Sacramento Restaurants, Nightlife and Entertainment

[wburg]

Originally Posted by innov8

Well that's good to know... although you almost always sound grouchy about
any buildings proposed anywhere in the grid unless it replaces a parking lot.

Will have to meet up and when demo work starts for
Cathedral Square... I don't think I've heard you defend that area of J Street right

Like I said, I'm a 5 on that one too. It, like the Met site, features buildings with great alley views and dreadfully remodeled fronts. I like the building marginally better than the Met, for reasons mentioned upthread, but I'm not really jumping for joy about that one either.

And yeah, in my mind a parking lot is a great place to put a building...even though a lot of those parking lots were neighborhoods and businesses that were taken away via eminent domain decades ago. I'm a big fan of infill and adaptive reuse.

[sugit]

The reason 10th and K is being reused has nothing to do with the architectural importance (or lack there of) of the building. The city and devlopers wanted to turn a project around as soon as possible on that corner. To demo and do brand new contruction would have required a time consuming full EIR and a much longer construction period which is not what the city wanted for that corner.

It could work at 7th and L as well...but as I said, if someone wants to put a market or something else in that building on their own accord that's one thing and it would sure as hell help that area....but if someone wants to bring it down to build something else, I don't see much reason in preserving a building like this.

This shouldn't be a case where we say, 'No you can not tear this building down for any reason'. There are many examples of buildings that should and deserve to be preserved, but this is not one, imo.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by sugit

This shouldn't be a case where we say, 'No you can not tear this building down for any reason'. There are many examples of buildings that should and deserve to be preserved, but this is not one, imo.

Good thing I didn't say that, then. What I'm saying is that (a) the building does have architectural character and historical significance, and (b) I think it would be cool, and quite feasible, to do an adaptive reuse project there, and it seems that I'm not alone with the idea of a Nugget market on the site. If such a project does come up in the future, I'll probably express those opinions to Design Review and Planning, but I wouldn't expect those words to have much effect on their final decision.

[sugit]

I'm not saying you said that... but in not so many words, I think more or less you do feel that way, which is fine (you would probably make a good laywer in that sense). We can disagree on these issues. Plus, it was a generic quote, not saying what you said.

Sorry, looking at that building, I just don't see how some of the minor details you mentioned contribute to much character when the rest of the building is crap. It being a historic Greyhound site, that isn't history.

Your (b) is where you aren't understanding me. For the third time, if someone wants to come in and do a market at that site, great (preferably open air, but Nugget would be great too). I would welcome it with open arms, but not at all because they are saving the building. At the same time if someone wants to come in and level the ugly thing...that's perfectly fine with me too.

Anyways, I think we have kinda got off subject here...Restaurants, Nightlife and Entertainment anyone?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by sugit

It being a historic Greyhound site, that isn't history.

Yes it is--the railyards buildings are historic because it is a historic railyard site, the State Capitol is historic because it is a historic government building, and so on. A building simply being in place and performing a function for a long period of time certainly is history--the study of history, especially in the context of historic architecture, isn't strictly limited to well-known historic figures or world-shaking events.

Much of contemporary history involves far more mundane elements of life: labor history, social history, cultural history (including things like sports history, entertainment history, ethnic history, gay history) and so on. In the same way, historic architecture includes prosaic and mundane structures like working-class homes, factories, or bus stations. And because the lives of typical people were often not well-documented, the physical structures used and occupied by our forefathers (even if it's the relatively recent past) and other perhaps mundane-seeming traces are the main route of investigation for historians.

Anyways, I think we have kinda got off subject here...Restaurants, Nightlife and Entertainment anyone?

Well hey, I think the Greyhound station might make a pretty cool nightclub!

Not sure if it was mentioned elsewhere, but Revolution Wines on 21st and P is going to have a grand opening second-Saturday gig tomorrow, and they'll probably have free samples. I'm tempted to go check it out.

