Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[wburg]

"Blueprint? What blueprint?"

*All* single family homes. No retail or mixed-use component. Doesn't sound like it will have much potential for public transit connections. Two roads as the only access points. And they're seriously using buzzwords like "green urban village" and "urban infill"?

It's a gated community. Exactly the same as the cruddy ticky-tacky boxes sprouting along I-5 and the other freeway corridors. Except, oh wait, the parking is in the back, a novel concept in 1995 but not exactly hot news in 2008. It's a cute idea but it doesn't promote walkability if there's nothing to walk to, except for your neighbor's identical house. No retail or mixed-use area means the nearest services (of any sort) are well out of walking distance, so absolutely not "walkable."

Enclosed by a busy freeway on one side and a busy (and noisy!) freight and passenger railroad route on the other, on top of a piece of land with a water table so high that there is still green grass in the middle of it even during a drought year (which means that not only do we lose flood capacity, but it will have water table problems similar to those in Southport where foundations are already cracking because they were poured on top of spongy alluvial soil--perfect for farming but awful for housing) and trying to pitch a generic suburban tract that is attracting little but foreclosure signs and plywood nailed over the windows anywhere in the nation. Oh yeah, and drivers going home to this development from downtown will have to take the 28th Street grade-crossing route, the same ones used by garbage trucks on the way to the old city dump. And speaking of the old city dump, that's the main landscape feature visible across the freeway.

It's almost difficult to imagine a combination more ideally suited for epic levels of failure.

[TowerDistrict]

It's almost difficult to imagine a combination more ideally suited for epic levels of failure.

from the same progressive, visionary genius who brought you Laguna West.

"Laguna West, a development near Sacramento, was initially hailed as a pioneering example of how to build a community that was not overly dependent on the automobile. But it has since gone through changes that have led critics to label it as classic urban sprawl, though with porches and alleys." ...

"Laguna West is one of the most pitiful examples of a so-called New Urbanist community that in reality is little different than a 1970's-era development in Los Angeles."

[BrianSac]

double post

[BrianSac]

And about the so-called Centrage site. I think they should just turn it into a park and build a pedestrian bridge across CCF linking it to the future Sutter Landing Park.

http://img150.imageshack.us/img150/3589/clipboahl8.jpg

:previous:

I was thinking the same thing. Nice map and I've always liked naming things, places, restaurants, etc. in Sacramento "New Helvetia". It keeps our historical first name "alive".

[wburg]

Heck, I like the park idea too...or a new site for the Sacramento zoo! I also like the not-so-subtle irony of a big nature park on top of our old dump. It would make for a more impressive drive into the central city than a cookie-cutter sea of beige.

The fact that we have a big swath of natural beauty, in the form of the American River parkway, in the middle of the city is definitely something cool that could use some playing up--a bit like Chicago's nature preserves, like ours, near the rivers. Those are very neat--you're driving along through a chunk of Chicagoland and suddenly instead of hot dog stands and Dunkin Donuts you're surrounded by trees and occasionally see deer.

Looking at that illustration makes me wonder...could cars drive *over* the railroad tracks, instead of a cut-through in the levee? Hmmm.

[tronblue]

Wow that looks great. I mean yes I remember being a teen and walking the trestle from REI to the dump and running through the methane under the moonlight and getting extremely light headed, but what a great use of all this land. Developing this area for living is dumb who would live there right by such a busy part of the freeway. What's missing from that park picture is an RT line running through it that runs out to cal expo and arden.

[innov8]

Great shots snfenoc. Here's a few more showing some glass.

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8468/1500cm20080805ou1.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3174/3500cm20080805px4.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6041/5500cm20080805fq3.jpg

[SacTownAndy]

I love the design of 500CM, but seriously, was the person who chose the color scheme blind? The lower base at least, that's hideous.

[urban_encounter]

I love the design of 500CM, but seriously, was the person who chose the color scheme blind? The lower base at least, that's hideous.


I agree 100%.

I will withhold final judgement for now, but this building is starting to follow the same path as 621CM.

That is, that it looks much better in the rendering than it does in person.


I'm starting to think that Sacramento would fare better without a design review board at this point.

[wburg]

um, the design review board makes their decisions based off the renderings. So if the rendering looks great to you, it probably also looked great to the design review board.

Renderings can be really deceptive. The architect who provides the render will obviously choose renders that show off the building's best features, and downplay the worst. The end result is basically an urban-planning equivalent of the Myspace angle. (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=myspace%20angle)

[tronblue]

I don't get that logic dubburg. If they Know there is a "worst" part of their design, than why not do better. Why be mediocre in your design? I mean yea the original 500 was horrid, but I don't get why these new buildings look week in parts and why they have parking Butts? Park underground man. At first I though the US Bank building would have a glass slant roof like NYC's Citigroup building, now that thing lights up at night let me tell you. Look at Calstrs, now that is on par. It reminds me of a similar modern glass building in Philly. We could use some good design. But then again we have people thinking that Saca's new tower project was too sleek. Please give me a break we could use a SF Trinity like tower in Sac or anything from Portland that is going up now. I mean our city leaders spend so much time there, why not. I suggest that they head up to Vancouver Canada to see what sleek really means. The point should always be, if you build something that we have to look at, it better be good. If you build something that is influenced by the Parthenon, than maybe you need to rethink what you're doing. I can't help but think that if 500 was designed after the spooky house on h and 22nd, we'd really have something that we could all be proud of in this city. Oh, and that last sentence was not meant to be sarcastic.

[SacTownAndy]

I agree 100%.

I will withhold final judgement for now, but this building is starting to follow the same path as 621CM.

That is, that it looks much better in the rendering than it does in person.


I'm starting to think that Sacramento would fare better without a design review board at this point.

I agree Urban, I'll reserve judgement until I see the final product, but I'm not really liking it so far.


p.s. - WOO HOO! My 1,000th post! :banana: And it only took 6 1/2 years to get here... damn I'm getting old.

[innov8]

I would say 500CM looks very close to the rendering and uses much better
quality of materials that 620CM did.

The whole towers gonna be wrapped in granite (mined in Brazil and finished in Italy).
The last tower built with granite in Sacramento was the Wells Fargo Bldg.
in 1990. I was more concerned about how the back side would look than anything
else... and it appears to be okay from what I've seen. The cladding/paneling
of 621CM looks cheap compared to the granite of 500CM.

