HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5941  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 6:45 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Did you read the part where wburg took his best shot to shut it down?

"Our concern is that there wasn't any comparison of the scale of the project
when compared to the neighborhood," said William Burg of Preservation
Sacramento, an advocacy group for historic building preservation.

If he would look across the street he would see a nine story residential bldg.

Wburg's demonstrating how he truly is a hindrance to development.
Funny, I just got done reading that article and notice the same thing. No surprise of course. He advocates urban living and density but opposes every project that isn't a rehab of a 100 year old single story building.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5942  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 7:11 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
At least public comment from everyone else was positive... they get it!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5943  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 7:37 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
At least public comment from everyone else was positive... they get it!
The businesses support it, most commissioners and residents support it. I don't see what's the big deal. The proposed site is on J Street, not in the middle of Boulevard Park. No one was opposed to the Sutter Children's hospital, which is about 25 feet shorter than the Yamanee. And yeah, there's a nine story senior housing mid-rise across the street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5944  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 8:36 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Did you read the part where wburg took his best shot to shut it down?

If he would look across the street he would see a nine story residential bldg.

Wburg's demonstrating how he truly is a hindrance to development.
Too bad you stopped reading the article there, because the next paragraph was:
Quote:
Burg showed commissioners a scale of Yamanee's height compared to the city code standard of about three stories in that part of midtown. The scale also showed a senior housing building across J from the Yamanee site that was built before the city adopted current height codes. Yamanee, largely a residential project with two floors of retail on the bottom, towered over both.
But they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so here's the picture.



You'll note that this shows the existing buildings (2-3 stories), the current zoned maximum (78 feet including roof line, or about 6 stories, not the 3 stories claimed in the article), the outline of the 9 story building across the street (which was built in the 1970s when the city still assumed that Midtown was going to be entirely demolished the same way the West End was, and replaced with institutional buildings like this) and the outline of Yamanee's total height, which, as you can see, sticks out considerably higher than the 9 story building.

The zoning issue here is key: the city has adopted a general plan for the city, which provides direction regarding where projects should go, and the general height, density etcetera that they should follow based on that area. There are plenty of places where a building like this would fit right in--personally, I'd love to see the city give this developer the chunk of land at 8th & K Street and put it there, maybe even a few stories taller. But in Midtown it's out of place and out of scale--not just to my sense of aesthetics, but to the guiding document that the city is supposed to follow when considering new developments. Variances to zoning aren't supposed to be handed out solely for convenience or because the owner wants to build something that doesn't fit the zoning--they're intended for when the specific properties of the site prevent construction of development that would otherwise be allowed.

As to the whole "hindrance to development" thing, I came to Planning right after attending another meeting where design proposals for the new apartment building on top of the Bee parking lot were shown off:

Six stories and about a hundred apartments, in an area zoned for a maximum of six stories. I'm planning on supporting this one.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs

Last edited by wburg; Dec 11, 2015 at 8:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5945  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 9:05 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Yes, you do acknowledge the 9 story residential building is across the street in a very
bizarre way, as in its precedence of being there since 1970 in your mind is not a good
comparison when compared to the neighborhood? Whaaa? How twisted is that line of
thought? What a strange disconnect of a 45 year building across the street… that should
have left the commission scratching their heads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5946  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 9:08 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
My thoughts are a bit different. So what? Yes it's taller that surrounding buildings and it's in a very busy commercial corridor so the increase in height/density is welcome. I hope this is just the start of a new trend on J Street.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5947  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 9:31 PM
UnclearColt UnclearColt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
My thoughts are a bit different. So what? Yes it's taller that surrounding buildings and it's in a very busy commercial corridor so the increase in height/density is welcome. I hope this is just the start of a new trend on J Street.
I completely agree with this. On one hand, I do understand wburg's point that there is a height limitation in the area, and why have height restrictions if you allow exceptions for any proposed project?

But the underlying question is should that height restriction even be in effect around J St? Or better yet, why have that low of a limit anywhere south of I St? North of I St. is mostly lower density residential, so the restriction seems more reasonable here. But once you get south of that into J, K, L, maybe even Capital Ave, I don't feel there should be height restrictions here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5948  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2015, 9:34 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Because heaven forbid, a proposal NOT get wburg's all important support.

