Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[wburg]

Hardly meets the street? The auto shop opened directly onto the sidewalk, and the bike shop's front door was on a triangular concrete pad next to the sidewalk, with a place to park bikes! I'm not sure how you could meet the street more directly than that.

The cool thing with developers these days seems to be the purchase of commercial properties, immediately followed by the demolition of the property, and then sitting on said vacant lot until their intended project is ready to go. We're seeing the same thing on S and 18th, where the plating works and other buildings were demolished without any submitted plan for what will replace them. The developers there have talked about their planned 8-story mixed-use tower thingamabob, and are apparently working with staff, but there's nothing formally in the pipeline.

On residential land, buildings can't be demolished until a project has been formally approved to replace the existing structure. Commercial buildings don't have that protection, even if they are fully occupied and currently utilized, the way that A&A/Rex Cycle was. It's a bit tough for a developer to give the standard line that a property is "vacant and blighted" when there are operating businesses on the site, but a vacant lot, even if it's vacant because the owner tore the buildings down, is an easier sell.

[snfenoc]

I wouldn't say the building was blighted, plus it had a decent look - not great, but decent. In some way I would have prefered it be left in place - I don't like seeing ugly, over-grown vacant lots (see Cemo Midtown). However, I'm glad it's gone - one less opportunity for the preservationist special interest to hold up a good (I assume) project. Had Heller left it in place, an organized, influential effort to save the building (or at least make development at the site difficult) may have taken root by the time he had the money/plans to start development. I say, strike while the iron is hot. Now, the preservationists will have to obsess over some other silly little building.

[wburg]

snefnoc: "Blighted" only means that a building isn't worth as much as a developer would like it to be worth. It generally has nothing to do with the physical state of the building itself.

You also seem to be making a big assumption that whatever is planned for that block is a good project: you know essentially nothing about what the developer has planned, but assume that it must be good? Why?

As to the demolition of the building as a preventive move, it seems like a really mean and spiteful thing to do--even though a building is currently in use, useful, and a city listed landmark, we're going to knock it down anyhow just in case someone might try to make a case to protect the building at some point in the future!

[Cynikal]

Actually, it looks like all the proper permits were pulled and reviewed. There was a 3rd party review of the site and a determination was made by City staff. The concerned groups downtown were even notified.

Burg, you said that it was a listed landmark? Are you sure about this?

[wburg]

It is listed in the 2007 Sacramento Register, in the NCIC "Historic Properties Directory for Sacramento as of September 2006." Bottom of page 182 of the PDF of the Sacramento Register--1926 Capitol, A&A Auto Body & Paint Work.

Which concerned groups were notified? The building is within the Winn Park/Capitol Avenue Neighborhood Association area.

[ozone]

Since my business is less than a block away I would walk by it every day. I will miss that funky little hold out. It did have character. However, it also was poorly maintained and sometimes dangerous. Of course, it could have been spruced up but it was still a fairly poor use of urban space -in an area that is evolving and densifying. A living city is always changing. Maybe it would have been nice if they had saved the Mission Revival facade and incorporated into a new building BUT it's certianly not worthy enough to jeopardize redeveloping the site.

Meanwhile the empty lot down the street, next to Dragonfly's near 18th and Capital, is about ready to see construction. Julie Young, a former project manager for Mike Heller (of the MARRS building) has teamed up with midtown architect Ron Vrilakas and plans to build the first mixed-use LEED certified structure in the City. It will be a three-story building with four lofts that sit over street-level retail. The ground floor will be retail - possibly a restaurant, boutique and/or upscale market. A large courtyard will be constructed in front, setting the project back from the street to make room for the 'green space'. Each upper floor unit will have its own outdoor green space including two 700 square foot roof gardens and possibly a pool on the second floor. Young is planning on providing two fuel-efficient Smart Cars from Neillo to make available to tenants.

[snfenoc]

I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic. While the building was not an amazing looker, and it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants), I agree with you - it was NOT blighted. If your point is developers often pull the "blighted" card to avoid onerous preservation rules or start the eminent domain process on a property they want (to steal), then I also agree with you. In my opinion, the "blighted" card should be needless - there should be no preservation rules, and there should be no eminent domain (with very few exceptions).