[SacTownAndy]

I vaguely remember seeing or hearing that each of those setbacks towards the top were going to be lighted? Does anyone know if this is true and if not, if there will be any type of lighting element?

[BrianSac]

I would say 500CM looks very close to the rendering and uses much better
quality of materials that 620CM did.

The whole towers gonna be wrapped in granite (mined in Brazil and finished in Italy).
The last tower built with granite in Sacramento was the Wells Fargo Bldg.
in 1990. I was more concerned about how the back side would look than anything
else... and it appears to be okay from what I've seen. The cladding/paneling
of 621CM looks cheap compared to the granite of 500CM.

Interesting that you mention the Wells Farg Bldg. I was there to today and was comparing the two buildings (500 CM and the Wells Fargo bldg.) The design and shape of the windows and the granite are very very similar. Maybe 500CM decided to differentiate itself from the Wells bldg. by using the blue motif. Can't say I really like the blue until I see the finished product.
I really like the granite too; very nice.

[Pistola916]

I think the design of 500CM is alright. Its different from other high-rises in the sense that its not too boxy. Its better than 621CM thats for sure. If they could have done something to hide the parking garage, have 5 floors of above ground instead of 10 floors, 500CM would receive more style points. Hopefully there will be some lighting component on both sides.

[otnemarcaS]

The 500CM design is alright. It's just that old del taco blue. The motel 6 blue. Hopefully the final product ends up being more appealing.

[TowerDistrict]

i still think it looks like King Tut.

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3537/southelevationzz9.jpg

http://dcist.com/images/king_tut_dcist.jpg

[sugit]

217 units on 8.2 aces comes to 26 DUH...not bad for SFHs. More density would have been nice, but at least it gets rid of a lifeless building and replaces it with housing close to the CBD. Glad to hear they are including at least a little bit of retail as well.

Plus it sounds like they might be affordable for a larger market of people, including state workers.

217 homes planned for former Crystal Cream site
Subsidy-free project aims for nearby public employees
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

A developer that’s already entered Sacramento’s infill residential market claims it can deliver new loft housing for about $300,000 — without public subsidies — at the old Crystal Cream & Butter Co. site near downtown Sacramento.

That means a virtually unheard of construction cost of $100 to $125 per square foot for loft units, one type of housing envisioned there.

San Diego-based MetroNova Development LLC and its designer, PHA Architects of Sacramento, have proposed 217 closely packed single-family homes as well as about 90,000 square feet of office space in a project dubbed “The Creamery” on D Street. Their ideal homebuyers are downtown employees who want to walk just a few blocks to work.

The cost for infill housing of this type has traditionally been much higher than the $125-per-square-foot target, but MetroNova and PHA have been continually checking with contractors to make sure the idea is still reasonable.

“That’s quite a bit lower than I’d expect,” said Bob Walter, founder of RJ Walter Homes and a longtime builder of infill housing, of the target construction price for the lofts. “It’s times like these when our industry gets very creative. It says a lot about that location that developers and banks will take a risk in this market.”

The developers expect to save through innovative design.

“‘Work force housing’ is a term like ‘low-income housing’ that’s been denigrated,” said Craig Hausman, an architect with PHA. “We’re not using any subsidies, so how it’s designed makes a big difference.”

The firm has created a mix of lofts, row houses and half-plexes, with money-saving designs. Besides homes, MetroNova is proposing a stretch of artists’ studios and two large commercial buildings. The homes range from an 800-square-foot, one-bedroom loft to a 1,700-square-foot row house.

All of the housing will be for-sale homes built to the edge of their lots or attached. The office buildings also are being designed as condos to be sold, not leased. Plans call for a small portion of the commercial space to be neighborhood-serving retail.

The project is expected to go to the city planning commission next month and to the design commission shortly after, said Evan Compton, a senior planner with the city. The Creamery will need general and community plan updates and rezoning from industrial to a mix of housing and commercial. If approved by the City Council, construction is planned for spring.

Demolition work has already started because scavengers stripped the old Crystal Cream buildings of copper tubing and other materials, making them unsafe. Crystal Cream set up at the site in 1911 and operated for many years before moving operations to south Sacramento. The dairy company sold the 8.2-acre site early last year.

MetroNova is the developer behind the Tapestri Square brownstones in midtown, which are aimed at more of a luxury market than The Creamery. That project and other infill developments have been hit hard by the housing downturn as an anticipated wave of migration from the suburbs to the city has been reduced to a trickle. Sacramento developer Anthony Giannoni is one of the company’s principals. Other partners on The Creamery project include contractor Brown Construction Inc. and structural engineer Kit Miyamoto.

The project’s designs have been warmly received by the residents, said Sean Wright, president of the Alkali and Mansion Flats Historic Neighborhood Association. As a resident of the neighborhood for more than 20 years, Wright said he welcomes the arrival of single-family housing.

“I’m speaking for the community, but also as a resident,” he said. “In this neighborhood, there is about 80 percent rentals. That doesn’t offer a stable community. We’ve been plagued by a transient population.”

He said the designs will be compatible with the Victorian houses in that neighborhood but won’t try to imitate that style.

Housing is also a relief after the site had been used for years as a fueling station for the dairy company’s trucks, and residents had to maneuver around the idling vehicles in their neighborhood.

“We are very happy with the designs,” he said.

http://img47.imageshack.us/img47/8162/22850632wg2.png

[Majin]

Too lazy to read the article, where is this located?

[innov8]

I vaguely remember seeing or hearing that each of those setbacks towards the top were going to be lighted? Does anyone know if this is true and if not, if there will be any type of lighting element?

Here ya go.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/mz1613/500cmnight.jpg

[urban_encounter]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/3174/3500cm20080805px4.jpg

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6041/5500cm20080805fq3.jpg


So the two tone on the windows; is that tape or what the heck is it?

[innov8]

Well, beleve it or not, it looks just like the rendering. The blue tone above and
below the windows are the final color, it think it's dressing for the windows :shrug:

We sure are a finicky bunch... there seems to be alot of disappointed people :???:

http://img413.imageshack.us/img413/3737/d3slide3cud0.jpg

[wburg]

The blue panels don't seem to look quite as glaring when the windows are reflecting sky.

