As the capitol city, Sacramento has a dependent relationship on the state government. We've let the state government fill our core with monolithic government buildings. The incentive has been to keep jobs and development, but the cost has been the soul of the city. Contrary to the state employee work week, on any Saturday or Sunday you can ride your bicycle down the middle a street in downtown with hardly any cars to worry about. Many restaurants on K Street and around downtown are closed on w... SteveV William Burg 2009-11-19T17:35:11Z 2009-11-19T17:35:11Z

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?

William Burg 2009-11-19T17:35:11Z bbbbmer 2009-11-19T13:25:29Z 2009-11-19T13:25:29Z

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... !!!

bbbbmer 2009-11-19T13:25:29Z William Burg 2009-11-19T07:49:29Z 2009-11-19T07:49:29Z

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

William Burg 2009-11-19T07:49:29Z William Burg 2009-11-19T07:47:11Z 2009-11-19T07:47:11Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-19T07:47:11Z Patrick J. 2009-11-19T03:31:03Z 2009-11-19T03:31:03Z

The Old Sugar Mill is very popular and has 5 functioning wineries; how is that a failure? I've been to a wedding there. I remember when it was still actually a sugar mill (I'm from the Delta and went to High School in Clarksburg), but the U.S. government has decided we are to get our sweet from Corn Syrup instead.(but's that's another story) Back to the Mill, I think it would be absolutely perfect for a mid sized brewery: those tall brick buildings keep very cool even in summer. Walk out the back and you can wonder among the unrefurbished buildings.

Patrick J. 2009-11-19T03:31:03Z bbbbmer 2009-11-19T00:14:38Z 2009-11-19T00:14:38Z

Julia Morgan didn't build many buildings in Sacramento, but in Marysville, they're a dime a dozen, and mostly in various states of disrepair, lacking the capital and market to justify renovations -- they're RIPE for a nonprofit of some sort to intervene and preserve them for historical purposes... and they're simply magnificent little structures and worthy of California's honor... I am aware of the work of Willis Polk here in the City, but unaware of his buildings in Sacramento -- did he do the old railroad station??? That's certainly a grand building if he did, and I'd LOVE to photograph any others I could learn about... Yes, Old Sugar Mill is in Clarksburg, and about 1/3 renovated at this point. GREAT project, at least strategically -- bad financing plan... My dad was a consulting engineer for the Devine firm decades ago, so I have a bit of a bias on that count...

bbbbmer 2009-11-19T00:14:38Z William Burg 2009-11-18T20:45:11Z 2009-11-18T20:45:11Z

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?

William Burg 2009-11-18T20:45:11Z bbbbmer 2009-11-18T20:18:25Z 2009-11-18T20:18:25Z

I stand corrected on the YWCA building in Sacramento -- in part... It was indeed a Julia Morgan design, at least in significant part, under contract with YWCA, for whom she built two dozen such dormitories and other similar buildings up and down California, in Utah, and in Hawaii, and though I've seen it listed before among Morgan's buildings (I *thought* it was in Sara Boutelle's bio, but I can't find it -- and yes, I have that book in my office), I believe it was locally adapted for use by the Dean firm, which is the firm of record for the building. However, If you ever visit one of these other dorms, as in Santa Barbara, the similarity is stunning... For me, it will always be part of Julia Morgan's oeuvre... I adored Carter Sparks and his simple elegance. I believe he worked for Eichler, or Eichler's architects, Anshen & Allen at one early point in his career... My aunt had two Eichler homes, both still standing with renovated interiors that preserved the magnificent woodwork found in those homes... He also designed the projects of Sacramento developer Jim Streng in Carmichael, Davis, and Palo Alto... Another local designer of note is Ed Kato, who made several apartment buildings of note, and I believe was the designer of the little office building at 3rd and R referenced in my list, but I'm not sure of that... I do love that building very very much... Another early to mid 20th century architect/builder of note was Harry Devine, who erected significant structures in and around Sacramento and other locations in Northern California... But one of the great unsung architects of the region was Roger Scott, who just captured the indigenousness and uniqueness of Valley design in the few buildings he made... His Sacramento Marina is MAGNIFICENT -- a STUNNING emulation of appropriate expression along the river.. And his 'river bridge' house out off of Hazel Avenue in Fair Oaks is simply GORGEOUS, though it had engineering and soil difficulties in its early days -- but then again, so did FLW in almost every building he made... He also built the office of our firm in Sacramento in Campus Commons, which has had its share of problems, but is a delightful, if underutilized, space... I LOVE creative re-use, but re-use done authentically -- though I do enjoy the bar at the Sheraton, it could have been GREAT -- and unfortunately the Sheraton Tower next door is simply abysmal.. I love the idea of the renovation of OLD SUGAR MILL, but not the financing of the project... It could be a GREAT project, but for the lack of capitalization and forethought in its planning...

