"What's going on Sacramento" Chit-Chat

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Has anyone here been enjoying the great weather we've had recently? I wouldn't know, I've been jammed inside for days with a nasty cold. Seems like great tennis/biking weather (or whatever it is you do).

[wburg]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

Has anyone here been enjoying the great weather we've had recently? I wouldn't know, I've been jammed inside for days with a nasty cold. Seems like great tennis/biking weather (or whatever it is you do).

Great strolling weather, absolutely--taking the opportunity to stomp around the central city and enjoying it before the rain comes back this weekend!

[ltsmotorsport]

A heads up for some stimulating population figure discussion.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=189341

[navyweaxguy]

My wife and I spent Sunday through Tuesday in Sacramento and had a great time. We didn't get to see nearly enough of the city though. There is so much more that I want to explore. Thanks to the city for being a great host!

[Korey]

Originally Posted by navyweaxguy

My wife and I spent Sunday through Tuesday in Sacramento and had a great time. We didn't get to see nearly enough of the city though. There is so much more that I want to explore. Thanks to the city for being a great host!

Glad you two had a great time!



OK how about this. Sac's central park? Park blocks a la Portland? This opportunity to put a kick ass park/park system downtown will be gone forever in a couple decades or less. It could be integrated in with T9, help out the whole Richards Blvd scene hopefully, cut through the heart of the railyards, where part of that space was going to be taken up by a boxcar park anyways. One end could be highlighted with the whole transit hub/historic structures area and the other could end with a flourish at the river. Integrate the light rail stations with the park, etc. Maybe a cool pedestrian bridge over to discovery park.

Thoughts?

[wburg]

Capitol Park already works pretty well as Sacramento's "central park." Obviously it has a big building at its center, but Capitol Park is effectively 25 acres of public parkway dead-center in the central city, with a variety of environments--rare trees, monuments, statues, walking paths, rose gardens, etcetera. The park is surrounded by urban environments of various sorts, and connected to existing vehicle corridors and the closest thing Sacramento has to a "grand boulevard," Capitol Mall. Now, Capitol Mall has its own issues (it's a public promenade where nobody walks once the state offices close, because nobody lives there and there aren't many places to walk to) but it is one of our more distinct (and recognizable) locales.

A long green-strip along the 7th Street light rail alignment doesn't really serve much purpose except to make whatever is on the other side of the green strip harder to get to from the light rail station in the Railyards. A useful streetscape, wide enough to allow pedestrians and trees, is already part of the plan. For those seeking the kind of urban environment the Railyards wants to provide, an inviting urban streetscape (with shade trees and some landscaping) makes more sense than a broad Capitol Mall type environment that isn't as pedestrian-friendly in practical application.

Also, the light rail alignment turns west at Richards--it will turn right again at Sequoia Pacific, hopefully someday crossing the American River with a light rail bridge (that, if there is any justice, will also be a bike/pedestrian bridge) over the American River into South Natomas.

[Korey]

Yes Capitol Park serves that function but I want as much park space downtown as I can get. You have to look beyond the crude ms paint line, the green space can meander and jump block to block, I just traced up 7th because it was an easy line to draw. The idea behind it is that we have this relatively empty land and it would be cool if there was a way to bring another large park into that area of town.

Think Portland's Park blocks more than Cap Mall. I want urbanity integrated with the green.

[doriankage]

I think a new park from the center of the railyards to TS9 would be nice. I would model it off of Las Ramblas in Barcelona. Lots of trees, shops, housing and restaurants!

[rampant_jwalker]

That's a great idea! An expansive urban park is something that Sacramento is missing. Capitol Park doesn't cut it... personally I'd rather not jog or picnic where all the politicians are hanging out. Plus Capital Park has nothing fun to do besides read signs telling you what species of tree you're looking at. I lucked out in the other cities I've lived in- New York w/ Central Park and Prospect Park and New Orleans with Audobon Park. We have Land Park here, but it's in the suburbs. I like how your placement of it connects downtown to the American river parkway. It would be cool to walk from the synthetic nature of an urban park into the wilderness of the parkway. With pedestrian pathways cutting across at each city block along the stretch I don't think it would be a barrier to anything. In fact I agree that it would be a great catalyst for development of the River District! Do you think our city's leadership has the guts to go for a clear vision like this?

