Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[jsf8278]

I agree. Its really just a tree people! Cut the damn thing down, plant another and forget about it. Its this type of BS that really hinders development. But I know I know...its a "special tree."

[creamcityleo79]

Seriously, what are we without our trees? If you don't like the trees and Sacramentans fervent and protective love for them, then go move to Vegas...or Phoenix. This is a city of trees. There has to be a line drawn somewhere with development...and in Sacramento, that definitive line is with the trees!

Coincidentally, without seeing this picture here, I changed my desktop at work to this picture:

[sacamenna kid]

Don't know if anybody noticed it or not, but there's another bunya tree on the new Sacred Heart school site at 39th and H, scheduled for removal to another site. Maybe they could do the same with the Crocker tree. There are only four bunya trees in Sacramento.

[wburg]

Who let the Lorax out?

It's not blocking the building, but a fire road.

The fire department has already said they can build around it.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by wburg

Who let the Lorax out?

It's not blocking the building, but a fire road.

The fire department has already said they can build around it.

For once, I agree with you. There is no need to cut down a 125+ year old tree to build an access road for the fire dept. It's not getting cut down!!! Obviously, the Crocker Art Museum is into preserving beautiful and historic things (the Crocker mansion being one that comes to mind). So, I'm sure they have no problem holding on to a tree that is almost as historic as the mansion itself and preserving something that could otherwise be lost forever.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

For once, I agree with you. There is no need to cut down a 125+ year old tree to build an access road for the fire dept. It's not getting cut down!!! Obviously, the Crocker Art Museum is into preserving beautiful and historic things (the Crocker mansion being one that comes to mind). So, I'm sure they have no problem holding on to a tree that is almost as historic as the mansion itself and preserving something that could otherwise be lost forever.

Well put. Destroying a beautiful, historic thing to build a structure dedicated to protecting beautiful historic things (technically, a fire road for that structure) would be a sad irony.

At some point I'm going to add up all the times people say "For once, I agree with you." We agree on a lot. Just because I don't get my customer to success over every building plan doesn't mean I don't support new development.

[Sacdelicious]

FYI: On the northern section of the 18th block of J St (the block above Starbucks), the one story brick building that hosts Ink Printing is being expanded to a total of three floors. I'm not sure of the timeline, however...


On other news, it has been a pleasure learning of all of the happenings in Sacramento from all of you. I'm moving to New York City! next week. Good luck all, in Sacramento's future!

[wburg]

Good luck, Yorkdelicious!

[SLO]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

The Sacramento Valley is not a desert. For centuries, the Sacramento Valley has had groves of naturally growing Valley Oaks.

I agree, plenty of oaks, just like in the foothills. I would never accuse the Valley of being desert, but since moving out of California I realize how arid the state really is......even Texas (DFW), where I currently live gets far more rain 38-40 inches per year, where Sac gets 18 to 20" on average....
heck, we had a record June, 12" of rain "officially" many areas much more than that.....Marble Falls near Austin had 20" in a week!

I love California & Sacramento though, so none of this is a knock or to be taken negatively, just my thoughts....

[SLO]

Originally Posted by wburg

Well, you didn't, but that isn't quite "nobody":



The "City of Trees" thing isn't just a marketing gimmick, even though it is an oft-used marketing gimmick. Our urban forest is a distinctive feature.

Sacramento's waterfront in 1849. I realize it's just a drawing, but barring extreme artistic license it does suggest trees more than ten years old.

Another view, also showing mature trees in 1849.

Most of these waterfront trees were eliminated later, as the city filled in, and there were almost certainly more before 49ers started showing up and cutting them down for firewood and to clear the way for the rapidly expanding city.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as confrontational about this, but when people's opinions fly in the face of the facts, the facts still win.

No big deal....
I agree to a certain extent, the oak groves and areas close to the rivers. Modesto & Fresno also have great trees. Bakersfield ehh, not so much, but of course its drier & more arid the farther south you go in the valley.

What of the, "most trees per capita" claim, does anyone have any facts or references on that? I'd be interested.

[wburg]

*shrug* Does it really matter, the trees per capita thing? It seems like that would be a rapidly shifting feature. Do a Google search for "Sacramento" and "trees per capita" and you won't find a lot of hard facts but you'll find a lot of mindspace: we are known as the City of Trees.

Not the Village of Trees. Not the Cow-town of Trees.

The CITY of Trees.