bbbbmer 2009-11-18T20:18:25Z William Burg 2009-11-18T18:45:58Z 2009-11-18T18:45:58Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-18T18:45:58Z bbbbmer 2009-11-18T17:41:00Z 2009-11-18T17:41:00Z

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...

bbbbmer 2009-11-18T17:41:00Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T23:38:40Z 2009-11-17T23:38:40Z

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!

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T23:38:40Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T23:34:59Z 2009-11-17T23:34:59Z

Okay, Here it goes... In lieu of doing anything actually productive today, as everyone dashes out of the office early for some reason -- is it game day or something??? LIST OF MIDTOWN/DOWNTOWN PROJECTS BBBBMER LIKES (Part 1) These are not in any particular order, rather they are in order of my memory of downtown/midtown Sacramento, and I am not in Sacramento as I compose this list…I’m just using Bing Maps to overview the grid to select projects that I am familiar with and that I believe are significant architecturally and in terms of their adaption of the Vitruvian values of permanence, utility, and beauty… 1) Governor’s Square – 3rd and N, et al… Absolutely magnificent infill apartment projects by the late great developer Bob Powell, with whom I worked on several matters… 2) The LOW RISE portion of Capitol Towers – I don’t know who owns this project now, but I know the Scheuer family of Chicago once did, and they attempted to gut this project and erect highrises in its place – the complex went ballistic and rallied all their forces and stopped the re-development of this simply wonderful close-in place to live, complete with trees, and nice now-remodeled apartment units, easy parking, etc… 3) Lincoln Plaza – simply beautiful place to work if I worked there… 4) The little pair of offices bordered by 2nd to the west, 3rd to the East, and R Street on the South… These little buildings were once near and dear to my heart for personal reasons, and I was always intrigued by their architecture. I can’t remember who designed these offices, but their urban industrial look always appealed to me. 5) The little pair of office buildings west of 3rd Street, between S and T Streets… These were designed by the great local architect Roger Scott, whose many buildings were a true statement of indigenous Sacramento Valley architecture… 6) The rowhouses bordered by P Street to the north, Q Street to the south, 12th Street to the west, and almost to 14th Street to the east… Perhaps not the greatest planned unit development, but these are lovely little homes that integrate beautifully into their environment now that they’ve had a chance to age… 7) The CADA apartments at 13th and O Streets – they’re simple and elegant, though small. 8) The LOFTS at 16th and J Streets – when new they were an original urban thing and a creative reuse of an existing structure…. Unfortunately now their imitators have become ubiquitous. 9) The Sacramento Convention Center – THIS building is truly a landmark – inviting, exciting, and bold… and adaptable to future uses… I wonder if the architect (a woman, btw) is available to rebuild ARCO if such a proposal would be entertained…. 10) The CAL-EPA building – as Kleenex box highrises go, this one was done well… complete with its Dale Chihuly chandelier in the entrance… which is MAGNIFICENT! To be continued...

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T23:34:59Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T21:10:55Z 2009-11-17T21:10:55Z

Mr. Burg, Yes I can, but because so many are small, I would need to compile specific addresses... It will take some time, but I will do so, and somehow get them to you... There are many, btw...

