Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by wburg

The developers aren't even proposing 550 units, they are just including 550 as a theoretical maximum number of units with no minimum. And from what I see here and other places, the real concern is bringing housing to the urban core and specifically the business district, where almost nobody lives. In my eyes, the arena is the cherry, and so much emphasis is placed on it that the rest of the "sundae" is essentially ignored, treated as superfluous, or people just assume it will work itself out. "With such a magnificent cherry on top, it stands to reason that the rest of the sundae will be wonderful!" is not an adequate description for someone who wants to know what the rest of the sundae is going to include. Things like the Commons, 301 Capitol, and other mid/high rise projects are outside the scope of the arena project--and while I'm sure none would deny the arena was a factor, I don't really think it was the only factor, or even the most important one. We're seeing a number of threads going here--a dramatic generational increase in interest in central city living, high fuel prices, changes in infrastructure, parking and zoning policy, and other cultural changes that have resulted in dramatic shifts to central city housing all over the nation. It seems silly to assume that none of those forces are at work here, and that housing shifts that have been ongoing for years can all be attributed to an arena project that hasn't even been built yet. But the proponents and local media drive home the point anytime anything happens in the central city. New business opens? It's because of the arena. New building gets built anywhere near downtown? The arena did it. Love the nice weather we're having? Must be the arena.

The world is complex, reducing it to one factor is overly simplistic. The arena won't save downtown and won't destroy it. It's just one of many factors.

You mean like silly balloon analogies?

[BillSimmons]

Why am I not surprised that the guy who thinks that Staples Center had nothing to do with the redevelopment of Downtown LA is now saying that our Downtown Arena has nothing to do with all of the recent real estate activity in Downtown Sacramento?

Wburg keep holdin' it down for the "I reject your reality and assert my own!" All-Star team.

[creamcityleo79]

Why is it that people cannot stand to have people who disagree with them lately? It's like we start up the engines on the (nearly) stalled forum again and, all of the sudden, it's free reign to be an ass to everyone who disagrees with you! Calm it down, people! We all have the same goal in mind (a better Sacramento). We (adults) can disagree without being rude...it's ok!

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Why is it that people cannot stand to have people who disagree with them lately? It's like we start up the engines on the (nearly) stalled forum again and, all of the sudden, it's free reign to be an ass to everyone who disagrees with you! Calm it down, people! We all have the same goal in mind (a better Sacramento). We (adults) can disagree without being rude...it's ok!

I understand where you're coming from, but the bolded is not necessarily true. Some people (won't name names) think that what is best for the city is for things to remain the way they are. They don't want new things built as much as they want old things re-used. That's great in some situations but not everything needs to be saved just because it's old. Not everything that is old is historical. Not everything that is historical is worth remembering. Some people fail to see a distinction between old and historical. Normally that is not such a bad thing, but with the right amount of pull it can be detrimental to the city's progress.

I, and many people like myself, want progress for Sacramento. I want to see decrepit old buildings and abandoned warehouses and half-century-old housing projects torn down and replaced with newer modern buildings that enhance The Grid's Urban Environment. However there are people around here that disagree and just want to keep things the way they are, or to progress along at a snail's pace, which isn't good for anyone. Some of these people fight every new project that is proposed on the grid, and fight every attempt to demolish run down old buildings because "something happened there in 1874!" These people are anti-progress, and are a big reason why Sacramento is lagging so far behind cities like Portland and Seattle.

So, to say that we all want the same thing is not the truth.

[Majin]

BillSimmons, good summary of some older and thankfully less influential people still stuck in the past. Like I said not too long ago, I'm not really worried about those people anymore now that have a powerful mayor and relatively cooperative city council and strong support by powerful power (such as Darrell Steinberg).

This time, you will see a completely different result than the Fargo era. Hopefully these old people will finally just pack up and move to Fresno once they see the Arena and the surrounding development under construction.

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by BillSimmons

I want to see decrepit old buildings and abandoned warehouses and half-century-old housing projects torn down

WE DID THAT ALREADY!!

All the surface parking lots downtown are where old buildings were torn down on speculation and are still surface parking lots. For example two entire blocks at 8th and F and 3rd and R, the half block at 6th and L have been surface lots FOR OVER 50 YEARS. 50 FREAKING YEARS.

Majin if you want to ban surface parking you can't allow developers to tear down buildings on speculation because what you end up with is surface parking.

Meanwhile the MOST successful projects in Sacramento in the last have been adaptive reuse, of old buildings. Bill I take it you haven't been to 14th and R aka the most jumping block now in Sacramento, because it's just a "dusty old warehouse."

