Arena drawing on City website
- Thread starter JB_kings
- Start date
"So, you see, the puppy was like industry. In that, they were both lost in the woods. And nobody, especially the little boy - "society" - knew where to find 'em. Except that the puppy was a dog. But the industry, my friends, that was a revolution."
All the while Norm McDonald and the other friend are in the audience nodding in approval, as if everything he is saying is so profound. LOL. I am laughing in my office at work as we speak.
All the while Norm McDonald and the other friend are in the audience nodding in approval, as if everything he is saying is so profound. LOL. I am laughing in my office at work as we speak.
I have to admit, aesthetically, I was hoping for something that might be a throwback to Sacramento's railroading history, what with it being in the former railyards and past drawings and layouts have suggested there would be more than a few call backs to the Big 4 in the street names, etc. But I'll take modern, I just worry that today's modern is tomorrow's dated eyesore.
And has nothing between his ears!
As an aside, he obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word incite. However, his posts did accomplish the meaning of that word. So in some freudian way of reverse osmosis, and disloution, he may have accidently stumbled on a bit of reality.
I have no idea what I just said, but then neither does Shorty. So its all good!
As an aside, he obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word incite. However, his posts did accomplish the meaning of that word. So in some freudian way of reverse osmosis, and disloution, he may have accidently stumbled on a bit of reality.
I have no idea what I just said, but then neither does Shorty. So its all good!
I was working at 18th & I today and downtown was buzzing. Parking on the street that far uptown is unusual. So I checked the Jazz festival map for venues and this is what I found. Now tell me, what an entertainment venue at 5th and H would do for the Jazz festival
http://www.sacjazz.com/pdfs/sacJazzMap.jpg
http://www.sacjazz.com/pdfs/sacJazzMap.jpg
Well, I gotta say, I'm pretty underwhelmed. The design seems to be pretty cookie-cutter. And the pages in the report (pages 16-17) don't really show much rigor into the decision to build downtown vs at natomas. While I personally think they should build downtown, throwing an image with the plan of an arena in natomas and then contrasting it with the exact same plan of the arena at the railyards accompanied by a list of other NBA arena locations does NOT qualify as thorough site analysis. Simply put, Icon and Populous new they were going to choose the downtown site from the get-go.
The rest of the report is finding out where to put suites and how to create optimal sitelines for various staging (i.e. basketball vs hockey vs concert). Populous probably has millions of cad drawings in their servers that they just grabbed and put in there.
The interior renderings don't really tell us much, other than there will be 2 (2.5ish) tiers of seating and a ring of suites, with what appears to be a secondary row of suites above.
The sections are just as useless. The only thing I can gather is that the arena will need ~ 35' trusses to span the building, which sounds about right considering the size of the building's footprint and the span it is covering. They don't even show that structure in the renderings, which you would most likely see, unless they are installing a lay-in ceiling underneath, which seems unlikely. But the layout of concessions and suites is typical of every arena being constructed today.
But, whatever, I could let all of my above criticisms slide if they could back up this statement: "Railyards site would energize downtown and provide connectivity to regional transit." (page 42). Now, this may be true, but it can't be paraded as an absolute fact without any evidence. You have to show that it is connected to the regional transit. You have to show that people would A) Actually use the transit, B) the transit and arena would have a symbiotic relationship C) the transit would be connected to a future project that would serve the greater Sacramento area, and D) the transit connection would add urban value to the arena/community. You have to have plans showing the connections, diagrams demonstrating how contextually this scheme makes sense and fits into the larger urban fabric of Sacramento, and just as importantly, how this scheme improves and alters the urban context. This is where having an urban planner and architects would give you your money's worth. It's not just about pretty pictures, it's about the thorough analysis and research that goes in to show how a new arena can revitalize/transform/reinvent/and add value to a community/region. And that's my biggest criticism. To me, the most important thing a new arena should do is work for the city, and this report just glossed over that responsibility.
Now, I understand that this is just an ideas submittal, and that the design isn't final. But if this is what the Populous Group gave us, I don't foresee them doing much to change anything. They have a few big name projects (Wembley stadium and Soccer City, South Africa, for you world cup afficianados) but they also have a few travesties of architectural design (i'm looking at you, new Yankee Stadium). If they are left up to their own devices, then they'll probably give Sacramento a generic arena that looks pretty much like what we've seen so far.
Before someone comes in here and gives me a hard time about them only having 90 days, let me just say this: I haven't posted much in the past two months, because I work on a team that was able to design - from scratch - a new transportation hub (I can't get into too much more detail) that is about 20 times the scale of this project for approval. And we took it too a drastically more thorough level of detail than what we are seeing here. All in 90 days time. Now, this would certainly explain my bias as to why architects/designers should be given more control, but it also should serve to prove that ambitious projects can and should be undertaken when you are afforded the opportunity.
