The problem with "cutting-edge" design is that it often doesn't wear well. The best-known artifacts of Brown's era were the Solar building and the underground building often called "the bunker," both of which have fairly poor reputations as pieces of local architecture of note. The sad secret about architecture is that it is basically subject to the whims of fashion, and there are plenty of architecture fashionistas ready to pooh-pooh anything that doesn't match this season's latest offerings. Because it can take a few years for a building to progress from original design to a completed structure, often a building that was cutting-edge in the rendering phase is already behind the times when constructed. Older buildings similarly get pooh-poohed, written off as "obsolete" even if they differ from the latest designs only in details and condition.

To be honest, good public places don't necessarily demand cutting-edge archtiecture. "Third places" where people gather can often be ugly, utilitarian buildings--they have to do more with use than how the building looks on the surface. The question is not how pretty the buildings are, but how well they work. Capitol Mall's design was considered aesthetically pleasing when it was built, based on the then-cutting-edge priorities of broad streets for auto traffic, separation of workplace from suburban home life, and the unspoken priority of removing nonwhite populations from the central city. The problem was that this fashionable design (again, fashionable in the same way that Nehru jackets and polyester leisure suits were once considered cutting-edge fashion) didn't age well, and we got rid of the functional mixed-use neighborhood that once occupied the spot.

It's about function, not aesthetics--function, and considering carefully what one might want to demolish.

HA! Yeah Jerry Browns world-class creativity brought us the "the bunker" and Gray Davis's East End were terrible State architecture. bbbmer, can you give me a few world-class architecture brought to us by Brown?

The outside appearance of buildings is nice, but it has to start with the fundamentals--how does the building work in its environment? Surface trappings are just that--on the surface. A plain concrete-block building that does its job is far preferable to an aesthetic masterpiece that doesn't work worth a damn. If you can do both at once, that's ideal--but when it comes to planning and creating city, function comes before form.

I have read "Sustainable Communities," the book van der Riin did with Peter Calthorpe on the Sacramento project. It is an interesting picture of the case-study project they did around Roosevelt Park. The buildings in that project are quite functional, and integrate some interesting features like passive solar design, but in terms of neighborhood integration (not to mention urban design) they are "meh" at best. The residential units face inward, shielded from the harsh realities of the street, and thus don't work the way cities used to work (with front doors, porches and windows facing the street.) The result is less 'eyes on the street', auto-centric orientation (people tend to enter and exit via their inward-facing garages) and an unfriendly street experience. Even though a lot of people technically live nearby, the businesses close at 5:00 or earlier because the handful who live in the neighborhood aren't enough to substitute for the 100,000 or so commuting state employees who work just to the north.

By the way--what buildings in Sacramento did Sim van der Riin actually design?

bbbmer, the "bunker" has dirt on top of the building and NO solar anything. Do you even know where this building's located? Again, if that's your example of effective architecture as defined by you, you are stuck in the 60's.

trapper: The Bunker is a bunker in order to provide sunlight for the "solar" building on the north side of N Street. It was a nice idea, but it was ahead of its time--the solar array has never worked properly. The bunker has dirt on half of its top now, but the other half is landscaped--we had "green roof" buildings in Sacramento long before the new urbanists decided it was a good idea! Heck, we should re-landscape the other half.

Burg: the Bunker could be two stories tall and still not get in the way of sunlight for the former solar building across the street. Also, the sun provides sunlight not a building as you just stated above. Regardless, it a terrible building and poor architecture at the core of it.

The sun provides sunlight--the bunker is a bunker in order to avoid blocking the sunlight that hits the solar building. The building IS two stories tall, but all but one of those stories is beneath the ground. I don't know why they didn't build it taller--perhaps they didn't want the trees and other landscaping elements on top of the bunker to block the sunlight hitting the solar building either.

Steve: I visited downtown Los Angeles around Pershing Square and for a couple of blocks around it on a Sunday morning. Traffic, vehicle and foot, was roughly comparable to downtown Sacramento on Sunday, or even lower--in a city of ten times the size. There were plenty of people to be found along Broadway, because people actually live in that neighborhood, just as Midtown and other central city adjacent neighborhoods are active on weekends.

