One thing that the Railyards has that K Street doesn't is a plan. The developer of the Railyards worked with the city to create a detailed document outlining what they were going to do and how they were going to do it. K Street is a mixture of various private land owners, tenants, developers and assorted city-owned properties in various states of use and disuse. Because there is no centralized policy regarding K Street, the individual elements flounder. Because others have a plan, and speak with a single voice, they receive attention and funding where K Street does not. Once enough people live downtown once more, K Street can once again become where they come together.

However, it's not all bad news. Part of why K Street died off in the first place was because the densely populated residential neighborhood to the south (now occupied by Capitol Mall and various state offices) was destroyed. If the Railyards can construct the dense residential neighborhood they hope to create, K Street will again have enough population (including those of us who already live within walking distance of K Street) to patronize downtown.

There was no reason for the fleeing suburbanites of the 20th century to go to K Street, so they turned their back on it. It was easier for them to shop at suburban malls with huge parking lots than a distant downtown mall. Today, more people commute to work downtown than live in the central city, several times over. Businesses on K Street have little reason to stay open past 5 PM, when 80% of their potential customers return to the suburbs. Until this housing balance is addressed, K Street will struggle. And if the city and developers continue to base their plans for K Street on ill-fated attempts to draw suburbanites, instead of attracting new downtown residents, they will continue to fail.

WB, I like your analysis, but I have a question about more recent history of K street. Do you think the "holes" in development were the result of forces beyond anyone's control? Or do you think redevelopment efforts crowded out (by driving up rents or something) businesses that would have otherwise taken root? I'm just curious about your off the cuff opinion.

The Railyards will kill K street...the taxpayers money we are spending on K street will be a waste.

The Imbeciles who are designing the Railyards should be tarred and feathered and ran out of town...

Downtown is a GRID…old Sacramento is a Grid... Those of us from downtown love the Grid... the Grid is what makes Sacramento...Sacramento... These dimwits are not going to line up the streets with existing streets or use a grid pattern; the Railyards will be a meandering circle jerk. If you want to know how screwed up it will be...take a drive to North Natomas and look at the Natomas Landing stucco-hell-meglaplex that is almost impossible to navigate.

The dimwits that run this City don't care about history or our architectural heritage; in fact they despise it, as demonstrated by the destruction of many historic buildings which are replaced with stucco, concrete, glass and "modern" lofts.

The civic leaders in this city all worship the architecture of Ron Vrilakas...and while Ron is a great guy personally...his modern eurocentric hipster designs are helping destroy the character of our City. We can blame Heather Fargo mainly for this transition into modernism in new construction. The developers like it, it is less expensive to build for the most part, and whatever the developers want they get, regardless of the how their projects harm the spirit and historical heritage of our community.

Want a great example of what will happen to the Railyards...Drive around North Natomas...all stucco, all cheaply built...devoid of any character.

And last but not least...most of this destruction will be paid for by the taxpayers in payments to Insider developers in no-bid contracts through the Redevelopment Agency.

Now go back to sleep Citizens...oh on second thought, maybe I shouldn't use that term, because it implies some sort of civic responsibility and involvement on the part of those that happen live here...

William, I am curious: Do you know how many people actually live in the Grid? You say its several times the number of people who commute, which I understand is roughly 100,000. I'd be curious to know what the actual ratio is, and what currently planned new developments (Tapestri Square, SoCap lofts, etc) would add to that.
Also, do you know the fate of the apartment blocks originally planned for 17th and S (cattycornered from Hangar 17) and 19th and Q (across from Whiskey Wild)?

The plan I saw of the railyards was a grid, 5th, 6th, and 7th street get extended to Richards. It can't connect everywhere because of the tracks.

ON K street: First off it's not that bad, do you people even go there? I go to K street to hang out, I see shows at Marylins, the Crest, Pyramid is ok, I've been to Cosmo a few times when I'm feeling swanky. There are a fair amount of people out on the weekends. The 700 bloc kwas destroyed directly because of the city. They relocated REcords, the comic book store, the skate store, men's warehouse and the corner store. Three Monkey's was a horrible boondoggle, the worst place I've ever eaten at. They are belly up. Point is though, from 900 up it's pretty successful, it's just two struggling blocks, largely that way do to city intervention. If you built housing in the gapping hole on 8th, a lot of the buildings would fill out naturally.