Directed development - What a laugh! Nothing more than a way for useless people to affect change by insinuating themselves in and leeching off of the lives of risk-takers. It's sad that such a historical and architectural sevant, with so much wisdom to add, is seen as nothing more than a nuisance. But that's what he earns when his goal is to force his silly vision on developments he has no financial stake in, on properties he doesn't own. The common theme of wburg's directed development lunacy is that developers should build somewhere Else. Ahhhh, "Else" the magical location where it's easy and inexpensive to cobble together different parcels; and there are zero hurdles to development. I'm not a big fan of developers; their greed and lack of market understanding astounds me, sometimes. However, compared to politically-blinded, community activist "historians", I think they have a much better idea of where and what to build. You know? Especially since it's their money and their land on the line.

Frankly, I'm not worried. It's a nice building that would add beautiful density. Pictures are worth a thousand words...of garbage (see Hockey Stick Graph). We are supposed to look at the significant difference and, through some mental gymnastics, conclude that the project is bad. Bulls**t! Clearly, this proposal is much taller than surrounding buildings. So? Maybe the problem isn't that this building is too tall, but everything else in mid town is too short. How about that? The problem with showing a little graph or picture, with little context, is that it can be interpreted much differently. Wburg's silly little diagram tells me something much different than he wants to imply. It seems to me that we had some real issues with supply and demand in the past; and it was easy to pass such draconian standards. Other than a few NIMBY old farts and building owners stuck in the status quo, who cared whether something taller than 3 or 4 stories got build in midtown. Owners of the dilapidated crap that was down there got a reprieve from, larger, newer, better-competing developments. Maybe this isn't the case anymore and those silly height restrictions are meaningless don't reflect the economics?

Regardless, the quality of the project (the developer's is a much better picture than wburg's silly thing. Nice propaganda - make the scale go to 200' to make the building look even taller in context) combined with the mood of the Powers That Be tell me this is another rubber stamp job. Ultimately, the proposal will be a success or a failure based on its economic merits, not due to the ravings of an activist, who has nothing better to do with his life. Is he annoying to the max? Yep. Does he have any actual power? Nope.

Honestly, I think this project is likely to die on the vine without help from busy bodies like wburg. If it HAS to be that tall just to "barely" turn a profit (according to the developer), I'm not excited about its prospects. The economy is up, we have proposal after proposal coming down the pike...Yay! Wait, haven't we seen this before?
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac

Last edited by snfenoc; Dec 12, 2015 at 12:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5949  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2015, 2:11 AM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
My thoughts are a bit different. So what? Yes it's taller that surrounding buildings and it's in a very busy commercial corridor so the increase in height/density is welcome. I hope this is just the start of a new trend on J Street.
Think I am agreeing with Majin on this one.

Being "out of scale" isn't really a valid argument to not build a building. The first tall building in any new neighborhood is out scale. For that matter 6 stories is just as much out of scale as a 14 story building.

Urban corridor low needs to be changed for J Street, 65 feet is too low.

Here is an example of a great building in Sacramento, on J Street, that is "out of scale."

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5950  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2015, 4:45 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
That's a building in the central business district, west of 15th Street--which is an area with no maximum height limit. So, yes, a building this high is perfectly appropriate in this zone, but not so much on 25th Street in Midtown. Time for another graphic.

Here's a copy of the central city land-use map, which shows the land use and intensity for each area as defined by the city's General Plan. The General Plan is what drives the zoning code, and it's the set of rules that the Planning Commission and City Council are supposed to follow when making decisions about what gets built where. This isn't Houston, where there is no zoning code--every city in the United States has zoning codes and maximum heights and general plans.

And here's a handy guide that tells you what all the colors and patterns mean in terms of recommended density and height.

The areas indicated in red and burgundy are designated "Urban Center High" and "Central Business District." You can see what areas they include--generally west of 15th Street and north of Q Street, into the Railyards, Richards Boulevard and Docks areas. Pretty much any vacant lot in there would be a great place for Yamanee--such as the city's currently-vacant hole at 8th and K, which, as I recall, they were trying to find a developer to fill.

The pink areas with diagonal stripes are urban corridors, which come in two flavors--"Urban Corridor High" and "Urban Corridor Low." The "High" kind are the sort you see on 16th Street near Fremont Park, L Street out to 19th, and along 29th Street where the Sutter hospital complex is located. Those are intended for midrise buildings up to about 10-12 stories, and that's what you find there. The CADA properties developed along 16th Street are a bit lower than that maximum for the most part, but they're within that range. The "Low" kind is what J/K/L in Midtown are zoned for--3-6 stories. Not everything along J Street is 3-6 stories, because part of the purpose of the general plan is to leave room for growth. The 6 story building planned for 21st and Q Street, for example, fits within that zoning category so there is no need for the developer to ask for an increase of the height limit or a general plan amendment. On either side of that urban corridor along J, K and L Street are residential neighborhoods, like Boulevard Park and Marshall School to the north, and Midtown itself to the south. These are lower in max height than the urban corridors, typically 3 stories max, but there is a lot of population density because it's mostly multi-unit residential.