I think Mr. Heller has done a number of great projects - MAARS, the Elliott Building, the 01 Lofts, the Sutter Brownstones, and Retro Lodge (maybe, we shall see how this one works out – I have good feeling) come to mind. In my opinion, a project building's status as “existing” or “new” has only a little to do with the project's success. It's the ideas, tenants and overall spirit of the project that are more important. I think Mr. Heller has a decent grasp on what constitutes a good project, and I have faith he will make whatever building he has planned into something great. Oh, by the way, it seems you assume if a "historic" building will be replaced, a project must be bad. Why?

If preservationists did not exist, the mean and spiteful act of knocking down one's OWN building as a preventative measure would not be necessary. Alas, this town is crawling with gadflies, so sometimes one has to take "extreme" measures allowing him the opportunity to build his vision on HIS property. ("Extreme" was in quotes, because we are talking about a dumb little so-so building - Perspective, please.)

Oh, well. It's not like there aren't other so-so "historic" buildings for the preservationist gadflies to save from the evil grasp of unhindered private ownership. It's a good thing, too. Those people don't actually produce anything. They have to find some way to give their lives meaning.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

I wouldn't say the building was blighted, plus it had a decent look - not great, but decent. In some way I would have prefered it be left in place - I don't like seeing ugly, over-grown vacant lots (see Cemo Midtown). However, I'm glad it's gone - one less opportunity for the preservationist special interest to hold up a good (I assume) project. Had Heller left it in place, an organized, influential effort to save the building (or at least make development at the site difficult) may have taken root by the time he had the money/plans to start development. I say, strike while the iron is hot. Now, the preservationists will have to obsess over some other silly little building.

Very well stated, I agree 100%

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic. While the building was not an amazing looker, and it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants), I agree with you - it was NOT blighted. If your point is developers often pull the "blighted" card to avoid onerous preservation rules or start the eminent domain process on a property they want (to steal), then I also agree with you. In my opinion, the "blighted" card should be needless - there should be no preservation rules, and there should be no eminent domain (with very few exceptions).

I think Mr. Heller has done a number of great projects - MAARS, the Elliott Building, the 01 Lofts, the Sutter Brownstones, and Retro Lodge (maybe, we shall see how this one works out – I have good feeling) come to mind. In my opinion, a project building's status as “existing” or “new” has only a little to do with the project's success. It's the ideas, tenants and overall spirit of the project that are more important. I think Mr. Heller has a decent grasp on what constitutes a good project, and I have faith he will make whatever building he has planned into something great. Oh, by the way, it seems you assume if a "historic" building will be replaced, a project must be bad. Why?

If preservationists did not exist, the mean and spiteful act of knocking down one's OWN building as a preventative measure would not be necessary. Alas, this town is crawling with gadflies, so sometimes one has to take "extreme" measures allowing him the opportunity to build his vision on HIS property. ("Extreme" was in quotes, because we are talking about a dumb little so-so building - Perspective, please.)

Oh, well. It's not like there aren't other so-so "historic" buildings for the preservationist gadflies to save from the evil grasp of unhindered private ownership. It's a good thing, too. Those people don't actually produce anything. They have to find some way to give their lives meaning.

Again, very well stated, PERSPECTIVE, s.v.p.!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Can't say I will really miss this one. Sure it was an old building, but it didn't look like it had much going for it other than that. The facade was cheap and the building itself hardly meets the street at all. Like Brian said, something at least four stories would be nice. Are there any documents at all as to what might go in there or is it too early?

I agree, just because it's old, does it need to be preserved? I think not.

Mission revival, what a joke, if that's Mission revival then half the suburban homes in north natomas are spanish revival that should forever be preserved.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by ozone

-in an area that is evolving and densifying. A living city is always changing.

Yes, I agree a LIVING CITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CHANGE.

Most of these "preservationists" do not want midtown to become more dense.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Most of these "preservationists" do not want midtown to become more dense.

Midtown doesn't need to become more dense--the density is needed downtown, in the infill areas. What midtown needs is full occupancy of the existing housing and commercial stock, and infill on vacant lots of complementary scale. But you're wrong if you think that the preservation community doesn't support infill, new uses for old buildings, and the renaissance of Midtown. Preservation is about making old buildings used and useful again, not keeping them empty--or making them into kindling.

