Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[ltsmotorsport]

Cool. Can't wait to see the photos.

And here's a cool one I found on flickr. By casch52. http://flickr.com/photos/casch/


I'm guessing it was taken in February sometime.

[sugit]

Originally Posted by innov8

I'm now lucky enough to be able see the daily goings on out my new office window

I used to pass by the Marriot site everyday..I'm telling you, seeing it everyday is going to make it seem like grass is growing.

[innov8]

Yeah, I hear ya

[ozone]

Originally Posted by sugit

I used to pass by the Marriot site everyday..I'm telling you, seeing it everyday is going to make it seem like grass is growing.

That's funny. Yeah if you see something everyday it just seems like slow progress.

Back on the topic of the CALEPA building... (with it's post-modern base, early 1970's shaft, and post-industrial top).. since at the time when they were gaining the city's approval they said that the top would be lit up why can't the city ask them to follow through with their promise? They could power the lights with solar panels even.

[innov8]

The City doe's not have any say in the approval of any proposed State buildings.
The State needs a EIR like any other building but that's about it. When the
West End complex was moving forward and I went to the workshops I learned this.
Also, the EPA doe's have solar panels on the 8th floor section that bumps
out towards I Street.

[sugit]

Case in point being the East End Complex. The city and neighborhood residence wanted the complex wrapped in some sort of housing and retail to add street life to that stretch, and not make the buildings so monolithic..alas you see what we have.. a 2 block dead zone on 16th. I don't remember all the details, so if anyone knows more history, I'd like to hear it.

Those buildings really cut off and kill the potential synergy between the whole 16th and J/K area and Fremont Park neighborhood with the planned East End Gateway and existing business already on 16th.

I do actaully kinda like the open space they have at 16th and Capitol, but the problem is they killed any chance of it being a gather place, which is what I feel should be a big part of open space, by surrounding it with bunker like ground floor office with no life and creating a deadzone.. Thus rendering it almost useless.

A simple improvement would have been if they had placed the retail space on 16th, instead of 17th, with some cafes and take out places. If that would have happen I think people would have used the steps and other space there to sit, eat and talk, esp during lunch. Kids would have loved the water feature (when it's actually turned on)

[ozone]

Originally Posted by innov8

The City doe's not have any say in the approval of any proposed State buildings.
The State needs a EIR like any other building but that's about it. When the
West End complex was moving forward and I went to the workshops I learned this.
Also, the EPA doe's have solar panels on the 8th floor section that bumps
out towards I Street.

Humm If I recall Cal EPA did go through some city approval process..but myabe it was just a informative meeting?

Don't get me started on the "open space" in the East End Project. IMO that is the worst public art installation I have ever seen. What a missed opportunity to bring Capitol Park into the office complex. What is that piece of junk anyway...a golden orb inside of a skateboard park? Some sort of abstract stars sh't that totally blocks the view of the Capitol. The original design for the open space included a sensible mini-park/plaza but the California Arts Council with Chair Marcy Friedman (of Arden Fair Mall fame) deicided that this crap would be better. Why the hell is Marcy Friedman chair of the California Art Council anyway? Look at Arden Fair Mall--nothing artistic about it. Yes she does some good chairty work but in this case she's just another person with money who egotistically thinks she has talent/taste.

[sugit]

Originally Posted by ozone

Humm If I recall it did have to go through some city approval process..myabe it was just a informative meeting?

I'm 99.99% sure State projects don't have to go through any sort of city design or planning approval. I went to the DR meeting fr the East End Gateway, before it got canceled by Loftworks, it was an Information Only item. They were clear that State projects did not need approvals from the city.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by ozone

Humm If I recall it did have to go through some city approval process..myabe it was just a informative meeting?

That's probably what it was... State proposed building don't have to pass
through the Design Commission or Planning Commission for approval to be built.
I'm sure City officials are informed on what the State is planning and even
try to give input on what might be best for the city, but that's about it.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by ozone

Humm If I recall Cal EPA did go through some city approval process..but myabe it was just a informative meeting?

Don't get me started on the "open space" in the East End Project. IMO that is the worst public art installation I have ever seen. What a missed opportunity to bring Capitol Park into the office complex. What is that piece of junk anyway...a golden orb inside of a skateboard park? Some sort of abstract stars sh't that totally blocks the view of the Capitol. The original design for the open space included a sensible mini-park/plaza but the California Arts Council with Chair Marcy Friedman (of Arden Fair Mall fame) deicided that this crap would be better. Why the hell is Marcy Friedman chair of the California Art Council anyway? Look at Arden Fair Mall--nothing artistic about it. Yes she does some good chairty work but in this case she's just another person with money who egotistically thinks she has talent/taste.

Thank You! I completely agree!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by ozone

Humm If I recall Cal EPA did go through some city approval process..but myabe it was just a informative meeting?

Don't get me started on the "open space" in the East End Project. IMO that is the worst public art installation I have ever seen. What a missed opportunity to bring Capitol Park into the office complex. What is that piece of junk anyway...a golden orb inside of a skateboard park? Some sort of abstract stars sh't that totally blocks the view of the Capitol. The original design for the open space included a sensible mini-park/plaza but the California Arts Council with Chair Marcy Friedman (of Arden Fair Mall fame) deicided that this crap would be better. Why the hell is Marcy Friedman chair of the California Art Council anyway? Look at Arden Fair Mall--nothing artistic about it. Yes she does some good chairty work but in this case she's just another person with money who egotistically thinks she has talent/taste.

I agree with you 100%, ozone.

