"What's going on Sacramento" Chit-Chat

[wburg]

Thanks for posting that--it's also part of the 2014 "Jane Jacobs Walk" weekend series of events!

[Web]

Originally Posted by wburg

What makes "west side highway and east side highway manhatten" better than Interstate 5?

who said it was better. You said what other urban area has a freeway/hihway parallel a river or something

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Web

who said it was better. You said what other urban area has a freeway/hihway parallel a river or something

Actually, I said this:

How have other cities dealt with highways along their waterfront, other than covering or demolishing them?

Plenty of urban areas built highways parallel to their waterfront, Sacramento isn't the only city that did it by any means. But what are some ways that other cities addressed this issue in order to improve their waterfront? New York City added a lot of highways in the postwar era, including along their waterfront, led by uber-planner Bob Moses. But he ran smack dab into anti-progress NIMBY activists like Jane Jacobs, who stood up against Moses and his ilk. Jane Jacobs started writing about how cities work, even though she wasn't a professional planner or architect, and changed the national course of urban planning and how we think about cities.

Which is just the sort of thing that Jane Jacobs Walk and Jane Jacobs Roll events are intended to address. What makes cities walkable and liveable, and what are the barriers to walkability, bikeability, and other things that make city neighborhoods nice places to live? There are plenty of interesting examples here in Sacramento--we're going to go find them.

http://sacoldcity.org/?page_id=916

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

Actually, I said this:

Plenty of urban areas built highways parallel to their waterfront, Sacramento isn't the only city that did it by any means. But what are some ways that other cities addressed this issue in order to improve their waterfront? New York City added a lot of highways in the postwar era, including along their waterfront, led by uber-planner Bob Moses. But he ran smack dab into anti-progress NIMBY activists like Jane Jacobs, who stood up against Moses and his ilk. Jane Jacobs started writing about how cities work, even though she wasn't a professional planner or architect, and changed the national course of urban planning and how we think about cities.

Which is just the sort of thing that Jane Jacobs Walk and Jane Jacobs Roll events are intended to address. What makes cities walkable and liveable, and what are the barriers to walkability, bikeability, and other things that make city neighborhoods nice places to live? There are plenty of interesting examples here in Sacramento--we're going to go find them.

http://sacoldcity.org/?page_id=916

I think you might be misrepresenting Jane Jacobs a bit when you call her an "anti-progress NIMBY." She was against people like Robert Moss and the so-called urban renewal (redevelopment) efforts of the Mid 20th Century. She opposed the wholesale destruction of historic urban neighborhoods in the name of progress. She was specifically against the de-urbanization of American cities. And as we have seen, she was right. That doesn't mean she would be opposed to smart growth and urban infill today. Her work has to be seen in context -location, times and what was being proposed. We live in different times and not all neighborhoods are as architecturally and historically important as Greenwich Village. Nor are all buildings gems like Pennsylvania Station.

Lawrence Halprin, the famous San Francisco landscape architecture and urban planner, published an interesting book in the 1960's about freeways in the urban environment. He was trying to find ways to successfully integrate them into the existing structure rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. I think he later conceded it was just not possible. But he did come up with some interesting ideas.

As far as our I-5 problem. The first step we need to make is for the City to see it as a real problem because I don't think City Hall cares all that much.

Putting aside any bypass or tunnel I've thought about other ways we could reduce it's ill effects.

Add pedestrian/bike bridge over the freeway at N Street linking Crocker Park with the Riverwalk. Traffic bridges are much more costly and really not that necessary, especially when the Second Street connector is built. And I wonder if we could build an elevated pedestrian bridge from L Street downtown over 3rd/I-5 to Old Sacramento? I know that sort of thing isn't common in the US but they use pedestrian bridges like that all over Asia.

We also need to make major improvements to the existing pedestrian pathways bwtn Old Sac and downtown - Capitol Mall (in-the-works), K Street Tunnel. We need more than some new lights Steve- but you are going in the right direction. J Street - it's basically anti-pedestrian now. Maybe consider another tunnel here? I Street.

Aside from lack of connectivity noise and visual ugliness are the other big problems. The design has to be one of the worst for generating more noise than is necessary. WTF were they thinking?

We need to build acoustic noise barriers (sound-walls) and screens to block out the noise and view of the freeway. I'm really astonished that the City has yet to build a sound wall and screen between the freeway and Old Sacramento. It's another example of what I call "Sacramento Stupid."

The roadbed in the downtown section of I-5 could also be repaved using noise-reducing asphalt.

