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

[JeffZurn]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

I think there's much truth to this. But that just points out another part of Saca's legacy. Even with the failure of the Towers, he has set the bar much higher and Sacramentans now demand much more than ever before. For a city to be great, its citizens must demand greatness. Sacramentans now do that. Before, a project like Waterview would have been just fine. Now, it doesn’t measure up. That is what I call progress.

I think that not only did it raise the bar for future projects, I also think it helps 301CM. Being that the towers were so grand, I think that CIM has to pull off something much better then what they would have normally proposed or better then the Waterview. And as far as progress goes for our great city, when is the last time we had 3, possibly 4 buildings going up at once. I think that says a lot!!!

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by foxmtbr

^ Good point. I think the failure of the Towers makes Sacramentans and the city more determined than ever to complete a project of that magnitude. The Towers' failure is still a success for the city (in the future).

How can it be a success when SO MANY NIMBYS are rejoicing about its demise?
Towers just became two more notches to their "kill" column.

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by cozmoose

How can it be a success when SO MANY NIMBYS are rejoicing about its demise?
Towers just became two more notches to their "kill" column.

NIMBYs aren't rejoicing its demise. NIMBYs are people who actually excersize their selfish objectives and actively oppose developments that have no physical bearing on their lives.

The people rejoicing now are the self-loathing Sacramentans who have long overshadowed this region. The people who hate where they live and relish their own misery. They don't have any real affect on anything - where as NIMBYs actually do.

The self-loathing Sacramentan doesn't care enough about anything to motivate themselves into action. They simply fester in the comments section of the SacBee, from their dark, dank windowless computer stations, scattered throughout the various exurban bedroom communities.

Pay no attention to them. They're harmless.

[Fusey]

Like many others have said, The Towers set the bar higher. The next time anyone hears about 20-story tower many reactions will go from, "that's nice" to "that's all?" Sacramento still has (arguably more than) its fair-share of NIMBYs and apathetic individuals, but The Towers did bring further interest into downtown development, something both of those groups cannot ignore. Even many of my suburbs-for-life friends were excited by The Towers.

[wburg]

td: Not to sideline this too much, but how would you differentiate these theoretical "NIMBYs" from people who do oppose developments that will affect their own lives, or neighborhood groups who oppose particular developments that will negatively effect the lives of people within their neighborhood?

In terms of formal (organized) neighborhood/community group based opposition to the Towers project, so far as I knew, there wasn't any. They may not have liked the height, or the architecture, or the developer, but there wasn't a Stop The Towers campaign or anything.

I only read the Sacramento Bee comments section for comedy value. Most of the people who comment about anything going on in the central city strike me as being the sort who never get any closer to downtown than Arden Fair Mall, or haven't been downtown since 1979 and assume that nothing has changed since then.

[ozone]

I think both Tower District and wburg have summed up pretty how it is. Good job.

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by wburg

td: Not to sideline this too much, but how would you differentiate these theoretical "NIMBYs" from people who do oppose developments that will affect their own lives, or neighborhood groups who oppose particular developments that will negatively effect the lives of people within their neighborhood?

well, i was just having fun with cozmooses comment. but as to answer your question..

NIMBY is pretty much a derrogatory label to express the fact that the complaint is completely baseless. I think the most commonly seen NIMBY is the suburban tract home dweller that opposes a development featuring the exact same product as the NIMBY lives in themselves. This NIMBY is simply a hypocritical neighborhood resident.

I think neighborhood groups are far too commonly referred to as NIMBY groups, and it's rarely warranted. Though I think a neighborhood organization runs the risk of becoming a NIMBY organization when they become overreaching, and begin to misrepresent the people most affected and/or less inclined to speak up. Also, if a neighborhood group wishes to avoid being relegated to NIMBY status, then they need to define their vision of their neighborhood and work WITH, and not AGAINST potential developers. This NIMBY is simply a neighborhood group without conviction.