14th and R - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
10th and K - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
18th and Capitol - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
20th and K - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.

Meanwhile how's the street life under the skyscrapers on Capitol Mall?

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

WE DID THAT ALREADY!!

All the surface parking lots downtown are where old buildings were torn down on speculation and are still surface parking lots. For example two entire blocks at 8th and F and 3rd and R, the half block at 6th and L have been surface lots FOR OVER 50 YEARS. 50 FREAKING YEARS.

Majin if you want to ban surface parking you can't allow developers to tear down buildings on speculation because what you end up with is surface parking.

Meanwhile the MOST successful projects in Sacramento in the last have been adaptive reuse, of old buildings. Bill I take it you haven't been to 14th and R aka the most jumping block now in Sacramento, because it's just a "dusty old warehouse."

14th and R - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
10th and K - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
18th and Capitol - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.
20th and K - No new buildings, all adaptive reuse.

Meanwhile how's the street life under the skyscrapers on Capitol Mall?

Where did I say that adaptive re-use is a bad thing? I never once said that. There are some amazing places Downtown that are old buildings that have been re-used.

However, there are also a lot of crappy run down buildings that need to go. Just off the top of my head places like the Crystal Ice plant (just a couple blocks away from 14th and R), multiple buildings along J and K streets, I mean this list could go on all day. Not all of these buildings are bastions of culture that need to be saved and re-used!! Many of them are eyesores that need to be torn down.

Also, 14th and R is not "the most jumping block in Sacramento", although it is leaps and bounds better than a decade ago.

Lastly, the mentality that we shouldn't tear down old buildings because developers from 50 YEARS AGO turned them into parking lots is exactly the kind of mentality that I'm rallying against. That was a different era, where the automobile rules, freeways had just been laid out on both sides of the grid to funnel in workers from our newly-built suburbs, and all the housing had been ripped out from the Grid. Things are changing now. The Grid is becoming significantly less car-centric. Proposals like 16th Powerhouse are popping up with NO parking lots! We have light rail running all around the city. Nobody is going to be tearing down the Stanford Mansion to turn it into a parking lot. That fear-mongering mentality is dated.

If anything, those old parking lots provide a great opportunity for future change. Parking lots can be razed and turned into apartment buildings also. Just because something bad happened 50 years ago doesn't mean it's going to happen now. Those developers are long dead for Christ's sake.

[Mr. Ozo]

I'm sorry you are dead wrong on the Crystal Ice Plant there are plans to convert those to lofts, and why not when they will certainly be incredibly popular. Again, we have two half blocks of open field in the area for new construction.

Where you see eyesore I see great opportunity.

But we can agree to disagree. I too am in favor of new construction and excited about 16Powerhouse.

Take the 6 story warehouse being converted to housing on 11th and R. One of the coolest old buildings in Sacramento! There is going to be a new building connected with the historic part.

I'll bet you a beer than the lofts in historic side rent for more than the new construction side for the same square footage.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

I'm sorry you are dead wrong on the Crystal Ice Plant there are plans to convert those to lofts, and why not when they will certainly be incredibly popular. Again, we have two half blocks of open field in the area for new construction.

But we can agree to disagree. I too am in favor of new construction and excited about 16Powerhouse.

Take the 6 story warehouse being converted to housing on 11th and R. One of the coolest old buildings in Sacramento! There is going to be a new building connected with the historic part.

I'll bet you a beer than the lofts in historic side rent for more than the new construction side for the same square footage.

Well of course they will, they cost more to build!

As far as plans for the Crystal Ice plant, that property has been "soon to be redeveloped" for 20 YEARS now! Mark Friedman currently owns it (also a part owner of the Kings who is in charge of designing/developing the Arena), and he has been trying to get something done since at least 2005, yet there it sits still in 2014! Before Friedman bought the plant Angelo Tsakapalous owned it and tried to build high-rise towers back in the 90s but was turned down. So to say that there are plans to turn Crystal Ice Plant into lofts is technically true, but realistically it is not particularly likely to happen yet. There are no concrete plans in place for redevelopment of the plant, mainly because of environmental concerns and the fact that it is a "historical building". Lots of frozen history there!!/sarcasm

This article was re-posted by the Bee last year, but was originally posted in 2005!

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/532...d-crystal.html

And this 3 year old article claimed construction would start as early as 2012 wooo progress!!

http://sacramentopress.com/2011/03/1...t-photo-essay/

[Mr. Ozo]

And tearing it down will suddenly cause new construction to rise in it's place?

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

And tearing it down will suddenly cause new construction to rise in it's place?