[sugit]

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. By that logic a porn shop or "massage parlor" that has been in a building for 50 year is historic and should be kept for those reasons. It may be part of history, everything is part of history to some degree, but to label something as historic in the way you refer to that building is a much different thing to me.

It all comes down to you and I just have much different opinions on what real/important history is. We can keep going back and forth, but neither of us will change our opinions.

And yes...a nightclub would be cool there. Just about anything other than a Greyhound station would be cool there.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by sugit

Sorry, that doesn't fly with me. By that logic a porn shop or "massage parlor" that has been in a building for 50 year is historic and should be kept for those reasons. It may be part of history, everything is part of history to some degree, but to label something as historic in the way you refer to that building is a much different thing to me.

It all comes down to you and I just have much different opinions on what real/important history is. We can keep going back and forth, but neither of us will change our opinions.

And yes...a nightclub would be cool there. Just about anything other than a Greyhound station would be cool there.

The difference is that it isn't just my opinion, but the prevailing view among historians. A building can be considered historic simply because it is old, and the places where everyday folks did things are historically significant even if Great Men didn't do Great Things there. That isn't the same as saying you can never demolish that building or that it has to retain its current function forever.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that the site be maintained as a Greyhound station--didn't say that, either.

And yes, a historic porn shop or "massage parlor" counts too. There are several places throughout the United States where old bordellos have been preserved as historic sites, generally converted to tourist traps, museums, bed & breakfasts, etcetera, rather than retaining their, um, historic function. Heck, that might be a potential tourist draw along J Street (once known as "Rowboat Row" because 'there were 'oars (whores) on either side') someday.

And locally, L'Amour Shoppe on Broadway has a pretty neat building too, one that I think should be preserved--structurally, at least.

[sugit]

I never suggested you said the site be Greyhound always, so I don't know where that is coming from.

Listen, I don't agree with you at all in this case. You aren't going to change my mind on the Greyhound, and I'm not going to change yours. So I'm going to let it be at a difference of opinions in this case.

[Trojan]

Santa Barbara has a Greyhound Station in their mini-downtown area, and it seems to fit in perfectly with the surroundings. What's the deal with that?

[creamcityleo79]

I have no affinity for this building whatsoever. It is too short for a downtown like Sacramento. If you could restore the outside and add some other features, great!...but, only if you add 10-12 more stories. Otherwise, I say tear it down and build something better. Who says the building to be built there can't be art deco, too?

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Trojan

Santa Barbara has a Greyhound Station in their mini-downtown area, and it seems to fit in perfectly with the surroundings. What's the deal with that?

You can't be serious!? Santa Barbara is a city of 92,325. Sacramento has more than 4x as many people (467,000+) with a metro area of over 2 million! You're comparing apples and oranges. According to emporis.com, Santa Barbara has 7 high rise buildings with the tallest being 114 ft tall. Sacramento has 82 with the tallest being 423 feet and taller buildings to come....THAT is the deal with that!

[Phillip]

In the 1970's the rundown Greyhound depot in Downtown Minneapolis became a nightclub called First Avenue. Prince grew up in Minneapolis and First Avenue was one of his home clubs in the early 80's, before he became "a star".

More than 30 years later First Avenue is still going strong--incredible tenure for a rock club. Prince played First Avenue last Saturday night; his first appearance there in 20 years!

Here's about First Avenue in Minneapolis, including a neat pic of the front entrance, which still evokes the old bus depot:

http://www.first-avenue.com/about/about.aspx

Maybe we could get Ted Kaczynski to come back for a return engagement at Sacramento's Greyhound?

[ozone]

Have I missed something? Has Greyhound found a new home and are they moving out soon? Is there a solid proposal for that site?

[Trojan]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

You can't be serious!? Santa Barbara is a city of 92,325. Sacramento has more than 4x as many people (467,000+) with a metro area of over 2 million! You're comparing apples and oranges. According to emporis.com, Santa Barbara has 7 high rise buildings with the tallest being 114 ft tall. Sacramento has 82 with the tallest being 423 feet and taller buildings to come....THAT is the deal with that!

