Sacramento Railyards - The New Downtown

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

The proposed changes to previous entitlements include:

1. . Modifications to the current Sacramento Railyards Specific Plan to allow a net
increase in commercial square footage assumptions by approximately 2,137,000
(which includes the Kaiser facilities) square feet and to decrease the residential
units by approximately 6,100 dwelling units;



Natomas 2 here we go !

....

[Pistola916]

The thread should be renamed Sacramento Railyards - The New Natomas

[Majin]

How are all these changes reducing housing even getting approved? This directly contradicts KJ's push for more downtown housing and a 24 hour city center.

[ltsmotorsport]

From what I understand, most of the potential lost units are coming from the proposed footprints of Kaiser and the soccer stadium. Hopefully the densities of the remaining residential zones aren't changing.

Staff report for Planning and Design Commission next Thursday here:http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaV...meta_id=449368

Also, what bothers me a bit is the loss of the 10th connection and the street grid that the box car parks would have provided. If anyone's driven out that way on 7th street, you've gone through the old elevated rail line, which was going to be leveled so it didn't form a barrier between the Railyards and River District...now it seems like it's staying. Would be a shame to have a wall between these two redeveloping areas.


If you care about this development, tell the Commissioners and City Council. The more voices heard, the better.

[wburg]

That isn't an elevated rail line--it's a flood berm. There are flood control doors on the 7th Street cut-through.

Keep in mind that losing 6100 units of housing still means 6000 units on 244 acres total, of which about 100 acres are actual buildable land. They're talking about midrise units instead of high-rise, and the same developer is also involved in the "Eviva Midtown" project using modular building components. I'm curious as to whether they are exploring the Eviva building as a prototype for buildings in the Railyards--once they have done one and ironed the bugs out, they could build more in rapid succession once things start moving forward, although I certainly hope they add a bit more architectural interest.

So, "the new Natomas" isn't exactly an appropriate description--the entire Railyards is smaller than the Natomas Marketplace/The Promenade "power center" area at I-80 and Truxel, including its parking lot. There won't be any single-family homes, not even small-lot row houses or low-rise apartments like you see in Midtown. Whether something goes taller than midrise is an open question--they're certainly zoned for more height.

The Mayor's call for 10,000 units in the next decade would be addressed by more than half if the Railyards includes 6000 units, and considering the rate at which new housing is being built in the central city, another 4000 units in the next decade isn't that much of a stretch of the imagination. Sure, I'd like to see the full 12,000 units--but a 24 hour hospital and university seems like a better focus for the project than a Bass Pro Shop, and I'd rather see 6,000 units that get built than 12,000 that never get past the rendering phase.

[ltsmotorsport]

You can call that a flood berm, but that in no way accurately describes its ability as a piece of infrastructure. It was built to elevate rails above the lower-lying surroundings, not as a levee with engineering for flood protection. It would be interesting to know what the crews found when punching 7th Street through 10+ years ago; most likely just dirt and aggregate.

Point being, the berm takes up real estate which is now forcing the block sizes to become suburban in scale, as shown in the staff report attachments. If this is to be a truly urban project, pedestrian scale blocks are needed to entice people to check out what's around the next corner. Sad to see the alley system gone from this proposal as well.

All in all, the current Railyards site design just feels much more thought out, while the new proposal is great with the anticipated uses, but forces some compromises that could really have a more elegant solution if the will were there.

[wburg]

Central Pacific was given the land back in the 1860s on the condition that they build their route on top of a flood levee that ran along the northern edge of the city limits--that's the berm you still see along B Street today. This was done after the flood of 1861, which came in from the north via the American River, and in conjunction with the project that moved the mouth of the river north to its current location. Levees of that era were built of dirt and aggregate, much probably taken from the new ditch that was dug for the river, which previous to the 1860s actually ran through the Railyards itself.

Where are you seeing a difference in block sizes? It looks like they still correspond with the block sizes seen in the rest of the central city, roughly 320x320 feet. Not sure about the alley system either--it looks like they're still dividing lots in mid-block.

So are you planning on presenting this Thursday and providing public comment urging the developer to maintain the higher population densities and urban street grid proposed in the original Railyards plan?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

So are you planning on presenting this Thursday and providing public comment urging the developer to maintain the higher population densities and urban street grid proposed in the original Railyards plan?

Yes

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by wburg

Where are you seeing a difference in block sizes? It looks like they still correspond with the block sizes seen in the rest of the central city, roughly 320x320 feet. Not sure about the alley system either--it looks like they're still dividing lots in mid-block.

In the link to the staff report I provided above, you can see the difference in the plans between Page 12 (currently adopted zoning) and Page 13 (proposed land use and site plan). The proposed blocks are much bigger, with no alleys, and the effect of the box car parks is gone. The originally proposed street between 5th and 6th (north of Railyards Blvd) doesn't punch through to N. B Street anymore either.

So, not only does the berm affect the site plan as a whole, it still walls off the Railyards from truly embracing the River District as an adjacent neighborhood, and keeps a remnant piece of infrastructure that visually divides the Railyards/downtown from the River District and American River.

[wburg]

It looks like the same number of blocks to me, just a few places where they have parks in the "street" instead of roadway. Are the alleys really gone, or just not shown in this conceptual drawing? I assume that you, like Majin, will be at the Planning Commission meeting tonight to ask the development team why they're making those changes?

And maybe they know something about that piece of remnant infrastructure that you don't? I realize it interrupts the flow of the neighborhood, but interrupting the "flow" of water is kind of why it was built in the first place.

[ltsmotorsport]

I wish I were able to be there, but I have written letters to staff, commissioners, and the council.

Again with these processes, especially at the local government level, citizen input/concern goes much further and can catch detailed elements that may be missed. My opinion is that it isn't particularly useful for every individual project, but large scale development plans are where input can have the greatest lasting (and hopefully positive) effects.

[fouroheight68]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...nsfor-the.html

[Jay916]

Originally Posted by fouroheight68

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...nsfor-the.html

been hearing about these so called plans for decades....anything ever going to get built?

[wburg]

Plenty has been done already--toxic remediation, environmental cleanup of the Shops buildings, electrical infrastructure, sewers and water, roads, all necessary before things start going vertical. And technically, the first housing goes in starting next year, along 7th Street.

[Schmoe]

Republic FC stadium design looks great!





SacBee article: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article47387910.html

[enigma99a]

Looks good, although I'm not too crazy about the diamond look on the facade. I see that the mystery riverfront towers are still in the rendering

[CAGeoNerd]

No one has posted this here? Another new image from the MLS stadium site, showing a rendering of the entire Railyards area, in relation to downtown with the new arena:

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

No one has posted this here? Another new image from the MLS stadium site, showing a rendering of the entire Railyards area, in relation to downtown with the new arena:

There are those mystery riverfront towers again.

[ozone]

Sorry but that's a shit plan compared to the one the first city adopted.

[Schmoe]

I don't see the airport light rail extension in the image.