Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Phillip]

And while we're talking crime....WEHT the 18 or 19 year old kid they arrested in San Diego for the arson at 800K? Seems like six months or more since a very brief story in the Bee announcing the arrest and nothing since.

The article said he was a San Diego resident and was arrested in San Diego. But no explanation of his connection to Sacramento, how he got here, how he got back, any possible moetive.

[ltsmotorsport]

The Marriott at 15th & L Street is open but not finished open.

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/4838/marriott320070706il2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/703/marriott420070706gf4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/6550/marriott220070706cp9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/3407/marriott120070706gw5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Looks a little different from when I snuck in there one night during construction. :notacrook:

And I agree with you guys about your feelings on the Citizen. Vandalization is one of the most disrespectful acts I can think of.

[JeffZurn]

Good pics Motorsport, this is a nice looking building, wish it was a little bit taller. Is it the top 3 floors that are condos?

[wburg]

I'm soooo happy to hear this. Chop off his hands!

That graffiti is still up and it's painful to see on one of my favorite buildings in Sacramento. I still don't understand how he could have inked so much without anyone noticing. It's on three sides of the building and on multiple floors. It looks like it would have taken an hour or more to do all that damage. Even if it was 3 or 4am I'm surprised someone driving up J Street didn't notice a guy leaning out a high window and spraypainting.

And can someone reassure me that the Citizen is still more or less on track? The last couple times I've walked past, including today, I didn't see any obvious construction activity in progress.

Just up the street I noticed 800J's first retail tenant is finally open---Eyes on J Optometry store. We all should go buy some new glasses. :cool:

yeah, all of the former ground-floor retail tenants have finished their move: the mailbox place and Goodie Tuchews are over on L Street at 11th, and Eyes on J opened up a month or so ago.

I think that things like this egregious vandalism is definitely common ground between high-rise fans and preservationists: I think we'd all like to see this guy (as well as the Mohanna arsonist) seriously spanked.

[innov8]

Sacramento: Cathedral Square (25 floors) 290’
233 Condominiums/Mixed-Use
Located at 11th & J Street
Developer: St. Anton Investments, LLC.
Architect: Kwan Henmi
Building Height: 264’ Spire increases height to 290
Building Square Footage: 473,260 gross
328 Parking Spaces
Special permit to allow structure to exceed Capitol View Protection area.

Goes before Design Review Committee July 20th. These are some new rendering
with some changes that were recommended by the Design Review Committee in June.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8255/1catherdralsquareqv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/3794/2catherdralsquarecornerae8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/8048/3catherdralsquarejstreenn4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/4033/4catherdralsquarealleywh8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/982/5catherdralsquarematerioi9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/710/6catherdralsquarepooldh1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/6406/7catherdralsquarelandscjr3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

I have also created a new thread on the project under highrise proposals.

[ltsmotorsport]

They weren't my photos Jeff. They're all thanks to Innov8.

[reggiesquared]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

[ozone]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is too expensive to build or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built?

[ozone]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never leave the paper stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.

[ozone]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never get pass the "planned/approved" stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.

[jsf8278]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

I wouldn't say it "looks like ass," but its also nothing to shout home about.

[robw340]

I'm sorry but this building looks like ass. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY. :yuck:

I actually saw some similar buildings in the Belltown area of Seattle -and they're new ....they dont look that bad once built...i'm all for anything being built on J street, specially residential.

[foxmtbr]

I think it'll look nice. These kinds of projects usually turn out to look pretty good, as robw340 said he saw in Seattle.

[slaiguy]

It may not be as spectacular as say Aura but anything that adds residents downtown and livens the place up is welcome. Also, it is way better than what is there now.

[wburg]

This was approved by Planning, they didn't like the needle on top (it is strictly ornamental, and was put there because someone on Design Review wanted an architectural element on top) but otherwise they were okay with the look of the building other than some small details. The building looks good at the base, in that it's visually interesting and not a big wall o' glass. Lots of articulation at the ground level, which makes an effort to recognize the historic pattern fo J Street. Finishes at the ground are stone, brick and things other than stucco. Apparently it goes back to Design Review, although I'm not sure why, before final approval.

The alley wall/parking structure will reuse brick from the historic buildings to be demolished. I would have liked to see some of the bay windows along that wall reconstructed, but they did make an effort to make it more than a blank wall.

It's not a monster eye-popper, but it's not supposed to be: what seems to be appearing in the neighborhood is a vocabulary of prosaic tall buildings. Not every building needs to be a bold architectural statement, although it's nice if they look good. This one, at least from the rendering, seems to look good at the ground level (where most people will be interacting with it) and the high patios mean that the residents can come outside, at least a little bit. Besides, with neighbors like the Cathedral, the Elks and 926 J, maybe it's better to go for simple.

[TowerDistrict]

The rendering doesn't show reflections and shine from the glass and everything is shown in a flat, matte illustrative sort of way. I don't think this building will give you a kink in your neck from gazing upwards, but I think the finished product will show some nice material contrast with the new and reused brick, plaster, aluminum, glass and stone. I don't think this building will look like the Marriott - there's a lot more going on there.

