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

[innov8]

As long as we're coming up with insulting names,

Where's ozone when you need him?

[wburg]

Or, we could skip the insulting names and get back to discussing the topic at hand. It seems like it will probably take a while before CIM comes back with a design for the new 301 tower.

[innov8]

Wberg, it sounded like you were asking for some names in your last post and piling on too.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by 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.

You know wburg, with all respect... this is horse crap. I've worked for four major developers now: The Olson Company, Lennar, DR Horton and my present firm (a large private developer). In many cases we spend years in outreach and public input before we turn a single spade of dirt. In many cities, after your initial contact, you are immediately put in touch with the appropriate local planning/community group to begin the comments process.

I wholeheartedly agree that the project often is significantly improved by this process. But you don't know the community's concerns until you speak with them. Every successful developer knows that without local sign-off, your project stands little chance of success. Unless, of course, the opposition has just shot themselves in the foot as I have occasionally seen.

If you have built a project in the community before, you hope that the trust you've established carries over into your new project. Obviously distrust of developers is historically well-justified. But those types of operators just will not be successful today.

I've noted before here, some local opposition is nothing short of extortion. I have personally had to build a new driveway or re-landscape a yard to get the vote of someone who supposedly had a philosophical difference with the project as proposed. I'll let you in on a secret - you tie it to some kind of improvement like new sidewalks and because of that you now have to redo their driveway. You do become cynical after a while.

At the same time, I have had the pleasure of working with groups for whom a better community was their clear and unambiguous objective.

You may have some specific examples but I would suggest that that developer either learns his lesson or leaves the industry. The old way of doing things hasn't applied for years. Not if you want to be successful anyway.

[wburg]

innov8: Consider it a brief fume, reconsidered shortly afterward. Because I absolutely refuse to use "smilies," sometimes it's a bit tough to express irony in a board post.

travis: I've seen it work both ways. Some developers do a great job of outreach, others give the brush-off. Fortunately it seems that the older, less responsive sort of developer is dying out, and a lot of the newer generation are much more pro-active about responding to neighborhood input. I'm cynical too, but I have also had the pleasure of meeting a few developers who do make an effort to respond to community input, and have done what I can to express support to those projects to local city government. Sometimes, however, other tactics become necessary.

I tend to think of the interaction that takes place between developer and community is sometimes like haggling at a Turkish bazaar. Lots of screaming and hair-pulling and complaining about how X costs too much or how they have starving children to feed, but in the end there is something like a middle ground, even if it's just that both parties feel equally cheated.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by innov8

Where's ozone when you need him?

Hey now. When I use pejorative terms or hyperbole usually (not always) it's to make a point. I really don't believe all Southerners are dim witted. Both sides of my family are 'Old South' -we even have a county named after us. Both of my parents and two of my grandparents are college graduates. I was never raised to think that any human is inherently inferior to another and I believe that strongly today. I deplore the anti-education mentality as much as I do the 'formal education is everything' mentality and I find both everywhere ..but sadly it seems the anti-education mentality is particularly inculturated in the South.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by wburg

innov8: Consider it a brief fume, reconsidered shortly afterward. Because I absolutely refuse to use "smilies," sometimes it's a bit tough to express irony in a board post.

travis: I've seen it work both ways. Some developers do a great job of outreach, others give the brush-off. Fortunately it seems that the older, less responsive sort of developer is dying out, and a lot of the newer generation are much more pro-active about responding to neighborhood input. I'm cynical too, but I have also had the pleasure of meeting a few developers who do make an effort to respond to community input, and have done what I can to express support to those projects to local city government. Sometimes, however, other tactics become necessary.

I tend to think of the interaction that takes place between developer and community is sometimes like haggling at a Turkish bazaar. Lots of screaming and hair-pulling and complaining about how X costs too much or how they have starving children to feed, but in the end there is something like a middle ground, even if it's just that both parties feel equally cheated.

I'm sure you've seen what you describe above. But I truly pity those who give a neighborhood the brush-off. This is a lucrative field, but it's even more lucrative if you don't have to reinvent the wheel or even worse, have to overcome the mistakes of predecessors. It's far better to have listened and responded and thus cut seven months off your next project's schedule. I like to keep both my hair and my options intact. This is the way the overwhelming number of developers with which I am familiar do business.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by 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"?

Seriously wburg...I often wonder what you are doing on this site. You're more concerned with preserving every bit of the past than you are growth and progress...or so it seems. I'm not trying to be rude. Just my opinion.

[arod74]

Hey don't go anywhere wburg, I like your posts. I might not always agree but at least your arguements are well thought out. Preservation for the sake of preservation is about as useful as poorly conceived construction that gets mistaken as progress. Everything is subjective as to its relative value.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

Seriously wburg...I often wonder what you are doing on this site. You're more concerned with preserving every bit of the past than you are growth and progress...or so it seems. I'm not trying to be rude. Just my opinion.

I'm a historian, and preserving bits of the past is my stock in trade. I just don't think that preserving the past and growth/progress are incompatible things: ideally, they work together. Sometimes that means not saving everything (but taking steps to record, document and deconstruct) and not growing as much as possible (but ensuring that there is potential for growth) --that's why they call it "smart growth."

I stopped by because towerdistrict invited me, and I have stuck around because I am also interested in new developments (especially small/medium infill projects), because I have learned quite a few things in just a couple of weeks (it seems like there is a wealth of experience here) and because it seems like some folks here are also interested in local history.

[TowerDistrict]

if every person that neuhickman79 disagreed with left this forum, he'd be here alone... probably arguing with himself.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by arod74

Preservation for the sake of preservation is about as useful as poorly conceived construction that gets mistaken as progress.

arod74,
So True!