Prediction: This building will get the nickname "The King Tut Building."

Or, for those who don't like the building, "The Stynx."

[urban_encounter]

Like i said, I will withhold final judgement until I see it completed.

It can't be any worse than 621CM.

[ozone]

The blue panels don't seem to look quite as glaring when the windows are reflecting sky.

Prediction: This building will get the nickname "The King Tut Building."

Or, for those who don't like the building, "The Stynx."

:haha: ..the Stynx.

Hey remember what we could have had?


The Crystal Cream project looks pretty good. That neighboorhood is probably going to the next hot spot. It's got lots of really old (for Sacramento) homes and great mix of uses, and is very close to downtown and the railyards. This project along with a few other infills that have gone up lately will help propel this neighorhood into it's future. I think it needs a new name though. Seriously -Alkali Flats? I know its historical but it sounds too sad and ghetto. Why not call it the ERA (east of railyard area) or NODA (north of dowtown area)?

[wburg]

ozone: The downtown neighborhood with the biggest mansions is named "Poverty Ridge." They tried changing that too (there was an effort to call it "Sutter's Terrace") but it failed, because, well, that's just what it's called. Plenty of places with funky-sounding names are also elegant neighborhoods, the negative associations with "Alkali Flat" are due to its recent history--but that also adds to its charm.

And remember, Alkali Flat was a pretty swanky area in its day. Charles Crocker (the railroad magnate, not his brother who built the art gallery) lived there, as did plenty of Sacramento's early wealthy--a few of the homes are still standing. And those buildings are pretty old by the standards of the western United States in general--not as old as the Spanish missions or Mexican settlements and military bases (except of course for Sutter's Fort, which was a Mexican military base) but as old as anything in, say, any other city on the west coast, aside from a few Spanish missions and Mexican forts.

I have noticed a lot of repair and reconstruction of historic homes in the neighborhood--and not just as law offices, but residences. Anyone been to the Tuesday evening "Urban Farm Stand" in J. Neely Johnson Park yet?

[econgrad]

(except of course for Sutter's Fort, which was a Mexican military base)

Sutter's Fort was never a Mexican Military Base. Where the heck did you get that story?!

[tronblue]

Sutter's Fort was never a Mexican Military Base. Where the heck did you get that story?!

Well I would say there is some truth in that, but also some assumption.
First, Sutter claimed Mexican citizenship. His fort was molded after the adobe Spanish style. But I've never heard of it as a Base for Mexican military operations. I do believe that they were called upon to reign in some local Indians. But I don't know what that makeshift band of early New Helvetians would have comprised of. Sutter, I would say, is that guy that acts like your friend so he can date your sister. He got Mexican Citizenship so he could get the land and than when the Americans came, he proclaimed that California be Independent from Mexican control. Today he would be known as a douchebag.

But, since we were talking about names earlier, I would love to see some "New Helvetia" use around Sacramento. Oh and Alkali Flats is way better than stupid acronyms. We should be so lucky to have names like "poverty ridge" and "Newton Booth." But if thats how you want it how about renaming old sac as: WOWF (West of Westfield's Failure) or "wosros I5" (West of the State's raping of Sacramento by I5).

[aufbau]

Oh and Alkali Flats is way better than stupid acronyms. We should be so lucky to have names like "poverty ridge" and "Newton Booth."

Couldn't agree more-our place names hold too much of a storied history to be replaced with of-the-moment acronyms, which always struck me as derivative. I find our place names add character to our neighborhoods and invite me to find out more of an area's history and evolution...it rankles me enough that our most successful district is stuck being known as "midtown"..blah.

[Cynikal]

Today he would be known as a douchebag.




Sutter Sr. was chased out of the area for shady deals. He was known as a douchebag back then as well.

Sutter Jr. was who plotted out the current city. If Sutter Sr. had his way the city would be where sutterville is now.

Since when is a fort not a military base?

[econgrad]

Sutter Sr. was chased out of the area for shady deals. He was known as a douchebag back then as well.

Sutter Jr. was who plotted out the current city. If Sutter Sr. had his way the city would be where sutterville is now.

Since when is a fort not a military base?

No one said it was not a military base. I am saying that these rumors or whatever about it being a previous Mexican fort is just plain nutso, and possibly driven by more revisionist fantasy history that plagues many Californians about California. You can search and search and you will not find any at all credible evidence or sources that Sutter fort had anything to do with Mexico military. Purely hogwash. Mark Twain was right, its not that people do not know things, they just know a lot of stuff that isn't true.

On alkali Flat: The ad reputation it has is not that influential, and I am sure people will be happy to buy into the neighborhood as we are slowly experiencing in Oak Park. The name itself should not be a problem long term.

[wburg]

Sutter's Fort was a Mexican fort. It was established by a Mexican citizen (Sutter) under a land grant given by the governor of Mexican California (Jose Alvarado.) Sutter conducted military operations from the fort, using soldiers operating under the flag of Mexico. No rumors necessary.

[Pistola916]

Wburg is right. I'm taking a History of CA class at SF State right now. Sutter was appointed local military commander by Gov. Alvarado

[econgrad]

^ ^ PM me a link, I cant find anything on this and now I'm really curious...

[Pistola916]

^
Here is an excerpt from my Hist of CA textbook called "The Elusive Eden:a new history of CA"

"Upon arrival Sutter wrangled a huge grant of land in the unoccupied Sacramento Valley, as well as extensive civil authority from Governor Alvarado, who appointed him local military commander and judge 'to represent all the laws of the country in the area'... Sutter erected his own fort, which not only was a major military base and a major defensive bulwark against Indian raids, but also made him largely independent of Mexican control" (p.154).

[wburg]

I got my info from two sources off my shelf: Sacramento: Indomitable City by Steven Avella, and Gold Rush Capitalists by Mark A. Eifler.

You can look at the former book online: search for "Sutter" using the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon and read pages 20-25. It details Sutter's acquisition of the land from Mexico, the military role of the fort, and its caputre in the Mexican War by Col. John C. Fremont.

http://www.amazon.com/Sacramento-Indomitable-City-Making-America/dp/0738524441/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218561260&sr=1-1

[arod74]

Hahahaahah wburg, you and your crazy revisionist history. Where do you make this stuff up and what are you gonna tell us next? That American Indians got a harsh deal back in the days.... Seriously though guys, wburg is one knowledgeable dude. If you are going to fact check him, do so with more than a wiki search and your own preconceptions.