I also got a chance to visit Jack London Square in Oakland, right on the waterfront, on a Friday afternoon last week. It was dead as a doornail--maybe I just wasn't there at the right day or time. In terms of physical layout, I'd take K Street over Jack London Square any day. Of course, they don't have just light rail running down the street--they have full-sized Amtrak trains and freight trains!

"Smart growth" and "mixed use" are just dressed-up names for "the way we built cities 100 years ago"--ones without cars, where people got around by walking or transit. We got rid of most of our "smart growth" 50 years ago and now are at a disadvantage to put it back.

And no, the city government doesn't crawl to the state asking them to build more offices, because, as you mention, the state doesn't pay city property taxes. The state has control and construction authority over the old redevelopment areas that we demolished in the 1950s, pretty much explicitly to destroy the African American, Latino and Asian neighborhoods that used to be there.

There are several kinds of neighborhood amenities. Proximity to work, entertainment and other necessities is an amenity, one that many central city residents appreciate--folks down here drive less than anywhere else in the region, largely because they don't have to.

Historic buildings are a powerful amenity, one Sacramento has in quantity, but many of them are threatened by those who fail to recognize their value.

An arena is an interesting idea, but I don't think many developers would be willing to build an arena on spec either. An arena is not "mixed use" or "smart growth," because its use is anything but mixed (it's a bit impractical to include a residential component) and it becomes by definition a regional draw (and unless supported by dramatic improvements in public transit, it increases vehicle traffic, instead of reducing it the way smart growth is supposed to.) It's hardly "normal" either.

Demand for for-sale residential units in the downtown core is moot, because there is no supply. But just adjacent to the central city, residential units in Midtown and other central city neighborhoods (ones that are easily walkable to downtown) still draw a premium price--not as high as the boom, but higher than comps of equivalent square footage in outlying areas. Why? Theyr'e close to desirable amenities, from entertainment and restaurants to parks and beautiful historic neighborhoods, close to job centers, close to transit...and close to downtown, for those who work there and would rather walk home than fight in traffic.

That is the downtown residential market right there--those who live in Midtown but would like something more modern, with more altitude. Instead of demolishing Midtown to build mid-rises, high-rise and adaptive reuse housing downtown, of all income levels, provides the supply to meet a demand that is right under downtown's nose.

Too true to that last part! If we could do something along the lines of what Washington, DC did with the Verizon Center (seen here: http://tinyurl.com/ydqlhn7 ), the foot traffic would elicit businesses and such to grow/redevelop anyway! Just get something that would force foot traffic to downtown and the rest will call. Down with the mall.

I've seen it--and I agree. "Free" parking is far too expensive.

About schools and downtown: We are in full agreement. There is a great need for good schools in the central city, and in my mind that is the number one "amenity" we need, more than high-end retail or an arena or even downtown housing. I agree that the central city shouldn't just be for DINKs, empty nesters and folks in their twenties. That's the #1 reason I hear why people "can't" move downtown--schools. And the #1 reason why people move out--they had a kid, so they have to move because of schools.

There is some effort to turn the tide, like the "Met" charter high school in Southside Park, or the Montessori school in Marshall School. But the latter one is already receiving opposition--they are being kicked out because of earthquake safety requirements.

In terms of downtown Sacramento's amenities, there are neighborhood-serving coffee shops, bars, restaraunts, and drug stores in the downtown core--but, admittedly, no high-end grocery store. That's another thing the downtown core needs, again, more so than an arena. The problem is that things like grocery stores and elementary schools aren't sexy--and our current mayor likes the sexy stuff, like high-rise hotels and arenas.

As to how to get people from the streetcar suburbs to downtown, the answer is simple--bring back the streetcars! I have friends and co-workers who use light rail from Curtis Park and East Sac to get to work, they no longer need a car to commute--but the existing light rail lines don't reach enough of the old streetcar suburbs (like West Sac, North Sac, Oak Park, McKinley Park etcetera.)

Although that isn't really the point--it isn't commuters from Land Park or Curtis Park that we are trying to attract, it is commuters from Roseville, Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, Carmichael, Orangevale, Citrus Heights, etcetera. For many people, a shorter commute (resulting in lower fuel costs, less auto-dependence, more free time for family and other activities, etc) is an attractor to the central city.