[urban_encounter]

There's responsible historical preservation and then there's historical hysteria.

Recall if you will that so called 'historical preservationists' obejcted to the city demolsihing the old firehouse behind the historic city hall at 9th and I street.

The firehouse for those who remember, was a plain, drab, concrete structure that hid the origional beaux arts facade on the north side of city hall.

Thankfully they didn't win the debate and the city demolished the firehouse, restoring and preserving the origional beaux arts grandeur of Sacramento City Hall for future generations.

[BrianSac]

urban, didnt they hold up 800 J for years and years because of a hotel? The Hotel had been vacant for over 40yrs, and was just a shell of a building.

Maybe preservationists should be required to come up with the money to restore these structures.

The tower theater needs work. Of course, they probably need the LPCA's blessing first.

[wburg]

urban: Details, please. Was this a neighborhood group or city staff? I'd categorize the restoration of Old City Hall as a mark in favor of preservation, not a reason to complain about it.

BrianSac: No, there was no hotel on that half-block. There was an existing retail/office building, the Coolot, which was vacant, and a short strip of one-story buildings on 8th, which was not:

There was an earlier project which had planned to incorporate the Coolot Building, am individually listed historic structure, as part of the new building, but then a "homeless person" broke into the Coolot Building and started a fire to keep warm....in the middle of summer. No more Coolot Building, no more neat preservation plan...and no more better building, enter CIM and the 800 J "Borg Cube."

Working on ways to come up with money to restore these structures is a very important thing, BrianSac--and I'm working on that, too. One thing I hope to see is implementation of the Mills Act in Sacramento--a way to encourage the owners of historic properties to maintain their buildings by providing big property tax breaks in return for certain standards of building maintenance. Los Angeles uses them for its "Historic Preservation Overlay Zone" districts and certain listed structures, but Sacramento hasn't yet implemented the Mills Act. The idea is to make preservation more economically feasible, and discourage Mo Mohanna style deliberate neglect of old buildings.

There are also grants available for preservation of historic buildings: the city of Sacramento just provided matching funds for just such a grant to begin restoration of the SP Depot, and Thomas Enterprises is soliciting for similar funds for some of the expected $125 million it will cost them to stabilize and restore their part of the Central Shops buildings.

As to the Tower Theater--the owners of the theater, a chain based out of New York, haven't been willing to invest in their property. If there is one thing the LPCA are staunchly in favor of, it's restoration of the Tower (and Joe Marty's.)

[BrianSac]

wburg,
You would think now that the LPCA or "Save the Tower theater" group was successful in preventing an Arts theater on K Street from being built that the Tower theater would have been restored by now.

Glad to hear of the Mills Act.

The "Borg Cube". I like that. Seriously, once all the retail is in place maybe that block will be more virbrant. Why dont you like the 800 J Building? Im not a fan of it, but I'm curious of your opinions.

Regarding the coolot. Wasnt there also a shell of a building behind it, near it, or on the same lot. It had a Victorian style facade.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

urban: Details, please. Was this a neighborhood group or city staff? I'd categorize the restoration of Old City Hall as a mark in favor of preservation, not a reason to complain about it.

I really don't have details, and i couldn't tell you who the preservationists were that were doing all the complaining; (which is why i didn't name names). I remember the city council taking exception to it though and basically brushing aside their concerns for the old fire department.

I consider myself a preservationist, but I also realize that sometimes we have to find new uses for our historic structures (think Ferry Building in San Francisco) that also invisions new uses; as opposed to simply restoring historic structures and then limiting it's use to it's origional function.

Originally Posted by wburg

As to the Tower Theater--the owners of the theater, a chain based out of New York, haven't been willing to invest in their property.

True, and they (Reading International) also submitted a bid to build a muliplex on K street (which would have required a city subsidy). But when Syufy (now Cinemark) was chosen to build a CineArts instead, Reading International came out in opposition to more screens on K stgreet and the city subsidy (that they had been competing for)... With the backing of the LPCA, they have launched the 'Save the Tower' campaign.

Originally Posted by wburg

If there is one thing the LPCA are staunchly in favor of, it's restoration of the Tower (and Joe Marty's.)

Perhaps; but if the LPCA really wants to 'save' the Tower Theater, then they should start buying tickets and attending movies there. Every time I've gone to see a movie at the Tower the place is empty.

BTW wburg, I respect your passion for historical preservation and I appreciate your comment and feedback here in forum.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I consider myself a preservationist, but I also realize that sometimes we have to find new uses for our historic structures (think Ferry Building in San Francisco) that also invisions new uses; as opposed to simply restoring historic structures and then limiting it's use to it's origional function.

Hey, Urban,
Well stated. I feel the same regarding preservation. All one has to do is go to Europe to find many examples of new uses for historic structures. I'm sure Chicago has quite a few examples as well.

Another example of this: Historic building on 19th Street (between L & Capitol)
A firehouse from 1893 to the early 1980s, it served as New Helvetia Roasters and Bakers before Mulvaney took over the space a few years ago for his catering operation, Culinary Specialists. The patio, which Mulvaney will open up for seating in warm weather, stabled the firehouse's horse team. Today, this is Mulvaney's Building and Loan Restaurant.

Funny thing about history. Some people believe this building was a bank because of the name of the Restaurant. They have completely forgotten that it was a firehouse for decades and was restored into a very popular Cafe/Bakery for at least ten years before Patrick Mulvaney brought his restaurant there.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

if every person that neuhickman79 disagreed with left this forum, he'd be here alone... probably arguing with himself.

I'm sure that's how it is with all of us. What's your point?!

[kryptos]

why would you want to preserve this thing?