[econgrad]

^ Actually Wburg and I are about even with fact checking each other. Thanks for chiming in with your opinion.

[arod74]

^ Actually Wburg and I are about even with fact checking each other. Thanks for chiming in with your opinion.

Your welcome :tup: . And from my regular perusing of the posts, I think your claim of being "about even" with wburg on fact checking to be a bit of revisionist view on your part..

[wburg]

Moving the proposal thread back from the past into the future...I'm surprised I missed this last week, but it definitely relates to downtown construction. The sale of the lot from the city to SHRA, using redevelopment funds, was approved last Thursday.

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1138598.html

UC Davis students envision apartment project as low-energy oasis
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - mlvellinga@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Thursday, August 7, 2008
Story appeared in OUR REGION section, Page B2

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/08/06/21/637-4M7SRO.embedded.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

The apartment design that UC Davis MBA students proposed was honored by Bank of America.
RYAN BARR


A group of UC Davis MBA students wants to do more than just house the poor: They envision transforming a building near the Sacramento County jail into a sun- and wind-powered oasis.

It remains to be seen whether their ambitious ideas will make it into final plans for a single-room occupancy apartment complex at Seventh and H streets.

But the UC Davis students already have received a Low-Income Housing Challenge award from Bank of America, an honor that usually goes to universities with architecture schools.

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency proposes to build 150 to 200 single-room apartments on the site of Sacramento's former police crime lab. It's part of the city's effort to bolster its supply of one-room units for the very poor. That supply has dwindled as SRO hotels have been torn down or converted to other uses.

Today, the Sacramento City Council is scheduled to approve using $3.4 million in downtown housing bond funds for SHRA to buy the property and demolish the existing building.

SHRA then plans to solicit developer proposals. Mercy Housing, which worked with the UC Davis team, plans to apply.

"We're going to take their work product as the jumping off point for our proposal," said Chris Glaudel, vice president of asset management for Mercy Housing.

The UC Davis team was led by Amy Barr, who graduated from the MBA program this year. Barr said she and five fellow team members tried to create an "icon" that would improve life for low-income residents while using the latest in green technology.

The team recruited Barr's husband, Ryan, who works for McCandless & Associates Architects in Woodland.

He created an eight-story, glass-clad design that provides lots of natural light and includes a perforated concrete wall to provide separation from what he described as the "negative influences" of the nearby jail.

Wind turbines and solar panels would provide much of the power needed to run the building. Residents could gather at the upstairs garden, a central courtyard and a third- floor patio. A cafe would operate on the ground floor.

Diane Luther, assistant director of SHRA, said the agency is seeking to provide residents with much more than a bed. The UC Davis students have proposed round-the-clock mental health services on site, as well as a community kitchen, computer lab and job placement service.

Mayor Heather Fargo said the city is looking to a project in Portland, Ore., called 8 NW 8th, as a model.

"They've done an amazing job with their hotels in Portland, both with historic ones they've redone and new ones they've built."

In 2006, the City Council adopted a plan that called for development of 200 efficiency apartments downtown. Luther said the number of SRO hotel rooms – housing of last resort for many people who would otherwise be homeless – has fallen from about 2,000 two decades ago to 712 at the time the plan was adopted.

[econgrad]

Your welcome :tup: . And from my regular perusing of the posts, I think your claim of being "about even" with wburg on fact checking to be a bit of revisionist view on your part..

This sounds more like a revisionist view of the posts now. :haha:

[Pistola916]

Whoa. thats an interesting design...That design could have been used for a museum, a public library, or for one of midtown's luxury lofts but for an SRO??? Now thats pretty sleek. I like it though.

[arod74]

Yeah as SRO's go that is a pretty sweet setup. It looks better than the places most of the people I know live. Smart move putting it up next to the jail, no neighbors to scream about building in their backyard.

[ltsmotorsport]

I don't get it; they talk about demolishing a building for this project, but also say it's at 7th and H, and all that's there is an empty lot. I really hope they aren't gonna tear down that great looking old building across 6th from the federal courthouse. That would be a shame.

best i could find
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/ltsmotorsport/crimelab.jpg

[wburg]

itsmotorsport: The corner in your pic is 6th and H, the great old building is the old Hall of Justice. Trust me, if they were talking about demolishing that, you would have heard me blow my top already. The proposed SRO site is a block away.

In the pic you posted, just to the left of the substation electronics, the very southwest corner of the building to be demolished is visible.

Regardless of how the building ends up looking, these SRO units are going to be around 150-200 sf per unit, basically a room with a kitchenette and a bathroom.

[ozone]

I hope things move forward on the SRO. I do support modern, clean and well-run SROs. I don't support downtown flop hotels in buildings owned by slumlords. Anything to get no-incomers off K Street.

BTW I will agree that acronyms are very much overused -or stupid as the blue tron pointed out. I hate them. When I typed them I knew that someone would have to say somthing about them. Though I would not go so far as to say we are "lucky" to have such Mexicali sounding names as Poverty Ridge (my old hood) or Alkali Flats.

[ltsmotorsport]

Thanks for clearing that up wburg. I didn't think it was the case, but the article wasn't very clear as to what corner of 7th and H it was gonna be on, and how large a footprint it would have.

Speaking of the empty lot next to the jail; are there or has there ever been any plans for it? Seems like a good place for a new downtown police hq, or maybe even combine that with a new county center (to replace the old crowded one across the street). I assume the county owns that land?

[sugit]

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/documents/SacEDGE_Economic-Development-Newsletter_August-2008.pdf

Interesting, on page 1 is says that Broadway Lofts received 4.4M in State funding.

That's the first I've even heard they were looking, or even in the running, for something like that.

Anyone heard anything new about this one?

[Majin]

Broadway does need some major help. I wish the city would put some money into completely redoing the entire broadway corridor (sidewalks, landscaping, and median). Sadly right now after the money the city put into the Del Paso Blvd strip looks a hell of a lot better than Broadway.

