"What's going on Sacramento" Chit-Chat - Page 51

innov8 · #**1001** Posted **Mar 26, 2014, 10:18 PM**

Imagine if I-5 were replaced with this. Maybe someday...

6 Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever

CAGeoNerd · #**1002** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 5:02 AM**

The Sacramento Republic FC sound like they're very serious about getting a downtown soccer stadium built - no, not the temporary stadium being built at Cal Expo, but a larger, professional soccer stadium built right in down town. The club president, Warren Smith, talks about it in the team podcast:

http://www.spreaker.com/user/towerbr...ected=true#_=_

He says they've identified several locations downtown, I assume they may be similar to possible locations for the arena. But he also says something like the railyards and West Sac being the "easy" thing to do (i.e., building over empty land), and that they really want to do things "right" - which I assume can only mean other locations even closer to the core of the city? Along with the other development that seems to be perking up in the grid, this is just another piece of news. It sounds like they are really serious about it and expanding into MLS, and they know the only way to do that is if they have a downtown stadium.

Any thoughts or ideas on where they would be looking? I imagine a soccer stadium would need to take up at least the space the arena will be taking up.

urban_encounter · #**1003** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 2:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

The Sacramento Republic FC sound like they're very serious about getting a downtown soccer stadium built - no, not the temporary stadium being built at Cal Expo, but a larger, professional soccer stadium built right in down town. The club president, Warren Smith, talks about it in the team podcast:

http://www.spreaker.com/user/towerbr...ected=true#_=_

He says they've identified several locations downtown, I assume they may be similar to possible locations for the arena. But he also says something like the railyards and West Sac being the "easy" thing to do (i.e., building over empty land), and that they really want to do things "right" - which I assume can only mean other locations even closer to the core of the city? Along with the other development that seems to be perking up in the grid, this is just another piece of news. It sounds like they are really serious about it and expanding into MLS, and they know the only way to do that is if they have a downtown stadium.

Any thoughts or ideas on where they would be looking? I imagine a soccer stadium would need to take up at least the space the arena will be taking up.

There's a lot of space in the rail yards but the big question is parking. How far will the proposed site be from existing parking lots? Can a street car or shuttle system help move fans to and from a 20,000 soccer stadium? The Alamo Dome in San Antonio virtually has no parking and is fed by shuttles and transit busses as well as the adventurous pedestrians. Building additional parking structures can drive the cost of an MLS Stadium up 50%. Surface parking isn't something any of us imagine when we envision the rail yards. So while an MLS stadium is workable parking is going to be the big variable.

creamcityleo79 · #**1004** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 3:00 PM**

I think the "tunneling" of I-5 through Downtown Sacramento is a great idea! However, is the ambition there by city leaders to actually begin this process and see it all the way through? Is the money there from the state/local/private partnership for this? I think, unfortunately, that they are not! In the article, one of the examples was the Park East Freeway in Milwaukee, WI. This freeway was torn down about 10 years ago now and there are STILL empty blocks waiting to be developed in the area. Although it would be amazing to not have the eyesore that is I-5 separating downtown Sacramento from one of its greatest assets (the river), I think that there needs to be more momentum (that we may be seeing) before anything this ambitious is seriously considered.

ozone · #**1005** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 4:28 PM**

Whenever you talk about dong anything with I-5 you have to remember that it's the west coast/California's main north-south artery. I seriously doubt that any of the freeways that have been removed in those cities were major interstates. Burying the freeway is an option but as Boston found out it has it's problems too.

Personally I prefer a I-5 bypass Caltrans once proposed that would split off somewhere around Freeport and head north and west of West Sacramento then rejoin I-5 near the airport. If that were done then the current freeway would become a local commuter highway in and out of downtown but downtown it could become a wide surface boulevard ala the Embarcadero. Just think of all the land that could be developed if that would happen? If you just bury it you still can't develop much and it would still be a barrier -only a much nicer one.

LandofFrost · #**1006** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

Whenever you talk about dong anything with I-5 you have to remember that it's the west coast/California's main north-south artery. I seriously doubt that any of the freeways that have been removed in those cities were major interstates. Burying the freeway is an option but as Boston found out it has it's problems too.

Personally I prefer a I-5 bypass Caltrans once proposed that would split off somewhere around Freeport and head north and west of West Sacramento then rejoin I-5 near the airport. If that were done then the current freeway would become a local commuter highway in and out of downtown but downtown it could become a wide surface boulevard ala the Embarcadero. Just think of all the land that could be developed if that would happen? If you just bury it you still can't develop much and it would still be a barrier -only a much nicer one.

That seems like the best option but I'm curious what the cost breakdown would be for that vs. a tunnel. The Big Dig in Boston cost 24 Billion? And the new bay bridge cost 6.4 billion and it cost 20 million to build one mile of freeway but that's not including purchasing all the land that would be needed from private land owners. Obviously this is only possible if the Federal Government pays for it.

Love the idea though, I-5 through downtown ruins what could be a very beautiful area of the city.

Mr. Ozo · #**1007** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 5:01 PM**

You don't need to build anything. Through traffic can take 50 to 80 in West Sac and reconnect with 5 in Natomas. You leave the stub in South Natomas and take out all of I-5 from V to the American River. Convert 3rd street to a two lane each way surface boulevard. Fill in the hole from I-5. Viola, you just opened up 20 new prime downtown blocks to develop between 2rd and 3rd and between S and V you have between Front and 3rd. Think of the value it would add to the city.

