HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 12:18 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Waterfront

deleted

Last edited by enigma99a; May 8, 2014 at 8:05 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 12:53 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 632
Any word on the Powerhouse Science Center? I'm looking forward to what could be a nicely developed area around the museum.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 6:38 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
enigma99a, what do you think of the riverwalk south of the Tower Bridge?

What does "expand the river closer" mean?
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 5:29 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 164
We don’t have a waterfront? I was just there on Sunday. Thousands of tourists there on a random weekend. You can get right down to the river in Old Sacramento. There are plans to redo the boardwalk. Bypass the entire Sacramento River so we can have a little sidewalk down by the River? (It’s already there by I Street, it needs to be redone but that is in the plans I believe)

Meanwhile there are 30 miles of trials RIGHT on the American River, which 1000s of locals take advantage of everyday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 5:59 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
I'd like to clarify.. All I would like to see is the river to be urbanized. Right now it looks overgrown. Needs more concrete, railings and landscaping around it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 6:10 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
enigma99a, what do you think of the riverwalk south of the Tower Bridge?

What does "expand the river closer" mean?
I like the river walk south of the tower bridge, but it is still 60ft from the water. But I think it could be nicer with less cottonwood trees and if someone cleaned up the shore.

And back to the West Sac side, River Walk Park is very nice and has a lot of potential -- Although they forgot to touch the last 60-70 ft to the water. It's an overgrown mess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 6:13 PM
Mr. Ozo Mr. Ozo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 164
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
I like the river walk south of the tower bridge, but it is still 60ft from the water.
Is this close enough for you?

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 6:17 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo View Post
Is this close enough for you?

Well one thing I would change in that picture are those trees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 6:39 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
Well one thing I would change in that picture are those trees.
Are you allergic? I don't get it! Trees are a big part of what makes Sacramento special!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 7:56 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Not sure if you have walked outdoors in Sacramento during the summer, but it gets kind of hot here. Trees make the walk a lot more pleasant, and many people think they're pretty.

Trying to turn the biggest river in California, 700 feet wide where it crosses under the Tower Bridge, into some kind of tame creek like the San Antonio river walk (which is more like 50 feet wide) is a foolish idea--it's just plain never going to happen. And that view of a Portland river walk isn't just a couple feet above the water--note that the big boat a ways downstream in the view you linked barely sticks up above the level of the walking path! You can tell how high that view is if you take another look from the Hawthorne bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5136...YFRKUIxXHQ!2e0

Although note that what made that park possible was the removal of the highway that previously blocked downtown Portland from its river--just as Interstate 5 does today!

https://www.cnu.org/highways/portland

So instead of a "bypass" for the Sacramento River, why not a "bypass" to route non-local Interstate 5 traffic around the western end of West Sacramento? That's the real obstacle to Sacramento's waterfront development--an archaic holdout from the era when everyone was supposed to live in the suburbs and drive downtown to work and shop on uncrowded, speedy highways.

Unfortunately, a lot of Sacramento suburban developers still believe very much in that Happy Motoring world. The other thing that drove a lot of downtown Portland's urban development (including its waterfront) was their regional growth boundary that turned development energy inward instead of outward. 30 years ago, Sacramento and Portland didn't look that different when it came to sprawl and an ailing downtown--but they decided they weren't going to grow outward anymore. Today, Sacramento is on the national cusp of a new era of downtown living--but we're missing out on it, because there are about 600,000 units of suburban housing in the planning stages throughout the Sacramento MSA. Although, according to SACOG, the projected need for new housing through 2025 is only 300,000 units!
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 9:14 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
Not sure if you have walked outdoors in Sacramento during the summer, but it gets kind of hot here. Trees make the walk a lot more pleasant, and many people think they're pretty.