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T21:10:55Z aurorab 2009-11-17T19:28:59Z 2009-11-17T19:28:59Z

bbbbmer, I have to say I find your comments refreshing.

aurorab 2009-11-17T19:28:59Z Zen 2009-11-17T17:27:28Z 2009-11-17T17:27:28Z

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

Zen 2009-11-17T17:27:28Z William Burg 2009-11-17T16:55:27Z 2009-11-17T16:55:27Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-17T16:55:27Z William Burg 2009-11-17T16:53:30Z 2009-11-17T16:53:30Z

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

William Burg 2009-11-17T16:53:30Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T14:52:14Z 2009-11-17T14:52:14Z

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 2009-11-17T14:52:14Z William Burg 2009-11-17T06:13:05Z 2009-11-17T06:13:05Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-17T06:13:05Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T06:01:29Z 2009-11-17T06:01:29Z

Yes, arenas need to go 'somewhere' -- but we already have a site that has a lead in the significant infrastructure necessary to fulfill a sports/entertainment venue mission, and it's at ARCO... ARCO is expandable -- there's plenty of land, access, plumbing, electrical, roads, etc... and if a new arena is PLANNED to be truly multi-use, it can attract greater investment capital and government funding than merely its use as a basketball court... I believe such a program could be fulfilled at between 1/3 to 1/2 of the cost of locating a sole purpose basketball arena at any other location given the infrastructural needs required for such a build... And ARCO is easy to get to, unlike a downtown stadium's obligatory traffic tie ups... Anyone who has experienced the gridlock in SF's SOMA before or after a baseball game knows what I mean...

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T06:01:29Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T05:55:54Z 2009-11-17T05:55:54Z

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....

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T05:55:54Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T05:52:12Z 2009-11-17T05:52:12Z

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...

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T05:52:12Z Dale Kooyman 2009-11-17T05:47:56Z 2009-11-17T05:47:56Z

I've lived in "downtown" SF (Golden Gateway), Wash D.C. (Dupont Circle) and the 60 story towers just off Michigan Ave/Chicago River. All were quieter on weekends than during the week days but far livelier than Sacto Downtown. What they had in common were residents, tourists and places of interest to go to--suburbanites went home and stayed there over the weekend except in SF Opera season and Kennedy Center performances. All places of interest were walking distance one from the other or a subway stop or two away--Georgetown being the farthest walk away. Being close together made them seem busier. When points of interests are spread out like in Sacto Downtown, it always seems more deserted than it is.

Dale Kooyman 2009-11-17T05:47:56Z Richard Julian 2009-11-17T05:40:47Z 2009-11-17T05:40:47Z

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.

Richard Julian 2009-11-17T05:40:47Z rezlab 2009-11-17T05:26:38Z 2009-11-17T05:26:38Z

Sorry, I don't agree that Downtown Sacramento is such a failure. Sure, K Street Mall and Downtown Plaza lack life, stores, and people - but the rest of The Grid and the surrounding Midtown, East Sac, Curtis Park and Land Park neighborhoods exhibit a lively mixture of varied architecture, retail shops, restaurants, and coffee shops. These areas exhibit streetlife around-the-clock, and have a healthy number of bicyclists and pedestrians as well. Sure, the Central Business Dustrict surrounding Capitol Park is deserted at night and on weekends, but the remainder of the downtown area has a streetlife vibe as good as any other California city, except, perhaps San Francisco and the San Diego gaslamp district. Having been involved in land development for the last 25 years, I find it interesting that the most interesting and lively urban places are where the majority of the development occurred decades ago. Our (limited) redevelopment projects seem much more sucessful at creating interesting, livable spaces than clear-and-build projects. In some ways, Sacramento's slow-motion growth patterns have been more of a blessing than a curse - leading to the non-redevelopment or preservation of midtown. I find it telling that now, recovering from the ashes of the last real estate development boom, that while many of the signature projects planned for the central business core crashed and burned, midtown Sacramento and The Grid have never been more lively. Don't be too quick to dismiss Sacramento when looking for a quality urban living environment.

rezlab 2009-11-17T05:26:38Z savemidtown 2009-11-17T03:23:26Z 2009-11-17T03:23:26Z

Check out the nightmare that is the downtown arena in St. Louis - a total eyesore and scar on the downtown skyline. St. Louis and Sacramento have so much in common it's eerie. Study their history and urban design failures for some insight into where we are headed if we actually do build a downtown arena. What is so bad about a downtown adjacent arena like Chicago, San Francisco, and Los Angeles? I have been pleasantly surprised to see Downtown kind of lively on the weekends. The Crocker is pretty busy and Downtown Plaza is not a ghost town. The financial district is SF and downtown LA and Chicago are quiet on weekends too. I don't see a bit of respite from the busy work week to be a bad thing necessarily for those who choose to live in the core.

