Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[reggiesquared]

Anyone else feel the I-5 downtown deck should have been put on the fast track to coincide with this major disaster of a project they are starting in the spring? Or is there no way the decking will happen within the next 5 years even?

[sugit]

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by sugit

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

nothing is showing up except boxes with red x's

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

Anyone else feel the I-5 downtown deck should have been put on the fast track to coincide with this major disaster of a project they are starting in the spring? Or is there no way the decking will happen within the next 5 years even?

I-5 decking will never happen..

Sacramento get's shafted everytime highway funding is allocated and there's no way with the cost of construction that the money will ever be available.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by sugit

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I don't think will see anything for a while yet, no new information has been
provided to the commission since these rendering were turned in in late Oct.

[sugit]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

nothing is showing up except boxes with red x's

Better?

[econgrad]

City Council To Vote On Street Lights

January 3, 2008

SACRAMENTO -- Homeowners in the Land Park-Curtis Park areas are going head to head over new street lighting.

Those in favor say added light is essential to safety, while the opposition feels too many corners have been cut at too high a cost.

"We have some crazy people walking our street at nights and it's a dark dark area-- and it's extremely unsafe, " complained Land Park homeowner Jason Hill.

Three years ago he decided to do something about his dark streets; he began working with the city to add 740 street lights throughout the Land-Curtis Park neighborhoods. "The city is just the vehicle behind this, we're all just volunteers trying to get the lights put in but the city is the means to get those lights put in, this is not getting pushed on us by the city nor the council members," said Hill.

But the price tag and concerns with the process have divided neighbors.

Craig Powell is an opposer of the lights. "I'm not anti street light by any stretch, I just think the cost of these street lights is just shocking to the conscience, and the process the city's used is unfair, undemocratic and unconstitutional."

If passed, each homeowner would pay $5,000 dollars for the lights, a cost that would more than double if stretched out over a thirty year period.

"I think that anytime your asking somebody to pay something, that it's a serious manner. Money is important to everybody. I heard many people out there today say that they'd like lights, but that they're expensive," said Mark Griffin with the Public Home Improvement Finance Group.

That's exactly the issue Land Park Homeowner Elyse Metune points out. "My streets pretty dark, I wouldn't mind some more street lights on my street, but i voted no." She says the plan is excessive."We don't need 10 street lights, we don't need to light up the universe. We just need three maybe four"

Following that public hearing city council members met to count and verify the votes. Only a simple majority is required to either pass or fail and those results will be in Tuesday, January

Copyright © 2008, KTXL

[ltsmotorsport]

Meridian II's design looks pretty good (except for the garage), but seeing it in the first picture (from 15th street), I wish the curved side was on the north side, instead of the south. Just doesn't look good to have a huge sharp corner on the corner of an intersection. All they'd have to do is rotate the design. Problem solved!

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by sugit

Better?

yep

thanks..

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Meridian II's design looks pretty good (except for the garage), but seeing it in the first picture (from 15th street), I wish the curved side was on the north side, instead of the south. Just doesn't look good to have a huge sharp corner on the corner of an intersection. All they'd have to do is rotate the design. Problem solved!

Sharp corners aren't very feng shui are they...?

Especially considering the proximity to the Capitol..

[doriankage]

Originally Posted by sugit

Not sure if anyone posted these yet..but here are some updated renderings of Meridian II. Should be going to Design Review and Planning Commission any week now.

I think the top 2/3 looks okay..not great, not bad...but the garage looks like crap...even with that, I think it will probably look better than 621.

I can't wait for the day we get a high-rise that is designed with glass ALL around the building instead of clad, pre-cast, or whatever other crap they use along with it.

_________________________________________________________________

24 story, 300' high, 525,000 gsf office builidng with on-site parking (433 spaces, 222,786 gsf)and ground floor retail (6500 gsf). The project will have two sub-grade parking levels connecting to the Meridian Plaza I sub-grade parking via a tunnel under the alley."

Not to crazy about the back. Reminds me of 621 a little.
But I do dig the front side.

