Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Why would I be surprised at that?

If your argument is that preservationists don't have perspective because they don't travel, then I assume that you'd be surprised, because we do travel, and we have our own perspective.

Yes, cities like Paris have 1200 year old buildings. Sacramento doesn't. The oldest building we have isn't even 200 years old! But in no way does that mean that we shouldn't take steps to preserve our historic buildings, any more than the fact that there are 2000-3000 year old buildings in Greece or Egypt means that the 1200 year old buildings in Paris aren't worth saving.

Many folks here seem convinced that I want to save every old building. This isn't true! I think every old building deserves some consideration, to look at its role in the city's history (keeping in mind that we're a 150 year old city, not an ancient European city) and its present-day role. Sometimes, that means the building has to go--but they all deserve, at least, some consideration and investigation.

During our "urban renewal" era, we didn't have Haussman--we had a whole different crowd, who looked at the multi-story, mixed-use, transit-accessible and walkable neighborhood right by the river and declared it "blight." They destroyed it utterly, and scattered the community that lived there. That destruction had effects throughout the city: it killed off the remaining businesses on K Street, and contributed to the growth of sprawling suburbs through destruction of central-city housing.

Why did it happen? Development without forethought. I'd rather not repeat that mistake, even if it means (horrors!) leaving a funky old wooden building standing a while longer.

That's my perspective.

[BrianSac]

Yes, cities like Paris have 1200 year old buildings. Sacramento doesn't. The oldest building we have isn't even 200 years old! But in no way does that mean that we shouldn't take steps to preserve our historic buildings, any more than the fact that there are 2000-3000 year old buildings in Greece or Egypt means that the 1200 year old buildings in Paris aren't worth saving.

You are missing the point: Neither Greece, Eygpt nor Paris have Rex like structures from their first 100 years (well, maybe a few somewhere, and in museums). Did they lose their character, heritage, and economic vitality, I think not, rather those cities evolved. All great cities evolve.

Why did it happen? Development without forethought. I'd rather not repeat that mistake, even if it means (horrors!) leaving a funky old wooden building standing a while longer. That's my perspective.

I’m sure Heller will put a lot of forethought and perspective into what they are going to build at 20th and Capitol. It just might not be your Perspective, but we still believe in free enterprise in this country, and since he owns the lot and not you I think his perspective carries a little more weight than yours. But when the time comes to save a 1965 stucco one story apartment building in midtown you can provide all the historical perspective you want.

During our "urban renewal" era, we didn't have Haussman--we had a whole different crowd, who looked at the multi-story, mixed-use, transit-accessible and walkable neighborhood right by the river and declared it "blight."

Actually, Haussman did a lot of clear cutting of buildings in Paris, yet it still survived. More importantly, The urban renewal insanity of the mid-century is over. I think we have learned from our mistakes.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

More importantly, The urban renewal insanity of the mid-century is over. I think we have learned from our mistakes.

Some have learned--the ones who have studied history, anyhow. Those who haven't...well, there's a famous quote about that. And from what I'm seeing, a lot of folks building buildings in this town haven't learned those lessons yet.

[ozone]

I agree pretty much with what BrianSac said. wburg can you give us some examples of leasons not learned- in the Central City?



The "urban renewal" fiasco in this country was often times nothing more than a subterfuge for rehousing poor minorities -urban internment camps for Black Americans. And of course, developers-builders got lucrative contracts, politicians got their kick-backs, and the poor got to live all together in new modern digs instead of the old and neglected neighborhoods. And as you know everyone lived happily ever after. God bless America.

[otnemarcaS]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I’m sure Heller will put a lot of forethought and perspective into what they are going to build at 20th and Capitol. It just might not be your Perspective, but we still believe in free enterprise in this country, and since he owns the lot and not you I think his perspective carries a little more weight than yours. But when the time comes to save a 1965 stucco one story apartment building in midtown you can provide all the historical perspective you want.

Well said.

[BrianSac]

Thanks, otnemarcaS

Quote below by Darn Good City

Sacramento would be better off if Preservationists had been able to stop the freeways from cutting off the waterfront and tearing down alot of the more spectacular Manhattan-like buildings that used to be there.

Thats why we should build the Deck over I-5. We can reclaim the waterfront and integrate it with downtown.

When were there ever Manhattan like buildings on the waterfront? Which Manhattan like buildings are you referring to?

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Thanks, otnemarcaS

Quote below by Darn Good City


Thats why we should build the Deck over I-5. We can reclaim the waterfront and integrate it with downtown.

