Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by 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.

Interesting ideas, perhaps some of the future structures that would border the 20th street/19th Street railroad tracks could be more along the 5 to 8 story range to buffer the noise from the train (although sometimes i like the roar of a train).

[Darn Good City]

[QUOTE=BrianSac;3633966]I agree, just because it's old, does it need to be preserved? I think not.

I think you are missing the point. It's not that any of these buildings are a superlative example of their respective architectural styles. It's that without the older buildings mixed in throughout the city, we would have a homogeny of building ages, style trends, building techniques and materials, and a homogeny of only those retail and restaurants that can afford new building rents, as well as a homogeny of the Residential demographic. When I think about the places that make Midtown and Downtown awesome--these are what comes to mind off the top of my head:

Cheap Thrills, Rubicon, Tapa The World, Zelda's, Ed's Threads, Aioli Bodega, B-Bop, Temple Coffee, Spanish Fly, Nationwide Freezer Meats (old and new locations), Luna's, Prevues, Taco Loco, Olipom, Bows and Arrows, Big Brother Comics, Golden Bear, Streets of London, Old Ironsides, Fools Foundation (before the city closed them down), Townhouse, B Sakata Garo, Muvaney B & L, Lumens, Bicycle Chef, Paesano's, Old Soul, Naked Lounge, Simon's, Metro Electronics, Lucky Cafe, Fox & Goose, Cornerstone, The Loft (before it shut down), Beer's Books, Art Ellis, Kru, The Beat, Hamburger Mary's (Patty's), Gifted Gardener, Jim Denny's, Michealangelo, Tonevendor (before they left the state), Postcards Etc, Joe's Style Shop (before the city closed them down), Matt Eric's practice space, True Love, Kasbah, Tres Hermanas, Ink. This doesn't even count the small businesses that aren't as open to the general public but still support the creative scene like small record labels, web design, photography, architecture, graphic design.

Something these all have in common---they are all in old buildings, and many are pretty crappy buildings. But the lower rents of these older buildings allow these little, unique, funky small to medium businesses to be in Midtown. If all of the buildings in Midtown not amazing enough for preservation were replaced with new buildings, I imagine we would lose way more of these businesses to other areas than anyone on this board would like to see.

[TowerDistrict]

Still think they're going into DTP? I dunno...

From the Planning Commish (review and comment only)

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

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 preservations 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 preservations 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.

Actually, you are pretty much saying what I was saying about avoiding homogeny--I didn't see this post. But I really loved that (Rex) building everytime I walked to Rubicon, because of the sense of history, the reminder that horses used to be going down these streets instead of cars, and the little weird details of construction that aren't used anymore that give you a sense of time passing. And it's not just the facades of old buildings, but the insides, the floors, the beams--they sounds they make. I just don't agree about the pre-emptive tearing down of a building before anyone has a chance to notice. If everyone did that, it doesn't mean we would have a better city as a whole, but we could definitely lose some unique structures that give the city a sense of time.

On the other hand--the new infill structures should be really modern and awesome, and super-tall in the downtown area--and they should represent everything that is creative and exciting about this time in history, and not look like fake old buildings.

[Darn Good City]

That Target looks awesome! And it appears to be fronting both the Broadway and Riverside sidewalks. wow.
Are there any ideas of what the other retail uses will be?

[Cynikal]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

That looks awesome! And it appears to be fronting both the Broadway and Riverside sidewalks. wow.
Are there any ideas of what the other retail uses will be?

No, this is the first time that Target has used this type of design so they haven't sought out tenants yet. I am very exited by this and what it will do for Broadway.

I'm curious to see what Planning Commission thinks of it.

BTW, LPCA submitted a 7 page letter tearing the project apart. I don't get what they are after.

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by Cynikal

No, this is the first time that Target has used this type of design so they haven't sought out tenants yet. I am very exited by this and what it will do for Broadway.

I'm curious to see what Planning Commission thinks of it.

BTW, LPCA submitted a 7 page letter tearing the project apart. I don't get what they are after.

Hopefully enough people in favor of the project show up to tear the LPCA apart.

[Pistola916]

When is the Metropolitan going back to the Design and Review or was it the Planning commish?