savemidtown 2009-11-17T03:23:26Z bbbbmer 2009-11-17T01:30:12Z 2009-11-17T01:30:12Z

The Guggenheims are not useless things. They are inspiring design... They also work well too... But solely utile buildings that lack anything that inspires the human spirit are vapid and banal, and not architecture. We have far too many soulless utile buildings that were slapped up on the cheap in all areas of this town... As we become more aware of our built environment and more sophisticated about a human need for something greater than mere functionality, we need an architecture that aspires and inspires rather than retires. All one need to do is to visit either great Guggenheim, or Ronchamp, or experience the great cities of the world that have introduced inspiring aspiring design to their citizens -- like Valencia, Spain, for example, -- where an investment has been made to revitalize magnificently rather than on the cheap merely for utile purposes. Give me something great -- you can keep the rest...

bbbbmer 2009-11-17T01:30:12Z William Burg 2009-11-17T00:52:28Z 2009-11-17T00:52:28Z

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!

William Burg 2009-11-17T00:52:28Z William Burg 2009-11-17T00:47:18Z 2009-11-17T00:47:18Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-17T00:47:18Z William Burg 2009-11-17T00:43:46Z 2009-11-17T00:43:46Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-17T00:43:46Z William Burg 2009-11-17T00:30:44Z 2009-11-17T00:30:44Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-17T00:30:44Z bbbbmer 2009-11-16T23:33:41Z 2009-11-16T23:33:41Z

I don't think living near a stadium would be an amenity... Frankly, my office in SF is across the street from the ballpark, and on game days, I hate it...and I only work there...

bbbbmer 2009-11-16T23:33:41Z bbbbmer 2009-11-16T23:11:24Z 2009-11-16T23:11:24Z

Frank Lloyd Wright's Johnson Wax building shuns the street, and yet it's one of America's great buildings... Not everything must be patterned on a mythic urban history -- there is room for innovation amid contextual considerations. Given some of the opining on the subject, some of the greatest buildings in history would never have been built -- like the Guggenheim Museums, for example... or St. Mary's Cathedrals in SF and Tokyo, or Portland's or Vancouver's City Halls, or any of numerous more creative buildings that reach for a more passionate design that engages the human spirit, for others... Context ought not dictate architecture -- that is just singularly dull... There are all sorts of infill buildings in the Midtown area, and even some in downtown, that are progressive and small. But our large buildings, the ones that take up so much space and have such an enormous environmental impact, are for the most part, and aside from those attempts by the Brown administration to create something, anything of human scale and human design sensibility, they are bereft of any such qualities. Sim van der Riin acted more as a developer than an architect, and his efforts are more a part of conceptual design rather than actual working drawings in the Brown era buildings. I frankly don't care that this was his role -- his impact is internationally recognized and I believe we are better for it. I believe the 'bunker' is a great building for its era. Solar tech of the 70's is not that of today, but it was a start, and introduced architecture that spoke volumes beyond the attentions of the day, particularly in public buildings. Like it or not, the Brown era buildings were an important first step toward green construction methods and materials today. And once again, anyone who has built buildings, knows that things go wrong, particularly as a building ages. Things go wrong with the neo-Victorian in Alkali flat, and the fake Tudor's in McKinley Park, and everything in between... Tech can correct many systemic failures, and there has been much learned over the years in terms of materials, engineering, and other components that go into making great buildings and great environments. But to denigrate a bright shining beacon of light in the Brown era buildings amid what is for the most part a built environment amalgam of nameless faceless boxes and ornate to the point of vulgarity official buildings that intend to intimidate citizens into submission... is a misplaced judgment in my opinion... I do indeed hope for more housing in the area, and the low-rise housing developments I believe have filled this role somewhat successfully... My favorite is Governor's Square, which was honored with a number of awards when it was first built, but which also has aged gracefully and provides a beautiful residential experience for most who live there. AND, it was from the Brown era, btw... And no, I am not 'stuck in the 60's, honey...

bbbbmer 2009-11-16T23:11:24Z trapper 2009-11-16T22:45:26Z 2009-11-16T22:45:26Z

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.

trapper 2009-11-16T22:45:26Z Joe Livaich 2009-11-16T22:41:34Z 2009-11-16T22:41:34Z