When were there ever Manhattan like buildings on the waterfront? Which Manhattan like buildings are you referring to?

Not Manhattan-like high-rises, but Manhattan large mid-rises--ornate masonry. And not on the waterfront--those were always mostly docks, but around where the freeway is now. Built I believe after the flooding and fires. Check out the photos down at the State Archives!! They are simultaneously awesome and depressing.

And I can't believe the deck's scope has been reduced to 2 blocks from the original amount. Infeasable my ass. Lower I-5 more and/or get rid of the under-deck of parking in instances where there are clearance issues, and we would gain several more blocks.

[wburg]

There were quite a few buildings downtown that were considered high-rises in their day (but would be considered mid-rises by modern standards): 6-12 story buildings, office and residential, through the J and K Street area. Survivors include buildings like Cal-West/926 J and the Elks, the Travelers Hotel, the Ramona, the Fruit Building on 4th and J, the Forum Building, the Capitol Park Hotel, the Regis, or the Ochsner Building. Some of the ones that didn't make it:


Hotel Sacramento

Old Post Office

Western Hotel

Bank of Italy/Bank of America. The only still-standing building in this photo is the Hotel Berry in the distance.

California National Bank

Grand Pavilion of the California State Fair

Now, these buildings weren't exactly Manhattan-like: by the 1880s-1920s when most of these went up, Manhattan was already a centuries-old, fully-developed city that grew up because it couldn't grow out, even though it started sprouting suburbs in the 1830s. Sacramento still had lots of room to grow, so things didn't get much taller than this. The waterfront was a workplace, not a place for tall buildings: the river was completely lined with freight docks, factories, warehouses, and three different railroads:

Front Street from about T Street

This is where the Embassy Suites is now.

ozone: Two words. "K Street."

[ozone]

wburg:
Now there's a lot of worthy buildings you've shown us that I would have really fought to preserve -unlike the 1930 Capitol Ave.

OK what do you think the City's doing right now (in terms of K Street) that reminds you of the mistakes of the redevlopment/urban renewal of the past?

[innov8]

Saca's new downtown tower plan draws a familiar opponent
Sacramento Business Journal
Friday, June 27, 2008

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/06/30/tidbits1.html

John Saca is close to a green light for his comeback project as a high-rise developer — The Metropolitan tower on the northeast corner of 10th and J streets in downtown Sacramento.

The Sacramento Planning Commission approved the project last month. It’s proposed as a 40-story hotel/condominium with 190 units of each type, or as a 39-story tower with 320 condos, depending on which option makes sense when it comes time to start.

But a familiar face has raised objections: Davis attorney William Kopper, who represents three residents who formed a group called Sacramento Citizens for Downtown. Kopper has represented unions that opposed big projects when contracts with organized labor weren’t guaranteed. He sued last year over Sacramento’s approval of The Railyards, the redevelopment of the former Union Pacific site near downtown.

Kopper, who objected to an earlier version of the project, has appealed approval of The Metropolitan to the City Council, which will hear the matter July 15.

Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 49 complained to the commission but did not appeal. “Basic questions remain unanswered about the hypothetical hotel at this site, such as — has the developer entered into a contract with a hotel management company?” the union asked in a letter. “Will it be a luxury property or a low-end economy lodge?”

Saca’s high-rise Towers on Capitol Mall project fell apart because of budget overruns. He said he’s concentrating on winning approval for The Metropolitan before working out financing details. He said he has no hotel operator in mind and would need city help to make that component work. “Maybe something similar to what was done with the Sheraton,” he said, referring to the city’s ownership participation in that hotel.

The city’s Design Commission must still review the project and will consider the condo/hotel version next month.

[wburg]

innov8: The focus of redevelopment efforts on K Street, over the past 50 years, is still based on "If we build new buildings, poor people will simply vanish." This didn't happen in the redevelopment era (promised replacement housing never appeared, so the people who lived in the hotels being demolished simply moved to the hotels a few blocks east, and the people sleeping on the streets on Second Street just moved their bedrolls in a similar manner) and it's not happening now.

Relocation of the bus station is an example: if you look at other cities, bus stations aren't a crime/homeless magnet if properly managed, but in Sacramento people simply assume that the bus station is the problem (talk about folks who need to look at other cities!) But what happens if we demolish the bus station and the street people fail to magically disappear?