[innov8]

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/2913/424lstreet20080814fl3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Approval was given on July 31st to demolish the 424 L Street building for a
new parking lot. They did not say when the process would start.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/hearings/zoning-administrator/2008/documents/ZA_MINUTES_07-31-08.pdf

Also, TowerDistrict, I noticed today that a house at the corner of Burnett and Freeport
was getting demolished... what's the plan for that corner?

[wburg]

Oh boy, more parking lots!

That building has some symbolic value...it was the first private building constructed for the "redevelopment" of the Capitol Mall area back in the sixties. When it was built, it was hailed as the first wave of a bustling, urban central city, free of "blight" and filled with busy pedestrian malls and high-rise condo living, connected to the suburbs with a great new superhighway. Now it's just another future hole in the ground.

[innov8]

That building has some symbolic value... :haha: :haha: :haha:

Why aren’t you raising hell tring to save this has-been of a building?
Why doesn’t it meet your criteria for preservation wberg?

[sugit]

Via the Permit Manager on the city website, it looks like it's going to serve as a parking lot for the 455 Capitol Mall building. Once that happens, I can't imagine that is going to change anytime in the near future.

[Majin]

Why in the world would you ever intentionally build a parking lot?

[tronblue]

Hey all, I got some great plans for the old site of Cap towers. Lets put in an in and out burger joint and use the rest of the lot for parking. Better yet lets tear up the strip of weeds on Cap mall and turn that into parking. While we are at it, who else has some stupid ideas for land use that go agianst a walk/bike/transit friendly city. why? I'm so sick of parking lots and parking garages. Even though I used to use them for skating, but you can't really do that anymore without being harassed. But that is beside the point and I'm too old for that anyway. Why build something in 2008 that is not multi use through out the day. Its pathetic that people in Sacramento will pay 5 bucks + for parking at night. Just walk, there is plenty of parking through out downtown. The average waistline needs it.

[tronblue]

Hey Majin, it looks like he left his Phone number. Why not give him a personal call and find out why he would "intentionally" build a parking lot. This guy needs some nimby grief.


Jamie Broker, Planner, 916-808-1928

[innov8]

Jamie Broker is a Junior Planner with the Zoning Administrator for the City of
Sacramento... so calling him would do no good.

That lot will be prime for development when the next wave of proposals comes
around again. That place has been broken into numerous times and I'm sure is
a big liability, so it might be in the owners best interest to remove it instead of
watching it go to crap since it has no historical reference... I won't miss it :cool:

[sugit]

Its pathetic that people in Sacramento will pay 5 bucks + for parking at night. Just walk, there is plenty of parking through out downtown. The average waistline needs it.

I feel the same way. I never understood people paying $5 to park, when they can park 2 blocks away and walk. It's not like walking a couple blocks after a big ass meal and drinks won't do you a little good.

I personally think the walk from my place and back is half the fun...to each his own though.

Also, I have to think the state garage on 17th and Capitol Ave that the city is running and charging $2 to park is eating into surface lots operators money in the midtown area popular areas. On 2nd Saturdays, that thing has a line wrapped down the block to get in, and seem busy every weekend as well. I'd love to hear if there has been anything recent about that.

Hopefully this encourages them to starting looking at developing the property, esp that 16th and J corner lot (both of them).

[Fusey]

I won't miss it :cool:

Same here. A parking lot would look better than that building, anyways.

[sugit]

Jamie Broker is a Junior Planner with the Zoning Administrator for the City of
Sacramento... so calling him would do no good.

That lot will be prime for development when the next wave of proposals comes around again. That place has been broken into numerous times and I'm sure is a big liability, so it might be in the owners best interest to remove it instead of watching it go to crap since it has no historical reference... I won't miss it :cool:

If someone really feels the need to make a call...knock yourself out.

Jim Woodrum - 455 Capitol Mall Complex
Applicant - Phone 916-455-5475

[econgrad]

Same here. A parking lot would look better than that building, anyways.

Yeah the building is not very desirable, but if you were an urbanist invested in Downtown you can worry about the space being a parking lot for 10 or 20 years... I think some would rather have a building,to be demolished later for something better, we can combine highrises with multiple levels of parking instead of an open ground parking to keep up with the car parking demand.

[Cynikal]

Jamie Broker is a Junior Planner with the Zoning Administrator for the City of
Sacramento... so calling him would do no good.

That lot will be prime for development when the next wave of proposals comes
around again. That place has been broken into numerous times and I'm sure is
a big liability, so it might be in the owners best interest to remove it instead of
watching it go to crap since it has no historical reference... I won't miss it :cool:


Actually guys, Jamie is a her and not a him and not a junior planner but an assistant planner. But I'm sure that people aren't judging a person by thier title. Not a bunch of folks that sit a computer and complain about the lack of development and don't do anything about it themselves (with the excetion of a very small amount of you). But I digress.

As innov8 stated above, there is a history to this lot and it invloved a building that has been vacant for over 5 years and had major flooding issues.

I'm no fan of surface parking lots in the CBD but currently, according to the owner, it is the highest best use of the land.

[tronblue]

Now I know nothing about this building except that it looks like that concrete bench in the front is prime for axel grinds, but is demoing for a heat ridden parking lot the best option?

If the building does have bad flooding problems than fine, but what about alternative uses. a Co-op artists' studio building comes to mind something sponsored by the art council since many people think this is such an artsy town, why not offer low cost work space with proceeds going to the art council for scholarships and the such. I don't know, but it just seems like a copout to me.

I'm not saying I think the building should stay, as certainly something better will eventually come, but many of these 60's god awful looking buildings were supposed to represent the new Sacramento and you can kind of compare that thinking with how many people feel about today's redevelopment. Its great looking today for us, but tomorrow's city dwellers will turn them into parking lots. Can you imagine in 2052 when the Park on 15th and L will be considered blighted poor design of the early millennium and will be demoed and replaced with a 100 floor self contained community building made out of cow poop, Star Wars grade perma crate and bees wax. I mean right now its awfully pretentious as is.

[wburg]

:haha: :haha: :haha:
Why aren’t you raising hell tring to save this has-been of a building?
Why doesn’t it meet your criteria for preservation wberg?

The first criterion is that a building has to be at least 50 years old, or be of exceptional historical significance, in order to require assessment. The building isn't 50 years old, nor does it have exceptional historic significance.