What I don't like: it's short and fat.

What I do like: it's downtown residential, relative mid-range product, great chance of being built, and a great location.

[reggiesquared]

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never get pass the "planned/approved" stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.


Ugly doesn't unnecessarily mean its cheap to build nor does good design mean expensive to build. I find it unimaginative. Will people live in it? Probably. Would I be proud of it if i were the developer looking at the $$ bottom line, most likely. But I agree with others, nothing to write home about. It will take up some airspace downtown and look like a standard block. Good for downtown pedestrian traffic but bad architecturally speaking. I guess I don't like the "i can live with it" attitude with something so permanent.

[sugit]

Double Post

[sugit]

I've always loved the ground levels detail of this building, I think it's easily the strongest point, which I find important. I saw a ton of buildings like this in Vancouver last time I was there. The finished products look good.

Also, even with approvals we still won't see this breakground until next year . I've had my name on the wait list for this place since 2004 when the announced it so I keep in contact with a person over at St Anton. I spoke to them about 5 or 6 months ago and the timeline at that time was 20 months with engineering design and permits. So that puts groundbreaking around fall of next year. I'll ping them again once they receive design approval next week to see if there is any update or even something on demo starting.

Looks like the contractor on the project is Harbison-Mahony-Higgins Builders.

[Sacto]

The design looks ok even though it can be better.

[wburg]

There is some concern about construction noise and vibration affecting nearby structures like the Elks Building and the Cathedral. However, the construction firm are the same ones who did the rehab of the Cathedral and I imagine they'd hate to see their work undone. They're also talking with the management of the Crest about how daytime construction will affect matinee films and other daytime events at the Crest.

[snfenoc]

Downtown high-rise condo project approved
Sacramento Business Journal - 11:41 AM PDT Friday, July 13, 2007by Michael ShawStaff writer
The city of Sacramento's Planning Commission on Thursday approved a 25-story condo project at the southwest corner of 11th and J streets.

Although the city has yet to approve one architectural element of the building -- a spire -- the approval means that developers St. Anton Investors LLC and the Cordano family could proceed if there are no appeals with a 10-day period.

The 250-foot tall, 233-condo project is called Cathedral Square, and would require knocking down existing commercial buildings on J Street. It will have 12,000 square feet of ground-floor retail space.

The spire proposed for the top of the building exceeds the city's Capitol Views Protection Ordinance and is due to be reviewed by the city's design commission this month.

[TowerDistrict]

The spire is totally unessessary, in my opinion. it's not integrated into the design of the building, and looks like an afterthought - which i guess it is. They didn't even bother to include it in all but one of the renderings.

That's interesting to hear the timeline for construction to start. This building has been in the pipeline for years now. I'd figure they had all the engineering details sorted. I wonder if they'll ramp that up if Saca starts pushing the Metro through?

[creamcityleo79]

Ugly doesn't unnecessarily mean its cheap to build nor does good design mean expensive to build. I find it unimaginative. Will people live in it? Probably. Would I be proud of it if i were the developer looking at the $$ bottom line, most likely. But I agree with others, nothing to write home about. It will take up some airspace downtown and look like a standard block. Good for downtown pedestrian traffic but bad architecturally speaking. I guess I don't like the "i can live with it" attitude with something so permanent.
Not every building has to be iconic or eye-catching. Some are perfectly ok being functional and neutral.

[northbay]

Not every building has to be iconic or eye-catching. Some are perfectly ok being functional and neutral.

i agree. i like this building if only for the fact that it will add needed housing and retail to the downtown core in a relatively aesthetically-pleasing package.

only some of the buildings in a city should be iconic.

[innov8]

http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/1664/sacramentobuildingdiagrfn3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

ltsmotorsport pointed out in another thead under highrise construction that 500CM
is now a new addition to the diagrams. The Elks and the Citizen as well as a few
state towers are missing... but I think this is it for now. We should try to
get the CalSTRS tower drawn up too.

[creamcityleo79]

Don't forget about Cathedral Square.

[jsf8278]

What the deal with that 701 L st building. Ive never heard of it before.

[creamcityleo79]

What the deal with that 701 L st building. Ive never heard of it before.
Ask Benvenuti. The general consensus here is that it's not a real proposal.

[tuy]

How about diagrams for Capitol Grand and Metropolitan? They would give the diagram a bit more height.

[ltsmotorsport]

Don't forget Epic. Though, in the past, it's been hard to get the illustrators to draw buildings for Sac. But all you gotta do is start a drawing request thread in the appropriate section.