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by econgrad

"We have some crazy people walking our street at nights and it's a dark dark area-- and it's extremely unsafe, " complained Land Park homeowner Jason Hill.

Three years ago he decided to do something about his dark streets; he began working with the city to add 740 street lights throughout the Land-Curtis Park neighborhoods. "The city is just the vehicle behind this, we're all just volunteers trying to get the lights put in but the city is the means to get those lights put in, this is not getting pushed on us by the city nor the council members," said Hill.

Heheh... that's my neighbor there.

This thing really has got out of hand. It's turned into something of a small
scale Q&R measure. Unfortunately, many of the people in these older and
more modest Land/Curtis Park hoods just can't afford to make big
improvements with money out of their pockets.

That or they just don't care.

But to say that neighborhood assessment districts are "unfair, undemocratic
and unconstitutional" is just about the most ignorant comment one could
apply to the effort.

[wburg]

Streetlight assessments are nothing new: most of the areas in midtown where you see streetlights are there because the property owners got together and agreed to put in lights--and pay for them. Many of the new developments around town (New Faze, Tapestri, the Trammell Crow project on Alhambra) have been asked to include streetlights as part of their development agreement, but in existing built neighborhoods it depends on the current land owners. Where the residents are property owners or good local landlords, it's not so hard--where the property owners are slumlords or long-distance speculators, it can be a lot more difficult.

[SacTownAndy]

For Meridian II, is it 300ft to the top of that spire, or is it 300ft roof height?

[ltsmotorsport]

I was wondering that too. And another thing on the design; if they rotate the building like I mentioned earlier, then the spire would be on the corner to, and not on the alley. Looks pretty dumb that way if you ask me.


Also, yesterday as I was driving back to the central coast, I saw a mobile crane outside of the huge DMV building near the WX freeway. Maybe they're finally thinking about that new facade.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Originally Posted by wburg

Streetlight assessments are nothing new: most of the areas in midtown where you see streetlights are there because the property owners got together and agreed to put in lights--and pay for them. Many of the new developments around town (New Faze, Tapestri, the Trammell Crow project on Alhambra) have been asked to include streetlights as part of their development agreement, but in existing built neighborhoods it depends on the current land owners. Where the residents are property owners or good local landlords, it's not so hard--where the property owners are slumlords or long-distance speculators, it can be a lot more difficult.

The often heard argument against new street lights is the expense. What most people don't realize is that, to replace old street lights or add new ones, it's not just a matter of sticking a new lamppost into the ground. There is signicant street trenching work necessary to lay new electrical conduits that will serve the street lights. That is what drives the cost. It is interesting that owners of many of most expensive homes in the entire Sacramento region think that is it prohibitively expensive to add street lights.

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by SacUrbnPlnr

The often heard argument against new street lights is the expense. What most people don't realize is that, to replace old street lights or add new ones, it's not just a matter of sticking a new lamppost into the ground. There is signicant street trenching work necessary to lay new electrical conduits that will serve the street lights. That is what drives the cost. It is interesting that owners of many of most expensive homes in the entire Sacramento region think that is it prohibitively expensive to add street lights.

The neighborhoods in question are in Old Land Park and North Curtis Park.
They're nothing like the mansions closer to the actual namesake parks. I'd
say about 70% of the homes in this assessment district are 2 bed / 1 bath,
750-900 sq. ft. Maybe 10%, 3/1's and the rest are apartments and duplex.

The owners of the apartments are the ones making the biggest stink, and
virtually the only ones actively opposing this effort. That's because their
share of the assessment is much larger and somehow based on the units
and size of their parcel. Most single family home owners would be paying
just under $5,000 - while larger apartment buildings may end up paying
close to $60,000.

[TowerDistrict]

I just got an email from Jason Hill quoted above. The streetlights assessment
district lost 1,110 to 203.

ouch!

[enigma99a]

I hate the building. Looks like a child of 621CM and the spire sucks

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

I hate the building. Looks like a child of 621CM and the spire sucks

You have a point..

I'll probably be disliking this one too, because I'm no fan of 621.