Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[TowerDistrict]

cool. thanks for posting. i think everything looks cool up top. this is the only part i don't like...

[jsf8278]

Is there a link to the 800 K project, or does anyone have any info? I've never heard of it.

[Sacto]

Cool renderings but the design really 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵.

[TowerDistrict]

Living In Urban Sac has some good info from a year ago. Just scroll down about half-way on this page.

I don't know what happened to the EIR. It's not on the city's website.

[wburg]

I think I still have it knocking around somewhere...

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by fatchocolatecow

It received mixed reviews and will have to return to Design Review again. Comments ranged from (these are not quotes, but summations)... it is a beautiful building with strong features, to... this design belongs on Lakeshore Drive in the 60's, but there is nothing original about it now. They also seemed concerned that the architecture too closely resembles that of Cathedral Square which is being proposed only 2 blocks away.

I stopped in to listen to the meeting after stepping off the train from S.F. and caught both staff reports on the Metropolitan and Cathedral Square.

Commissioner Lebarge (a hold over from the Design Review and Preservation Board), complained the loudest about both towers. In fact her wish list for Cathedral Square was so long, that I thought i would have enough time to walk over to Pyramid, have a beer and go back to the meeting before she finished.

Needless to say, I was tempted to step to the podium when they made their Lake Shore comments, but realizing I'm on vacation, I kept my composure.

Sacramento is not Lake Shore Drive and while Lake Shore's architecture ranges from classical to aweful, there are thousands of people living in high density housing.

I personally don't believe the CS or Metro will resemble each other when complete; but even if they did, would that be a bad thing in a city in desperate need to get over the hump (as far as highrise residentail housing goes)???

Two decent looking towers on J street would be a good thing.

Not every Tower proposed is going to be as stunning as Epic, Aura or 301 CM.

The Commissioners also took excpetion to the proposal to use stucco on the Cathedral Square. The architect tried to expain the need to keep costs under control, but for the most part, at least three commissioners didn't seem to comprehend..

[foxmtbr]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I personally don't believe the CS or Metro will resemble each other when complete; but even if they did, would that be a bad thing in a city in desperate need to get over the hump (as far as highrise residentail housing goes)???

Two decent looking towers on J street would be a good thing.

Not every Tower proposed is going to be as stunning as Epic, Aura or 301 CM.

That's how I feel. Just look at San Diego, they have tons of residential highrises that may look similar, but it's certainly not a bad thing. Everyone knows San Diego is a great city with a vibrant downtown, which only goes on to prove that these towers are a positive thing. Who cares if they're similar? (Which I, too, believe they won't be when completed.)

[goldcntry]

Foxmtbr and Urban both hit the nail on the head for me. How many buildings actually look like the artistic renderings when complete? Tower, I agree with you that if the finished product looked like that along J street, I might balk as well. However, it is just a rendering without the benefit of actual stores/pubs/galleries/etc lighting up the street life. Minneapolis is another city with very similar residential towers - but with a fantastic day & night street life (if only for the spring/summer/fall months). Just my thoughts this morning with no caffine my system yet...

[wburg]

In my mind, two similar-looking towers bookending that block isn't necessarily a bad thing, but also in my mind, the similar appearance of the towers isn't the primary issue.

Given the total expenses of this project, it seems like having something a little nicer than stucco isn't a big deal. If the idea is to spruce up the city, make things more walkable, why not spring for something a little nicer?

While I understand your motivation for wanting to plug such a project, isn't saying "well, I know the rendering looks bad, but it will look better when it's actually built!" is kind of encouraging people to buy a pig in a poke--if the building gets built and still looks bad, does that mean the city can just demolish it? Answer: Of course it doesn't. My point is that if you can't even make it look okay at the drawing stage, it seems like a stretch to assume that the built version will somehow magically improve things. If the problem is a bad rendering, DO ANOTHER RENDERING.

[snfenoc]

I hope someone, some day can find the words to explain why it's OK for people (gadflies, busy bodies, etc.) to direct the design of, and accept or reject projects they DO NOT own.

Give me liberty, or give YOU death!

[wburg]

snefnoc: It's called "democracy." Our system of government is based on public participation, which includes a level of say about private development. It is obviously okay under the current system, in which public comment is not only allowed but solicited, in the pre-development process and at public meetings with city staff. The question, as always, is where do private property rights end and matters affecting the public begin?

I would also take issue with the phrasing of your question: the public (including gadflies like myself) don't get to direct the design, or accept/reject projects. Our power is limited to talking, both to the developer directly and to the city's staff and boards. What is done as a result of that talking is up to the person we're speaking with. We all have that right, and it is our choice to exercise it.

Let's say that I own a piece of property, and I want to install a device that launches flaming cat turds into the air from the top of my roof. Even though I think it's a good idea, many of my neigbors might disagree, which leads to public methods to address neighborhood concerns, or perhaps citywide limits on animal-feces launching devices on private property.

[goldcntry]

Originally Posted by wburg

In my mind, two similar-looking towers bookending that block isn't necessarily a bad thing, but also in my mind, the similar appearance of the towers isn't the primary issue.

Given the total expenses of this project, it seems like having something a little nicer than stucco isn't a big deal. If the idea is to spruce up the city, make things more walkable, why not spring for something a little nicer?

OMG!!! I'm actually agreeing with wburg!

...DO ANOTHER RENDERING.

Absolutely! I recognize the need to cut costs, but once the planning is better established, how hard would it be for a graphic artist to plant some good textures into the rendering? And don't get me going on stucco! These projects should at least have some engineered granite or marble... maybe some slate corian?