Originally Posted by Snefnoc

I'm pretty sure "blight" refers to the deterioration of a building or area - this is a physical characteristic.

No. If you look at the use of the term over the years, and even in the modern context, "blight" becomes a catch-all for any of a number of problems, real or perceived. "Blight" can be used to describe an abandoned vacant lot, or a building that needs a coat of paint. It can be used to describe a century-old building, or a building 20 years old. It is used to describe a building whose current owners or occupants don't match someone's ideas of who or what should be on the lot: "blight" was often used to describe a building whose owners or occupants were non-white, for example.

The term "blight" also predates most modern preservation laws and the contemporary preservation movement. It was introduced in the 1920s as a way to describe neighborhoods that were not actually slums, but were areas that might possibly potentially turn into slums because their residents were the wrong race. This was used as justification to level these neighborhoods and turn them into new expansions of downtown central business districts, a process that didn't really reach full tilt until the redevelopment era of the 1950s.

Originally Posted by snefnoc

it could have used a good paint job (and better less gritty tenants)

Paint's pretty cheap. If someone seriously argued that a building should be knocked down because it needs a paint job, I wouldn't just question their argument, I'd question their sanity. As to the tenants, one tenant, Rex Cycles, was a custom-builder of high-end racing bikes, of the "if you have to ask how much it costs, you can't afford it" variety. Doesn't sound too gritty to me.

[snfenoc]

Do you even pay attention to what people write? Seriously, arguing with you is annoying. If I make points A, B, C, and D, a normal person would respond by addressing points A, B, C, and D. You, on the other hand, address part of A, all of Y, half of X, three quarters of U, and 10% of 69. I don't get you.

Hmmmm. I don't understand why you are arguing with me over the meaning of the word "blight". Would you agree that it should refer to major physical deterioration and not to the color of the owner's skin, or his ideas, or his choice of tenants? Because that's my point. I find it laughable for someone to suggest that building was blighted. It wasn't. It think "blight" has become a word developers, city planners and politicians like to slap on a building or area so they can force their preferred development. However, this whole argument is moot - I don't think Mr. Heller ever said the building was blighted.

Also, I want to make sure you understand I never said the building was blighted. I said it could use a paint job. I also said, the tenants were gritty and I would prefer different ones. I'm sorry, I did not realize expensive bikes were supposed to neutralize the grease monkey feeling that building gave me.

[wburg]

snefnoc: No, I don't agree that it should refer to physical deterioration--if someone wants to describe a building as physically deteriorated, they should say that, rather than using a term that originated in a disease of plants. If someone wants to get rid of a building because they don't like the color of the occupants, they should say so, so the rest of us will know their real motivations and realize that they are jerks, rather than having them cover it up with BS terms like "blight."

As you may have noticed, the definition of the term "blight" is kind of a sore spot for me. You're right, I shouldn't have gone off on a tear on that subject in your general direction.

Although, by the definition I put forth, the building was "blighted": the developer wanted to put something else there. So that's that.

[ozone]

This thread has deteriorated and is becoming "blighted". This is a legitimate debate and should be talking place somewhere, but probably not here.

I strongly disagreee with you wburg when you say that "Midtown doesn't need to become more dense". Why do you say that? Downtown and Midtown are by far the most walkable and transit-supportive areas of the city. This is precisely where we should building right now. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "midtown needs is full occupancy of the existing housing and commercial stock"? There's a few empty commerical spaces but they are probably empty because the owners are asking way to much and/or not being very accomodating. There is not a lot housing vacancy in Midtown.

I'm not a fan of scale for scale thing. Those brutalist senior housing mid-rises around Midtown don't bother me nearly as much as all those ugly low-rise dingbat apartments on a more "complementary scale". IMO we could use 10 more L Street Lofts in Midtown. Obviously, I wouldn't want to plop down a eight story condo in the middle of a neighborhood full of turn-of-the century homes but there are a lot of places left in Midtown which are underutilized or poorly developed. I don't think we should limit infill to vacant lots.

In the Central City -we should have a tax on surface off-street parking that is over a certian size and charge a "community blight fee" for property which sit vacant (without a legit proposal in the pipeline) for more than two years.