[BrianSac]

[QUOTE=Darn Good City;3636088]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

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

I think you are missing the point. It's not that any of these buildings are a superlative example of their respective architectural styles. It's that without the older buildings mixed in throughout the city, we would have a homogeny of building ages, style trends, building techniques and materials, and a homogeny of only those retail and restaurants that can afford new building rents, as well as a homogeny of the Residential demographic. When I think about the places that make Midtown and Downtown awesome--these are what comes to mind off the top of my head:

Cheap Thrills, Rubicon, Tapa The World, Zelda's, Ed's Threads, Aioli Bodega, B-Bop, Temple Coffee, Spanish Fly, Nationwide Freezer Meats (old and new locations), Luna's, Prevues, Taco Loco, Olipom, Bows and Arrows, Big Brother Comics, Golden Bear, Streets of London, Old Ironsides, Fools Foundation (before the city closed them down), Townhouse, B Sakata Garo, Muvaney B & L, Lumens, Bicycle Chef, Paesano's, Old Soul, Naked Lounge, Simon's, Metro Electronics, Lucky Cafe, Fox & Goose, Cornerstone, The Loft (before it shut down), Beer's Books, Art Ellis, Kru, The Beat, Hamburger Mary's (Patty's), Gifted Gardener, Jim Denny's, Michealangelo, Tonevendor (before they left the state), Postcards Etc, Joe's Style Shop (before the city closed them down), Matt Eric's practice space, True Love, Kasbah, Tres Hermanas, Ink. This doesn't even count the small businesses that aren't as open to the general public but still support the creative scene like small record labels, web design, photography, architecture, graphic design.

Something these all have in common---they are all in old buildings, and many are pretty crappy buildings. But the lower rents of these older buildings allow these little, unique, funky small to medium businesses to be in Midtown. If all of the buildings in Midtown not amazing enough for preservation were replaced with new buildings, I imagine we would lose way more of these businesses to other areas than anyone on this board would like to see.

I'm not missing the point. I live in a 100 year old house. I understand the nostalgia, the so-called history, the sounds and smells. Read my post above about saving victorians, and other styles above. But I also believe a city should be allowed to evolve.

I support and enjoy all those businesses you mention above. No, I dont want to lose them. I guess there is no easier answer, if a well-monied developer wants to spend alot of money to build something bigger and earn bigger rents shouldnt he be allowed to; it is the American way. Manhattan or SF wouldn't be what they are today if preservationists were allowed to control developers. I want Sacramento to evolve. Balance is the key. Yes, I know SF in many neighborhoods has not changed much, but that is because many of these structures were originally built on a larger scale.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well said Dakotasteve66

Once a building goes beyond the 8th floor, people on the street really don't
notice anything above that. The proposed East End Gateway tower at
16th and N St. is a perfect example. If it get's built, it will be the tallest
structure east of 15th Street and no one will even notice because of all
the activity on the street. Let's hope all the East End Gateway sites get
built, it will make for a fantastic stretch of 16th street.

Also, I won't be missing the torn down building at 20th and Capitol Ave.

[ozone]

I think this wringing of hands over the destruction the 'Rex' building is a bit over the top. DO NOT assume that just because a business is located in an old building that their lease will be less than one in a new one. DO NOT assume that people who are somewhat indifferent to the demise of the ‘Rex’ building would not support the preservation of truly worthy structures.

I do not see Midtown infill as competing with Downtown infill. That’s exactly the mentality I'm talking about. A more dense Midtown would only support downtown. It's the building on Natomas farmland that has really hurt downtown.

If you really go and look around Midtown you'll see just how many spaces there are where a midrise could comfortably fit in. No one is talking about ploping down a midrise next to a row of Craftsmans. As BrianSac pointed out many neighborhoods in San Francisco were originally built very dense so there's been less pressure to replace the old homes as the result Sacramento has very few blocks full of entact Victorian-Edwardian homes like you still have in San Francisco. Instead many Midtown streets have been infected with LA-style dingbat apartments of very mediocre design. I don't think tearing these out and replacing them with midrises is the answer either. The western edge of central Midtown (home of 1801 L, the Handle District, MARRS, L Lofts and the site of "Rex" building) already has as many businesses as residences so why not add more housing? It's about allowing more people to live closer to the Capitol and CBD. There is simply a greater demand at this point for more housing in Midtown than there is Downtown. Building up in the area closest to the CBD/Capitol will lead towards more downtown infill.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

Hopefully enough people in favor of the project show up to tear the LPCA apart.