[downtownserg89]

I say tear down downtown plaza and turn that puppy into an urban park. Make it appealling by throwing a zoo with polar bears and pandas. I'd go every day.


In Santa Cruz around front street and ocean avenue, there's like a park that turns into a really interesting maze over water with wooden trails, surrounded with trees and random benches in the middle of nowhere. It's gorgeous and very relaxing. We need one of those somewhere in the railyards.

[wburg]

It sounds like we have different definitions of parks here--doriankage used the term "Lots of trees, shops, housing and restaurants!" which, sounds more like the features of a city than a park, just one with an urban design plan that includes shade trees and pedestrian features--less a "park" and more a "complete street." The problem with big, broad parkways is that people generally don't like walking through the middle of broad parkways. People prefer to walk through areas that are a little more enclosed, with the proportions of an outdoor room. Why not design the streets and sidewalks to work like parks, with shade trees and landscaping--which is, for the most part, how Midtown's streets already work?

Take a look at the Railyards, Township 9 and River District specific plans to see the sort of streetscape/pedestrian path plans they already have along that alignment. Much of what you guys are talking about is already in the plan.

One should also note that there is also a pedestrian/bicycle path along the waterfront that accomplishes a very similar sort of goal--it runs along the city waterfront through Miller Park, the Docks, Old Sacramento and north through the Richards Boulevard area, and continues along the American River. This will link the Railyards with Old Sac, some existing waterfront things like Matsui Park and the forthcoming Discovery Science Center at the old PG&E powerplant.

There are also other parks in and near the central city that see a lot of use: Southside, Fremont, McClatchy, McKinley, Chavez. And if all you notice in Capitol Park is the labels with the names of trees, you haven't actually spent much time wandering around in Capitol Park--you have barely scratched the surface. Sure, there are politicians there, but on just about any weekday there is some kind of rally or exhibit or other gathering there, which makes for interesting people-watching.

While everyone loves talking about parks, parks themselves don't necessarily draw much pedestrian (or economic) activity. The uses adjacent to those parks (or park-like streetscapes) are more important. It's easy to criticize the parks we already have (even if it sounds like you haven't really spent much time in those parks) and make broad statements about the promising civic amenities of a green MS-Paint swath, but it's harder to look at what is there, what works and what doesn't.

[rampant_jwalker]

There is beauty in the clarity of the concept conveyed by that "green MS-Paint swath" that Korey posted.

-We know by looking at the map that there are few obstacles in the way of that path. It would be nothing like Haussmann's renovation of Paris.

-We know that it is 1 block wide - wide enough for a variety of programmatic elements such as skate parks, tennis courts, zoological exhibits, jogging paths, open lawns, shaded chess tables, or anything else that would attract people to a park.

-We know by looking at it that it is at least 5 times the size of McKinley park or Southside park, and that it would connect several different current and future neighborhoods.

-Rather than fragmenting and isolating park space as the current plans do, it creates one grand collective public place. The effect of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

-We can imagine surrounding it "Lots of trees, shops, housing and restaurants!" like we see with many of the great urban parks. Zoning for high density and mixed uses along the stretch would be critical.

wburg-
you said "It's easy to criticize the parks we already have (even if it sounds like you haven't really spent much time in those parks) and make broad statements about the promising civic amenities of a green MS-Paint swath, but it's harder to look at what is there, what works and what doesn't. "

I think it's easy to look at what's here and copy what works and avoid what doesn't. On the other hand, while it can be more difficult, it is courageous and can be very fruitful to use your imagination and dream big.

[wburg]

I'm sure Stan Thomas would agree with you, rampant_jwalker. However, now seems like a very good time to copy what works and avoid what doesn't.

While there isn't an enormous amount of stuff already in that swath, there is already a lot of stuff planned for that swath. Starting from "go" would mean wiping out those plans, spending more money, taking more time. I really, really, really recommend you take a look at some of those plans, because for the most part the kind of thing you're talking about is already in the plan--including zoning for high density and mixed uses. The big problem is that parks generally don't do a very good job of connecting neighborhoods--they are not intended for transportation, and don't work very well in that function.

The beauty of sketchiness is that you don't have to worry about the details, because they are entirely theoretical. Things like planning and paying for things and environmental clearances are easily handwaved because in the magical world of our imaginations, we have an unlimited budget. So yes, it is a fine swath, but you might want to take a look at the details of what is already planned for the area. You might even like them!