I am saying that the Greyhound Station in SB is a block away from a Saks and a big outdoor shopping area, and I have never seen any bums or weird people walking around the Greyhound to the shopping area.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Trojan

I am saying that the Greyhound Station in SB is a block away from a Saks and a big outdoor shopping area, and I have never seen any bums or weird people walking around the Greyhound to the shopping area.

I see what you're saying now. 95814 median household income: $22,906....93101 (Santa Barbara): $44,096

[otnemarcaS]

Sacramento has the 3rd busiest Greyhound bus station in California. Santa Barbara is nowhere near the top 10. As Neuhickman79 says, it's apples and oranges. Different crowds around these two stations. Sac is just a bigger transportation center. Heck, Amtrak station in Sacramento is the 2nd busiest in California and the 7th busiest in the entire country. West of Chicago, it is the second busiest after LA.

[Web]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

Sacramento has the 3rd busiest Greyhound bus station in California. Santa Barbara is nowhere near the top 10. As Neuhickman79 says, it's apples and oranges. Different crowds around these two stations. Sac is just a bigger transportation center. Heck, Amtrak station in Sacramento is the 2nd busiest in California and the 7th busiest in the entire country. West of Chicago, it is the second busiest after LA.

Is this based on # of trains or on and offs???
San Diego is a busy station and so is Emeryville etc....
Oh yeah "Amtrak" not all the other systems and its a big Amtrak Bus hub so that probably counts..

[Tenebrist]

THIS is a website dedicated to Streamline Moderne Greyhound stations, such as our very own Greyhound station in downtown Sacramento!

This is in Washington, DC(!):

Credit: Debra Jane Seltzer @ www.agilitynut.com/roadside.html


There is a book dedicated to Streamline Moderne Greyhound stations, such as our very own Greyhound station in downtown Sacramento(!):
The Streamline Era Greyhound Terminals:
The Architecture of W.S. Arrasmith
In post-Depression America, Greyhound brought the glamour of travel within the reach of everyone, regardless of financial status. Their bus terminals functioned as gateways to the cities in which they were located. With this in mind, the Greyhound bus company found an architect who could embody in architectural form the sleek aerodynamics of the buses that served its transportation system: William Strudwick Arrasmith.

This volume explores the life and achievements of William Strudwick Arrasmith, one of architecture’s defining artists during the short-lived era of streamline design. It examines Arrasmith’s development as architect, focusing on his work for Greyhound during their streamline era from 1937 to 1948, and thereafter. During this time, Arrasmith designed at least fifty terminals and other facilities for Greyhound—buildings which were literally spread across the country from Jackson, Mississippi to Erie, Pennsylvania. The final third of the book is dedicated to a detailed then-and-now examination of twenty-eight specific Greyhound terminals designed by Arrasmith, including those in Binghamton, New York (1938); Cincinnati (1941); and Boston (1950). A full chronology of Arrasmith’s firms and commissions is also included.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

I have no affinity for this building whatsoever. It is too short for a downtown like Sacramento. If you could restore the outside and add some other features, great!...but, only if you add 10-12 more stories. Otherwise, I say tear it down and build something better. Who says the building to be built there can't be art deco, too?

I hate to disagree with you here neuhickman79, but I love art deco, streamline, and art nouveau(think paris metro and curves as opposed to straight lines). That Greyhound building looks like a classic streamline design. I think it should be saved and adapted into something else.

Having said that, I do agree that some new buildings should be built in an art deco, or streamline design.

I have not paid attention to what's planned at that site, but whatever it is, why not save the building and add floors to it in a classic deco or streamline design. They do this sort of thing in Europe all the time.

[ltsmotorsport]

But just because it's of that design, doesn't mean that it's a good adaptation of it. Cheap is cheap, and I'm sure if the site is going to be used for something else, there will have to be some environmental clean up from having buses use the place for 70 years.

I myself am a huge deco/streamline fan, but I don't see what some of you see in this building. It's just not that great.