And to take it a step further we could cover the freeway with a perforated (open-air) ribbed metal tube-like sound barrier. The freeway would then become sculptural, almost artistic.

[wburg]

Hopefully you can tell I'm being a little facetious about Jane Jacobs. Yes, she favored and advocated for urban infill and repopulation of the urban core, but she was slagged by the development establishment as anti-progress just the same, because she opposed their project. And while Jane Jacobs advocated for preservation of significant architectural landmarks, she was just as much an advocate of more prosaic sorts of plain old buildings:

Cities need old buildings so badly it is probably impossible for vigorous streets and districts to grow without them. By old buildings I mean not museum-piece old buildings, not old buildings in an excellent and expensive state of rehabilitation–although these make fine ingredients–but also a good lot of plain, ordinary, low-value old buildings, including some rundown old buildings.

If a city area has only new buildings, the enterprises that can exist there are automatically limited to those that can support the high costs of new construction. These high costs of occupying new buildings may be levied in the form of an owner’s interest and amortization payments on the capital costs of the construction. However the costs are paid off, they have to be paid off. And for this reason, enterprises that support the cost of new construction must be capable of paying a relatively high overhead–high in comparison to that necessarily required by old buildings. To support such high overheads, the enterprises must be either (a) high profit or (b) well subsidized.

If you look about, you will see that only operations that are well established, high-turnover, standardized or heavily subsidized can afford, commonly, to carry the costs of new construction. Chain stores, chain restaurants and banks go into new construction. But neighborhood bars, foreign restaurants and pawn shops go into older buildings. . . . Well-subsidized opera and art museums often go into new buildings. But the unformalized feeders of the arts–studios, galleries, stores for musical instruments and art supplies, backrooms where the low earning power of a seat and a table can absorb uneconomic discussions–these go into old buildings. Perhaps more significant, hundreds of ordinary enterprises, necessary to the safety and public life of streets and neighborhoods, and appreciated for their convenience and personal quality, can make out successfully in old buildings, but are inexorably slain by the high overhead of new construction.

As for really new ideas of any kind–no matter how ultimately profitable or otherwise successful some of them might prove to be–there is no leeway for such chancy trial, error and experimentation in the high-overhead economy of new construction. Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings.

And none of this prevents one from being an advocate of infill and smart growth in any way, because not all growth is "smart" growth--such as I-5, which was also billed as a way to revitalize downtown Sacramento in its day.

[ozone]

^^^^ Did they really use the term "smart growth" when making their argument for building I-5? I don't think so. Just because people in the past used the lure of revitalizing downtown to build the freeway and bulldoze whole blocks I don't think we would take the bait so easily today. I think some people are afraid of any proposal that make these same promises even though the circumstances are very different. Yes Jacobs did advocate to retaining 'ordinary' buildings -but more to the point she was about preserving the old urban neighborhoods which were under assault at the time.

There is a difference between fighting to preserve an old neighborhood and fighting to preserve a nondescript "old" building who's original context has long been destroyed. I support preservation but I do not support saving every building over 40 years old. In our older cities many of the most treasured buildings today were not the first to occupy their site. What would have happen if people successfully fought against the construction of Grand Central Station or Empire State Building because they wanted to preserve the old building which they replaced? A true and functionally city cannot remain stagnant. We need to preserve when necessary but we also need to be reasonable and demand better design for any replacement. Sacramento may not still be a cowtown when it comes to design but it's not far from it. I've discovered that not a few people who oppose a particular project (and argue to preserve a building) not because of it's architectural or cultural value but because they do not want to see any development - and often it's for selfish motives.

[Web]

Originally Posted by ozone

^^^^ Did they really use the term "smart growth" when making their argument for building I-5? I don't think so. Just because people in the past used the lure of revitalizing downtown to build the freeway and bulldoze whole blocks I don't think we would take the bait so easily today. I think some people are afraid of any proposal that make these same promises even though the circumstances are very different. Yes Jacobs did advocate to retaining 'ordinary' buildings -but more to the point she was about preserving the old urban neighborhoods which were under assault at the time.