[Jay916]

WOW 18 people viewing the Sacramento subforum. That's got to be the highest ever. :banana: :cheers:

[Ryan@CU]

Seeing the towers still makes me sick. I know i need to let it go, but damn, they were beautiful

[bennywah]

heres some low light pics I took during my brief stint in sac on Fri night

http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/7254/imgp0457yv9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img375.imageshack.us/img375/4334/imgp0458sg5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/2193/imgp0459ef7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1527/imgp0460pd0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2894/imgp0467ih3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3773/imgp0468sz0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4333/imgp0471sx1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/390/imgp0479jz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/1266/imgp0488vv7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/5275/imgp0489xa4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
Shot with PENTAX Optio 750Z (http://profile.imageshack.us/camerabuy.php?model=PENTAX+Optio+750Z&make=PENTAX+Corporation) at 2007-07-15

[JeffZurn]

Ask Benvenuti. The general consensus here is that it's not a real proposal.

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that they were waiting for the Greyhound bus depot to be moved before any construction would start.

[arod74]

I was tooling about capitol mall yesterday and drove past the crocker and it looks like they are going full tilt on the site prep. Much of the property is fenced in with scaffolding around the old mansion. Hopefully it wont be long before the concrete bunker add-on meets mr. wrecking ball. I should be in the area later this week and will try to get some pics.

[wburg]

They may have to re-plan part of the fire access road: there is a heritage tree on the site (a Bunya-Bunya pine) that is one of only five of that species in Sacramento (three in Capitol Park, one more in East Sacramento.) City staff stated it was maybe 75-100 years old, but there are photos of the tree from the 1880s. The fire department said that they didn't mind routing around it.

[sugit]

I was tooling about capitol mall yesterday and drove past the crocker and it looks like they are going full tilt on the site prep. Much of the property is fenced in with scaffolding around the old mansion. Hopefully it wont be long before the concrete bunker add-on meets mr. wrecking ball. I should be in the area later this week and will try to get some pics.

Official groundbreaking is on the 26th. If anyone is able to grab some photos, I'd love to see them.

[arod74]

They may have to re-plan part of the fire access road: there is a heritage tree on the site (a Bunya-Bunya pine) that is one of only five of that species in Sacramento (three in Capitol Park, one more in East Sacramento.) City staff stated it was maybe 75-100 years old, but there are photos of the tree from the 1880s. The fire department said that they didn't mind routing around it.

Yes I heard the same. I heard that the one in east sac might also be in danger of being cut down. Hopefully they can flex the layout to keep the pine. It's a beautiful tree on par with anything displayed on a wall in the musuem. Besides I love saying Bunya-Bunya...

[travis bickle]

Ugly doesn't unnecessarily mean its cheap to build nor does good design mean expensive to build. I find it unimaginative. Will people live in it? Probably. Would I be proud of it if i were the developer looking at the $$ bottom line, most likely. But I agree with others, nothing to write home about. It will take up some airspace downtown and look like a standard block. Good for downtown pedestrian traffic but bad architecturally speaking. I guess I don't like the "i can live with it" attitude with something so permanent.

Nothing spectacular, but I'm delighted to see something actually get started. I was discussing the design with one of our architects and he also seemed to think they build better than they draw. We'll see. This project is vital for J Street and all of downtown.. It's imperative to get a success story.

My apologies if already ready discussed, but does anyone know the price points yet?

[cozmoose]

Yes I heard the same. I heard that the one in east sac might also be in danger of being cut down. Hopefully they can flex the layout to keep the pine. It's a beautiful tree on par with anything displayed on a wall in the musuem. Besides I love saying Bunya-Bunya...

save time and money. cut the tree.

[creamcityleo79]

save time and money. cut the tree.

If we keep saying that, Sacramento will be nothing more than Las Vegas with a state capitol building.

[kryptos]

If we keep saying that, Sacramento will be nothing more than Las Vegas with a state capitol building.

if anything, sac needs more trees

[cozmoose]

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

[ozone]

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

Nope you're wrong. When early explorers first saw the Central Valley they remarked that it looked like a vast 'english' park because of many oak trees. Chaparral is not even common to the Valley. Therefore, leafy trees are not 'alien' but instead are natural to Sacramento. But the Bunya Pine is alien (its from the South Pacific) and isn't even a true pine.

"even downtown has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone" -what the heck does that mean? You can't pull up a tree and carry it around with you for shade. We can always use more shading street trees as anyone who walks our downtown streets regularly in the summertime would clearly understand. The number of trees and city title are meaningless when you're walking down a street in the middle of day on a hot summer afternoon and there's no shade.

As for the whole 'city of trees' thing... its a little confusing but I believe it means that Sacramento has the largest planted urban canopy and has nothing to do with total urban forest.

[cozmoose]

Nope you're wrong. When early explorers first saw the Central Valley they remarked that it looked like a vast 'english' park because of many oak trees. Chaparral is not even common to the Valley. Therefore, leafy trees are not 'alien' but instead are natural to Sacramento. But the Bunya Pine is alien (its from the South Pacific) and isn't even a true pine.
ok. I'm no tree expert. I'll take your word for it.
So are you in favor of replanning fire access road for an "alien" tree?


"even downtown has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone" -what the heck does that mean? You can't pull up a tree and carry it around with you for shade. We can always use more shading street trees as anyone who walks our downtown streets regularly in the summertime would clearly understand. The number of trees and city title are meaningless when you're walking down a street in the middle of day on a hot summer afternoon and there's no shade.