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by goldcntry

Absolutely! I recognize the need to cut costs, but once the planning is better established, how hard would it be for a graphic artist to plant some good textures into the rendering? And don't get me going on stucco! These projects should at least have some engineered granite or marble... maybe some slate corian?

well the graphic artist isn't the one choosing the materials. you can't exactly take artistic liberties with these sorts of renderings. you have to tell it like it is.

[goldcntry]

I agree Tower, however, what's wrong with the architect going to the artist and saying, "here is a sample of the exterior granite and color of the window glazing." That street scape picture had the building in shades of white, grey, and black. It would be nice to have the rendering a little closer to the architectual foot notes is all...

[ozone]

Sacramento Design & Review Board
I understand the need for D&R but if they are the same bunch that made up the old board then it's explains a lot. Is this the same group that approved such dogs as the Sheraton Hotel or the Office Max on J Street? The same group that couldn't figure out why K Street between 12th and 13th was successful and the rest of the mall wasn't but conjectured it was because 13th Street was opened to traffic. What's the name of that guy from NY? Boy he's got a lot of people fooled into thinking he's some sharp, east coast big-city know-it-all. I loved it when he compared St. Rose Park to Rockefeller Center and K Steet to Times Square.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by wburg

snefnoc: It's called "democracy." Our system of government is based on public participation, which includes a level of say about private development. It is obviously okay under the current system, in which public comment is not only allowed but solicited, in the pre-development process and at public meetings with city staff. The question, as always, is where do private property rights end and matters affecting the public begin?

I would also take issue with the phrasing of your question: the public (including gadflies like myself) don't get to direct the design, or accept/reject projects. Our power is limited to talking, both to the developer directly and to the city's staff and boards. What is done as a result of that talking is up to the person we're speaking with. We all have that right, and it is our choice to exercise it.

Let's say that I own a piece of property, and I want to install a device that launches flaming cat turds into the air from the top of my roof. Even though I think it's a good idea, many of my neigbors might disagree, which leads to public methods to address neighborhood concerns, or perhaps citywide limits on animal-feces launching devices on private property.

Put your reading glasses on, sugit, I know you love a good long argument.

Dear Gadfly, I mean, wburg:

Democracy huh? I think of a different term - SOCIALISM (I know, I know it's not "technically" socialism, but I view liberty-killing government/public intrusion as socialism). With that said, I have no problem with a developer seeking the advice of area residents, or area residents volunteering their advice to a developer. I believe advice-seeking/volunteering is a sign of good faith and MAY lead to projects that benefit everyone (although benefiting everyone should not be a necessity). However, I do oppose the requirement for a developer to receive approval from the public, go through a long bureaucratic process and suffer countless stupid complaints from busy bodies (I mean, "community activists") at public hearings in order to legally build a project he owns on a piece of property he controls - especially when stucco is a point of contention (does this qualify as a run-on sentence?).

Of course you would bring up an extreme/improbable situation like flaming cat turds, Mr. Apples & Oranges. But I seriously doubt flaming cat turds and stucco are in the same league. Do you need further explanation??? I hope not. By the way, as your neighbor, I support your right to build a flaming cat turd launching device. However, if your cat turd bombs hit me or my property, I'm gonna sue you. Either that or you may face a rash of flaming bags (courtesy of my Mini Schnauzer, Rosie) on your front porch.

[wburg]

snefnoc: The flaming cat turds were an attempt at comedic hyperbole. The idea of a third-party organization (local government) is that they provide a means for people to resolve those differences of opinion without resorting to bags of flaming anything, and to provide some measure of parity between parties.

The other issue, flaming poo aside, is that it doesn't seem feasible or practical to tell people that they should simply ignore the built environment around them, or their buildings' effects upon the neighborhood or their community, simply because they are located on private property. We aren't just owners of the land we purchase, we are also its stewards, which means responsibility for the predictable consequences of our actions--whether that means economic dislocation, effects upon public utilities, or flaming poo from the sky.

And I'll give up my flaming cat turd launcher when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

[JeffZurn]

I agree that we should have a strong review board to shoot ugly buildings from getting built. But at this juncture in time any residential high rise that look pretty good, I say lets get them built.

[northbay]

^ wburg hit the nail on the head. as the dominant species, we are responsible for the environment (obviously including the BUILT environment). we should let 🞵🞵🞵🞵 be built (or fly from the sky) just because otherwise the government would be "meddling"? im sorry, but this doesn't make sense. there's a good reason california has EIRS (environmental impact reports - sometimes environmental impact statements). no building is built in insolation, it effects its environment and vice versa (adding cars, pollution, tax $ etc.) those relationships must be studied to ensure that at least something that doesnt negatively hurt a community gets built.

obviously, what is BEST is all a matter of debate, and yes, the responsible thing is to HAVE THAT DEBATE.
that by the way, is one of the reasons i enjoy this forum.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by northbay420

^ wburg hit the nail on the head. as the dominant species, we are responsible for the environment (obviously including the BUILT environment). we should let 🞵🞵🞵🞵 be built (or fly from the sky) just because otherwise the government would be "meddling"? im sorry, but this doesn't make sense. there's a good reason california has EIRS (environmental impact reports - sometimes environmental impact statements). no building is built in insolation, it effects its environment and vice versa (adding cars, pollution, tax $ etc.) those relationships must be studied to ensure that at least something that doesnt negatively hurt a community gets built.

obviously, what is BEST is all a matter of debate, and yes, the responsible thing is to HAVE THAT DEBATE.
that by the way, is one of the reasons i enjoy this forum.

The fact remains that it is more and more complicated to get anything built. The environment is almost always impacted requiring mitagation which is costly. Should the developer bear all those costs? Or maybe those demanding mitgation should help with those costs? Where do you draw the line in regards to impacts to the environment. A stauch environmentalist would say if you cant mitigate for all impacts then dont built it at all.