Just a bit of digression for a moment:
The City and Downtown/OS merchants and boosters have never really made the connection between Midtown and Downtown. And they've never really courted Midtown residents. Mostly I think that's because they are themselves suburbanites and therefore (depite the rhetoric) still think of downtown only in terms of a place to commute into or visit and not as a place to live. I think this has been a big mistake and has contributed to downtown's depression. We need to see the Central City as a whole, a particular entity -the Manhattan of Sacramento if you will.

[SacTownAndy]

I'm not sure of the specifics in Sac, but from my experience here in Denver working with city planners, my masters classes in planning, and my work with DURA (Denver Urban Renewal Authority), the term "blight" most definitely refers to the physical condition of a building or area.

In fact, here in Colorado, for an area or building to be officially recognized as "blighted", there are a set of criteria the state has set forth in which the particular subject has to meet- all pertaining to physical condition. And an official "Blight Study" is conducted. If the subject property meets 4 of the 11 criteria, it can officially be considered "blighted". This of course can open a whole 'nother can of worms- once an area or building here is recognized by the state as being blighted, we can start talking emminent domain, etc...

I'll see what I can dig up for Sacramento, but here's an excerpt from DURA's website:


"How does DURA determine if an area is blighted?

State law requires that 11 factors be used to determine blight. They include things such as unsanitary or unsafe conditions; deteriorated or deteriorating structures or site, the existence of conditions that endanger life or property, and environmental contamination. In most circumstances, four of 11 must be found to exist."


Based on the criteria we have here, and if my memory serves me correctly, that building, at least by Colorado standards, wouldn't even have come close to being considered blighted.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by ozone

This thread has deteriorated and is
I strongly disagreee with you wburg when you say that "Midtown doesn't need to become more dense". Why do you say that? Downtown and Midtown are by far the most walkable and transit-supportive areas of the city. This is precisely where we should building right now.

That's why Midtown doesn't need to be demolished and replaced. It's the part of the central city which works the way a city should! City planners have tried to "revitalize" K Street through multiple phases of demolition and reconstruction, and you can see the results today--a bunch of half-finished projects, half-demolished buildings, and half-assed ideas. Midtown doesn't need to become dramatically more dense because it is already the densest part of the city. Studies of the neighborhood as part of the new General Plan proved that. Midtown is a model to follow for urban development in the rest of the city.

IMO we could use 10 more L Street Lofts in Midtown. Obviously, I wouldn't want to plop down a 10 story condo in the middle of a neighborhood full of turn-of-the century homes but there's a lot of places left in Midtown which are underutilized or poorly developed. I don't hink we should limit infill to vacant lots.

There really aren't ten more spots in Midtown that could fit a building that size, except ones that are full of turn-of-the-century homes. Personally, I would *way* rather see four 25-story towers (or two 50-story towers, etc) downtown, where there ARE vacant lots and where tall-building context is in abundance, than ten 10-story mid-rises in Midtown. Would you want to see those ten 10-story buildings in Midtown, instead of in the Railyards?

Mid-rise development in Midtown can bleed off the necessary resources that could be better used downtown, in the Railyards, in the Docks. Developers like the idea of tearing out chunks of Midtown, because it's literally cheaper to buy and demolish a cluster of intact, functional buildings (and then demolish them) in Midtown than a vacant lot Downtown.

Just a bit of digression for a moment:
The City and Downtown/OS merchants and boosters have never really made the connection between Midtown and Downtown. And they've never really courted Midtown residents. Mostly I think that's because they are themselves suburbanites and therefore (depite the rhetoric) still think of downtown only in terms of a place to commute into or visit and not as a place to live. I think this has been a big mistake and has contributed to downtown's depression. We need to see the Central City as a whole, a particular entity -the Manhattan of Sacramento if you will.

You're right on the money there. Many people still consider midtown to be an inhospitable area, inhabited only by shopping cart pushing undesirables and crazed dope fiends. They consider it worthless, not worth saving, and simply an obstacle to the view that the central city is a place for office buildings and playgrounds for the wealthy, not a place for people to live. It is this attitude--which includes the basic attitude that old buildings aren't worth saving, and they should probably just be proactively torn down to prevent people from trying to save them.