As for the whole 'city of trees' thing... its a little confusing but I believe it means that Sacramento has the largest planted urban canopy and has nothing to do with total urban forest.

If someone new to Sacramento was taking a walk in downtown, I don't think that person would think that the area is in short supply of trees.

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade! :yes:

[goldcntry]

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade! :yes:

(glancing apprehensively over at wburg and greenmidtown) Cozmoose, you must have a very twisted sense of humor or just love tweeking folks! :haha:

You should know by now to never come between a Land Park or Midtown Sacramentan and their trees! Their bark makes you wish they'd just bite ya instead! You're really going out on a limb there bro! You may want to consider turning over a new leaf. Ok, enough branching out! Back to the root of the subject. I'll get off my stump now...

... and no more puns!


(making like a tree and leaf-ing)

:tomato:

[arod74]

And if you desire a shade in the summertime, nothing could be better than tall skyscrapers! There are some areas in NYC and Chicago that are in perpetual shade.
More buildings + less trees = more shade! :yes:

Not sure if you have noticed cozmoose but we haven't had a stellar track record of erecting really tall skyscrapers lately. But come to think of it, if we did cut down the tree and planted a sapling in another location on the crocker grounds it would probably be full grown by the time aura gets funding and permits..

[ozone]

Actually my first reaction was that they should not hold up a project for one an alien 'pine' tree. But I don't know enough about the site to say whether or not the tree should stay or go. If it's gonna cost a lot and be a big headache I would say bye bye bunya.

The problem is not that there's a shortage of trees but in a climate like Sacramento (in an average year) almost every sidewalk needs some kind of shade. Providing shade along a sidewalks will encourage people to walk and isn't a walkable central city is one of our goals? The other day I was walking along a section of J Street where there were no trees (in front of the Elks building). It was pretty uncomfortable and I will likely avoid walking down that part of J in the future. Trees also make economic sense. If you have a business and want to increase foot traffic you should make sure people are comfortable getting to your shop. They also lower electric bills. I'm moving my buisness into a new space in Midtown in September and will be planting new street trees to replace the old Elms that were removed a few years ago.

[wburg]

It's not just *a* tree, it's a heritage tree (and one that is at least 120 years old.) The fire department has no problem rerouting their access road.

In terms of trees per capita within the city limits, yes, we are #1 in the US.

Considering that we're going to lose about a third of our tree canopy over the next few years (due to the ravages of Dutch elm disease and poor urban forestry practices in the past) saving trees (and replainting) is a high priority.

cozmoose: Where do you get the idea that this was chapparal country? Are you new to the region? The Sacramento Valley is a river valley, not a desert. The soil here is the product of millions of years of alluvial deposits washing down from the mountains, and until we took measures to prevent it, the whole valley used flood pretty much every year (now, with our best efforts, only large parts of it flood.) The yearly inundation, fine soil, and close-to-the-surface water table mean that it's an ideal spot for tree growth, as early explorers found when they arrived.

[jsf8278]

Isn't Sacramento supposedly city with the most trees in this country? (btw, anyone that has ever been to Atlanta would laugh at that assertion.)

I think Sacramento, even downtown, has plenty enough trees to go around for everyone. The builder can always plant new ones somewhere else. whats the big deal?

Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

I lived in atlanta for ten years. The difference is that the trees are natural in Atlanta and here they were all planted. (i think)
Additionally, the city of Atlanta has very few trees. Its the suburbs where all the trees are.

[SLO]

^^good point, most of the trees in the Valley are planted, not natural. The growing conditions in the valley are tremendous, so trees grow very quickly.
The valley is not naturally canopied with trees, all you have to do is drive outside the city limits to see that. Stockton is the same way, it has fantastic tree coverage, but its all planted.
Cities in the south like Atlanta are built in the middle of southern pine forests, so the city is basically carved out of the forest. Houston is like that as well.
I think the City of Trees is more of a nickname. The good thing to me about Sac is that it does have trees, and its relatively easy to plant and grow new ones quickly....

[wburg]

Wow, it appears that the "Big Lie" is alive and well. Repeat a lie often enough, and it becomes truth...

There were trees here when Sutter arrived. The trees here now aren't necessarily the same trees, but yes, there were trees here. The trees have, during the span of European-American occupation of the land, become a defining feature of the city, thus the "City of Trees" moniker.

150 years of agricultural land clearance might have just a teensy bit to do with why you don't see large forested areas just outside the city limits.

[innov8]

^ Nobody said there were NO trees.

Mercy General Hospital Project

The Mercy General Hospital and Sacred Heart Parish School’s Mixed Use
Project (proposed project). There are three separate project components
within the proposed project: the MGH component, the SHPS component, and
the residential component. Collectively, these three components include the
construction of the 123,350 square foot (sf) Alex G. Spanos Heart Center
(Heart Center); surface parking lots on the existing SHPS campus and at the
northeast and southeast corners of the hospital campus; and a residential
complex with 20 for-rent units along H Street. The project also includes
the relocation of SHPS west of 39th Street between H and J streets where
the existing Mercy Care facility and 17 residential units are located. The
demolition of several buildings is included in this project: Mercy General
Hospital’s East Wing and chapel; the existing SHPS; the Mercy Care facility;
and 17 residential units.