I want to say that I am 100 percent an advocate of housing downtown. I just wonder how we are going to get there. I heard a long time ago that people won't change their ways until an alternative becomes more attractive than current actions. (everyday homeowner) - It's still very easy to do your business downtown and leave. I work downtown and live in East Sac. I rarely drive and find it very easy to get downtown by light rail or bike and can still have a safe park as well as neighborhood-serving coffee, bars, restaraunts, drug stores, and high-end grocery one or two blocks from me. I can't get that downtown. I pose this question - How will Downtown get the families w/ children to move downtown with higher crime rates and low test scores in the elementary schools? The fact is that most families move to the suburbs because of these two statistics. Will downtown only serve the needs of DINKs and empty-nesters? I would love to raise a family downtown if it was more attractive than the established streetcar suburbs. What will draw them down there? Also, see "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Shoup for stats on free parking and congestion.

Joe Livaich 2009-11-16T22:41:34Z William Burg 2009-11-16T21:58:11Z 2009-11-16T21:58:11Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-16T21:58:11Z William Burg 2009-11-16T21:56:25Z 2009-11-16T21:56:25Z

"Forcing" might be too harsh a term--but if one wanted to encourage foot traffic downtown, you need two things: better transit connections (to bring people downtown to walk around) and more downtown housing (to bring people to walk around.) Without both of those things, all you can do is encourage more DRIVING traffic--which is precisely what downtown Sacramento doesn't need, can't handle well, and won't be able to absorb. If we build a civic amenity downtown that requires a car to reach, but don't add transit or residential units nearby, people will be hesitant to go there because they are concerned about parking (as they are now--and why our existing downtown civic amenities are underutilized on weekends.) Even on Sunday, when parking is free, parking is a problem--because there aren't enough street spaces, and people will go to great lengths to avoid paying for parking in a garage. If they can get there elsewhere, or they already live downtown, the need for parking and more car-centric design is reduced.

William Burg 2009-11-16T21:56:25Z trapper 2009-11-16T21:48:35Z 2009-11-16T21:48:35Z

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 2009-11-16T21:48:35Z Richard Julian 2009-11-16T21:26:58Z 2009-11-16T21:26:58Z

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.

Richard Julian 2009-11-16T21:26:58Z William Burg 2009-11-16T21:18:29Z 2009-11-16T21:18:29Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-16T21:18:29Z William Burg 2009-11-16T21:09:23Z 2009-11-16T21:09:23Z

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?

William Burg 2009-11-16T21:09:23Z William Burg 2009-11-16T21:02:51Z 2009-11-16T21:02:51Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-16T21:02:51Z Joe Livaich 2009-11-16T20:02:09Z 2009-11-16T20:02:09Z

Demand....people have to buy or rent the units and demand does not exist downtown. Do you think that cutting edge architecture will make people leave East Sac or Land Park to live in a "cool" building downtown? Probably not. People live where they do because of neighborhood amenities. I also find it hard to believe that any developer will be able or willing to pursue financing on a spec residential building in downtown Sacramento. The only way you change downtown is to give people a reason to be there. Look at what downtown Denver, Cleveland, San DIego, and the China Basin in San Francisco did to get people downtown. "Cool architecture" on an empty street won't change anything. "Call it "mixed use", or "smart growth", or just call it "normal"." Downtown is not "normal" and needs an attraction (like a stadium) to attract people.

Joe Livaich 2009-11-16T20:02:09Z Steve V 2009-11-16T19:55:47Z 2009-11-16T19:55:47Z

The gist of my post is that State of California = BIG MONEY. Our city planners have all too often crawled to the big government office projects like a cheap whore to a pimp... seeking that next fix and abusive security. I'd agree with William that other big cities have downtown cores which are quiet on weekends. In my opinion, it's not as extreme in other cities. You'll have a few blocks of high rises, surrounding by a bustling shopping district. In Sacramento, we have nearly a 16-block core area that's relatively DEAD. I think the history of planning & state government muscle has much to do with that. Hell, the state properties don't even contirbute tax revenues do they? I think "smart growth" will happen here. It will happen naturally, as freeways continue their congestion & people seek shorter commutes. I just hope we don't keep making the same mistakes.

