street mall will turn into something like the santa monica promenade where you have a pedestrian mall that leads up to a real mall/department stores. K Street could be another 5th street San Diego but gawd its amazing how hard it is to do things around here.

Yes it is very hard to get anything done here in Sacramento.

I avoid DTP mall. But, a co-worker friend of mine loves the mall despite being a tried and true suburbanite. She takes her family "down there" as if it were a "destination" mall. She's been doing this since the mall opened and her kids love it too. Her "kids" are in there early 20's.

In any big city, bums and "weird" people are par for the course. They are part of the fabric of the city. People just ignore them or are "entertained" by them. I dont know why Sacramentans seem to be so afraid and annoyed by them. Granted, when there are more of "them" than "us" it upsets the apple cart.

[wburg]

I don't mind Downtown Plaza, although I pretty much only go to Macy's or pass through on my way to Old Sacramento. It certainly doesn't seem dead to me, and the last time I went to Arden Fair Mall there were just as many young toughs puttering around there as at Downtown Plaza.

I agree with BrianSac that an urban mall is going to have a more tolerant atmosphere for the poor and weird. Speaking as one of the weird and until fairly recently poor, it seems silly that Sacramento can't be a "real city" until the poor and weird are...dealt with...somehow, while other cities seem to succeed despite these apparent handicaps. Heck, have any of you ever been to Union Square in San Francisco and *not* been spare-changed?

Although, I must admit, Downtown Plaza has never been my favorite place: it is, very deliberately, a slice of suburbia plopped in the middle of a city. It is a holdover from an era when cities, tall buildings and people living downtown were considered very bad things, and trying to emulate suburbia in an urban setting was considered a very good thing, even if it was economically unviable.

Malls are retail versions of the suburban home: low to the ground and interior-centric, surrounded by open space to suggest dominion over a wide territory and provide space for the automobile. The focus is on the inside, while the outside is bunker-like. For the urban dweller, who likes walking around and experiencing the outside of buildings, malls are always going to be disappointments.

While shopping downtown is nice, a downtown shopping mall is kind of a loser idea. It has taken a few decades for this lesson to sink in.

[reggiesquared]

Originally Posted by wburg

I don't mind Downtown Plaza, although I pretty much only go to Macy's or pass through on my way to Old Sacramento. It certainly doesn't seem dead to me, and the last time I went to Arden Fair Mall there were just as many young toughs puttering around there as at Downtown Plaza.

I agree with BrianSac that an urban mall is going to have a more tolerant atmosphere for the poor and weird. Speaking as one of the weird and until fairly recently poor, it seems silly that Sacramento can't be a "real city" until the poor and weird are...dealt with...somehow, while other cities seem to succeed despite these apparent handicaps. Heck, have any of you ever been to Union Square in San Francisco and *not* been spare-changed?

Although, I must admit, Downtown Plaza has never been my favorite place: it is, very deliberately, a slice of suburbia plopped in the middle of a city. It is a holdover from an era when cities, tall buildings and people living downtown were considered very bad things, and trying to emulate suburbia in an urban setting was considered a very good thing, even if it was economically unviable.

Malls are retail versions of the suburban home: low to the ground and interior-centric, surrounded by open space to suggest dominion over a wide territory and provide space for the automobile. The focus is on the inside, while the outside is bunker-like. For the urban dweller, who likes walking around and experiencing the outside of buildings, malls are always going to be disappointments.

While shopping downtown is nice, a downtown shopping mall is kind of a loser idea. It has taken a few decades for this lesson to sink in.

Agreed. Most our malls have a mall-rat-thug problem. Didn't someone get shot at Arden not that long ago?

[reggiesquared]

A little off topic but this is what happens when you argue on the Internt. Good reason to stop haha...


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/...uUtagBBa9vzwcF

[Web]

Originally Posted by arod74

Jeez that's not good. Could be the canary in the cave type moment for DTP. With that asswipe Mohana holding up the landswap deal for the forseable future, how long can the mall limp around by itself. It might not be long before we see check cashing businesses, nick-nack stores, and generic chinese fastfood places with the faded, lamented pictures of their "yum" offerings dominate the place.

but remember Moe has said he is the good guy here and is being bullyied.....
hmmmm has Moe ever eveloped anything or is he just a slum lord driving big cars off of cheap rent??