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7489/mercyelevationsph2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/718/mercyelevationeastwestzy6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8663/mercyproposedsiteplanzz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4473/mercyexistingal0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[wburg]

^ Nobody said there we NO trees.

Well, you didn't, but that isn't quite "nobody":

jsf8278:
The difference is that the trees are natural in Atlanta and here they were all planted. (i think)

cozmoose:
Besides, I don't think Sacramento valley area is suppose to have lush green foliage. I always thought this area is akin to chaparral terrain. Leafy trees being planted here is just as alien as concrete and glass.

The "City of Trees" thing isn't just a marketing gimmick, even though it is an oft-used marketing gimmick. Our urban forest is a distinctive feature.
http://helios.library.ca.gov/cahistory/2007/1997-0089.jpg
Sacramento's waterfront in 1849. I realize it's just a drawing, but barring extreme artistic license it does suggest trees more than ten years old.
http://helios.library.ca.gov/cahistory/2007/2007-0081.jpg
Another view, also showing mature trees in 1849.

Most of these waterfront trees were eliminated later, as the city filled in, and there were almost certainly more before 49ers started showing up and cutting them down for firewood and to clear the way for the rapidly expanding city.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational about this, but when people's opinions fly in the face of the facts, the facts still win.

[BrianSac]

^^good point, most of the trees in the Valley are planted, not natural. The growing conditions in the valley are tremendous, so trees grow very quickly.
The valley is not naturally canopied with trees, all you have to do is drive outside the city limits to see that. Stockton is the same way, it has fantastic tree coverage, but its all planted.
Cities in the south like Atlanta are built in the middle of southern pine forests, so the city is basically carved out of the forest. Houston is like that as well.
I think the City of Trees is more of a nickname. The good thing to me about Sac is that it does have trees, and its relatively easy to plant and grow new ones quickly....

The Sacramento Valley is not a desert. For centuries, the Sacramento Valley has had groves of naturally growing Valley Oaks.

[innov8]

It looks like the second pour for the Sutter Medical Foundation will be happening soon.
http://sutterhealth.oxblue.com/smcsacramento/

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8114/suttermedicaloxblueen3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[bennywah]

The city of trees comes about because per captia Sacramento has more trees within the city than any other city save paris, and Sacramento used to sit within a natural oak forest, amongst other hardy trees, since the valley used to flood regulary before being levee'd the ground could very easily support a forrest of trees. Remember Sacremento was also raised to get it out of the danger from floods so that would be a nother reason for mass clearing, in any case lots of trees naturally and planted reside in sac.

[cozmoose]

Crocker museum's transformation into a world class museum is very important to me. Its current facility is woefully inadequate. So I'm going to object to anything that hinders its expansion.

But wait,...its not just a tree, its a heritage tree. um...so what?

its just a stupid label made up by tree huggers to artificially give more importance to an old tree. Tell me, whats the difference between 20 year old tree and 120 year old? does the older tree provide better shade? ridiculous.

http://www.gravitywarehouse.com/images/tree_cut.gif

[BrianSac]

Crocker museum's transformation into a world class museum is very important to me. Its current facility is woefully inadequate. So I'm going to object to anything that hinders its expansion.

But wait,...its not just a tree, its a heritage tree. um...so what?

its just a stupid label made up by tree huggers to artificially give more importance to an old tree. Tell me, whats the difference between 20 year old tree and 120 year old? does the older tree provide better shade? ridiculous.

http://www.gravitywarehouse.com/images/tree_cut.gif

I was quick to judge too, My first thought was, cut the F#cker Down! But, honestly, if they can build around it without compromising their project that would be much better. I love trees just as much "tree huggers".

[jsf8278]

I agree. Its really just a tree people! Cut the damn thing down, plant another and forget about it. Its this type of BS that really hinders development. But I know I know...its a "special tree." :hell:

[creamcityleo79]

Seriously, what are we without our trees? If you don't like the trees and Sacramentans fervent and protective love for them, then go move to Vegas...or Phoenix. This is a city of trees. There has to be a line drawn somewhere with development...and in Sacramento, that definitive line is with the trees!

Coincidentally, without seeing this picture here, I changed my desktop at work to this picture:
http://helios.library.ca.gov/cahistory/2007/2007-0081.jpg

[sacamenna kid]

Don't know if anybody noticed it or not, but there's another bunya tree on the new Sacred Heart school site at 39th and H, scheduled for removal to another site. Maybe they could do the same with the Crocker tree. There are only four bunya trees in Sacramento.

[wburg]

Who let the Lorax out?

It's not blocking the building, but a fire road.

The fire department has already said they can build around it.

[creamcityleo79]

Who let the Lorax out?

It's not blocking the building, but a fire road.

The fire department has already said they can build around it.