So, that's why.

[sugit]

I've said this before, but I'm still very interested to see how leasing goes in the new DT office buildings.

So far it seems like it's just been a shuffling of tenants from one building to another, doesn't seem like much in terms of organic growth to the downtown office market space.

The last firm I remember reading about making a move from the burbs to downtown was Bullivant Houser Bailey a couple years ago to Meridian I and taking about 25K in space. I'm sure there have been others, but it just doesn't seem like many.

One building that never really seems to be mentioned is 12-story one out on South Natomas. That thing is the same size as 621. Seems like a lot of soon-to-be vacant Class A office space out there.

Tsakopoulos office building goes on hold as vacancies rise
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

In a downtown Sacramento market with new office buildings under construction and little demand from tenants for space, AKT Investments Inc. has temporarily suspended its application to build a 24-story tower on K and 15th streets and will consider modifying the project.

“We have to make sure it’s the project we want that makes financial sense,” said Mark Enes, AKT Investments executive vice president. “We do that for all our projects.”

City officials confirmed that the application filed in October is on hold. AKT, founded by real estate mogul Angelo K. Tsakopoulos and run by his daughter Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis, had pitched the Meridian Plaza II as a companion to the existing 12-story Meridian Tower, though twice as tall at 24 stories with an energy- and water-saving design. The building’s exterior features a curved glass façade, a spire and a wall of plants seven stories high. Enes said it was unlikely that the company would change the intended use from an office building to something else.

Sacramento developer Tony Giannoni is the project manager. AKT will continue to consult with him on its next move.

In the meantime, AKT will put in a parking lot at the building site to serve the existing Meridian building and an office building at 1414 K St. that the company has refurbished and is marketing to tenants.

Office vacancy has been on the rise for the past year, up by as much as 2 percentage points, according to several brokerages, reflecting a downturn in the housing market and the economy in general. There have been fewer company expansions and little growth with firms relocating to Sacramento.

Couple that with the addition of new buildings downtown, and it could be an unfavorable time for another office building.

Tsakopoulos Investments, a company run by Tsakopoulos’ brother George, is building the 430,000-square-foot Bank of the West Tower at 500 Capitol Mall that’s scheduled to open next year. Office brokers say the new Meridian building would serve lobbyists and associations seeking easier access to the Capitol — a different market than the real estate firms, attorneys and accounting firms drawn to Capitol Mall buildings. But the sheer amount of office vacancy is bound to have an effect.

In April, the U.S. Bank Tower opened on Capitol Mall, drawing tenants away from existing buildings in the market. The 356,000-square-foot building is about two-thirds leased.

Next year, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System will move into a new 400,000-square-foot building in West Sacramento, leaving vacancies on the Sacramento side of the river. The pension fund leases space from AKT Investments near California State University Sacramento that will be vacated upon the move.

All of that might play into the decision of how to proceed.

As Enes said, “In the hot markets, you just went with it.”

[Tenebrist]

I like my parking structures to look like this: Is That Really A Car Park (http://www.thecoolhunter.net/design/Is-That-Really-A-Car-Park-/) [from thecoolhunter.net]

[ltsmotorsport]

Can't say I'm surprised about the news on Meridian II. Will be interesting to see what they come back with. Smaller floor plates? Mixed use? It would even be a good location for another hotel.

[sugit]

Can't say I'm surprised about the news on Meridian II. Will be interesting to see what they come back with. Smaller floor plates? Mixed use? It would even be a good location for another hotel.

Mixed use would be nice, hotel or housing....but they said:

Enes said it was unlikely that the company would change the intended use from an office building to something else.

We'll see...

[TowerDistrict]

Also, TowerDistrict, I noticed today that a house at the corner of Burnett and Freeport
was getting demolished... what's the plan for that corner?

Hard to miss that mess isn't it?!!! The house was a rental for a long time and was in horrible shape. It apparently went into foreclosure and was bank owned for a while. In which time it became a popular spot for high school kids and homeless people to niche and get loaded. The place was in very, very bad shape before and may have been pretty well stripped by the people camping out in it.

But anyway, some sort of investor bought it and is pretty much tearing it down to a single wall and rebuilding it (as a house). I can't imagine this is profitable right now, but good luck to them. I know the neighborhood is pretty stoked it's getting some positive attention.

[snfenoc]

http://www.sacbee.com/shallit/story/1167302.html

Bob Shallit: They'll tear down an ex-bank to put up a parking lot
By Bob Shallit - bshallit@sacbee.com
Published 12:00 am PDT Tuesday, August 19, 2008

A long-vacant bank building at a prime downtown intersection is about to be razed. In its place: A parking lot.

A Palo Alto company that owns the parcel across from Downtown Plaza has obtained city permission to demolish the former Sacramento Savings Bank, which has been sitting vacant for about 15 years.

If approvals are given this week by the city's design director, the three-story bank building will be bulldozed and the site repaved and landscaped. It'll be used for parking – only by tenants and guests of the 455 Capitol Mall office building.

Both 455 and the bank building at 424 L St. are owned by related corporate entities based in Palo Alto, according to property records.

Company officials – and the building managers at 455 Capitol Mall – declined to comment on the parking lot plans.

But city documents provide a few details, including the fact the project won't create much new parking.

The existing 82 spaces will be removed during demolition. The completed lot will have 98 spaces – along with outdoor seating, fountains, landscaping and walkways.

The city report also indicates the parking lot is temporary. Long-term plans, the report says, call for the site to eventually be developed.

[Majin]

I rather have an empty building than a parking lot.

[Darn Good City]

I'm really surprised that no one here has mentioned the Oak Park Fresh and Easy debate. Or is everyone here so grid focused that Oak Park doesn't matter?
http://oakparknow.blogspot.com/

Is this what you are referring to?

[Cynikal]

http://oakparknow.blogspot.com/

Is this what you are referring to?


Yup. The project was approved at the Design Director level but should be appealed to the Design Commission. The neighborhood group did a great job at putting together an alternative. :cheers:

[SactownTom]

The neighborhood alternative is a much better fit for that lot. I'm really blown away that they would try to put a parking lot fronting Broadway, and that the Design Director would approve it. This is an important project for Oak Park. The city needs to get it right.