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

innov8: The focus of redevelopment efforts on K Street, over the past 50 years, is still based on "If we build new buildings, poor people will simply vanish." This didn't happen in the redevelopment era (promised replacement housing never appeared, so the people who lived in the hotels being demolished simply moved to the hotels a few blocks east, and the people sleeping on the streets on Second Street just moved their bedrolls in a similar manner) and it's not happening now.

Relocation of the bus station is an example: if you look at other cities, bus stations aren't a crime/homeless magnet if properly managed, but in Sacramento people simply assume that the bus station is the problem (talk about folks who need to look at other cities!) But what happens if we demolish the bus station and the street people fail to magically disappear?

Kudos, on the historic pics above, I would have joined the picket line to save those buildings.

Also, I have mixed emotions about moving the bus station because it sits on the light rail line; how will those poor-homeless greyhound bus travelers connect with regional transit once we move the station out to Richards blvd?

I am also one of the few who actually likes the deco/streamline style of the Greyhound Bus Depot. We should adapt/save the first floor and make it a Jewish deli/new york/LA style coffee shop, but add 20-30 floors residences on top.

Most lively diverse cities have homeless types wandering the streets and nobody really cares. If high density housing ( mid to high end residences) is ever built downtown those wealthier-types wont really care about the poor-homeless types either, I dont think they will......they are pretty harmless.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by wburg

innov8: The focus of redevelopment efforts on K Street, over the past 50 years, is still based on "If we build new buildings, poor people will simply vanish." This didn't happen in the redevelopment era (promised replacement housing never appeared, so the people who lived in the hotels being demolished simply moved to the hotels a few blocks east, and the people sleeping on the streets on Second Street just moved their bedrolls in a similar manner) and it's not happening now.

Relocation of the bus station is an example: if you look at other cities, bus stations aren't a crime/homeless magnet if properly managed, but in Sacramento people simply assume that the bus station is the problem (talk about folks who need to look at other cities!) But what happens if we demolish the bus station and the street people fail to magically disappear?

Uhhhh, that's great wberg, why are directing your comments at me?

Since you feel that some how I need to be brought into this discussion...
the bus station can go, and I mean torn down. I don't see
any structural quality in the building worth saving. It's bland compared to other
structures of the same time period. Plus, it really doe's not matter what you or I
want done with the building cause we don't own it... so prepare yourself
to see a high-rise there when it's time to redevelope the lot.

[ltsmotorsport]

Hotel Sacramento was always one of my favorites that I saw in old pictures, but I'm really disappointed that the old BofA building is gone. Really sad. Do you have addresses for all those old buildings wburg?

As for the Metropolitan, I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I don't think concerns about if the hotel would be economy or high end (in a high rise no less) is enough to delay a project like this.

[snfenoc]

I don't want to see the Greyhound Station moved because of the crowd it "attracts". As wburg said, those "evil" poor people will just pick up and move somewhere else. Besides, I took Greyhound down to SF a couple weekends ago (got a screamin' deal - better than driving and paying for parking at my hotel) and used light rail to travel to and from the station. Everything was very convenient. (Yes, I used the Greyhound station. Does that make me a "bum"?). I only want to see the station moved because the owner wants it to move. Yes, the prospect of a nice shiny tower is exciting, but Mr. Benvenuti's desire for his property is much more important to me. Besides, I'm not optimistic about a big project happening there any time soon. The site could sit vacant for a while (vacant lots certainly don't attract the "wrong" crowd - sarcasm). I will say I think it is wrong for the city to be involved. If Benvenuti can't find his own way to break the lease, then he's stuck - it's not a city issue (I must "sound" like a broken record).

The station does have a nice little urine-soaked, Streamline Moderne charm to it, but it's not something worth saving (in my opinion). I guess it's up to Benvenuti to decide what he wants to do with HIS property.

The Greyhound station and the building on 20th and Crapitol are not even in the same league as the buildings shown above. Perspective. I seriously doubt Sacramento will die with those "meh" pieces of architecture missing from the cityscape. "No, Steve, without those buildings in Sacramento, we will never learn from history and Hitler, Jr. will come to power again." Uh huh, when monkeys fly out of my butt. (I'm not saying there won't be a Hitler redux, I am saying it probably won't have anything to do with our Greyhound Station and the building on 20th and Crapitol.)




As a libertarian (a Republican who does drugs ), the following quote disturbs me:

Many folks here seem convinced that I want to save every old building. This isn't true! I think every old building deserves some consideration, to look at its role in the city's history (keeping in mind that we're a 150 year old city, not an ancient European city) and its present-day role. Sometimes, that means the building has to go--but they all deserve, at least, some consideration and investigation.