[rampant_jwalker]

Thanks for the super condescending response as always wburg. I'm already familiar with the plans for railyards, T9, and the river district, and I think collectively they miss the opportunity to define an overall vision. If you start with a diagram it can be a challenge to find solutions to the more tricky problems that reality poses, but a good designer can make the right compromises without loosing the clarity of the initial concept. The current plans lack that to begin with, I think they are timid and, like i said, too fragmented. It is not too late to revise the plans.
I consider the central city's urban grid to be the successful realization of an abstract diagram, and a large urban park formed within that same grid would mesh nicely, and would seem like an authentic response to the existing framework.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by navyweaxguy

My wife and I spent Sunday through Tuesday in Sacramento and had a great time. We didn't get to see nearly enough of the city though. There is so much more that I want to explore. Thanks to the city for being a great host!

Please tell me you went to a Kings game each of those days, because Sacramento has nothing more to offer.

[Korey]

Originally Posted by wburg

While there isn't an enormous amount of stuff already in that swath, there is already a lot of stuff planned for that swath. Starting from "go" would mean wiping out those plans, spending more money, taking more time. I really, really, really recommend you take a look at some of those plans, because for the most part the kind of thing you're talking about is already in the plan--including zoning for high density and mixed uses.

The beauty of sketchiness is that you don't have to worry about the details, because they are entirely theoretical. So yes, it is a fine swath, but you might want to take a look at the details of what is already planned for the area. You might even like them!

This is why it would be easier to adopt! You already have plans for higher density, mixed use areas in that stretch. You already have some space fleshed out for parks/ wide boulevards. Because all of this stuff is just in the planning stage it would be a hell of alot easier to realize this vision than if we had a few half built neighborhoods in the way. I'm sure if there was a vision and an effort from the city/community Inland and whoever calls the shots at T9 would think about altering their design plans to accommodate. Plus, like rampant_jwalker said, it can adapt and be programmed for different uses along the line to fit the needs of the neighborhood.

I do know many of the details planned for the area, I try to follow as many Sacramento Projects as closely as possible, like most here I imagine. I have been to and enjoy Land Park, Southside, McKinley, etc. and would like some of those qualities to be present in these new neighborhoods. Plus, this is chit-chat, no?

[wburg]

Korey: What is needed is not "vision" so much as "money." Buying a dozen or so city blocks for park use isn't cheap: the city paid about $1 million for a still-toxic one-acre parcel at 19th and Q for use as a city park. Giving up that much land would basically trash the specific plans for the Railyards, T9 and the River District just as things are about to break ground. A redesign like this wouldn't work with existing plans for height and density--it would effectively sabotage them. There is room for a lot of parkway in that area--including the aforementioned idea of park programming along the Sacramento and American River parkways. Make the streets more parklike, comfortable and useful, and they will work like the parks you're talking about.

Personally, I think there's a little too much "vision" and not enough willingness to stick to a plan long enough to finish it in this town. By the time a plan gets ready to execute, designs are made and financing is in place, the local "visionaries" get distracted by the latest trend in urban fashion, and shout HEY GUYS WE NEED ONE OF THESE INSTEAD! It's not so much "timidness" as a low self-esteem that is only encouraged by some of the development community who convince us that we can be a WORLD CLASS CITY if only we have a brand-new shiny (insert BS project here). Suddenly everyone drops the old flavor of the month for the new flavor of the month, and the result is a lot of half-completed projects and plans that never reach fruition due to lack of follow-through and a short attention span. Some like renderings and big-picture views--me, I like details, the worm's eye view from the street. So yeah, this is chit-chat.

[Korey]

When will large scale above ground construction start in Railyards and T9, 2016? When will HSR trains run from Sac, 2035? I know city budgets are strained, especially recently, but parks and schools are up there in priorities for me.

[downtownserg89]

I found images of the park I mentioned in my earlier post. It's the Neary Lagoon Park in Santa Cruz, and it's a lot more breathtaking in person. It sort of reminds me of a beefed up, steroids injected version of Southside Park. Perhaps a park like this would be pleasant in Sacramento, instead of the typical "empty city block converted into a pocket park" situation. We have the random lakey wildlifey areas around the bike paths.

[rampant_jwalker]

Future parks from the Railyards development, Township 9, and the River District, as currently planned (in addition to existing):