For once, I agree with you. There is no need to cut down a 125+ year old tree to build an access road for the fire dept. It's not getting cut down!!! Obviously, the Crocker Art Museum is into preserving beautiful and historic things (the Crocker mansion being one that comes to mind). So, I'm sure they have no problem holding on to a tree that is almost as historic as the mansion itself and preserving something that could otherwise be lost forever.

[wburg]

For once, I agree with you. There is no need to cut down a 125+ year old tree to build an access road for the fire dept. It's not getting cut down!!! Obviously, the Crocker Art Museum is into preserving beautiful and historic things (the Crocker mansion being one that comes to mind). So, I'm sure they have no problem holding on to a tree that is almost as historic as the mansion itself and preserving something that could otherwise be lost forever.

Well put. Destroying a beautiful, historic thing to build a structure dedicated to protecting beautiful historic things (technically, a fire road for that structure) would be a sad irony.

At some point I'm going to add up all the times people say "For once, I agree with you." We agree on a lot. Just because I don't get my customer to success over every building plan doesn't mean I don't support new development.

[Sacdelicious]

FYI: On the northern section of the 18th block of J St (the block above Starbucks), the one story brick building that hosts Ink Printing is being expanded to a total of three floors. I'm not sure of the timeline, however...


On other news, it has been a pleasure learning of all of the happenings in Sacramento from all of you. I'm moving to New York City! next week. Good luck all, in Sacramento's future!

[wburg]

Good luck, Yorkdelicious!

[SLO]

The Sacramento Valley is not a desert. For centuries, the Sacramento Valley has had groves of naturally growing Valley Oaks.

I agree, plenty of oaks, just like in the foothills. I would never accuse the Valley of being desert, but since moving out of California I realize how arid the state really is......even Texas (DFW), where I currently live gets far more rain 38-40 inches per year, where Sac gets 18 to 20" on average....
heck, we had a record June, 12" of rain "officially" many areas much more than that.....Marble Falls near Austin had 20" in a week!

I love California & Sacramento though, so none of this is a knock or to be taken negatively, just my thoughts....

[SLO]

Well, you didn't, but that isn't quite "nobody":



The "City of Trees" thing isn't just a marketing gimmick, even though it is an oft-used marketing gimmick. Our urban forest is a distinctive feature.

Sacramento's waterfront in 1849. I realize it's just a drawing, but barring extreme artistic license it does suggest trees more than ten years old.

Another view, also showing mature trees in 1849.

Most of these waterfront trees were eliminated later, as the city filled in, and there were almost certainly more before 49ers started showing up and cutting them down for firewood and to clear the way for the rapidly expanding city.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational about this, but when people's opinions fly in the face of the facts, the facts still win.


No big deal....
I agree to a certain extent, the oak groves and areas close to the rivers. Modesto & Fresno also have great trees. Bakersfield ehh, not so much, but of course its drier & more arid the farther south you go in the valley.

What of the, "most trees per capita" claim, does anyone have any facts or references on that? I'd be interested.

[wburg]

*shrug* Does it really matter, the trees per capita thing? It seems like that would be a rapidly shifting feature. Do a Google search for "Sacramento" and "trees per capita" and you won't find a lot of hard facts but you'll find a lot of mindspace: we are known as the City of Trees.

Not the Village of Trees. Not the Cow-town of Trees.

The CITY of Trees.

Think about that for a minute. The City of Lights, the Windy City, the City that Never Sleeps--and the City of Trees. You don't even need to name the cities to know where you're talking about. It means we're an archetype, and not necessarily a bad one.

And hell, it beats the hell out of "The Big Tomato."

[Cynikal]

Totally agree.

[otnemarcaS]

It's quite comical reading that Sac's trees are planted and not natural. Just one question. WHO CARES? Does a natural tree have more of a 'ooomph' factor than a planted tree. Makes no difference how the tree comes into being. This city does a tremendously commendable job of planting trees everywhere. The City of trees label fits well. Even just walking around here in San Francisco (where I work) which is more or less a jungle of buildings, except Golden Gate park, one learns to appreciate how tree lined and tree filled Sacramento is.

[BrianSac]

It's quite comical reading that Sac's trees are planted and not natural. Just one question. WHO CARES? Does a natural tree have more of a 'ooomph' factor than a planted tree. Makes no difference how the tree comes into being. This city does a tremendously commendable job of planting trees everywhere. The City of trees label fits well. Even just walking around here in San Francisco (where I work) which is more or less a jungle of buildings, except Golden Gate park, one learns to appreciate how tree lined and tree filled Sacramento is.

I've noticed the same thing about SF/Sac in regards to trees. One can appreciate Sacramentos trees more fully when you compare it to SF. There are a lot of extreme opposites regarding the two cities.
SF: Huge hills, no trees, very cool summers
Sac: No hills, many trees, warm/hot summers (not nearly as bad as some say).

[goldcntry]

Can we bury the hatchet on the tree controversy now? More contruction talk!

:tomato:

p.s. FYI: the oaks in my pic above are oaks in my dad's vineyard (Amador County).