LandofFrost · #**1008** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 5:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

You don't need to build anything. Through traffic can take 50 to 80 in West Sac and reconnect with 5 in Natomas. You leave the stub in South Natomas and take out all of I-5 from V to the American River. Convert 3rd street to a two lane each way surface boulevard. Fill in the hole from I-5. Viola, you just opened up 20 new prime downtown blocks to develop between 2rd and 3rd and between S and V you have between Front and 3rd. Think of the value it would add to the city.

Oh I see now, .... GREAT IDEA!!!

ozone · #**1009** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 6:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

You don't need to build anything. Through traffic can take 50 to 80 in West Sac and reconnect with 5 in Natomas. You leave the stub in South Natomas and take out all of I-5 from V to the American River. Convert 3rd street to a two lane each way surface boulevard. Fill in the hole from I-5. Viola, you just opened up 20 new prime downtown blocks to develop between 2rd and 3rd and between S and V you have between Front and 3rd. Think of the value it would add to the city.

I think the problem with using the existing freeways is the volume of traffic. I'm assuming that the reason Caltrans came up with the Western I-5 Bypass was to deal with future traffic loads. Also a new east-west freeway was supposed to join with a connector to Folsom where I-5 was to split off near Freeport. Today Cosumnes River Blvd/Parkway runs where freeway would have. The current proposal for the Southeast Connector would link with I-5 much further south.

If the existing freeways were used they would have to be extensively expanded and might be more costly and disruptive than a bypass. Right now the I-5/US 50 interchange is a royal mess so adding more cars would make it a nightmare. Of course, locals would use the existing freeways to get around downtown.

urban_encounter · #**1010** Posted **Mar 31, 2014, 4:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8

Imagine if I-5 were replaced with this. Maybe someday...

6 Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever

Wish that we could.

buckfmsac · #**1011** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 12:57 AM**

Does anyone have any knowledge about the Warren condos on 16th & N ? I read that they were supposed to start with site remediation on or about April 1

wburg · #**1012** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 3:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckfmsac

Does anyone have any knowledge about the Warren condos on 16th & N ? I read that they were supposed to start with site remediation on or about April 1

It's supposed to get underway pretty soon. Councilmember Hansen was trying for a last-minute relocation of the four-unit Art Deco building in front, but it doesn't look like that will happen.

ltsmotorsport · #**1013** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 4:54 AM**

That's too bad. Those old places can't be close to modern standards and really aren't the best example of Art Deco housing downtown, or even in that neighborhood. Any idea what the hold up was? Could CADA not find a good situation for the residents there?

wburg · #**1014** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 3:20 PM**

No, they have plans to relocate the residents to other CADA properties. The "hold up," as with everything else, was the economic collapse and its repercussions. There were a couple of proposals to move the building to another site (CADA even had $50,000 set aside to pay for the move) but city bureaucracy bogged it down--the building is 40 feet wide, and so are most of the central city lots where you could fit that building. Zoning codes require a setback of a couple of feet from the property line, which created an impossible situation. I think the most recent zoning update did away with a lot of setback requirements, but by then the proposals had already fallen through, and the relocation site (a 40x40 lot on 17th Street) already has a new infill house under construction.

One of the pluses of being a "historic building" is that you don't necessarily have to follow all modern standards, you can use what is called the "historic building code" to avoid having to bring everything up to 2014 spec. That is one of several tools to facilitate rehab, although in Sacramento it can be tough to get building inspectors to admit they exist unless one presses the issue.

I am confident that CADA has done everything they could to try to find the building a new home, but it didn't work for reasons beyond their control.

LandofFrost · #**1015** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 3:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckfmsac

Does anyone have any knowledge about the Warren condos on 16th & N ? I read that they were supposed to start with site remediation on or about April 1

The Warren, as far as I can tell, is no longer going to be condos, they are going to be apartments. That the condos are listed for sale on real estate web sites, is just laziness on the part of the real estate agents who are trying to get you to use them as buying agents.

I've been waiting years for a new condo project, I like, in downtown.... but all anyone can build are apartments... it's irritating. If they would just make the new development on R street condos I would be happy.

SacTownAndy · #**1016** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 5:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckfmsac

Does anyone have any knowledge about the Warren condos on 16th & N ? I read that they were supposed to start with site remediation on or about April 1

I was just walking by there yesterday and there was a crew putting up a new construction fence around that parking lot and art deco building.

buckfmsac · #**1017** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 9:58 PM**

Thanks for the update SacTownAndy, but I thought you were in Denver?

wburg · #**1018** Posted **Apr 4, 2014, 5:47 AM**

A lot of buildings that were supposed to be condos got turned into apartments instead, but I assume they will "go condo" once the market turns the right way. Plus, I think the real estate law that allows residents to sue the condo maker within the first 10 years is still around, which means that anyone building a condo is guaranteed a lawsuit by year 10, but as the condo products of the last housing bubble (Whiskey Hill, 21st & S, Alexan Midtown) hit the 10 year mark they may go condo after that legal threshold is past (can anyone more familiar with that regulation explain how it works?)

I'm definitely interested in seeing more ownership units, attached condo or skinny-house row houses like the ones we're seeing go up, in order to help shift the huge imbalance in ownership housing in the central city (10% of central city housing is ownership, the other 90% is rental, compared to more like 55-60% ownership citywide.)

SacTownAndy · #**1019** Posted **Apr 4, 2014, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckfmsac

Thanks for the update SacTownAndy, but I thought you were in Denver?

I was in Denver for about 8 years and moved back to Sac about a year ago. Denver was a great place but those winters got to this native Californian after a couple years. I really missed Sacramento so I decided to come back.

Majin · #**1020** Posted **Apr 4, 2014, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

I was in Denver for about 8 years and moved back to Sac about a year ago. Denver was a great place but those winters got to this native Californian after a couple years. I really missed Sacramento so I decided to come back.

I think you picked a great time to come back.