Although, I know nothing about Marcy Friedman, the East End Mall "open space" is absolutely horrible. What are those friggin robot like pod-light fixture things in the ground. I have never seen water come out of the fountain/waterfall thing, either. What a disgrace!

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Originally Posted by innov8

That's probably what it was... State proposed building don't have to pass
through the Design Commission or Planning Commission for approval to be built.
I'm sure City officials are informed on what the State is planning and even
try to give input on what might be best for the city, but that's about it.

You are correct in the assumption that the State of California does not require zoning, design review, or other approvals from the City of Sacramento for state projects. Neither does the University of California, for that matter, as a seperate legal entity under the State Constitution.

However, the CalEPA building was an exception. To keep CalEPA from locating outside downtown Sacramento, the City agreed to construct the building and lease it to the State of California. The project was funded from a City-issued revenue bond. Because the State does not own the building, it was subject to City review and approval (although it was probably built to state specifications).

[innov8]

Originally Posted by SacUrbnPlnr

You are correct in the assumption that the State of California does not require zoning, design review, or other approvals from the City of Sacramento for state projects. Neither does the University of California, for that matter, as a seperate legal entity under the State Constitution.

However, the CalEPA building was an exception. To keep CalEPA from locating outside downtown Sacramento, the City agreed to construct the building and lease it to the State of California. The project was funded from a City-issued revenue bond. Because the State does not own the building, it was subject to City review and approval (although it was probably built to state specifications).

Interesting... I stand corrected. I knew those requirements were the rule
and typically did not apply to the State.

[econgrad]

Not sure if I missed something. Can the State buy any peice of land whether or not the city wants to sell it or not? I guess I am wondering how much power does the state have over local development, can they do pretty much what they want to or is there any checks and balances?
Thanks.

[SacTownAndy]

I vaguely remember when CalEPA first opened seeing the top lit up with neon- for some reason I'm thinking it was green?

That's one of my biggest "peeves" when it comes to development- I can't stand when developers spend all this money installing things like fountains and lighting and then it's never utilized.

[innov8]

I don't remember seeing any neon. On the south facing side in between the
the 25th floor windows there are these decorative fixtures that use to
be lit up with a white light, very classy. Also, around Christmas time
the whole green top would be outlined with white Christmas lights...
quite a site crossing over the Yolo Causeway.

The US Bank has some green neon near the top… you have to be within a couple blocks
to be able to see it.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Originally Posted by econgrad

Not sure if I missed something. Can the State buy any peice of land whether or not the city wants to sell it or not? I guess I am wondering how much power does the state have over local development, can they do pretty much what they want to or is there any checks and balances?
Thanks.

The State of California can certainly negotiate a voluntary purchase of land (whether owned by a public agency or a private entity) or use its power of eminent domain to acquire property for public use.

Many of the surface parking lots in the central city area near older state office buildings are the legacy of the State having acquired lots of land during the 1950s and 1960s for a planned major construction of new state office buildings that did not occur. Many of these properties were bulldozed, thus the surface parking we now have today. As a result, much of Sacramento's history and architectural legacy was destroyed.

Fortunately, the State did not bulldoze all of the buildings on property that it acquired decades ago for its planned expansion. In the late 1970s, to address the fact it owned quite a bit of property for which it had no comprhensive strategy or master plan, the State partnered with the City of Sacramento to form the Capital Area Development Authority (CADA). One of CADA's first missions was to prepare a comprhensive plan, the Capitol Area Plan, for properties surrounding the State Capitol.

CADA is one of the largest property owners and residential lanlords in the region. CADA owns many of the older apartment complexes near the State Capitol and some of the older warehouse/industrial buildings along the R-Street corridor (such as the CADA Warehouse that is part of the proposed Capitol Lofts project).

Only in the past decade has the State re-thought its strategy and begun again to construct buildings on property that it owns (thus the East End complex and the proposed West End highrise buildings).

I probably provided a lot more information that you wanted to know, but there it is.

[ozone]

Actually that was a good bit of info and history thanks for posting it.

[reggiesquared]

Hey guys. If you ever need to store your pictures somewhere check out my research project www.fojax.com. Sign up and tell me what you think. Still in testing and a couple bugs here and there but the main functionality is there and its pretty stable. This totally sounds like spam but its not haha. Just thought since you guys like posting pictures on here you may need to stick'em somewhere.

Thanks

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by SacUrbnPlnr

The State of California can certainly negotiate a voluntary purchase of land (whether owned by a public agency or a private entity) or use its power of eminent domain to acquire property for public use.

Many of the surface parking lots in the central city area near older state office buildings are the legacy of the State having acquired lots of land during the 1950s and 1960s for a planned major construction of new state office buildings that did not occur. Many of these properties were bulldozed, thus the surface parking we now have today. As a result, much of Sacramento's history and architectural legacy was destroyed.

Fortunately, the State did not bulldoze all of the buildings on property that it acquired decades ago for its planned expansion. In the late 1970s, to address the fact it owned quite a bit of property for which it had no comprhensive strategy or master plan, the State partnered with the City of Sacramento to form the Capital Area Development Authority (CADA). One of CADA's first missions was to prepare a comprhensive plan, the Capitol Area Plan, for properties surrounding the State Capitol.

CADA is one of the largest property owners and residential lanlords in the region. CADA owns many of the older apartment complexes near the State Capitol and some of the older warehouse/industrial buildings along the R-Street corridor (such as the CADA Warehouse that is part of the proposed Capitol Lofts project).

Only in the past decade has the State re-thought its strategy and begun again to construct buildings on property that it owns (thus the East End complex and the proposed West End highrise buildings).

I probably provided a lot more information that you wanted to know, but there it is.

Thanks! I never knew the history of CADA before this.