[Cynikal]

I'm fairly sure that the City wants this heard at the Commission level but who knows. The community plan is far superior but F&E is really bullheaded about the issue. We'll see what happens.

[Darn Good City]

The most amazing thing is that the neighborhood plan isn't what was proposed in the first place for an urban infil project like this. The neighborhood plan doesn't even change the footprint of the Fresh and Easy or reduce their parking below required levels. It just moves the building forward to the sidewalk and moves the parking off of Broadway, and looks better too.

[tronblue]

I do not live in that area, but I think i'll add my body to that meeting in september. Plus i'd like to hear stupidity frothing from the mouths of the fne peoples.

[urban_encounter]

Plus i'd like to hear stupidity frothing from the mouths of the fne peoples.



Have you given skyscraperpage current events or the U.S. election forum a browse?

[tronblue]

No but I do go to foxnews.com for a good laugh and cry of pity.

[Majin]

How are these suburban style projects even getting submited for review? Why aren't we calling for these peoples heads. Whoever was involved in approving this project at any level should be fired on the spot.

Any new infill projects should have zero surface parking and zero setbacks. And I'm not just talking about in Oak Park, I mean anywhere within city limits.

I really do hope KJ fires these people and makes them move to Fresno or something.

[Majin]

Seriously though does anybody mind compling a list of these people who are a part of these design reviews approving these projects? We need to start exposing these people for the frauds they are. These people don't realize they work for a city, not a suburb.

[innov8]

Go ahead Majin, you should compile a list for us. Please post your results when done.

[Majin]

I don't wanna do it you guys do it.

[innov8]

I don't wanna do it you guys do it.

:koko: HA!!! that's a good one... good luck with that :tup:

[urban_encounter]

I don't wanna do it you guys do it.



Wow, this is rich.

[SactownTom]

Maybe a thread devoted to upcoming design and planning meetings wouldn't be a bad idea. This board has a lot of folks that care about these issues. It would be nice to have thread that talks about potentially problematic developments as a way to focus our energies. It would be a good clearinghouse of information for people that are able to make it to design and planning commission meetings.

[Cynikal]

Good idea.

[wburg]

Why do you oppose Fresh & Easy? This project will activate a currently blighted corner and bring activity and life to a grossly underutilized neighborhood. Why should the applicant go through all the trouble and expense to redesign their building just because you don't like it?

Kevin Johnson has gone to great lengths to attract business to Oak Park. If you support his efforts, why are you trying to sabotage it by opposing Fresh & Easy's current configuration? They're a big company with a lot of experience, and it is their money at risk here, don't you think they would have considered how to best orient the building and told their designer to reflect that best orientation? Why do you think you have the right to oppose this project? Doesn't Fresh & Easy have the right to do what they want with their property?

There's no real reason to oppose this development, other than a bunch of NIMBY attitudes and quibbling about unimportant details.

[snfenoc]

Am I starting to rub off on you?

[Majin]

Why do you oppose Fresh & Easy? This project will activate a currently blighted corner and bring activity and life to a grossly underutilized neighborhood. Why should the applicant go through all the trouble and expense to redesign their building just because you don't like it?

Kevin Johnson has gone to great lengths to attract business to Oak Park. If you support his efforts, why are you trying to sabotage it by opposing Fresh & Easy's current configuration? They're a big company with a lot of experience, and it is their money at risk here, don't you think they would have considered how to best orient the building and told their designer to reflect that best orientation? Why do you think you have the right to oppose this project? Doesn't Fresh & Easy have the right to do what they want with their property?

There's no real reason to oppose this development, other than a bunch of NIMBY attitudes and quibbling about unimportant details.

????????????????????????????? :haha: :haha:

I have NEVER seen you post something like this. :koko: :koko: :koko:

You are the biggest NIMBY on this board and all of a sudden you are a captian save-a-bigbusiness? Thats rich.

The design is ass and doesnt even fit the area. Are there even any surface parking lots at all along broadway between Alhambra blvd and Stockton blvd? We have a legitimate reason to call them out it.

[Darn Good City]

Why do you oppose Fresh & Easy? This project will activate a currently blighted corner and bring activity and life to a grossly underutilized neighborhood. Why should the applicant go through all the trouble and expense to redesign their building just because you don't like it?

Kevin Johnson has gone to great lengths to attract business to Oak Park. If you support his efforts, why are you trying to sabotage it by opposing Fresh & Easy's current configuration? They're a big company with a lot of experience, and it is their money at risk here, don't you think they would have considered how to best orient the building and told their designer to reflect that best orientation? Why do you think you have the right to oppose this project? Doesn't Fresh & Easy have the right to do what they want with their property?

There's no real reason to oppose this development, other than a bunch of NIMBY attitudes and quibbling about unimportant details.

I don't think many people oppose Fresh and Easy going in there, and the efforts to bring business in are certainly highly valued. I wouldn't call the corner blighted---it's just empty. The opposition is that the Fresh and Easy lot is in the middle of the Broadway Commercial Character Area, and did not follow the Urban Development guidelines for that area. These guidelines specifically do not allow a parking lot on Broadway, and especially on the corner, and require a zero sidewalk setback. All the other buildings that exist and the other new development that is currently planned adjacent this development and along this stretch of the historic district are zero setback and with off-street parking in the back, if any.

That area of Oak Park has the same development guidelines as Midtown (though specific to Oak Park), and surely you wouldn't have seen a surface parking lot on the sidewalk in Midtown proposed in a new development, especially on a main mixed-use street, like J Street for instance. I feel Oak Park deserves no less than that minimum standard.

The residents simply want to move the building up to the sidewalk as per the guidelines, and per basic successful urban planning models. As stated in one of the community meetings, the neighborhood's proposed reorienting of the building would actually save the developer money due to a reduction in number of driveways, no longer a need for utility pole relocation or removal of an existing street tree, put a cement plaza instead of a maintenance-requiring landscape buffer, and remove the need for the twisted cantilevered corner tower with a blind exit door under it which is how they currently touch the Broadway sidewalk, and remove the need for a suburban-style corner pillar sign, which the guidelines also do not allow. The building's own signage would also become far more visible, helping to ensure the success of the business, which everyone wants. The developer is coming into this with an outdated 60's planning model where automobiles rule, but Oak Park and the design guidelines are more forward-looking. Also, more than half of the people in Oak Park don't own cars, either due to cost or by choice.