Steve V 2009-11-16T19:55:47Z bbbbmer 2009-11-16T19:35:52Z 2009-11-16T19:35:52Z

Poor reputations as architecture of note??? By whom??? Sim van der Riin WAS a world class architect, and we were fortunate enough to have him as our State Architect under the Brown administration... 'The Bunker' is a model of effective passive solar design, and the buildings directly adjacent to it to the west and north are also innovative, though all have had problems... As a real estate investor, let me clue you in on one facet of reality -- ALL BUILDINGS HAVE PROBLEMS... It was Brown who brought a sense of modernity and design ephraetis to state building architecture... GREAT architecture attempts something apart from the mundane, as has been done in the world's great cities... Paris, Milan, Venice, Tel Aviv, Montreal, Vancouver, Chicago, and Portland Oregon serve as models of the import of world class design that enhances the liveability and beauty of such cities... Of course there are other factors, but great buildings help enormously to build a smart character of a town... Rather than denigrating progressive architecture, I'd suggest referring to journals such as DOMUS, or PROGRESSIVE ARCHITECTURE, or ARCHITECTURE RECORD, or the work of ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE or PAUL GOLDBERGER, for more evolved ideas about design and its effect on cities.... Anonymous bland banality can 'work well' as a machine, but it does little to enhance the human spirit... GREAT architecture can indeed accomplish this, but it takes courage and an evolved mind to reach beyond provincialism and the mundanity that seems to entrap most of this downtown in what seems a Soviet era boxiness that I find appalling...

bbbbmer 2009-11-16T19:35:52Z trapper 2009-11-16T19:05:39Z 2009-11-16T19:05:39Z

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?

trapper 2009-11-16T19:05:39Z William Burg 2009-11-16T17:08:32Z 2009-11-16T17:08:32Z

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.

William Burg 2009-11-16T17:08:32Z bbbbmer 2009-11-16T16:57:56Z 2009-11-16T16:57:56Z

During the Jerry Brown administration, there was an attempt to bring world-class creativity and ingenuity to State architecture, and by default, to the downtown area... with the noted Sim van der Riin as State Architect... Unfortunately this was followed by nearly two decades of Republicans who seemed to favor more traditional and 'bland' design, at least that was the flavor of the State buildings erected during the 80's and 90's... I have long advocated for a competitions process to be employed for all major commissions in the downtown -- public AND private, inviting the world's great architects to contribute to the outdoor museum display that is our built environment. And now, apparently with the Capitol Mall revitalization project, this competition process is coming to fruition, at least with regard to this one major project. Thoughtful architecture can forever change a city's self perception and the perception of its guests. It can be a source of pride if beauty and innovation are at its core.... Unfortunately, given the current state of affairs, especially with recent state commissions in and around the downtown, it can also be a source of banality and shame... Just look at the CalPers building, or the East End projects, which seem derived straight out of a 50's Stalinist graydom, with serious ugly as its aesthetic...

bbbbmer 2009-11-16T16:57:56Z William Burg 2009-11-16T15:46:14Z 2009-11-16T15:46:14Z

The changes go farther back than the 1980s--it was the 1950s that saw the emptying of Sacramento's central city, and the beginning of the destruction of its high-density neighborhoods. Sacramento has had its share of dynamic business leaders--however, they don't tend to stay in Sacramento. State government may not be glamorous, but at least it's loyal--it stayed while the folks who got rich building railroads or electrical power plants moved to San Francisco. It's also hard to envision how office buildings owned by private businesses might be more active than state buildings--typically those buildings also close at 5:00 and on weekends. This summer I took a trip to Los Angeles. Downtown L.A.'s business district is about as busy as downtown Sacramento on the weekends. It's a problem common to business centers in many American cities, especially those with minimal housing downtown and big suburbs--which is most cities in the United States. Often there is a nearby central city district that is quite busy by comparison on the weekends. You're quite right about the solution, Steve--more people living downtown. However, developers who build suburbs don't want to stop building suburbs as long as there is farmland to build them on, and building residential units downtown has its own set of challenges. Such projects sometimes require financial support from government, just as the suburbs receive government financial support--although typically such support is indirect, it still costs the taxpayers money. I got a chance to visit SPUR's offices in San Francisco last week--they're a combination urban planning, historic preservation, green building and smart growth advocacy group. They had a great display on the history of urban planning in San Francisco. There are similar groups here in Sacramento, but they are typically smaller and not well-funded enough to have a storefront. Maybe that's what they need...

William Burg 2009-11-16T15:46:14Z