There is a difference between fighting to preserve an old neighborhood and fighting to preserve a nondescript "old" building who's original context has long been destroyed. I support preservation but I do not support saving every building over 40 years old. In our older cities many of the most treasured buildings today were not the first to occupy their site. What would have happen if people successfully fought against the construction of Grand Central Station or Empire State Building because they wanted to preserve the old building which they replaced? A true and functionally city cannot remain stagnant. We need to preserve when necessary but we also need to be reasonable and demand better design for any replacement. Sacramento may not still be a cowtown when it comes to design but it's not far from it. I've discovered that not a few people who oppose a particular project (and argue to preserve a building) not because of it's architectural or cultural value but because they do not want to see any development - and often it's for selfish motives.

old sacramento area and the blocks torn out for I-5 were not the tourist area they are today........remember that when wondering why it was placed where it was. Look at the hstorical pictures of this area.............

[Web]

Originally Posted by ozone

I think you might be misrepresenting Jane Jacobs a bit when you call her an "anti-progress NIMBY." She was against people like Robert Moss and the so-called urban renewal (redevelopment) efforts of the Mid 20th Century. She opposed the wholesale destruction of historic urban neighborhoods in the name of progress. She was specifically against the de-urbanization of American cities. And as we have seen, she was right. That doesn't mean she would be opposed to smart growth and urban infill today. Her work has to be seen in context -location, times and what was being proposed. We live in different times and not all neighborhoods are as architecturally and historically important as Greenwich Village. Nor are all buildings gems like Pennsylvania Station.

Lawrence Halprin, the famous San Francisco landscape architecture and urban planner, published an interesting book in the 1960's about freeways in the urban environment. He was trying to find ways to successfully integrate them into the existing structure rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach. I think he later conceded it was just not possible. But he did come up with some interesting ideas.

As far as our I-5 problem. The first step we need to make is for the City to see it as a real problem because I don't think City Hall cares all that much.

Putting aside any bypass or tunnel I've thought about other ways we could reduce it's ill effects.

Add pedestrian/bike bridge over the freeway at N Street linking Crocker Park with the Riverwalk. Traffic bridges are much more costly and really not that necessary, especially when the Second Street connector is built. And I wonder if we could build an elevated pedestrian bridge from L Street downtown over 3rd/I-5 to Old Sacramento? I know that sort of thing isn't common in the US but they use pedestrian bridges like that all over Asia.

We also need to make major improvements to the existing pedestrian pathways bwtn Old Sac and downtown - Capitol Mall (in-the-works), K Street Tunnel. We need more than some new lights Steve- but you are going in the right direction. J Street - it's basically anti-pedestrian now. Maybe consider another tunnel here? I Street.

Aside from lack of connectivity noise and visual ugliness are the other big problems. The design has to be one of the worst for generating more noise than is necessary. WTF were they thinking?

We need to build acoustic noise barriers (sound-walls) and screens to block out the noise and view of the freeway. I'm really astonished that the City has yet to build a sound wall and screen between the freeway and Old Sacramento. It's another example of what I call "Sacramento Stupid."

The roadbed in the downtown section of I-5 could also be repaved using noise-reducing asphalt.

And to take it a step further we could cover the freeway with a perforated (open-air) ribbed metal tube-like sound barrier. The freeway would then become sculptural, almost artistic.

This Boat section is actually an upside down bridge.......it is also under the water table. Putting Asphalt on this would be a nightmare to maintain and be impossible I bet within 2 yrs. Putting a cover on I-5 is not as simple as it sounds and then there is the cost and who is going to pay......

[wburg]

The term "smart growth" didn't come about until the early 1990s, but you can bet they used the same sort of buzzwords that were designed to appeal to municipalities in the early 1960s--urban renewal, relieving urban congestion, etcetera.

Preservation isn't stagnation--it's about finding new uses for old buildings, which is an important and vital part of a city's economy. Old buildings don't necessarily need a "context" in an urban fabric, just a use. A walk through a city is a walk through time, and not every building need be brand new and shiny--or a restored architectural masterpiece. Many of the most important social and cultural uses take place in otherwise nondescript buildings, because the rent is cheap and they're in the right place. Architectural value is just one consideration for reuse of the built environment, and if you look at where the most interesting things are taking place in the central city, a lot of them are in not particularly fancy buildings.

But I'd agree, Sacramentans are a lot more savvy than they were in the 1960s and less likely to take the bait from some shyster with a fancy rendering and a handful of buzzwords. Others have higher standards when it comes to architecture, and when they see future projects that look cheap and amateurish, they say so. They're also the ones who get called NIMBYs today by people who want to invalidate their opinions because in their minds they are never legitimate, always based on "selfish motives." As though city governments and developers don't do the same thing in reverse--downplay the significance or condition of a building because it's more profitable to get paid to demolish it and build a new building, or allow it to sit and decay for years until it's too far gone to rehab because maintaining their own property supposedly doesn't "pencil."