From what I have seen, this view is changing: advocates of new-urbanist ideas are slowly working their way into city government and development circles. In my mind, this kind of urbanist mindset and historic preservation/adaptive reuse are inseparable partners, not opposite sides. But it's going to take some time--and some advocacy--for that to sink in. For folks like us who live and work in the central city, the seamlessness of downtown and midtown, as complementary halves, is obvious. I don't know if Manhattan is the model--but think of downtown as the equivalent of Market Street in San Francisco, and midtown as the Haight: the funky, lively, mostly residential and shopping (and not very tall) district within walking distance of the tall stuff.

Part of what has galled me about the most recent issue is that Heller has proved he can do good projects in old buildings, and has spoken at public functions about the value of historic preservation in contemporary development--and then does something like this. It's like finding out your hero kicks puppies.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Majin

wburg the more I read your posts the more of an idiot I think you are

I understand what wburg is saying and i agree (to a point.)

Midtown is unique and there are many cities that would love to dupilcate its vibe. I will say that I think we should support high density housing in midtown where it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood, but under no circumstances should development be allowed to overwhelm the pedestrian feel of Midtown. I also think there are many ways to achieve higher densities, without overwhelimng the area..


I'm o.k. with th L street lofts, but i don't want to see 8 to 10 or 15 story towers all over midtown and i doubt (as wburg said) that there are many places where that would work. The one exception is R street and i still think it should be kept in scale with the neighborhood..

Midtown is unique and we really need to ensure that it doesn't turn into another cookie cutter urban destination (duplicated anywhere USA)..

[Dakotasteve66]

I think the L Street Lofts fit very well in midtown, but specifically for the fact that it is located in the J-K-L business district, where it is more appropriate. You move the Lofts a few streets north or south, and it just doesn't work.

So, saying 8, 10 or 15 story towers are appropriate or inappropriate for midtown is too gross a statement. I think it depends on the specific lot in midtown and its surrounding structures. The vacant lot on northeast corner of Q and 19th comes to mind. As previously stated, some lots along the R Street corridor. Possibly along W street where taller structures could buffer noise from the Highway 50. 27th and Q? or some of the properties in that vacinity near the Capital City Freeway.

However, I also agree, that if any of these projects detracted from larger scale projects in downtown or the railyard, it would have an overall negative impact on the central city.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I understand what wburg is saying and i agree (to a point.)

Midtown is unique and there are many cities that would love to dupilcate its vibe. I will say that I think we should support high density housing in midtown where it fits in with the scale of the neighborhood, but under no circumstances should development be allowed to overwhelm the pedestrian feel of Midtown. I also think there are many ways to achieve higher densities, without overwhelimng the area..


I'm o.k. with th L street lofts, but i don't want to see 8 to 10 or 15 story towers all over midtown and i doubt (as wburg said) that there are many places where that would work. The one exception is R street and i still think it should be kept in scale with the neighborhood..

Midtown is unique and we really need to ensure that it doesn't turn into another cookie cutter urban destination (duplicated anywhere USA)..

I pretty much agree with what your saying here.

However, I do think Midtown could and should be denser, but that does not mean I want single story Victorians replaced or even buildings like MARRS replaced(before MARRS was MARRS). But I still understand, to a point, someone like Heller demolishing the pre-MARRS building if he knew preservationists were going to make it extremely difficult for him to do what he wanted to do with the lot. If Heller decided to knock down the pre-MARRS building instead adapting it because he wanted to add two more floors to it and create someting similar; I would be fine with that.

I see midtown with maybe 3 to 5 more L Street lofts type buildings (but with a smaller footprint), and I see SOME of those 60's and 70's narrow apartment buildings being replaced with taller structures, 3 to 5 stories tall. Decorative, ornate, deco, streamline (there are few near 16th street) craftsman style, victorian, real adobe-mission style, hollwywood bungalow type stuctures should stay, even some of those 60's and 70's apartment building should remain. I like variety.

I see downtown with more "sleek" taller/slim condo/apartment buildings. All cool cities have them, Seattle, SF, Paris, Chicago, even Amsterdam. Although Amsterdam may not have high-rise buildings. Amsterdam's 3-5 story buildings are very tall, taller than a typical 3-5 story western american building(The Dutch are very tall people on average).

All these preservationists and anyone with undue influence in Sacramento should be required to experience Paris, London, Chicago, Boston, Montreal, Seattle, SF, SD to name a few cities.