"I heard a long time ago that people won't change their ways until an alternative becomes more attractive than current actions."
In some cases, the alternative is attractive for very different reasons than the status quo. Downtown Sacramento will never have wide open spaces, big parking lots, wide traffic-free boulevards, single-family homes, big enclosed shopping malls, or other things that are present in the suburbs. What it does offer, to some extent, and what it has the potential to offer to a greater extent, is city life. I moved to the central city in 1993 because it was far more appealing (to me) than life in the suburbs: a richer cultural milieu, better walkability, proximity to entertainment, and a more beautiful physical setting. Plenty of people agree with me on this--and those are the people who want to move downtown already. The problem is that there is not a supply of for-sale housing in the downtown core to meet the already-present demand, so they move to Midtown and other adjacent neighborhoods instead--with resulting high prices.

It depends on the nameless faceless box intended to intimidate citizens into submission. The 1940s/50s Streamline Moderne office buildings along N Street were considered pretty much the "nameless/faceless" category, but are now old enough that they have some classic style, and are definitely representative of a period of architecture based on monumentality and solidity, built during an era when California's population was exploding and they needed big, simple buildings to contain the new state agencies needed to run what was until the postwar era a relatively unpopulated state. And when compared to newer state office buildings they don't look all that bad. But heck, I like the Bunker too, it is the Solar building that needs replacing--preferably with a building that has a functioning solar array.

Patterning on a mythic urban history is just what I want to avoid--not an Andres Duany "traditional neighborhood development" that ignores how people actually lived (specifically working-class people), but one based on FACTUAL urban history--how people actually lived and interacted in cities before the advent of the automobile. We can't go back to that (and, for many reasons, we wouldn't want to) but they provide real-world examples of how we can utilize answers to problems that were solved 100 years ago--but then we forgot the solutions when we decided cities were for cars and jobs, not people. Using period documentation and the physical evidence of past eras found in historic buildings, we can map how city buildings work in a pre-automobile, pre-cheap-energy, pedestrian-driven context. Once you handle that you can make the exterior look like a ukelele for all I care. Context doesn't have to dictate architecture, but the exterior appearance of a building should be secondary to how the building functionally works--if a building isn't functional, it is useless. Now, it's fine to build useless things (statues, etc. are technically useless, but perform an aesthetic function) but if your intent is to build something useful, making it pretty is secondary.

That is an EXCELLENT point, bbbbmer...having an arena is fine, but having it right next door may not be so fine. Especially if your team wins (or loses) a championship and the resulting celebrations/riots trash your home!

But arenas must go somewhere. And I think it's been shown that there's a lot more benefit from having a sports complex in an urban place to having one out in.. Natomas. It seems that when there's a new complex built, it totally changes and overhauls the neighborhood around it. There're also those who don't mind living next to a complex. DC's Nationals Stadium actually advertises as the ballpark neighborhood and honestly, it's probably the only place in all of DC I'd move back to.

There is another option: turn Natomas into an urban place. That was supposed to be the original idea, after all. It would require certain things to be in place beforehand--like rail-based transit to push density, stricter build-out requirements to allow walkable gridded streets instead of the feeder/cul-de-sac method, and of course stronger levees to end the building moratorium.

I'm quite aware of St. Louis' adventure into urban redevelopment and the Pruitt Igoe disaster...

Comparing museum activity with that of a shopping mall is not valid. They represent two quite different market segments, and because of the economic downturn, the malling of America has been stopped short - and some would think that's a benefit...

In SF quite literally blocks from the urban core are residential developments, some low rise, some high rise, which serve a variety of populations driven by amenities like proximity to work as well as million dollar views...

I rather like some of the urban infill that has occurred in Sacramento over the past four or five decades -- but there is some that is unpleasant, and could have been done more effectively and more beautifully...

The difference between bad and good built environments in Sacramento I believe is largely derived from design elements -- put up a shlock building and it will be a blight for decades to come... and it probably won't sell... a la the AKT development at 21st and S or so -- the fake neo-classical townhouses that were slapped up on the cheap and which are largely vacant, with most of the remaining pads/lots unbuilt... Serious ugly is not good for anyone...

I think you are referring to Tapestri Square--that is a Giannini project, not AKT. I personally like the way they look, they have some detail. They got caught short by the market crash, and because they are aimed at a higher-end occupant they have not done as well as some other projects that have less finish, like the Sutter Brownstones. I suppose that's just a matter of personal taste.