If somebody comes up with a viable plan for the site that involves tearing it down then yes. Some buildings should just be torn down regardless due to squatters and fire hazards.

[jbradway]

My 2 cents. Somehow the dingy and awful Marshall Hotel is on a historic register while the equally awful Jade apartments next door is tear down worthy. The only thing worse than a parking lot is a flop house death trap for the low or no income.

In order to make anything work for that site it will be something odd looking structure humping over the top of the Marshall. And it will look awful next to the arena and new construction.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by jbradway

My 2 cents. Somehow the dingy and awful Marshall Hotel is on a historic register while the equally awful Jade apartments next door is tear down worthy. The only thing worse than a parking lot is a flop house death trap for the low or no income.

In order to make anything work for that site it will be something odd looking structure humping over the top of the Marshall. And it will look awful next to the arena and new construction.

Completely agree. I'll never understand why somebody thought it would be a good idea to put that kind of housing in the middle of downtown. There's so much open space and so many empty lots in already-troubled parts of the city that would be perfect for project housing. Absolutely no need for that to be located in the heart of the city.

[wburg]

You are aware that the Marshall Hotel wasn't built as "project housing," right? It was built as an upscale hotel (originally named the Clayton Hotel, after the parents of the builder, Dr. Marion and Sarah Clayton, who had a spa on the site in the 1870s) in what was, 100 years ago, a prosperous part of town in the heart of a theater/department store district. You could step out the door and catch a streetcar to any part of town, or walk 2 blocks and catch an electric train to anywhere between Chico, Oakland and Stockton. In that era, a lot of hotels had full-time residents who weren't poor: it was a convenient place for young professionals with downtown jobs to live as they were getting established, and less expensive than an apartment. A young attorney named Earl Warren lived in the Sequoia Hotel, a couple blocks away, when he first came to Sacramento. At the time, there was a movie theater in the ground floor. Within a few blocks were dozens of restaurants and diners, some open 24 hours, theaters (film and stage), nightclubs and dance halls, department stores and small shops serving every need, and thousands of jobs--at the Shops or the clerical offices of Southern Pacific or WP, at banks or insurance companies, or for the state, which was still run pretty much out of the Capitol Building.

Redevelopment in the 50s and 60s changed a lot of that--there were poorer hotels farther west in the West End proper, what is now Old Sacramento and under Interstate 5. About 5000 migrant workers and, well, winos lived there, and when the city kicked them out of their boarding houses and hotels, the migrant workers moved to other cities and the winos just moved a few blocks east. The Marshall couldn't get the kind of upper-class tenant they had in the early 1900s, so they rented to the folks who wanted to stay there and could pay the (low) rent: senior citizens and the disabled. It wasn't built as public housing, it isn't run as any sort of government program. It's just a privately owned residential hotel.

The Marshall was listed as a landmark because of its distinct architecture, while the Jade is more pedestrian in appearance, having been built about 20 years later when styles weren't as frilly. It might well be eligible on its own merits, but nobody has bothered to nominate it (it's not exactly a simple process.)

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BillSimmons

[/B]
As far as plans for the Crystal Ice plant, that property has been "soon to be redeveloped" for 20 YEARS now! Mark Friedman currently owns it (also a part owner of the Kings who is in charge of designing/developing the Arena), and he has been trying to get something done since at least 2005, yet there it sits still in 2014! Before Friedman bought the plant Angelo Tsakapalous owned it and tried to build high-rise towers back in the 90s but was turned down. So to say that there are plans to turn Crystal Ice Plant into lofts is technically true, but realistically it is not particularly likely to happen yet. There are no concrete plans in place for redevelopment of the plant, mainly because of environmental concerns and the fact that it is a "historical building". Lots of frozen history there!!/sarcasm

This article was re-posted by the Bee last year, but was originally posted in 2005!

http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/532...d-crystal.html

And this 3 year old article claimed construction would start as early as 2012 wooo progress!!

http://sacramentopress.com/2011/03/1...t-photo-essay/

I think that the largest economic upheaval since the Great Depression, mostly based around real estate speculation, had just a little bit more to do with the derailing of that project. There was another project planned on S Street between 17th and 18th, they were able to demolish the buildings that were there. Somehow, the lack of old buildings on the lot was not enough to make the new project magically vault out of the ground.

I got to go on two tours inside the Crystal Ice plant, led by Mark Friedman, who explained the project to SOCA members and other community folks. The general attitude was one of enthusiastic support--it was his idea to reuse parts of the buildings, and he was as enthusiastic as anyone there about showing off the industrial heritage of the building. The last I heard, Michael Heller was taking over the Ice Blocks project,as Friedman is just a wee bit busy with that arena thing. Considering Heller's own experience with projects like MARRS, which turned a boring old 1940 warehouse into another one of the liveliest blocks in the city, I figure it's in good hands.

