Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[wburg]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Sure, that would be fine. I didn't know that the Marshall hosted Louis Armstrong and Billie Holliday until I read it in the Bee.

Lots of well-known acts came through over the years.

[NorCal Sports Fan]

Not sure if you guys have seen this yet but it's a pretty cool video that came out about a week ago from the Downtown Sacramento Partnership!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLt5kXppSZo

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by NorCal Sports Fan

Not sure if you guys have seen this yet but it's a pretty cool video that came out about a week ago from the Downtown Sacramento Partnership!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLt5kXppSZo

Good find.. This was a great shot. I think the dome does feel a little menaced. (For those old SSP members)

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Good find.. This was a great shot. I think the dome does feel a little menaced. (For those old SSP members)

Those were the days!!!

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Good find.. This was a great shot. I think the dome does feel a little menaced. (For those old SSP members)

I had to laugh right out loud for that one!

[ltsmotorsport]

The glory days. Hilarious too that he's memorialized in your avatar Joe...or is that a different naysayer?

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Good find.. This was a great shot. I think the dome does feel a little menaced. (For those old SSP members)

Too funny! I remember that. I forget the man's name, but I think he represented the Old City Association. Didn't he have a cane that he liked to wave it around? I just imagine him scolding young whippersnappers to stay away from his lawn.

While I admired his ZEAL (hehehe - not a negative word according to the dictionary I use, btw), that was truly one of the most laughable statements I've heard. I feel bad for him, because the (somewhat) free market we have here in the USA, which he hated so much, took care of the Towers project. He didn't need to make a fool of himself to see that proposal fail. Still, similar statements are made today.

It's as though preservationists believe historic buildings are living beings, deserving of rights and protections. So they use maudlin appeals to the past like, "if these walls could talk..." But those walls can't talk, because buildings are inanimate objects. I mean...just....wow...silliness.

Maintaining a building (all of its four walls or simply its view) I don't own out of sentiment isn't exactly high on my list, nor should it be on any reasonable person's list. But "reasonable" is a subjective word, and I've heard it takes all kinds to make this world turn. So, whatever, preservationists aren't going away. However, I can hope they respect building owners & developers more. Also, I can hope preservations work WITH building owners and developers on alternatives that both sides find satisfactory.

[wburg]

Working with building owners is the ideal--that, and finding ways to make doing the right thing (building rehab vs. demolition of facadism) easier than the alternative.

Places do matter, and people do care about buildings. Buildings are inanimate, they don't have feelings, but they matter and are important to people, just as the natural world does. That's why they hang out on forums talking about buildings--in this case, skyscrapers. It sounds like you're just trying to belittle anyone who thinks a building matters more than the worldview that only money matters, and it sounds like I'm not the only one here who thinks that way.

But, of course, plenty of people do make money doing historic rehabs (including those done without tax subsidies) if the local government encourages that direction vs. demolition. New development and preservation aren't always at odds, they are just two sides to the same urban coin. People like old buildings--that's part of why they often sell for more money than new construction of the same square footage. The market demand is higher, people will pay more for it. And not just old people, either--young people like old buildings too.

[SacTownAndy]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

The glory days. Hilarious too that he's memorialized in your avatar Joe...or is that a different naysayer?

I still remember that day you took that photo, Joe. Wasn't that the day we all went to the J-K-L charette thing on K Street? Man how time flies.

[snfenoc]

I know it feels like I am hammering you, wburg... Well, I am. However, my intent isn't to simply oppose you or be a jerk.

I actually agree with your vision, as I think it's often preferable to much of the crap that gets proposed. However, the realities of profits, investors, our market, and human nature temper my view.

Freedom is the most important thing to me, so any time I see a person's right to his/her property attacked (even if it's just a small attack), I'll get upset. So will most property developers and owners. It doesn't matter if the law allows for review and comment or not. It's human nature to protect what is yours.

So, you have to stroke developers a little to get what you want. If you stand up at a preservation meeting and say: "I don't like it, and I want an alternative. Yes, I haven't presented you with much data or any plans to convince you of my vision. Yes, you have been working on this proposal for months or years, and I am asking you to completely change it. Yes, my reason is almost pure sentimentality. But I don't care. Stop the process; start over and do it my way!"...I think you are gonna get a lot of opposition. Coloring your statements with eye roll-inducing, loaded rhetoric like, "facadism", "facadomy" and "encroaching on the footprint of the Marshall" probably won't appeal to a developer either.

You see, groups like the Old City Association and the Land Park Neighborhood Association historically oppose proposal after proposal. If I'm a developer, the last thing I'm gonna consider is rhetoric from a bunch of "hippies" and "NIMBYs". Before you even speak, certain people have already closed their mind. So be the bigger man.

You might do better as a consultant than you would as an activist. Consultants have respected advice, activists just have opinions.

[wburg]

It's so nice to know that you respect my opinion before accusing me of violating someone's rights by saying that I wasn't completely overjoyed with their plan. Fortunately, I didn't say what you posted above, and the owner of the building isn't nearly as thin-skinned as you, so the option of a dialogue is still open. I know you have already closed your mind before I speak--if it wasn't so closed, you might have a more accurate recollection of what was said at the meeting.

[snfenoc]

I don't believe YOU are violating anyone's rights. You are merely a willing player in a game that violates people's rights. You stood up in front of a commission that has the power to create problems for developers and said some nice things about the project, but kind of called for something very different.