David: Around 15,000-20,000 people live within the original Sacramento grid, and from my understanding, yes, the number of commuters is around 100,000. Take a look at Sacramento's 2030 General Plan to get the details, but the addition of the Railyards, residential infill along R Street, the Docks and in the central business district is expected to roughly triple the total number of housing units in the central city. There is a breakdown by neighborhood of expected residential increases: Midtown and other surrounding neighborhoods are expected to go up by a few hundred, but not significantly--just a few medium-density or mid-rise projects to fill in existing holes.

The thing that could take a lot of energy away from the Railyards and other downtown projects is land assembly and demolition in Midtown, turning previous single-family homes (or multi-family homes on small lots) into L Street Lofts type condo projects. Some developers want to do this because the land in Midtown is cheaper, and they figure Midtown is already popular and cool so they don't have to work as hard to attract buyers.

17th & S: Roger Hume was the mouthpiece for the project that was supposed to replace the half-block of industrial buildings on 17th and S, but he split town about the time of the real estate market collapse and the lot is up for sale. I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon. Those units would be part of R Street's expected 2000 or so residential units. The "cemo midtown" project at 19th and Q probably never got to the rendering phase, a developer bought it and started a marketing campaign but things fell through.

A lot of developers bought these lots at the peak of the market, and now are left with expensive chunks of land and no money to finance development. In some cases they were already cleared-off lots, like the corner of 27th and V (a previous owner demolished all the homes there, hoping to build offices, before running out of money in a previous recession.) In other cases like 17th and S, there were buildings and uses there that have been torn out.

John Galt: Take a look at the Railyards street plan. They can't conform to the original street grid because they have to work around the railroad tracks, Interstate 5, and the existing Shops buildings, but they are using a grid street plan. There was an earlier plan using cul-de-sac streets that has since been abandoned. That part of downtown was never part of the original grid; it was platted out, but when Sacramento was founded that area was a swamp. Central Pacific was given the land, they drained the swamp and filled it with railroad shops and tracks. The new plan isn't a perfect match to the grid, but it does a good job of connecting the railroad alignments with the street grid.

Blaming Heather Fargo for Sacramento's introduction to modernist architecture is laughable nonsense--Sacramento has had Modernist architecture in its downtown area since the 1950s. Trying to blame Fargo for something that was around when she was in elementary school is kind of ridiculous.

K Street's decline was due to several factors as the suburbanization of American cities swung into full gear. Sacramento followed that trend, Not only the loss of the residential to the south, but the many residents who lived on the upper floors were displaced as their apartments were turned into offices. Many other buildings with higher floor residences on K, L & J Street were torn down A contributing factor also was Sacramento's plans to demolish most of Midtown and replace with rows of three story low income apartments--like they were going to shop at Macy's, etc.

The message was loud and clear: the central city was no longer a decent place to live. I heard that over and over when I moved here in 1976. "Don't buy downtown (central city) it is a slum! These old houses aren't worth living in. You'll never be able to sell you house for what you bought it!"

K Street can and will come back when its and neighboring streets' resident customers come back--customers that were, as in those years past, with income levels to patronize the various businesses. Other central cities have learned that. But those efforts here are stalled as some developers and this city management are now intent on siphoning that potential off by building higher density residences in Midtown. Once again the times are desperate and once again we don't have the cooperative plans and brains to meet the desperation. DTP tries but it is attacked from all directions with no constructive ideas attached to the attacks.

Let's face it everyone...this economy is going to put a damper on any improvements to K street however depressing that may be. I agree with Patrick J though in that if you don't frequent the K Street mall as an entertainment venue you can't possibly speak to the conditions or environment. I myself love to patronize the businesses along K St. and I look at the "characters" as a part of the local flavor. Every city has "characters". Visit downtown L.A. I had the pleasure of doing just that. Their "characters" aren't limited to a specific area, let me tell you.

Anyway, Sacramento definitely has along way to go as far as smart growth and TOD, but I believe that we as residents, whether it be central city or not, have an obligation to be a part of the solution, not the problem. Roll up your shirt sleeves and get involved in public outreach meetings, community gatherings to discuss new development in your neighborhood. Help the situation, don't hurt it by making statements about particular areas of Sacramento that may or may not be one hundred percent accurate.

Zen: Sorry my earlier message wasn't clear: Cemo was the condo developer who bought the 19th & Q lot.

I'm not so convinced that the housing has to actually be on K Street, although some of it should be. If the Railyards becomes the new residential neighborhood, the bulk of the new influx of downtown residents could live there, while those who want to live closer to the action choose places right on K. Especially if there is an effective, density-supporting form of transit in the neighborhood (like a streetcar) K Street would be close at hand for Railyards residents, and our big daytime job centers just as close--making a suburban home (and matching commute) far less appealing. I think entertainment on K Street, combined with a whole lot of nearby housing, is just as important as more housing directly on K. The point is to provide something the suburbs can't: a complete urban experience.