Think about that for a minute. The City of Lights, the Windy City, the City that Never Sleeps--and the City of Trees. You don't even need to name the cities to know where you're talking about. It means we're an archetype, and not necessarily a bad one.

And hell, it beats the hell out of "The Big Tomato."

[Cynikal]

Totally agree.

[otnemarcaS]

It's quite comical reading that Sac's trees are planted and not natural. Just one question. WHO CARES? Does a natural tree have more of a 'ooomph' factor than a planted tree. Makes no difference how the tree comes into being. This city does a tremendously commendable job of planting trees everywhere. The City of trees label fits well. Even just walking around here in San Francisco (where I work) which is more or less a jungle of buildings, except Golden Gate park, one learns to appreciate how tree lined and tree filled Sacramento is.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

It's quite comical reading that Sac's trees are planted and not natural. Just one question. WHO CARES? Does a natural tree have more of a 'ooomph' factor than a planted tree. Makes no difference how the tree comes into being. This city does a tremendously commendable job of planting trees everywhere. The City of trees label fits well. Even just walking around here in San Francisco (where I work) which is more or less a jungle of buildings, except Golden Gate park, one learns to appreciate how tree lined and tree filled Sacramento is.

I've noticed the same thing about SF/Sac in regards to trees. One can appreciate Sacramentos trees more fully when you compare it to SF. There are a lot of extreme opposites regarding the two cities.
SF: Huge hills, no trees, very cool summers
Sac: No hills, many trees, warm/hot summers (not nearly as bad as some say).

[goldcntry]

Can we bury the hatchet on the tree controversy now? More contruction talk!



p.s. FYI: the oaks in my pic above are oaks in my dad's vineyard (Amador County).

[TowerDistrict]

maybe we can start reusing these historic trees and build some tree lofts?

Originally Posted by goldcntry

Can we bury the hatchet on the tree controversy now?

lovely work on that pun. bravo!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by innov8

^ Nobody said there were NO trees.

Mercy General Hospital Project

The Mercy General Hospital and Sacred Heart Parish School’s Mixed Use
Project (proposed project). There are three separate project components
within the proposed project: the MGH component, the SHPS component, and
the residential component. Collectively, these three components include the
construction of the 123,350 square foot (sf) Alex G. Spanos Heart Center
(Heart Center); surface parking lots on the existing SHPS campus and at the
northeast and southeast corners of the hospital campus; and a residential
complex with 20 for-rent units along H Street. The project also includes
the relocation of SHPS west of 39th Street between H and J streets where
the existing Mercy Care facility and 17 residential units are located. The
demolition of several buildings is included in this project: Mercy General
Hospital’s East Wing and chapel; the existing SHPS; the Mercy Care facility;
and 17 residential units.

Innov8,
Thanks for posting this. Lets hope it gets built.

Have the Nimby's sued yet?

I went to one of Mercy's public meetings. Sixty percent were anti-Mercy, forty pecent were pro-Mercy. It was nice to see people who live very close to the hospital in support of it.

A trio of older ladies (ladies in their 70's) said their neighbors who are against it are just a bunch old "fuddy duddies" who oppose everything no matter what it is. I thought that was funny because the old fuddy duddies were people in their 40's and 50's.

[goldcntry]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

lovely work on that pun. bravo!

Finally! Someone noticed the puns!!

[ericm2031]

This is kinda random, but does anyone have an account for the sacramento business journal online with a paid subscription. I was just wondering because I am out of town and won't be getting back in time to get the current business journal. I just need it for a couple of hours and you can change your password and everything once I am done. If you can do this, just email me at [email protected] with username (email) and password.

[jdaniel]

This is a little late in coming but its worth a shot.

LJUrban (www.ljurban.com/blog) is hosting a Sacramento Urbanist Blogger Dinner this upcoming Monday. We'll be chatting about a couple of our projects in the Washington Area of West Sacramento (btw the two bridges): these projects are in their early formative stages which is a perfect time for creative discussion and we thought it would be fun to open the conversation up to others.

Real casual. Good food. And, we hope, some interesting dialogue. I was initially thinking blogs but we're also targeting other urban thinkers and this forum definitely fits the bill.

We're capping the event at 20 people to preserve the quality of discussion. At present we have 5 blogs and about 5 other urbanists, so we're looking for a few more to round things out (15 would be ideal).

Anyways, if your interested, shoot me an e-mail ([email protected]) and I'll send you an invite with more information.

Next time round, I'll post something sooner...