Trying to turn the biggest river in California, 700 feet wide where it crosses under the Tower Bridge, into some kind of tame creek like the San Antonio river walk (which is more like 50 feet wide) is a foolish idea--it's just plain never going to happen. And that view of a Portland river walk isn't just a couple feet above the water--note that the big boat a ways downstream in the view you linked barely sticks up above the level of the walking path! You can tell how high that view is if you take another look from the Hawthorne bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5136...YFRKUIxXHQ!2e0

Although note that what made that park possible was the removal of the highway that previously blocked downtown Portland from its river--just as Interstate 5 does today!

https://www.cnu.org/highways/portland

So instead of a "bypass" for the Sacramento River, why not a "bypass" to route non-local Interstate 5 traffic around the western end of West Sacramento? That's the real obstacle to Sacramento's waterfront development--an archaic holdout from the era when everyone was supposed to live in the suburbs and drive downtown to work and shop on uncrowded, speedy highways.

Unfortunately, a lot of Sacramento suburban developers still believe very much in that Happy Motoring world. The other thing that drove a lot of downtown Portland's urban development (including its waterfront) was their regional growth boundary that turned development energy inward instead of outward. 30 years ago, Sacramento and Portland didn't look that different when it came to sprawl and an ailing downtown--but they decided they weren't going to grow outward anymore. Today, Sacramento is on the national cusp of a new era of downtown living--but we're missing out on it, because there are about 600,000 units of suburban housing in the planning stages throughout the Sacramento MSA. Although, according to SACOG, the projected need for new housing through 2025 is only 300,000 units!
Ditto!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 6, 2014, 10:18 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Not sure if you have walked outdoors in Sacramento during the summer, but it gets kind of hot here. Trees make the walk a lot more pleasant, and many people think they're pretty.

Trying to turn the biggest river in California, 700 feet wide where it crosses under the Tower Bridge, into some kind of tame creek like the San Antonio river walk (which is more like 50 feet wide) is a foolish idea--it's just plain never going to happen. And that view of a Portland river walk isn't just a couple feet above the water--note that the big boat a ways downstream in the view you linked barely sticks up above the level of the walking path! You can tell how high that view is if you take another look from the Hawthorne bridge:

https://www.google.com/maps/@45.5136...YFRKUIxXHQ!2e0

Although note that what made that park possible was the removal of the highway that previously blocked downtown Portland from its river--just as Interstate 5 does today!

https://www.cnu.org/highways/portland

So instead of a "bypass" for the Sacramento River, why not a "bypass" to route non-local Interstate 5 traffic around the western end of West Sacramento? That's the real obstacle to Sacramento's waterfront development--an archaic holdout from the era when everyone was supposed to live in the suburbs and drive downtown to work and shop on uncrowded, speedy highways.

Unfortunately, a lot of Sacramento suburban developers still believe very much in that Happy Motoring world. The other thing that drove a lot of downtown Portland's urban development (including its waterfront) was their regional growth boundary that turned development energy inward instead of outward. 30 years ago, Sacramento and Portland didn't look that different when it came to sprawl and an ailing downtown--but they decided they weren't going to grow outward anymore. Today, Sacramento is on the national cusp of a new era of downtown living--but we're missing out on it, because there are about 600,000 units of suburban housing in the planning stages throughout the Sacramento MSA. Although, according to SACOG, the projected need for new housing through 2025 is only 300,000 units!
I do agree mostly of what you said. I-5 needs to go or get covered up. That would encourage development at the waterfront.

Also here is an example of what West Sac has planned. There will be some areas you can get close to the water. This is what I am referring to.



And creamcityleo79, I'm all for trees and I know how hot it gets. I am not for overgrown and trees/bushes that do not provide shade and look awful. And I hate cottonwoods, so they can be cut down. They just give me horrible allergies. Also large branches that are hanging out of the water need to go.. they are dangerous and unsightly. I'm just calling for some dollars to be spent to have someone maintain it, at the very least.