Losers Phor Clinton Admirers (LPCA)
Losers Phor Coulter admirers (LPCA).......Ann Coulter

[otnemarcaS]

I personally think folks are getting their panties in a bunch over demolishing of the 'Rex/Auto shop' building. Geez, there are many buildings in MT/DT worth saving and this building was NOT worth saving. I have passed it many times. Look, Sacramento has tons and tons of old buildings around the central city regardless of what people see or say. So what if a few here and there are demolished. It's insane to think we need to save every old building, good or bad. How do we create our own generation of buildings for the next 25, 50, 100 years if all we do is save and patchwork some buildings that are not worth saving? Sacramento must continue to evolve.

[Darn Good City]

[QUOTE=BrianSac;3636205]

Originally Posted by Darn Good City

I'm not missing the point. I live in a 100 year old house. I understand the nostalgia, the so-called history, the sounds and smells. Read my post above about saving victorians, and other styles above. But I also believe a city should be allowed to evolve.

I support and enjoy all those businesses you mention above. No, I dont want to lose them. I guess there is no easier answer, if a well-monied developer wants to spend alot of money to build something bigger and earn bigger rents shouldnt he be allowed to; it is the American way. Manhattan or SF wouldn't be what they are today if preservationists were allowed to control developers. I want Sacramento to evolve. Balance is the key. Yes, I know SF in many neighborhoods has not changed much, but that is because many of these structures were originally built on a larger scale.

Yeah but most of Manhattan and San Francisco were built at a time when there were no massive sprawling suburbs, and so businesses took pride in their few buildings located in city centers--just think of old Walgreens buildings compared to new ones. There was less crap being built.
And actually, don't forget alot of the vital dense neighborhoods in Manhattan are still there because of Preservationists, protesting the Radiant City version of 60's Urban Planning---which was to tear everything down that looked disorderly or old-fashioned and build identical inward-looking separated-use fortresses to shun the "dangerous" streets of New York.
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.

I think developers with no desire to do something exciting are the biggest threat to development in Sacramento. Current developers in Manhattan and SF are far more modern and statement-making in their designs than most of what we've got here. Less Ancient Rome in foam and more modern in wood metal and glass.

Yes, you said balance is important, and I agree, but we can always build new buildings on empty lots, parking structures, and in place of the really bad buildings, but we only have a finite number of old ones to maintain the other end of that balance with.

Yes, if multiple well-monied developers wanted to buy up and replace old buildings in Sacramento, and the correct permits are pulled, they can do it. It gets a little weird when the city gives subsidies to these well-monied developers to take over that land though.

[innov8]

Welcome Darn Good City

Darn Good City, why do BrianSac quotes have your name as the original poster? It's confusing to follow the conversation when you do that.

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by otnemarcaS

I personally think folks are getting their panties in a bunch over demolishing of the 'Rex/Auto shop' building. Geez, there are many buildings in MT/DT worth saving and this building was NOT worth saving. I have passed it many times. Look, Sacramento has tons and tons of old buildings around the central city regardless of what people see or say. So what if a few here and there are demolished. It's insane to think we need to save every old building, good or bad. How do we create our own generation of buildings for the next 25, 50, 100 years if all we do is save and patchwork some buildings that are not worth saving? Sacramento must continue to evolve.

We have almost the entire railyards to build brand spankin new, doubling the size of the downtown. We also have the Docks, and the River end of Broadway. Add skyscrapers and mid- and high-rises in place of all the surface parking lots, parking garages, and empty lots in Midtown and Downtown, and I don't think we will have trouble evolving. I'm thinking Sacramento is going to be huge and tall and the skyline will go right over the river into a huge and tall be-skyscrapered West Sac, like a big city should, and what might seem now like a ton of old buildings to those who can't see past Sacramento's current size will seem like a mere handful when Sacramento really gets going-----and we may wish we had more left, just like you wish you hadn't thrown away all your 80's clothing now that it's back in style.