Originally Posted by wburg

In terms of formal (organized) neighborhood/community group based opposition to the Towers project, so far as I knew, there wasn't any. They may not have liked the height, or the architecture, or the developer, but there wasn't a Stop The Towers campaign or anything.

I would think that anyone who actively opposed the Towers project is a NIMBY. The project, though vertically massive, had no negative impact on its surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. It was nice to see that reason prevailed.

[travis bickle]

then they need to define their vision of their neighborhood and work WITH, and not AGAINST potential developers.

That is an outstanding line by our dear TowerDistrict.

Define your vision of the neighborhood and then work with developers to achieve that vision.

That should be true for cities as well as neighborhoods.

This type of approach would save so much time and money and actually might achieve something besides shrieking testimony and endless studies.

Bravo sir!

[innov8]

Originally Posted by wburg

In terms of formal (organized) neighborhood/community group based opposition to the Towers project, so far as I knew, there wasn't any. They may not have liked the height, or the architecture, or the developer, but there wasn't a Stop The Towers campaign or anything.

In the final EIR draft for the Towers there were several letters and one by
Dan Visnich of the Historic Preservation Society. Have you meet this guy Wberg?

He always shows up with a bow tie and considers almost everything in the
downtown area historic. His letter says stuff like "the massive scale and
height of the proposed Twin Towers would certainly squash the Capitol's
image and be embarrassment to the state government". Here's another one that was
rich, "The hierarchy ideal of government, the outstanding change of
perspective and focus will all be lost while traveling along Capitol Mall.
Reminiscent of fossils, only small traces will remain, the grand ideal concept
of government would be dead" This are quotes from his letter

There are two pages of stuff like this. This guy Dan Visnich of the Historic
Preservation Society was the Stop The Towers campaign. When the city
Committees would meet to discuss the project and comments from people
attending were asked, Dan sometimes would be asked to leave be the podium after
several minutes because he would go on and on about everything. It was
actually a funny thing to watch on the live feed. We would all laugh at him
for days here on the forum. The term "Menacing the Dome" is a Dan Visnich original

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

well, i was just having fun with cozmooses comment. but as to answer your question..

NIMBY is pretty much a derrogatory label to express the fact that the complaint is completely baseless. I think the most commonly seen NIMBY is the suburban tract home dweller that opposes a development featuring the exact same product as the NIMBY lives in themselves. This NIMBY is simply a hypocritical neighborhood resident.

I think neighborhood groups are far too commonly referred to as NIMBY groups, and it's rarely warranted. Though I think a neighborhood organization runs the risk of becoming a NIMBY organization when they become overreaching, and begin to misrepresent the people most affected and/or less inclined to speak up. Also, if a neighborhood group wishes to avoid being relegated to NIMBY status, then they need to define their vision of their neighborhood and work WITH, and not AGAINST potential developers. This NIMBY is simply a neighborhood group without conviction.



I would think that anyone who actively opposed the Towers project is a NIMBY. The project, though vertically massive, had no negative impact on its surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. It was nice to see that reason prevailed.

So what do you call the people who are actively oppossing the Mercy Heart Center on J street in East Sac?

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

So what do you call the people who are actively oppossing the Mercy Heart Center on J street in East Sac?

it may sound like i'm avoiding your question, but the truth is that i don't know enough about the project, the neighborhood, or the politics involved to comment or label anyone.

but it would seem east sac has gotten into an "us against them" scenario, and that's never pretty.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

it may sound like i'm avoiding your question, but the truth is that i don't know enough about the project, the neighborhood, or the politics involved to comment or label anyone.

but it would seem east sac has gotten into an "us against them" scenario, and that's never pretty.

The people at Mercy having been working with the neighborhood community from the beginning. They listened, changed, and down-sized the project.

Neighbors in opposition simply do not want it in their backyard. I guess they fit the description, Not in My Backyard.

Sorry folks...lets take this discussion back to 301 Capitol Mall

[TowerDistrict]

good idea.