It's no more "fake neo-classical" than buildings built a century ago were 'fake' because they borrowed from Greek temples, Tudor English cottages of California missions. Revival styles are valid architectural styles, and a lot of people like them.

In Sacramento, quite literally blocks from the urban core are residential developments, both mid-rise and low-rise. No high rise yet, but we don't have much high-rise anything. The exception is the core itself.

I stand corrected on the developer of that abysmal project, though I seem to recall seeing Eleni's name on the signs outside of the project... Hmm... -- but not on its design... YUCK!

Isn't it interesting that other projects that came to life around the same time as this did are built-out and selling, where this one remains another gaping hole on the grid...

'Revival styles' -- they had a time and place, and quality applications...

We are living in a different age, and even the post-modernists have put away their doilies and bizarre paintboxes in favor of something more original, more in keeping with design ephraetis of a more expressive world, rather than repeating the clunkiness and plop of copying historic styles for the sake of style...

Part of Sacramento's design aesthetic problem in its modern structures, big and small, is a clinging to the past, with no particular relevance, no indigenous references, resulting in banal and bizarre combinations of forms and applied decoration that is just plain fugly...

In not inviting great design from great contemporary designers from around the world, even by local emulation, we are doomed to projects like that referenced, which are unsaleable not only due to economics but also because they are hideous...

What 'revivalist' pablum is is NOT architecture -- it's aping the past for effect, for clinging to a past that did not originate here...

However, I believe there are some GREAT infill projects on the grid, mostly in Midtown, and mostly the work of import-architects who relocated here because of this town's liveability and because it's cheaper to live here than in SF or Berkeley or Palo Alto or Marin...

The truly great design of the world is timeless, elegant, permanent, useful, and reflective of the age which in which it was brought into being... Of course, I borrowed these values from Vitruvius -- but I think he himself would be appalled at the fakery of projects that merely mimic the past rather than offering any expression of the era of their making...

bbbbmer: Can you mention some specific infill projects in Midtown that you like?

bbbbmer. You are correct that Eleni is/was a partner on that project but its not AKT.

I agree -- I absolutely LOVE midtown and the cultural aspect of life it provides... it's hep, urbane, haughty, and fun... It makes for a cultural sensibility that represents an awareness of human potential and expression, and its scale is easy on the eye... It's 'sexy' in a way -- and I like that....

LIST OF MIDTOWN/DOWNTOWN PROJECTS BBBBMER LIKES (Part 2)

11) The renovation of by California Pizza Kitchen of the old Goodyear (?) Tire Company at 16th and L Streets. If only their pizza was as good as this building…

12) The renovation of the Public Market originally designed by Julia Morgan – unfortunately the Sheraton Hotel Kleenex box highrise next door by David Taylor is an abject failure… and which has been the subject of a number of quite heated discussions...

13) The YWCA dormitory building at 17th and L Streets designed by Julia Morgan… I have a bit of history with this building… A firm I know of wished to buy this building in the 1970’s to convert it to office space as they had done with another YWCA dorm in Santa Barbara, where the firm has office space to this day. I believe in preserving the great architects of California, even with their ‘revivalist’ tendencies, Julia Morgan and Bernard Maybeck being two of my historic California architectural heroes, and this old building is simply gorgeous and would make lovely offices, as it has made a lovely travel and temporary housing stay for many very fortunate women.

14) The restaurant corner of 17th and Capitol – absolutely magnificent and creative reuse of older and beautiful structures…

15) A group of four apartment/townhomes on the south side of Q street, bordering lightrail on the south, in the middle of the block between 16th and 17th… This is one of my FAVORITE infill projects – very urbane, very haughty, and very sexy…

16) Almost everything at 20th and K – Faces, Badlands, the MARRs building (even though the owners supported KJ), and even Headhunters – all are stunning and creative reuses (Badlands is actually new construction, but still stunning, as are many of the guys who frequent there)…

17) The townhouses on the north side of L Street and the east side of 22nd Street.

18) Almost everything in the Boulevard Park and Mansion Flats neighborhoods of midtown but especially the craftsmans of MF and Edwardians of BP.