Last edited by enigma99a; May 6, 2014 at 10:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 7, 2014, 2:26 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Deciduous trees don't provide shade in winter, but that's when you don't really need the shade because it's cold. Those trees are only underwater because the level of the river is so high--if it was more like it is now, they wouldn't be sticking out over the water, they would be on dry land. I'm fairly certain that the design of the West Sacramento waterfront, where it reaches the river itself, is designed to be regularly inundated when the river level goes up and back down. There is no avoiding that--the Sacramento is a tidal river, and its level fluctuates enormously depending on the time of year, and by a few feet depending on the time of day.

Artists' renderings are always a little bit idealized, I imagine the real thing will not be nearly so tidy. Nature is messy, and plants generally don't grow in careful, ordered patterns unless you're willing to spend a lot of time and effort (and presumably money) to keep it carefully maintained. I don't think the city of West Sacramento plans to keep it as manicured as an English garden, nor should a growing city's highest priority be such a curated waterfront.

Sorry you hate cottonwoods, but they're a native tree species, prolific growers, and provide shade. Other users here hate the Sacramento waterfront because there aren't enough trees, you hate it because there are too many. I think both of you will just have to learn to adjust your comfort zones a little bit. Take a Sudafed and enjoy the trees.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 7, 2014, 6:20 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Deciduous trees don't provide shade in winter, but that's when you don't really need the shade because it's cold. Those trees are only underwater because the level of the river is so high--if it was more like it is now, they wouldn't be sticking out over the water, they would be on dry land. I'm fairly certain that the design of the West Sacramento waterfront, where it reaches the river itself, is designed to be regularly inundated when the river level goes up and back down. There is no avoiding that--the Sacramento is a tidal river, and its level fluctuates enormously depending on the time of year, and by a few feet depending on the time of day.

Artists' renderings are always a little bit idealized, I imagine the real thing will not be nearly so tidy. Nature is messy, and plants generally don't grow in careful, ordered patterns unless you're willing to spend a lot of time and effort (and presumably money) to keep it carefully maintained. I don't think the city of West Sacramento plans to keep it as manicured as an English garden, nor should a growing city's highest priority be such a curated waterfront.

Sorry you hate cottonwoods, but they're a native tree species, prolific growers, and provide shade. Other users here hate the Sacramento waterfront because there aren't enough trees, you hate it because there are too many. I think both of you will just have to learn to adjust your comfort zones a little bit. Take a Sudafed and enjoy the trees.
LOL.. well said. And a lot of people don't know there is a high/low tide in Sac. As much as +- 3ft during the day.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 7, 2014, 7:19 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Daybreak (So. Jordan), UT
Posts: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
I'm fairly certain that the design of the West Sacramento waterfront, where it reaches the river itself, is designed to be regularly inundated when the river level goes up and back down. There is no avoiding that--the Sacramento is a tidal river, and its level fluctuates enormously depending on the time of year, and by a few feet depending on the time of day.
100% correct wburg. The portion of the West Sac side north of the Tower Bridge below the Ziggerat is nicely landscaped and is regularly inundated and recovers nicely (or at least it used to! I've been away for a couple of years now...).
__________________
Giant Meteor 2024
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 7, 2014, 10:48 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
OK One more comment. New Orleans is more prone to flooding than Sacramento and also has a tidal river the Mississippi. Yet, it is landscaped all the way to the edge of the water. The exact same thing you'll find in all urban cities. (Except Sacramento, which has a very non-urban waterfront)

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9517...b1EX9w!2e0!3e5

All you do is build a retaining wall, bring the sidewalk to the water's edge (not 100 ft away like ours) and backfill the wall with a nice walkway, grass, lighting and seating.

Is this too much to ask? Hell even Stockton kicks ass on Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 8, 2014, 2:01 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
OK One more comment. New Orleans is more prone to flooding than Sacramento and also has a tidal river the Mississippi. Yet, it is landscaped all the way to the edge of the water. The exact same thing you'll find in all urban cities. (Except Sacramento, which has a very non-urban waterfront)

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9517...b1EX9w!2e0!3e5

All you do is build a retaining wall, bring the sidewalk to the water's edge (not 100 ft away like ours) and backfill the wall with a nice walkway, grass, lighting and seating.