With all that being said, as a Kings/basketball fan, I'm just glad to see some progress. So I guess I'll live with it, but I'll always wonder, "what if." The life of a Kings fan, I suppose.
The rest of the report is finding out where to put suites and how to create optimal sitelines for various staging (i.e. basketball vs hockey vs concert). Populous probably has millions of cad drawings in their servers that they just grabbed and put in there.
The interior renderings don't really tell us much, other than there will be 2 (2.5ish) tiers of seating and a ring of suites, with what appears to be a secondary row of suites above.
The sections are just as useless. The only thing I can gather is that the arena will need ~ 35' trusses to span the building, which sounds about right considering the size of the building's footprint and the span it is covering. They don't even show that structure in the renderings, which you would most likely see, unless they are installing a lay-in ceiling underneath, which seems unlikely. But the layout of concessions and suites is typical of every arena being constructed today.
But, whatever, I could let all of my above criticisms slide if they could back up this statement: "Railyards site would energize downtown and provide connectivity to regional transit." (page 42). Now, this may be true, but it can't be paraded as an absolute fact without any evidence. You have to show that it is connected to the regional transit. You have to show that people would A) Actually use the transit, B) the transit and arena would have a symbiotic relationship C) the transit would be connected to a future project that would serve the greater Sacramento area, and D) the transit connection would add urban value to the arena/community. You have to have plans showing the connections, diagrams demonstrating how contextually this scheme makes sense and fits into the larger urban fabric of Sacramento, and just as importantly, how this scheme improves and alters the urban context. This is where having an urban planner and architects would give you your money's worth. It's not just about pretty pictures, it's about the thorough analysis and research that goes in to show how a new arena can revitalize/transform/reinvent/and add value to a community/region. And that's my biggest criticism. To me, the most important thing a new arena should do is work for the city, and this report just glossed over that responsibility.
Now, I understand that this is just an ideas submittal, and that the design isn't final. But if this is what the Populous Group gave us, I don't foresee them doing much to change anything. They have a few big name projects (Wembley stadium and Soccer City, South Africa, for you world cup afficianados) but they also have a few travesties of architectural design (i'm looking at you, new Yankee Stadium). If they are left up to their own devices, then they'll probably give Sacramento a generic arena that looks pretty much like what we've seen so far.
Before someone comes in here and gives me a hard time about them only having 90 days, let me just say this: I haven't posted much in the past two months, because I work on a team that was able to design - from scratch - a new transportation hub (I can't get into too much more detail) that is about 20 times the scale of this project for approval. And we took it too a drastically more thorough level of detail than what we are seeing here. All in 90 days time. Now, this would certainly explain my bias as to why architects/designers should be given more control, but it also should serve to prove that ambitious projects can and should be undertaken when you are afforded the opportunity.
With all that being said, as a Kings/basketball fan, I'm just glad to see some progress. So I guess I'll live with it, but I'll always wonder, "what if." The life of a Kings fan, I suppose.
Last edited:
Jim Les, because we have discussed the role of a person like you, I was initially excited about what I thought could have been a unified plan for the surrounding area. I am disappointed also. "What if" indeed. My understanding is that the arena is plopped on the site where the intermodal hub was initially planned (or at least is inconsistent with the original plan of the intermodal hub) in the first rendering presented to us so something has to change. Also the rest of the land is not owned by the city and probably can be sold in parcels to other entities which probably guarantess that no unifed plan will occur.
What could have been spectacular probably will not be spectacular but of course what has been done is better than the alternative. I think the area missed a big opportunity but perhaps it was never possible.
What could have been spectacular probably will not be spectacular but of course what has been done is better than the alternative. I think the area missed a big opportunity but perhaps it was never possible.
The city has vague plans of high rises, etc. but nothing specific and coordinated like Jim Les is trying to say. Nothing interlocked. There are always exceptions to zoning laws so even that is no guarantee. Zoning isn't the way to achieve what Jim Les or I am saying. I read what you referred me to and it was generalities. You don't build something special based on a general plan. You make something special by interconnecting buildings in a cohesive, pre-planned method. The downtown area will be much better for sure. It will not be special and I think Sacramento is desperate to be seen as special in some way. It just isn't going to happen. It will be a downtown no different than any other downtown in this country.
I hope Jim Les breaks away from his real job and clarifies even more with the focus on a downtown plan and not simply an arena plopped on a piece of land with NO specific plan for what will be next door, access, etc. Actually he has already said it but fleshing the idea out might be good. In no way am I saying what is going to happen, whatever it is, is bad. It just isn't great and could have been.