I wouldn't consider 6 stories "out of scale" on the 2500 block of J Street, and neither does the zoning code--note the maximum allowed height here is just under 80 feet. The graphic I posted is pretty much to scale, using a scale of 40 feet = 1 inch in both vertical and horizontal. I topped the scale at 200 feet in order to fit the 180 foot max height of Yamanee into the image.

So, just because a lot is on J Street doesn't mean it is a perfect place for high-rise buildings--because J Street runs through most of the city, through many different kinds of neighborhoods with different intensities of use. And there are plenty of places for a project like Yamanee--not an unknown, ambiguous "Somewhere Else," but a pretty large swath of the city that a team of city government, residents, businesses and builders/developers agreed upon as a place to go tall.

The General Plan isn't hatched up in a secret room. It's a public process that is driven by city staff, with a board that is made up of citizens, businesspeople and a strong representation by the development community. The purpose of the plan is to limit ambiguity about what is allowed where, which is important to the development community, as they want to know what uses are allowed on which lots in which parts of town, and for many projects, it's also important to know what isn't allowed there. Developers and builders have a very strong hand in creating this document, and they have a stake in its viability and predictability.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5951  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2015, 6:50 PM
UnclearColt UnclearColt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Again, it is absolutely ridiculous that J/K is zoned as urban corridor-low according to that map. That is the issue here. You can fight tooth and nail that Yamanee goes against the zoning restrictions, which it does. But those zoning restrictions in that area are the real problem.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5952  
Old Posted Dec 12, 2015, 7:30 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
These zoning restrictions need to be addressed. No wonder our central city is one of the least densest in the nation. Midtown, in particular J,K, L, including 16th street, from P to J streets, should be zoned for mid-rises in the 6-12 story range or 150 feet (The Yamanee does surpass that however). The height limit around the capitol needs to be gone as well. I'm proud with all the infill occurring but we need to push the envelope. It's fine to have zoning restrictions but ours is too stringent. Neighborhoods evolve. Let's up the ante!

Most of Sacramento proper is suburban anyway. Why not make up for it with a stronger urban landscape.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5953  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 3:19 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Be careful, everyone...he's armed with a map!
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5954  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 4:14 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,254
I don't think anyone here is going to agree with wburg... If anything J K L needs to be increased in height. I can't believe you're against this development -__-
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5955  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 5:07 AM
BillSimmons BillSimmons is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
I don't think anyone here is going to agree with wburg... If anything J K L needs to be increased in height. I can't believe you're against this development -__-
I can
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5956  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 5:09 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
If it's going in midtown at least it's going along J but still I'm with wburg in that I'd much rather see it at 8th/K and worry about a slippery slope of eroding the general plan. If we want Downtown to be our Midtown Manhattan we gotta keep Midtown Greenwich. Put the high rise pressure on the Downtown/Railyards area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5957  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2015, 11:30 PM
bradbeds bradbeds is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 11
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...ing-sale-of-properties-on-800-block.html

What do you think they're going to do with the famous "Hole in the ground"?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5958  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2015, 1:50 AM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 357
Has anyone driven through/been to Stockton recently? I was surprised to see a new tallest building in their skyline. Looked it up and it's a new courthouse going up. 13 stories from what I could find online. Doesn't look like an impressive building but it's going up in the middle of downtown, reshaping their skyline. Good for them:


Hopefully a new project comes out soon that wants to take the tallest building in Sacramento title! Come on developers, let's get the ball going!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5959  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2015, 4:03 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korey View Post
If it's going in midtown at least it's going along J but still I'm with wburg in that I'd much rather see it at 8th/K and worry about a slippery slope of eroding the general plan. If we want Downtown to be our Midtown Manhattan we gotta keep Midtown Greenwich. Put the high rise pressure on the Downtown/Railyards area.
How do you and wburg propose that it be built on land they don't own? Sort of a sticking point there don't you think?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5960  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2015, 5:03 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradway View Post
How do you and wburg propose that it be built on land they don't own? Sort of a sticking point there don't you think?
Yup. The Sacramento Kings have the right to develop the 800 K property, although other developers can bid to build on the land.

The blighted block on 9th and L is a perfect spot to build the Yamanee. Unfortunately, they don't own the land there either.

The proposed site is the only option in play right now. I like that the architect is unwilling to compromise and downsize the project. Either you approve it or it will go to some other city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.