[TowerDistrict]

maybe we can start reusing these historic trees and build some tree lofts?

Can we bury the hatchet on the tree controversy now?

lovely work on that pun. bravo!

[BrianSac]

^ Nobody said there were NO trees.

Mercy General Hospital Project

The Mercy General Hospital and Sacred Heart Parish School’s Mixed Use
Project (proposed project). There are three separate project components
within the proposed project: the MGH component, the SHPS component, and
the residential component. Collectively, these three components include the
construction of the 123,350 square foot (sf) Alex G. Spanos Heart Center
(Heart Center); surface parking lots on the existing SHPS campus and at the
northeast and southeast corners of the hospital campus; and a residential
complex with 20 for-rent units along H Street. The project also includes
the relocation of SHPS west of 39th Street between H and J streets where
the existing Mercy Care facility and 17 residential units are located. The
demolition of several buildings is included in this project: Mercy General
Hospital’s East Wing and chapel; the existing SHPS; the Mercy Care facility;
and 17 residential units.


http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7489/mercyelevationsph2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/718/mercyelevationeastwestzy6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8663/mercyproposedsiteplanzz5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4473/mercyexistingal0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Innov8,
Thanks for posting this. Lets hope it gets built.

Have the Nimby's sued yet?

I went to one of Mercy's public meetings. Sixty percent were anti-Mercy, forty pecent were pro-Mercy. It was nice to see people who live very close to the hospital in support of it.

A trio of older ladies (ladies in their 70's) said their neighbors who are against it are just a bunch old "fuddy duddies" who oppose everything no matter what it is. I thought that was funny because the old fuddy duddies were people in their 40's and 50's.

[goldcntry]

lovely work on that pun. bravo!

Finally! Someone noticed the puns!! :banana: :tomato: :banana:

[ericm2031]

This is kinda random, but does anyone have an account for the sacramento business journal online with a paid subscription. I was just wondering because I am out of town and won't be getting back in time to get the current business journal. I just need it for a couple of hours and you can change your password and everything once I am done. If you can do this, just email me at emontz@gmail.com with username (email) and password.

[jdaniel]

This is a little late in coming but its worth a shot.

LJUrban (www.ljurban.com/blog) is hosting a Sacramento Urbanist Blogger Dinner this upcoming Monday. We'll be chatting about a couple of our projects in the Washington Area of West Sacramento (btw the two bridges): these projects are in their early formative stages which is a perfect time for creative discussion and we thought it would be fun to open the conversation up to others.

Real casual. Good food. And, we hope, some interesting dialogue. I was initially thinking blogs but we're also targeting other urban thinkers and this forum definitely fits the bill.

We're capping the event at 20 people to preserve the quality of discussion. At present we have 5 blogs and about 5 other urbanists, so we're looking for a few more to round things out (15 would be ideal).

Anyways, if your interested, shoot me an e-mail (jason@ljurban.com) and I'll send you an invite with more information.

Next time round, I'll post something sooner...

[jdaniel]

This is a little late in coming but its worth a shot.

LJUrban (www.ljurban.com/blog) is hosting a Sacramento Urbanist Blogger Dinner this upcoming Monday. We'll be chatting about a couple of our projects in the Washington Area of West Sacramento (btw the two bridges): these projects are in their early formative stages which is a perfect time for creative discussion and we thought it would be fun to open the conversation up to others.

Real casual. Good food. And, we hope, some interesting dialogue. I was initially thinking blogs but we're also targeting other urban thinkers and this forum definitely fits the bill.

We're capping the event at 20 people to preserve the quality of discussion. At present we have 5 blogs and about 5 other urbanists, so we're looking for a few more to round things out (15 would be ideal).

Anyways, if you're interested, shoot me an e-mail (jason@ljurban.com) and I'll send you an invite with more information.

Next time round, I'll post something sooner...

[sacamenna kid]

Drove by Aura today and noticed that the whole property is fenced and it looked like it was being staked out for siting. The sales office seemed fenced off, too. Is something happening there?

[BrianSac]

:previous:
everyone is still trying to figure out if that means Aura is getting ready to build or if 621 wants q presentable parking lot next door, or if a brand new project is suddenly going to be built!

on another note: a wrecking crew demolished those tin shacks and an old car mechanics shop on S Street/17th street....that means Fulcrum is moving forward with there project on S Street. :)

[wburg]

:previous:
everyone is still trying to figure out if that means Aura is getting ready to build or if 621 wants q presentable parking lot next door, or if a brand new project is suddenly going to be built!

on another note: a wrecking crew demolished those tin shacks and an old car mechanics shop on S Street/17th street....that means Fulcrum is moving forward with there project on S Street. :)

Actually Fulcrum's "Ice Blocks" is the other half of the block, the R Street side. The S Street project between 17th and 18th is different--the developer is this fellow Roger Hume, and an organization known as "S Street MidriseDevelopment LLC." The last time I spoke with him, he said that they have planned a 7-8 story building for the block, with "artisan-driven" retail on the ground floor. He keeps promising to present the project to nearby neighborhoods soon, but so far we haven't seen anything, and he has not yet formally submitted a plan to the city planning department.