In my opinion the best model for a successful development of this lot would be a minimal setback (but enough for the street tree canopy) multi-story mixed use with Fresh and Easy and a few other retailers on the ground floor with office and low and medium-income housing above. But as for what was proposed, it just needs to meet the Design Guidelines.

[TowerDistrict]

i think i'm the only one getting the joke here.

that or i woke up on the other side of the universe?

[Darn Good City]

i think i'm the only one getting the joke here.

that or i woke up on the other side of the universe?
I assumed wburg is being held hostage, and the post is his attempt to signal for help.

Or that some serious reverse psychology skills are in action.

[BrianSac]

Why do you oppose Fresh & Easy? This project will activate a currently blighted corner and bring activity and life to a grossly underutilized neighborhood. Why should the applicant go through all the trouble and expense to redesign their building just because you don't like it?

Kevin Johnson has gone to great lengths to attract business to Oak Park. If you support his efforts, why are you trying to sabotage it by opposing Fresh & Easy's current configuration? They're a big company with a lot of experience, and it is their money at risk here, don't you think they would have considered how to best orient the building and told their designer to reflect that best orientation? Why do you think you have the right to oppose this project? Doesn't Fresh & Easy have the right to do what they want with their property?

There's no real reason to oppose this development, other than a bunch of NIMBY attitudes and quibbling about unimportant details.


I think we have a case of the "'Body Snatchers". Wburg is just not the same, I think something or somebody has taken over his body. :) :)

[BrianSac]

I don't think many people oppose Fresh and Easy going in there, and the efforts to bring business in are certainly highly valued. I wouldn't call the corner blighted---it's just empty. The opposition is that the Fresh and Easy lot is in the middle of the Broadway Commercial Character Area, and did not follow the Urban Development guidelines for that area. These guidelines specifically do not allow a parking lot on Broadway, and especially on the corner, and require a zero sidewalk setback. All the other buildings that exist and the other new development that is currently planned adjacent this development and along this stretch of the historic district are zero setback and with off-street parking in the back, if any.

That area of Oak Park has the same development guidelines as Midtown (though specific to Oak Park), and surely you wouldn't have seen a surface parking lot on the sidewalk in Midtown proposed in a new development, especially on a main mixed-use street, like J Street for instance. I feel Oak Park deserves no less than that minimum standard.

The residents simply want to move the building up to the sidewalk as per the guidelines, and per basic successful urban planning models. As stated in one of the community meetings, the neighborhood's proposed reorienting of the building would actually save the developer money due to a reduction in number of driveways, no longer a need for utility pole relocation or removal of an existing street tree, put a cement plaza instead of a maintenance-requiring landscape buffer, and remove the need for the twisted cantilevered corner tower with a blind exit door under it which is how they currently touch the Broadway sidewalk, and remove the need for a suburban-style corner pillar sign, which the guidelines also do not allow. The building's own signage would also become far more visible, helping to ensure the success of the business, which everyone wants. The developer is coming into this with an outdated 60's planning model where automobiles rule, but Oak Park and the design guidelines are more forward-looking. Also, more than half of the people in Oak Park don't own cars, either due to cost or by choice.

In my opinion the best model for a successful development of this lot would be a minimal setback (but enough for the street tree canopy) multi-story mixed use with Fresh and Easy and a few other retailers on the ground floor with office and low and medium-income housing above. But as for what was proposed, it just needs to meet the Design Guidelines.


Do the guidelines have to be followed? Remember, guidelines are simply that, guidelines.
Regarding the surface lot, it would nice to have some limited parking for the disabled and so that midtowners, and Oak, Curtis, and Tahoe parkers have more options than riding their bikes,walking or taking transit.

[SactownTom]

The parking has only been moved to the rear of the building.

[wburg]

In case it isn't totally obvious, I'm just playing devil's advocate because those are exactly the type of arguments that the Fresh & Easy folks will make at a public meeting.

They will call the corner "blighted" because the term "blighted" really doesn't mean anything except "this piece of property isn't worth as much as it possibly could be." They will oppose design changes because even if the design changes make sense, they will have to pay for the changes and redesigns take time, which costs money.

They will tell city boards and staff that your claims are unfounded, that their design is wonderful as it is, and that you and other neighborhood residents simply oppose them for irrational reasons like fear of change, personal grudges against the developer, or just irrational NIMBYism. They will claim that their plans follow neighborhood guidelines to the letter, even if the guidelines say everything must be painted white and they want to paint it black. Failing that, they will claim that these guidelines are only suggestions, or they are outdated and outmoded throwbacks to old-line thinking, and ask for an exemption.

Even though it has already been made clear that the community wants the parking lot relocated, not eliminated (and their plan includes the same number of parking spaces) they will suggest that the neighborhood opposes parking altogether, which would be unfair to the disabled or those outside walking distance. Notice that BrianSac also brings up the "guidelines" argument: if it's a rule a developer doesn't like, it's just a "guideline," a suggestion, that doesn't have to be followed if it is inconvenient.

[Darn Good City]

Do the guidelines have to be followed? Remember, guidelines are simply that, guidelines.
Regarding the surface lot, it would nice to have some limited parking for the disabled and so that midtowners, and Oak, Curtis, and Tahoe parkers have more options than riding their bikes,walking or taking transit.
Nope, they are just guidelines, not regulations. But it seems you are supposed to use them as some kind of a guide along which to put your 'line', and this project doesn't at all. The guidelines were recently put together by a large City study to create design guidelines that would benefit Oak Park, and not create suburban gaps in Oak Park's potential future density in the historic stretch of Broadway. The developer's property values and customer volume would also benefit if the guidelines were followed, as well as that of neighboring retail, as seen in case studies all over the country of historic main streets that follow these types of infill guidelines.

The neighborhood's proposed building reorientation plan provides 60 parking spaces, including disabled spaces. It also proposes adding 14-16 diagonal parking spaces along 34th street. The developer's current plan provides about 65 spaces. The city requires 60.

[wburg]

Got a sneak peek at the design Michael Heller has planned for 20th & Capitol:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/tribute.jpg
4 stories, 55 feet tall, 47,000 square feet total: about 32100 sf office and 6000 sf retail.