Is this too much to ask? Hell even Stockton kicks ass on Sacramento
last I read was after hurricane katrina etc new orleans is now not the most prone. Sacramento is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 8, 2014, 5:06 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
OK One more comment. New Orleans is more prone to flooding than Sacramento and also has a tidal river the Mississippi. Yet, it is landscaped all the way to the edge of the water. The exact same thing you'll find in all urban cities. (Except Sacramento, which has a very non-urban waterfront)

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9517...b1EX9w!2e0!3e5

All you do is build a retaining wall, bring the sidewalk to the water's edge (not 100 ft away like ours) and backfill the wall with a nice walkway, grass, lighting and seating.

Is this too much to ask? Hell even Stockton kicks ass on Sacramento
I seriously don't think you have actually been to the Sacramento waterfront between Capitol Avenue and Highway 50, because it's basically the same thing here--a walkway built on what used to be a municipal wharf, around 20-30 feet above the water. As with the Portland example you linked, this walkway isn't right at the level of the water, it's about 15-20 or so feet above the water level. See the barge with the crane on it? The top of the trailer sitting on the second level of the barge (on top of two containers) is visible in the shot, meaning it is below the camera's perspective. Looks like that park in particular is part of the aquarium complex.

If the river seems particularly distant from the riverwalk right now, it's because the river levels are very, very low. But, as we saw in the other photo, those tend to vary widely. I think you're making a deliberate effort to downplay Sacramento's riverwalk--or you have never actually been there and are just theorizing about it.
__________________
"Old ideas can sometimes use new buildings. New ideas must use old buildings."--Jane Jacobs
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 8, 2014, 5:31 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
http://www.sacbee.com/static/content...ects/flooding/

still don't believe sacramentos waterfront is prone?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 8, 2014, 8:01 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
I seriously don't think you have actually been to the Sacramento waterfront between Capitol Avenue and Highway 50, because it's basically the same thing here--a walkway built on what used to be a municipal wharf, around 20-30 feet above the water. As with the Portland example you linked, this walkway isn't right at the level of the water, it's about 15-20 or so feet above the water level. See the barge with the crane on it? The top of the trailer sitting on the second level of the barge (on top of two containers) is visible in the shot, meaning it is below the camera's perspective. Looks like that park in particular is part of the aquarium complex.

If the river seems particularly distant from the riverwalk right now, it's because the river levels are very, very low. But, as we saw in the other photo, those tend to vary widely. I think you're making a deliberate effort to downplay Sacramento's riverwalk--or you have never actually been there and are just theorizing about it.
I think you misunderstood. I'm actually OK with the water being 20 ft below, that's just how the river is.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.9542...c5YEfQ!2e0!3e5

At the end of their project, you can see it was infill. That's all I'm asking perhaps? Create more usable area closer to the water.. Closer, not as in not higher but closer.

Here is a screenshot of the section you mentioned. If they had done it right, the water would have come to the walkway. Wall would have been built at 32ft in, and dirt infill behind it, with landscaping and trees planted. That would turn into a 44ft path width instead of 12ft.

[ Google Earth showing 32ft from the edge to the dead trees / unmaintained shore ]


Other urban cores, like in new orleans have cleaned up their shores, and people are brought right to the water.



With that said, I wouldn't go back and spend money on the capitol mall/I-5 strip as its been finished, albeit screwed up. But I'd hope lessons could be learned on how to design future sections. This section could be retrofitted in the future though.

Maybe I've beat a dead horse here, but to me it's like grass/dirt in the middle of a freeway median -- doesn't feel too urban. But maybe you guys like the unmaintained look.

Stockton knows how to design. This is how it's done.

Last edited by enigma99a; May 8, 2014 at 8:11 AM.
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 12:50 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

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