You do realize my quotes weren't meant to be taken as actual quotes, right? I think the sarcasm was layered thick enough for a reasonable person to know that I was simply doing my negative impression of an activist.

I did go back and re-watch your presentation to the Commission. The following are thumbnails of what you said with my responses/additions in parentheses:

1) You praised the modern look of the building and its color scheme...Sacramento has too many beige buildings and this is a welcome change. (OK, I guess. Frankly, I'm not all that hot on the architecture, but fine.)

2) You asked why isn't the tower portion taller? (As you suggested in a previous post, this might be due to the developer's misunderstanding about Sacramento's height aversion. However, I think it's likely due to $$$.)

3) You suggested the new construction encroaches on the footprint of the original Marshall. ("Encroaches" isn't the word you used in the meeting, but you did use it in this forum, and I think it sums up how you feel quite nicely. I say, the proposal's layout is likely due to the expense of going upward.)

4) You said this proposal is NOT preservation or adaptive re-use. Instead, it's facadism. (Ahhhhh! There's that loaded word again.)

5) You noted the developer thinks it's cost prohibitive to save the original structure for a modern hotel use, but then cast doubt on that conclusion..."I haven't seen any interior changes that would suggest this." - paraphrase
(Since the developer is the one making the investment, I'll go with their assessment.)

6) You stated that preservation is more than facadism (loaded word). Instead, preservation is taking a holistic approach to historical buildings. (My question is why? Why is saving the entire structure better than just keeping the historic facades? 99% of the public isn't even going into the building and likely won't know the difference. Frankly, why would they care? You attempt to answer this below.)

7) You briefly discussed the building's history, how it was named, etc. (This isn't very moving. I still don't see why saving the entire structure with adaptive re-use is preferable.) You then talked about the Clayton Club and how it played host to numerous African American jazz acts. (Still not moved. Walls can't talk. What we have here is an appeal to sentimentality, and possibly some race bating and white "guilting".)

8) You then said that if a complete rehab of the structure is not possible (which by the tone of your statement, I don't think you fully buy), the developer should include some interior features that demonstrate the building's past - maybe a new Clayton Club. (I like this idea, but I'm not sure a full nightclub is possible in a branded, limited service hotel. Maybe they can put up some old pictures and a "Clayton Club" sign in the snack bar.)

9) You scolded the developer for not including the Old City Association in the planning process. You said they made a very weak attempt at outreach some time ago, but never followed through. (I'll have to take your word on this. If I were a developer looking to make significant changes to an arguably historic building, I would also be less inclined to reach out to the Old City Association for suggestions. As I said earlier, you guys have a history of opposition. You have representatives that wave their canes in council meetings and complain about 600-ft towers, that are 8 blocks away, menacing the Capitol dome. You guys might hinder my progress, not help it. That's why I think you need to market yourselves as consultants, instead of busybody activists.)

I look forward to the new plans. I think we will only see minor tweaks to the current proposal. But hey, it's the little things, right? I am hopeful for something more, however. In your last post you indicated the developer may be more open to your suggestions than a thin skinned guy like myself...so any juicy tidbits you want to share?

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

The glory days. Hilarious too that he's memorialized in your avatar Joe...or is that a different naysayer?

I can never give up that avatar because of what it means. I don't remember if that was the "menacing the dome" guy or not. He did something that made me snap his photo. But even if not, he's still the damn idiot mascot for people like that.

Good times, good times.

[Schmoe]

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

I still remember that day you took that photo, Joe. Wasn't that the day we all went to the J-K-L charette thing on K Street? Man how time flies.

Exactly right!!!

[creamcityleo79]

Groundbreaking coming for development at Seventh and K

After years of delays and legal disputes, construction crews will finally head to the 700 block of K Street this week for an official groundbreaking of a redevelopment project that is vital to downtown’s future.

Mayor Kevin Johnson, Councilman Steve Hansen, City Manager John Shirey, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Director La Shelle Dozier and others will be on hand for Thursday’s event. The festivities are scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. in St. Rose of Lima Park at the corner of Seventh and K streets.

The developers behind the project will also be there. Bay Miry of D&S Development and Ali Youssefi of CFY Development have been working on the plans for nearly five years.


Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article11890550.html#storylink=cpy

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Groundbreaking coming for development at Seventh and K

I'll believe it when I see it.

It's not that I can't see all the cogs working together, it's that they have been saying this since I was 2.

[fouroheight68]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...lly-begins-on-700k-where-developers.html

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by fouroheight68

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...lly-begins-on-700k-where-developers.html

I was JUST going to post this article! Check out the pictures inside the structures....SO COOL! I REALLY hope they can incorporate some of the murals into the new buildings...or at least salvage them somehow! That old Tower Records was amazing!!!

[wburg]

The front 90 feet of the existing buildings (which, for some of them, is the whole building) will not to be demolished--they're rehabbing the buildings, and restoring the Tower Records mural. The new murals are mostly on plywood attached to the buildings rather than the buildings themselves, or on boards mounted inside the windows rather than permanently attached to the buildings.

[Mr. Ozo]

The local news keeps reporting it as new buildings. It is a rehab of the existing buildings with new construction on the alley portion. It came down to 5-4 vote on the city council, with Republican Councilman Robbie Waters changing his vote at the last minute to vote for this proposal instead of the one that proposed total demolition.