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Web

This Boat section is actually an upside down bridge.......it is also under the water table. Putting Asphalt on this would be a nightmare to maintain and be impossible I bet within 2 yrs. Putting a cover on I-5 is not as simple as it sounds and then there is the cost and who is going to pay......

I'm dumb when it comes to road construction so maybe you can explain to me why rubberized asphalt in the boat section would be more of a "nightmare to maintain" than concrete?

I have never really advocated a cover or deck over I-5. I too always thought it was too costly and difficult and anyway it just wouldn't give us the desired effect. That's why I think a pedestrian/bike bridge at N Street is a much better option.

[Web]

Originally Posted by ozone

I'm dumb when it comes to road construction so maybe you can explain to me why rubberized asphalt in the boat section would be more of a "nightmare to maintain" than concrete?

I have never really advocated a cover or deck over I-5. I too always thought it was too costly and difficult and anyway it just wouldn't give us the desired effect. That's why I think a pedestrian/bike bridge at N Street is a much better option.

good concrete last 40 yrs with minimal maintenance. Any asphalt even if they claim its perpetual needs either to be removed and replaced or overlayed(cant do this in the boat). Heavily traveled Asphalt is 7 yrs max so 5-6 times the maintenance cost and traffic interup[tion

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by SoCal Alan

I would guess that most of the heavy traffic on I5 through downtown is local anyways.

Yup. You can see it every day at rush hour. It's people who live in Natomas returning from their jobs in East Sac/Rancho Cordova/Folsom, and vice versa. Then you have all of the Pocket/Elk Grove people on I-5 from those same areas and downtown. I-5 interchange is ridiculous on any given evening rush hour. I avoid it like the plague.

[Web]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

Yup. You can see it every day at rush hour. It's people who live in Natomas returning from their jobs in East Sac/Rancho Cordova/Folsom, and vice versa. Then you have all of the Pocket/Elk Grove people on I-5 from those same areas and downtown. I-5 interchange is ridiculous on any given evening rush hour. I avoid it like the plague.

most over the road trucks are not local

also this is the road to the airport which is only served by yolo bus lines once a hour.....

[wburg]

At tonight's SCUSD Board meeting, two developer groups are proposing projects that would utilize the downtown Jefferson School site at 16th & N Street. Both projects would add new housing on the site cleared for a proposed Unity Center, and convert the Jefferson School to office use.

One proposal, put forth by affordable housing developer Domus and the Native American Health Center, currently based at 21st and J Street, is for 50 units of low-income apartments on the 16th Street side, and conversion of the school into a Native American community center. The other proposal, by the Hodgson Company and architect Ron Vrilakas, includes about 60-80 market rate apartments on the 16th Street side, conversion of the school for offices, and 8-10 row houses (probably for sale) on the 17th Street side. Both projects would include ground floor retail in the residential apartment buildings. They are being considered at SCUSD's closed session today.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

At tonight's SCUSD Board meeting, two developer groups are proposing projects that would utilize the downtown Jefferson School site at 16th & N Street. Both projects would add new housing on the site cleared for a proposed Unity Center, and convert the Jefferson School to office use.

One proposal, put forth by affordable housing developer Domus and the Native American Health Center, currently based at 21st and J Street, is for 50 units of low-income apartments on the 16th Street side, and conversion of the school into a Native American community center. The other proposal, by the Hodgson Company and architect Ron Vrilakas, includes about 60-80 market rate apartments on the 16th Street side, conversion of the school for offices, and 8-10 row houses (probably for sale) on the 17th Street side. Both projects would include ground floor retail in the residential apartment buildings. They are being considered at SCUSD's closed session today.

This is great news! I never thought the Unity Center would materialize and was wondering when that site was going to be developed. 16th Street is really building up.
I wonder how much longer until those other choice lots are filled in? 16th @ J and K

[wburg]

That all depends on how profitable private parking lots are in the near future vs. other sorts of development.

[LandofFrost]

Roxie Deli on R Street.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...-r-street.html

[fflint]

According to KGO 7, the San Francisco MTA board of directors will vote this week to buy 261 Siemens light rail vehicles--to be built at Siemens' manufacturing plant in Sacramento.

[ltsmotorsport]

Might as well keep the source "local". Great to hear of more possible work for the Sacramento plant.

[wburg]

And people say we don't build things here anymore! Seems like Siemens keeps busy building light rail, streetcars, electric locomotives and rebuilding cars for everyone but Sacramento. Give it a couple of years, though...