What neighborhoods does that 34,000 figure include, Zen? I spent a while flipping through the housing element but couldn't find the figure.

Zen, your "I don't think the scenario of demolishing old homes all over Midtown to make way for mid rise buildings will happen. . . . . . ." appears to be related to my comment. I was referring to when it nearly did happen in the 1960's, 1970's and 1980's. Just look around and you will see many many apartments ranging from 8 unit "shotguns" on one lot to 32 plus on four or more contiguous lots built in those time periods.

If handy for you, take a look at the north side of I Street beginning at 23rd. All the grand houses there were torn down to make for what you see today--SHRA provided the loan funding "to revitalize.". Those cheaply built apartment complexes are realities of how close it came to happening. Only constant efforts on the part of a few neighbors and preservationists prevented the spread.

This is something I’ve been thinking about lately. Don’t all the crappy 70’s apartments and historic homes divided in to apartments increase density in a positive way? Granted, I was born in 1981, so I wasn’t actually around to see the destruction, I’m sure I would have been against it and don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Midtown wasn’t leveled, I live on the top floor of house built in 1923 (again a single family home divided into 3 units during the 70’s.) But if none of the historic homes were turned into businesses, or apartments, we’d basically be Curtis Park: a really nice historical residential neighborhood, but not the mixed use, higher density place we all love. Just food for thought. Those 60’s/70’s box apartment “eyesores”, are exactly why Sacramento is so affordable, compared to even places like Fresno, as misguided as the original plans were.

Patrick: The 70s apartments (and much older apartments) took on some of the density from the demolished West End neighborhoods. Part of the 2030 General Plan process, including a deal brokered by various midtown neighborhood groups, was a "grandfather" clause for existing downtown apartments. A proposed land-use map for Midtown indicated maximum densities as high as 36 dwelling units per acre (dua) (the most typical downtown lots are 40x160, and 40x80, 7 and 14 units/acre with a single family home) and buildings as high as 25 stores along 21st Street. Zoning that allowed for much denser housing means that existing residential homes are at risk for demolition by developers who want to place multi-family homes on cheap residential lots. By comparison, the land-use maps in Curtis Park, East Sacramento and Land Park are almost entirely designated low-density traditional housing, maximum 7-8 units per acre--in many cases, far less dense than what is actually there. They don't have to worry about land speculation, because their neighborhood is already marked "full up," while Midtown was marked "wide open!"

We met with city staff, did ground surveys to compare their estimates with what was actually on the ground, and compared that with city plans. We found that some of Midtown is very, very dense (50+ dua or higher on some blocks) and other parts of the central city are relatively less dense (although at 10-15 dua, a block of Midtown single-family homes is denser than the maximum density for Curtis Park or East Sac!) It became apparent that a "one size fits all" approach in Midtown would not work--the maximum was too low for the existing apartment units, but too high for existing single-family homes.

Under the new land-use map, much of the central city has been limited to a maximum of 21 units/acre, the equivalent of a tri-plex on a 40x160 lot, or a single-family home on a 40x80. To preserve the existing density of Midtown apartment complexes, areas of currently higher density can retain that density in future use even if the building comes down. The problem with a lot of the 1970s "dingbat" apartments is that they were not built to last (unlike the older homes) and probably won't rehab well, but there is the option to rebuild them. This means we can have density and affordability without threatening the handful of surviving single-family homes (less than 15% of housing in the central city is single-family.) And a lot of those multi-unit buildings are beautiful and historic in their own right--they're not all 1970s dingbats, and many were purpose-built as apartment housing.

City staff working with MNA (then WPCANA) and SOCA were pretty surprised with how willing we were to work with them, and that we were interested in maintaining the economic and social diversity of the central city. They had been told that neighborhood groups would simply try to obstruct any changes whatsoever. We, on the other hand, expected city staff to ignore our concerns and brush us off, but found them responsive and interested in our input. Once we got over our fears, we made a pretty good team. There are some very smart people working for the city--hopefully they won't get laid off!

As to retail uses, the central city already has a lot of commercially-zoned land, even in places dominated by Victorians, and plenty of room for retail expansion. The proposed land-use changes would essentially redefine "residential" property as potential commercial property. Since commercial land costs more than residential land, developers would naturally want to buy up available cheaper "residential" zoned properties for commercial enterprises, instead of existing commercial property.