[innov8]

Township 9 is comprised of 4 districts. Transit Area, The Central
Mixed-Use Area, Live/Work Townhouse Area, and Riverfront Area.
These are from the Planning Commission Meeting Agenda for July 26th (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/2007/documents/p06-047_StaffReport_07-26-07.pdf).

On July 26th Township 9 will go before the Planning Commission to review
the mixed use of residential, retail, and office use of 65 acres. Rezoning
of 37 acres has been requested from heavy industrial to residential
mixed use zones. Township 9 has proposed 2,981 dwelling units
and 147,000sf of retail. In May of this year the proposal went
before the City Preservation Commission and received approval
to move forward with demolition of the existing structures on the site.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2002/township9aboveav6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/9677/township9aboveareasam4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4589/township9landuseji3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4307/township9transitstationfv3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[northbay]

nice! i like that transit station sketch - my eye is drooling

[TowerDistrict]

my eye is drooling

haha... that's gotta be the strangest form of crying i've heard of.

yeah, that looks great. i wonder how the phasing will occur? i'd imagine they'll start with the office portion, then slowly phase into the residential, considering the market conditions. it'll be interesting to find out their timeline for a complete build-out too.

[wburg]

I assume that they're not waiting for the light rail link-up to be done...one assumes that there will be a theoretical bridge to Natomas and the "D-N-A" line over the river roughly where the "2" is on that site map. Although I kind of hope they do have the rails down before they build out: as we are seeing now in Natomas, building the neighborhood and then the rail link means (a) people have already settled into a car-centric travel mode, and (b) people will object to what they will perceive as a public-transit intrusion into their neighborhood.

[reggiesquared]

I really hope this rail yard thunder stealing project gets done. I get the feeling it will finish before the rail yards begin...:haha:

[wburg]

Well, they have a lot less baggage to deal with...the land was a fruit and vegetable cannery, so far less toxic crud (if any) to clean up, other than the inevitable asbestos, the site is far less historically significant (although it is of some significance--the plan addresses some ways they plan on making up for the demo) and it's a fraction of the size of the Railyards. RT had just better have the damn rails that far before they start selling units if they plan on doing it at all...

[Tenebrist]

Although I kind of hope they do have the rails down before they build out: as we are seeing now in Natomas, building the neighborhood and then the rail link means (a) people have already settled into a car-centric travel mode, and (b) people will object to what they will perceive as a public-transit intrusion into their neighborhood.

Right! Also, if the rail is there first, it's more likely to attract a resident with rail-centric tendencies. Or ,at least, a willing user of mass transportation. I suspect that a very high percentage of the residents of Natomas have NEVER used any mode of mass transportation.

[innov8]

http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2470/raleyfieldcam640x480vg4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The 621CM crane comes down in August.

[arod74]

I saw an article in this weeks SBJ on the Firestone building. Did anyone get the jist of it?

[ltsmotorsport]

So is the new Township 9 going to have a place for a river crossing, for light rail and traffic? Or would the eventual DNA line and Natomas crossing be somewhere esle.

With all the problems this area seems to have with new bridges, you'd think any new developement would try to plan ahead and let new residents know as early as possible.

[wburg]

The river crossing would pretty much have to be right there. It would almost certainly be a light-rail only bridge. The problem, as always, will be money: without funding, no DNA line and no branch to Township 9, which means that the right-of-way may end up being used as a parking lot for the residents' cars, which they will certainly need to get downtown if there is no rail-borne transit. Buses just don't cut it...

[TowerDistrict]

Actually the preferred alignment is through Sequoia Pacific Blvd., linking up to Truxel on the opposite side. I have a detailed diagram of the route on the wayfaring map in my signature below.

[wburg]

Actually the preferred alignment is through Sequoia Pacific Blvd., linking up to Truxel on the opposite side. I have a detailed diagram of the route on the wayfaring map in my signature below.

Weird...the plans show LRVs "parked" on what was Seventh Street, but according to the preferred alignment map you show, they hang a left on Richards. It's not particularly practical to have a pair of single-ended sidings as a passenger depot and have LRVs back and fill across Richards (which, if the area gets successfully redeveloped, would be a very busy street) every fifteen minutes, so I wonder how they're going to manage that.

[TowerDistrict]

Yeah it's an awkward fit there, but they've got to get it hooked up to Truxel on the north side. I think the only other alternative would be run it up N. 7th and do a big S-curve through Discovery Park??

[wburg]

According to the draft EIR (there's a printed copy at the central library,) the plan is to utilize a light rail station on Richards Boulevard, which would follow the Seventh Street to Sequoia Pacific route you described. I'm pretty sure that the pedestrian-oriented walkway in this concept sketch:
http://img451.imageshack.us/img451/4307/township9transitstationfv3.jpg
is *not* Richards Boulevard.

[TowerDistrict]

i think that's supposed to be a couple streetcars, not light rail. which would presume a whole helluva lot.