19) The townhouses on the north side of N street, between 26th and 27th Streets that replaced the old St. Luke’s Medical Center parking garage…

20) Much of the Alhambra corridor, especially the creatively reused buildings… including the Grange Dairy and the Libby’s canning plant… and of course, McKinley Park (there are two rose bushes and one arbor there dedicated to my mother) and the Clunie Clubhouse – where I have attended some very memorable events…

21) A duplex/townhouse at 28th and E Streets, southwest corner… I believe this was done by one of the Greeks, but I can’t remember which one…

22) I know it’s not in the midtown grid, but I also very much like Bob Powell’s Campus Commons… This is a prime example of a quality planned unit development, and a testament to the possible…

Well, that's all for now... In lieu of an actual physical tour, if interested, you might check out bing.com maps for bird's eye views, or google maps for street views of these projects...

If you're an architecture addict like me, enjoy!

I would also add two public housing projects, both at the corner of 26th and L Streets...

The townhouse/apartments on the north side of L at 26th are beautifully designed and liveable, albeit small... They are simply lovely and adjacent to the equally beautiful St. Francis Church...

The midrise senior housing on the south side of L at 26th is a bit Bauhausian, but done sensitively with its brick facing and this building has aged beautifully amid the trees of the neighborhood...

Thanks for the list--it includes a lot of my favorite buildings too, I don't think I saw anything on the list I didn't recognize--or admire. I have also led walking and bicycle tours through some of those neighborhoods, highlighting the architecture as well as the social history of the neighborhoods. I got married in the Clunie Clubhouse.

As you might have noticed, I am a big fan of historic buildings, and very much prefer re-using existing buildings to demolishing them and building new buildings that vaguely resemble historic buildings (or vaguely resemble industrial buildings) in their place. In cases where the building is already gone and no adaptive reuse is possible, I object less to a certain level of revivalism, but don't mind more modern statements either.

One minor quibble: the YWCA building on 17th & J was designed by the local firm of Dean & Dean, not Julia Morgan. It does have a Morgan-esque look to it, but it's purely the work of one of Sacramento's finest architectural firms. It would make nice office space, but personally I'm glad it is still serving its historic role as low-cost housing for women (or, at least, it will be once they finish the repairs and rehab that are happening right now.) In some ways I would like to see some of the buildings that were once housing (mostly residential hotels) converted back from office use to residenital use--the Ramona, the Traveler's Hotel, the Senator, the Hotel Regis and so on--in addition to modern residential buildings on the central city's vacant lots.

I really want to do a book on Sacramento's great architects, from folks like Nathaniel Goodell to the downtown builders like Dean & Dean, Leonard Starks, Rudolf Herold and George Sellon, through mid-century architects like Carter Sparks and Ray Takata.

Harry Devine is definitely on the list I'd like to include in a book on local architects--just scratching the surface there. I also hope to have a chapter on "guest stars" like Morgan and Willis Polk.

Which old sugar mill? The one in Clarksburg?

Polk designed the PG&E powerplant on Jibboom Street right next to the river, and the water facility near it on the other side of I-5, and the DO Mills Bank on 7th and J. His firm designed the Western Pacific railroad station, the one that is now an Old Spaghetti Factory, but not the Southern Pacific depot downtown. I consider that one a grand old building even though Polk didn't design it.

I just wish they had kept the old Sacramento Northern railroad line intact--how much fun would a "Clarksburg Wine Train" be?

I didn't say it wasn't a great project... It is indeed a GREAT project... It's financing backstory is questionable and precarious... But that in no way detracts from the project itself -- it's MAGNIFICENT and I hope those involved in the project can get their financial bearings to build it out completely and fulfill its program...

Oh God, I'd LOVE a Clarksburg Wine Train -- or ANY wine train... !!!

See, that's the thing...Clarksburg was the end of the "Holland Branch" of the Sacramento Northern Railway, a freight-only branch that served the sugar mill and other industries in that part of the Delta. It ran from a point on the SN mainline south of West Sacramento. The tracks were intact until about ten years ago and the Yolo Short Line did run some tourist trains to Clarksburg. I'm not sure who owns them now, but the city of West Sacramento owns the former SN main line. That line would be very practical to adapt to streetcar use--it would serve most of the new residential neighborhoods around Southport. If it was feasible to rebuild the line to Clarksburg, who knows?