Uh, buildings deserve nothing. They are buildings. They have no rights. Only humans have rights. There is no need to get so emotionally attached - a little perspective please.

(BROKEN RECORD ALERT!!!!!) Also, you seem to be saying all old buildings should go through an approval process (government-controlled and controlled by biased history buffs, no doubt) before they are destroyed or even modified. (I am aware this process, in some form or another, already exists.) This is America. I don't hafta do that if I don't wanna. My property is MY property - not yours.

[wburg]

itsmotorsport:
Hotel Sacramento was where the Woolworth's/Cosmo Theater is now.
Old Post Office: Where St. Rose of Lima Park is now (the skating rink.)
Western Hotel: K and 5th.
Bank of America: 8th and J.
California National: 4th and J, where the Wong Center is now.
Pavilion: 15th and Capitol, where the rose garden is now.

[innov8]

A few more shots from the top of 500 Capitol Mall here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116260&page=21

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

As a libertarian (a Republican who does drugs ),

[midtownup]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

I’m sure Heller will put a lot of forethought and perspective into what they are going to build at 20th and Capitol. It just might not be your Perspective, but we still believe in free enterprise in this country, and since he owns the lot and not you I think his perspective carries a little more weight than yours. But when the time comes to save a 1965 stucco one story apartment building in midtown you can provide all the historical perspective you want.

Very well said.

The bottom line here is money. I would take steps to protect my investment as well. It's just common sense. Development isn't about preserving. Preserving is just a bonus when it can be done while still turning a profit.

We have enterprising movers and shakers doing something "constructive" with not only this city but also their lives. Building buildings and a legacy at the same time. These people wake up in the morning with a sense of urgency to make a mark and do something worthwhile with their time on this earth. These people are building venues for the economy to thrive, creating jobs in construction, retail and housing just to name a handful. We have to keep moving forward and reinvent ourselves every day to adapt.

Of course these people are fundamentally different from those who "hinder development". The likes of which spend endless amount of time trying to change and control their environment instead of being the environment that others try to control. The amount of redundant historical "well read" banter is not a bad thing but just shows what the other side of the coin concerns themselves with and lives to postulate. "Poo poo-ing" others and trying to sound smart and look good while doing it might be what makes these people happy instead of building buildings, making money or transforming this city.

That being said:

a) The building at 20th and Capitol was a joke. Glad it's gone. Midtown is a goldmine of bulldoze-able parcels and this is just the start. The transformation currently taking shape in midtown is just the tip of the iceberg.

b) Although arguing over semantics on a forum which holds, for the most part, a completely different point of view and clogging every section may pass the time or provide a venue for releasing creative/intellectual steam- it has become quite disruptive. I don't think many of us are going to proclaim: "thank GOODNESS for the light! I never saw it that way! Thank GOODNESS for the incredible all knowing historical figure, I don't know what I would have done with my limited knowledge and lack of facts". As a trained debater I can reassure you these arguments will never end and continue to clog the forums as there is no such thing as the perfect argument-for or against.

c) Preservationists fail to recognize that maybe the original builders of mediocre "historical" buildings turn in their graves when people try to preserve them. What if their original intent was never to create a historical building but to make some money at the time? I'm sure they would be in favor of progress and re-building. I can reassure you preservationists didn't build historical buildings. Builders did. Just to be clear, when I refer to historical buildings I am strictly speaking of those hardly historical rickety structures downtown / midtown Sacramento, not actual historical buildings.

d) Utopian views about what is best for "the most of us" regarding what should not be built midtown is grossly negligent and incredibly ill suited when many people live in the area BECAUSE of the transformation taking place. Myself included. These views and sometimes actions against development are incredibly sicking especially when these views physically stand in the way of a developer's right to proposer. I like new things being built. I am excited about the next new development. That is why I visit the forum (lurking til now) and live in midtown. This last and final point begs the question: if you are fighting to preserve a certain building which no one really cares to preserve- who are you preserving the building for? At least in this forum, the pretense that others share the same view is false.

cheers!

[wburg]

midtownup: If I only wanted to hear from people who agreed with me, do you really think I'd be posting here? I'm not here for accolades, and as you have no doubt seen if you have been lurking for a while, I certainly don't receive many.

I'm here to learn, as well as share information about ongoing development--and to learn from people whose ideas don't match my own. But I don't always disagree with those on here--there are plenty of projects I like, and publicly support. In a lot of ways, I'm just another development buff.

I'm just expressing my opinion, that's all, even if others don't necessarily agree with it.