[ltsmotorsport]

Don't forget Friedman owns a majority of the property in the Bridge District in West Sac.

[creamcityleo79]

BillSimmons...I tend to agree with you, in that there are times where "preservation" is unnecessary. But, those preservationists definitely need/deserve to have a voice and a place at the table. Remember the Alhambra?

I have lived in a few cities now and I feel like I have seen some amazing examples of adaptive re-use! Milwaukee has a HUGE historic housing stock and also a HUGE selection of historic buildings in their downtown. There are very few 50s/60s urban renewal shitholes like in Sacramento. They have held tightly on to their history and it has proven to be a great thing. There is a whole neighborhood/district (the 3rd ward) that was, literally, ALL abandoned warehouses and factories when I first moved to Milwaukee in 2004. 10 years later, the neighborhood is thriving and teeming with condos, apartments, shops, restaurants, and lots and lots of people! Tearing down too much and getting rid of "the past" can leave any city bland and lacking culture. I know you're not advocating for something like this. But, pragmatic compromise can lead to major success for both sides and a thriving urban community that celebrates it's past and it's culture. I know Sacramento is not Milwaukee (thankfully). But, I also know that there are lessons to be learned from the preservationists and the new urbanists in both cities.

[wburg]

The Third Ward is a great place, have stopped there a couple of times when passing through Milwaukee. BillSimmons also seems to have fallen into the trap of thinking that "preservation" means "don't change anything ever," as though there are people who would prefer to see the Crystal Ice buildings sit as vacant buildings forever. But when you "preserve" food (through pickling, drying, etc.) you transform it in some way. Sacramento learned that lesson the hard way--the Alhambra was just the catalyst that changed the dynamic, but we lost Sacramento's most urban neighborhood, our old Japantown, a decade or so earlier--a move that also drove 30,000 people out of downtown. The result was a much less urban place than Sacramento had been in the first half of the 20th century, and it was done in the name of progress and being business-friendly. Despite the claims of some here, I don't see much that has changed in the attitude of many of Sacramento's powerful--some are even the scions of the same families, who don't live downtown or even in the Sacramento city limits, and share the same dim opinion of vital places like Midtown that their parents did of the old West End and Japantown. Back then, Downtown was the most densely populated part of the city, now it is more lightly populated than Land Park!

A walk through a city should be a walk through time--old and new juxtaposed constantly. I consider urban infill and preservation to be two halves of a complementary whole, not competing forces where one has to lose for the other to win. Too many good examples, here in Sacramento and elsewhere, of what someone with imagination can do. The unimaginative person sees a "blighted" building, something to destroy. The creative person sees the potential for what it can be--along with the potential for the vacant lot next door to it, where there used to be a building 50 years ago before speculative demolition!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by BillSimmons

Lastly, the mentality that we shouldn't tear down old buildings because developers from 50 YEARS AGO turned them into parking lots is exactly the kind of mentality that I'm rallying against. That was a different era, where the automobile rules, freeways had just been laid out on both sides of the grid to funnel in workers from our newly-built suburbs, and all the housing had been ripped out from the Grid. Things are changing now. The Grid is becoming significantly less car-centric. Proposals like 16th Powerhouse are popping up with NO parking lots! We have light rail running all around the city. Nobody is going to be tearing down the Stanford Mansion to turn it into a parking lot. That fear-mongering mentality is dated.

If anything, those old parking lots provide a great opportunity for future change. Parking lots can be razed and turned into apartment buildings also. Just because something bad happened 50 years ago doesn't mean it's going to happen now. Those developers are long dead for Christ's sake.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

I'm sorry you are dead wrong on the Crystal Ice Plant there are plans to convert those to lofts, and why not when they will certainly be incredibly popular. Again, we have two half blocks of open field in the area for new construction.

Where you see eyesore I see great opportunity.

But we can agree to disagree. I too am in favor of new construction and excited about 16Powerhouse.

Take the 6 story warehouse being converted to housing on 11th and R. One of the coolest old buildings in Sacramento! There is going to be a new building connected with the historic part.

I'll bet you a beer than the lofts in historic side rent for more than the new construction side for the same square footage.

14th and R: After drinking at Shady's and eating at B&B, we took a mini-walk through the GRID towards L and 16th. The whole time I was focused on the giant ugly state garage between 16th and 15th on R street. I was invisioning it as a residential bldg of sorts...could that eyesore be turned into residential bldg?