STORYLINE Alley house conundrum

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

Debate over alley project hits City Council tomorrow

by deb belt, published on January 31, 2011 at 8:02 PM

1 of 2
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 2
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image

The debate is elevated and resolution has not been reached as a proposed alley residence in Sacramento’s Boulevard Park neighborhood goes to City Council for review tomorrow night.

The discussion will center on a modern 24,000 square-foot home designed to fit on the 33x80 infill lot the C Street alley. Some neighbors say the three-story building is too large and out of context in the historic neighborhood.

The city Design Director and Design Commission have approved the project, but it has been “called-up” for review by City Council member Steve Cohn. Surrounding issues include owner’s rights vs. neighbors rights, taste, style, context, limited space within the central city and whether it’s necessary for new architecture to mimic the past.

Pro or con, the discussion is important as it concerns shelter, neighborhoods, work, freedom and perhaps most importantly, peoples’ ideas.

The meeting begins at 6 p.m. and the item is currently slated as No. 8 on the agenda. Sacramento Press will post the outcome of the meeting.

Disclosure statement: Writer Deb Belt is married to the architect of the proposed alley residence and has followed the debate for months. She has no financial investment in the single-family home project.


 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

January 31, 2011 | 8:20 PM
Nice try to undermine and invalidate the existing Central City Design Guidelines Deb and friends.
3 5
REPLY
January 31, 2011 | 10:14 PM
Please do not misconstrue this situation. The City Design Director and the seven-member City Design Commission have reviewed this project to ensure that it meets design guidelines. Following the debate over this issue is not undermining the process, but bringing it to light.
4 2
REPLY
February 1, 2011 | 12:38 AM

"Surrounding issues include owner’s rights vs. neighbors rights, taste, style, context, limited space within the central city and whether it’s necessary for new architecture to mimic the past."

Please do not misconstrue this situation. Your articles and supporters ALL ignore the existence of Central City Design Guidelines and frame this in simpleton terms or -- like the mother in the other thread -- make it about "personalities.'

The real question is why people tromp into areas they know have these existing guidelines and decide their "rights" are more important than broader community/property/design values. Either fit it in in a thoughtful way or take it elsewhere. Don't make it -- or the issue -- a turd in a punchbowl. The bs comments about "conforming" and "mimicking" and "freedom" are absurd. As Advocate and others pointed out, the architect may not be up to the task of creating a modern home that DOES fit into a historic neighborhood.

2 5
REPLY
January 31, 2011 | 8:58 PM
Why have previous comments made earlier have been erased?
0 0
REPLY
January 31, 2011 | 9:16 PM
Please see previous article for comments.
0 0
REPLY
edited on  February 1, 2011 | 1:43 PM
Uhhh... "24,000" square feet??? On a 30 by 80 lot? Must be that new math...
0 0
REPLY
February 7, 2011 | 1:36 PM
Make that 2,400 square feet.
1 0
REPLY
February 1, 2011 | 4:16 PM
One of the nice things that makes Midtown is the eclectic nature of the architecture. What would have happened if Frank Lloyd Wright had tried to build a prarie style home next to a queen anne? Some Midtown residents would probably have burned his cape! C Street is about as eclectic and transitional as it gets. The architect has proven that he does great designs that reflect a modern style and fit into the area that contains bungelows, queen anns, fegeralist sytle, and yes, even crummy 60's style apartment buildings. Get over it, Sacramento, and grow up. Modern architecture is just as valid a style and much more energy efficient as your drafty old uninsulated, single-pane windowed bungelow. I have seen a LOT of very bad imitations of "historic" architecture put up in our downtown neighborhoods including boulevard park.
5 1
REPLY
February 2, 2011 | 12:53 PM
I attended last night's City Council meeting. The issue was about enforcement of the Central City Design Guidelines, which were adopted in 1999. In residential nieghborhoods, the height limit is 2-stories. NO WHERE in ALL of Sacramento will you find a 3-story single family house in a residential neighborhood. The Cunningham's and their architect choose to ignore the Central City Design Guidelines. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission is still operating as if former-City Manager Ray "The Developer is Always Right" Kerridge was still in charge at City Hall. The neigbhors are willing to accept a 3-story house, IF the design complimented the surrounding single-story pre-World War II bungalows. No, the Cunninghams wanted a RADICALLY modern tower, so they could have a view of the river. I hope the Planning Commission starts to enforce the Central City Design Guidelines. A BIG THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL, and espcially to City Councilmember Steve Cohn!!
0 3
REPLY
February 7, 2011 | 1:59 PM
I attended the meeting as well. Sacramento Design Director William Crouch spoke extensively about why city architects and planners approved this project. This single-family residence has been thoroughly reviewed to meet Central City Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Regarding height limit: the allowable height limit is 35 feet to the top plate. This residence is below that limit, and this was documented in the City Council meeting.
1 0
REPLY
February 2, 2011 | 12:54 PM
I attended last night's City Council meeting. The issue was about enforcement of the Central City Design Guidelines, which were adopted in 1999. In residential nieghborhoods, the height limit is 2-stories. NO WHERE in ALL of Sacramento will you find a 3-story single family house in a residential neighborhood. The Cunningham's and their architect choose to ignore the Central City Design Guidelines. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission is still operating as if former-City Manager Ray "The Developer is Always Right" Kerridge was still in charge at City Hall. The neigbhors are willing to accept a 3-story house, IF the design complimented the surrounding single-story pre-World War II bungalows. No, the Cunninghams wanted a RADICALLY modern tower, so they could have a view of the river. I hope the Planning Commission starts to enforce the Central City Design Guidelines. A BIG THANK YOU to the CITY COUNCIL, and especially to CITY COUNCILMEMBER STEVE COHN!!!


0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background