HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted Apr 28, 2014, 1:45 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Weren't we JUST talking about this?


Sacramento performing arts center could be next big-ticket item for city

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/28/635...#storylink=cpy
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 5:28 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
It was built in a blocky concrete style popular in the 1970s called brutalism, and it hasn’t improved with age, they say. The theater has poor acoustics, too few toilets, and needs major upgrades to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/04/28/635...#storylink=cpy
LOLLLL... Who has been reading this board? These plans will not go well with the brutilists.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 4:50 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
LOLLLL... Who has been reading this board? These plans will not go well with the brutilists.
While Brutalist isn't my cup of tea. This theater is probably a 1 on a scale of 1-10 of interesting examples of that style. It's prison level bad.

Count me as a supporter of this building meeting the wrecking ball.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 7:24 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Changes to L Street that I would like to see:

1. Macy's store to renovate the damn exterior. Can't have that piece of crap stand next to our state-of-the-art arena.

2. Community Center has to be rebuild, not renovate. The thing is too small, acoustics are bad, does not meet ADA requirements. Fugly exterior.

3. See a strong proposal in the old Greyhound depot. Possibly a mixed used high rise with ground floor retail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted May 1, 2014, 3:57 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
Changes to L Street that I would like to see:

1. Macy's store to renovate the damn exterior. Can't have that piece of crap stand next to our state-of-the-art arena.

2. Community Center has to be rebuild, not renovate. The thing is too small, acoustics are bad, does not meet ADA requirements. Fugly exterior.

3. See a strong proposal in the old Greyhound depot. Possibly a mixed used high rise with ground floor retail.
Re: #3

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 2:42 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
A friend pointed this article out to me yesterday:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament....html?page=all

Quote:
Ultimately the railyard will have 500 to 1,000 residential units and 4.5 million square feet of commercial space.
The Railyards under previous plans was estimated as about 10-12,000 residential units, in other articles Kelley was quoted as saying it would have perhaps 5000 units. Is this just a mix-up by the article author, or has the estimate been lowered even farther? 500-1000 residential units on 240 acres is less than 5 units an acre--practically a ghost town!
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 2:59 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
A friend pointed this article out to me yesterday:

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament....html?page=all



The Railyards under previous plans was estimated as about 10-12,000 residential units, in other articles Kelley was quoted as saying it would have perhaps 5000 units. Is this just a mix-up by the article author, or has the estimate been lowered even farther? 500-1000 residential units on 240 acres is less than 5 units an acre--practically a ghost town!
That HAS to be a typo!!! Someone needs to forward that article to KJ and see what the HELL is going on!!!


Edit: I did email the journalist who wrote the article. We'll see if he gets back to me.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 3:15 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Another note about the article...two contrasting pieces that are quite confusing to me. The developer talks of learning things from the Stanford Ranch and McClellan? I don't understand what kinds of things he can learn from those developments that will apply to the Railyards. They are such different projects in VASTLY different areas!

On the other hand, he did say that there would be multiple 10-story apartment buildings. That could mean that the 500-1,000 figure WAS a typo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 3:45 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Confirmed...the numbers were wrong and will be corrected. It should be 5,000-10,000!


Edit: "FWIW, Kelley HAS said he doesn’t expect there to be as many housing units as called for in the plan, but that’s probably going to be market driven anyhow." (from the reporter who wrote the article)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted Mar 25, 2015, 4:46 PM
UnclearColt UnclearColt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Confirmed...the numbers were wrong and will be corrected. It should be 5,000-10,000!
Awesome due diligence! That 500-1000 figure scared me a bit.

Last edited by UnclearColt; Mar 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM. Reason: forgot quote
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted Jul 1, 2015, 4:43 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 8,064
Cross post to the dedicated thread:

Link below for those interested in commenting on the NOP, or just to read the scope of the revision.

http://portal.cityofsacramento.org/~...e%20062615.pdf
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2015, 5:08 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ousing-in.html

Damn, only 6,000 units is what we end up with?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2015, 5:13 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,260
More confirmation on the reduction of housing units. Now down to 5,000-6,000 total.

Developers seek more commercial, less housing in railyard project

Jul 23, 2015, 6:23am PDT
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal

Developers for the railyard project north of downtown Sacramento have submitted plan changes to the city adding commercial space and subtracting residential units.

The revisions would reduce the number of residential units by about 6,100 or 6.1 million square feet, and add 1.009 million square feet of non-residential space. The application also calls for permits for plans for two specific projects within the railyard: A proposed soccer stadium near the site’s northeast corner, and a new Kaiser Permanente medical facility in the northwest corner...

...Larry and Denton Kelley have said they expect formal development of the railyard is likely to get underway as soon as next year.



http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ousing-in.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2015, 5:30 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korey View Post
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ousing-in.html

Damn, only 6,000 units is what we end up with?
Yes really stupid. The market is hot right now, why are they trying to cram in more commercial? KJ is going to have a lot to answer for by the end of this term.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2015, 5:46 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Korey View Post
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ousing-in.html

Damn, only 6,000 units is what we end up with?
Yes...but, that's probably close to 12,000 new residents downtown. That's still amazing!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2015, 6:34 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 183
True, I like your optimism!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 12:51 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Part of the change in approach is due to Kaiser, which takes up a big chunk of real estate, and the MLS stadium--the two combined probably come close to a million square feet all told. The other reason is a desire to get moving more quickly: the economics for mid-rise buildings are there, but not for Type 1 residential high-rise. They could let the lots sit vacant until the economics are right, which might not be for decades, or they could start building mid-rise residential now. I'm disappointed in the drop in residential units, but would be more disappointed to see the site sit vacant (and the Shops buildings unrestored) for another 20 years because they're trying to time the market for high-rise residential, the way we've seen downtown blocks sit and decay in the hands of speculators for decades already.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 1:59 AM
Deno Deno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 104
Put Kaiser in Natomas leave the stadium at Cal Expo. Only Sacramento would screw this up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 4:28 AM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deno View Post
Put Kaiser in Natomas leave the stadium at Cal Expo. Only Sacramento would screw this up.
Kaiser can choose where they want to build their facilities and they have. I don't think that "Sacramento" screwed anything up there.

As for the soccer stadium, it's being privately built. So again they can put it where they want.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2015, 12:59 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbradway View Post
Kaiser can choose where they want to build their facilities and they have. I don't think that "Sacramento" screwed anything up there.

As for the soccer stadium, it's being privately built. So again they can put it where they want.
I agree wholeheartedly! In addition, do you think that Sutter can handle the additional 12,000+ people in the central city on their own? I think the hospital is a great addition and will probably attract the kind of residents they want who want to live close to where they work in the Railyards (doctors, nurses, etc). Why not have all the action downtown instead of up in Natomas. I'm sure they'll get some kind of hospital. But, this is downtown's time...not Natomas'!
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:23 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.