Question: Was CIM/CalPERS going to announce their revised plan soon? Or are they going to take their sweet time with it?

I thought i remember an 18 month timeline for the new project - but I wasn't clear on whether that was 18 months to announce the new project, or 18 months to work the new project through the system and to construction.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by innov8

In the final EIR draft for the Towers there were several letters and one by
Dan Visnich of the Historic Preservation Society. Have you meet this guy Wberg?

He always shows up with a bow tie and considers almost everything in the
downtown area historic. His letter says stuff like "the massive scale and
height of the proposed Twin Towers would certainly squash the Capitol's
image and be embarrassment to the state government". Here's another one that was
rich, "The hierarchy ideal of government, the outstanding change of
perspective and focus will all be lost while traveling along Capitol Mall.
Reminiscent of fossils, only small traces will remain, the grand ideal concept
of government would be dead" This are quotes from his letter

There are two pages of stuff like this. This guy Dan Visnich of the Historic
Preservation Society was the Stop The Towers campaign. When the city
Committees would meet to discuss the project and comments from people
attending were asked, Dan sometimes would be asked to leave be the podium after
several minutes because he would go on and on about everything. It was
actually a funny thing to watch on the live feed. We would all laugh at him
for days here on the forum. The term "Menacing the Dome" is a Dan Visnich original

Jeeze... there must be a "Dan Visnich" in every city in the country. I can't off-hand remember what ours is named, but he even dresses the same.

Guys like this, who are just against everything, give historical/preservation groups a bad name. If you go before council and he's the only guy who's filled out an opposition speaker slip, you know you're in pretty good shape.

However, you must be careful about "menacing the dome..." It'll stunt your growth!

[ozone]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

That is an outstanding line by our dear TowerDistrict.

Define your vision of the neighborhood and then work with developers to achieve that vision.

That should be true for cities as well as neighborhoods.

This type of approach would save so much time and money and actually might achieve something besides shrieking testimony and endless studies.

Bravo sir!

Yes, yes, yes..

As for dear old Danny Boy. Yep every city has at least one. Opposition plays an important role. It either makes us think twice about something or it solidifies our support for it. It's our responsiblity to show our support for something if we think it's worthwhile.

travis bickle where do you live?

[wburg]

On the flipside, developers have to work with neighborhoods--too often developer outreach is limited or nonexistent, or basically the neighborhood is expected to simply smile and nod at whatever the developer has done, and if the neighborhood provides input it is politely circular-filed.

As odd as it may sound, very often neighborhood opposition IS, in a sense, working with the developer--it's just that sometimes you have to work with the developer against the developer's will. Often many of a project's benefits to the neighborhood (lighting enhancements, improved streetscape, better appearance) are the result of response to neighborhood activism and opposition.

[travis bickle]

travis bickle where do you live?

I drive a cab in NYC.

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

The people rejoicing now are the self-loathing Sacramentans who have long overshadowed this region. The people who hate where they live and relish their own misery. They don't have any real affect on anything - where as NIMBYs actually do.

The self-loathing Sacramentan doesn't care enough about anything to motivate themselves into action. They simply fester in the comments section of the SacBee, from their dark, dank windowless computer stations, scattered throughout the various exurban bedroom communities.

Pay no attention to them. They're harmless.

I hate these people. Nimbys and Self-loathing Sacramentans. Boo!

Isn't there also subset of undesirables that demand endless studies, committees, referendums, and town hall meetings? we need a catchy name to mock them too.

[TowerDistrict]

i thought we called them "city council"?

hehe.

[wburg]

As long as we're coming up with insulting names, how about one for folks who want to knock down historic structures and build skyscrapers on the rubble? The last time I was in Chicago I heard the term "knockdown" used to describe their current wave of demolition/reconstruction, so maybe calling them "knockdowns" fits, although as a former Chicagoland resident I'm pretty sure that there are more colorful names for them in the public parlance, probably unprintable.

As for the local breed, maybe we can just call them "Mohannas"?