[Darn Good City]

Originally Posted by innov8

Welcome Darn Good City

Darn Good City, why do BrianSac quotes have your name as the original poster? It's confusing to follow the conversation when you do that.

Thanks!

I have no idea how that happened. Dang

[BrianSac]

[QUOTE=Darn Good City;3636355]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Yeah but most of Manhattan and San Francisco were built at a time when there were no massive sprawling suburbs, and so businesses took pride in their few buildings located in city centers--just think of old Walgreens buildings compared to new ones. There was less crap being built.
And actually, don't forget alot of the vital dense neighborhoods in Manhattan are still there because of Preservationists, protesting the Radiant City version of 60's Urban Planning---which was to tear everything down that looked disorderly or old-fashioned and build identical inward-looking separated-use fortresses to shun the "dangerous" streets of New York.
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.

I think developers with bad taste are the biggest threat to development in Sacramento. Current developers in Manhattan and SF are far more sophisticated than most of what we've got here--do any of them even live in Midtown or Downtown? Here--our developers go on a vacation in Tuscany and they come back and try to build cheap Tuscan knock-offs, and they don't understand that even the Italians aren't building like that anymore. Why can't they vacation in Milan or Japan or Berlin or Amsterdam----or Manhattan or San Francisco.

Yes, you said balance is important, and I agree, but we can always build new buildings on empty lots, parking structures, and in place of the really bad buildings, but we only have a finite number of old ones to maintain the other end of that balance with.

Yes, if multiple well-monied developers wanted to buy up and replace old buildings in Sacramento, and the correct permits are pulled, they can do it. It gets a little weird when the city gives subsidies to these well-monied developers to take over that land though.

Bienvenue, Darn Good City
Inno8, did you get that second batch of Paris pics I sent you?

Preservationists really do live in the past. The I-5 freeway was built in the wrong place, we all know that. We arent going to be making those kind of mistakes again. The Alhambra theater should never have been demolished. So when the time is right, we can demo the Safeway, and put up another faux nouvelle Morrocan theater (aka Alhambra theatre).

As Ozone said, Living cities evolve: Case in point. The Embarcadero elevated frwy cut off SF from the Bay. But, it wasnt re-built after the earthquake; instead the city evolved and redeveloped the embarcadero. Same thing with the elevated central frwy over Market St. It wasnt replaced;instead Octavia Street/Fell/Oak was redeveloped/reclaimed.

Sacramento evolve: Build the frigging I-5 Deck.

Keep in mind the preservationists of the 60's in NY were saving highly ornate structures in neighborhoods that were already highly dense. Sacramento preservationists are trying to preserve a small town and in so doing they are keeping it forever a small town with low densities. I'd like Midtown to become a little more dense. I'd like Downtown to become a lot more dense, on a much larger scale, like SD, Seattle, SF.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

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.

Hey, if you'll pay the airfare, I'd love to see London and Paris in person! Talk about your treasure troves of historic architecture! I've been to Chicago and San Francisco plenty, and wouldn't mind visiting the other cities you mention. Actually, you might be surprised to learn that people who like historic buildings also like visiting other cities, where one generally also finds historic buildings. Those trips help people understand how important those buildings are to economic vitality and a city's unique character and heritage!

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by wburg

Actually, you might be surprised to learn that people who like historic buildings also like visiting other cities, where one generally also finds historic buildings. Those trips help people understand how important those buildings are to economic vitality and a city's unique character and heritage!

Why would I be surprised at that?

The point of visiting these other cities is to gain some PERSPECTIVE, education, and real life experience about great architecture and density. Quibbling over and calling the Rex historic because it is 100years old, and has a cut out Hollywood backlot facade that resembles mission revival seems ludicrous in comparison to buildings in Paris that are 1,000 years old and made of ornately carved stone of enormous scale or even those the are on a much smaller scale.

The plain wood structures like the Rex that existed in Paris and London 1,200 years ago are all but gone, and nobody cares. Those wood structures made way for grander more dense and ornate architecture....thats why Paris and London are great cities(one of many reasons).

The urban renewal projects of Paris by Haussman destroyed some buildings. But the city evolved. They actually demolished structures much much grander than the Rex, yet Paris didn't lose its heritage, character or economic vitality. They simple built new grander districts.