Ya know, Shorty got reamed for saying there was nothing special about the design of the arena. I happen to agree with him but am a realist. He wanted something super and it will not be built in Sacramento. This is a cookie cutter arena and NOT an O2 arena as in London which is a major world wide architectural attraction. There is a disappointment factor that I share but Sacramento will be better off anyway.
I hope Jim Les breaks away from his real job and clarifies even more with the focus on a downtown plan and not simply an arena plopped on a piece of land with NO specific plan for what will be next door, access, etc. Actually he has already said it but fleshing the idea out might be good. In no way am I saying what is going to happen, whatever it is, is bad. It just isn't great and could have been.
Ya know, Shorty got reamed for saying there was nothing special about the design of the arena. I happen to agree with him but am a realist. He wanted something super and it will not be built in Sacramento. This is a cookie cutter arena and NOT an O2 arena as in London which is a major world wide architectural attraction. There is a disappointment factor that I share but Sacramento will be better off anyway.
Last edited:
Think about where we are in the process and where you have to get. We are at the blue sky phase with initial ideas and rough estimates. No funding has been obtained.
As far as what ICON and Populous accomplished versus Jim Les transportation hub, let me ask this question: Did your company do all that work for the last few months for free? I would bet they didn't. ICON and Populous did do all their work for free because the city hasn't funded jack squat so far on this project. ICON did it on spec in hopes that the conctracts come their way when funding is found. What we have is city trying to set up a resonable chance to get all the ducks in place to build what they have failed at for over a decade.
It's ok to ask these questions about what you are getting and the process so far. But while we have seen many proposals come and go over the last decade plus, this is the first one that has a reasonable chance to work with some public backing. But it's at the very beginning phase here. All the work that you want done has yet to even had one dime allocated.
As far as what ICON and Populous accomplished versus Jim Les transportation hub, let me ask this question: Did your company do all that work for the last few months for free? I would bet they didn't. ICON and Populous did do all their work for free because the city hasn't funded jack squat so far on this project. ICON did it on spec in hopes that the conctracts come their way when funding is found. What we have is city trying to set up a resonable chance to get all the ducks in place to build what they have failed at for over a decade.
It's ok to ask these questions about what you are getting and the process so far. But while we have seen many proposals come and go over the last decade plus, this is the first one that has a reasonable chance to work with some public backing. But it's at the very beginning phase here. All the work that you want done has yet to even had one dime allocated.
I guess I could ask Jim Les what his arena would cost? But I don't really want to get into that. I'm coming from one position only. And thats to be positive. So anyone that has anything negative to say, I'm not interested in. I'm at a point where I'm on board with anything the NBA the Maloof's and the city will sign off on. There's enough criticism in the comments section of the Bee to last a lifetime. The least we can do is keep the people that are actually for a new arena on the positive side of the ledger.
Yes, actually, we did. Sounds absurd, but its both a sign of the times and a pretty common occurrence when you are working for/designing for local governments. The project I worked on was for an international airport, and it was a competition, so we may have done all of that work for nothing. We'll find out soon enough. Sometimes I wonder if Sacramento and KJ would have been better off hosting an international design competition. You could get a lot of great ideas out there for a pretty cheap price. If the only goal is to get an arena built, then getting Icon/Taylor on board seems like a pretty good strategy. If you are thinking bigger than that, than this Icon/Taylor/Populous strategy might miss the mark. But I'll concede that its a much bigger risk, so sometimes you gotta play the cards your dealt.
As for what Glenn was saying, I tend to agree. Sacramento was given a chance to knock one out of the park, but instead settled for a double. That's not necessarily bad, by the way. As a Kings fan and a Sacramento expatriate, I'll take it, because it is far-and-away better than the alternative.
As someone who is closely interested in these types of things, I'm less thrilled. I can't comment too much on it the way Glenn would like, because I simply don't have all the information I would need to give a valid critique. I was hoping the Icon feasibility study would have been more thorough. It seems that Icon worked on the assumption that a downtown arena would be the best option without thoroughly analyzing why, and that's a bit disappointing.
I would like to see how a connection to regional transit could add value to the site, how it could connect to local transportation, possibly expanding to local neighborhoods, reduce dependence on vehicular transportation, increase foot-traffic (which is good for local businesses, reduces the probability of crime, makes more defensible spaces, etc). An arena near local transportation is great, but if nobody uses it, then its a wasted opportunity.
There seems to be a lack of a master plan, which is unfortunate. Will there be hotels/restaurants/condos/stores/etc nearby? How would the inclusion of these improve downtown Sacramento? Would a high concentration of hotels/arena/shopping improve the likelihood of hosting events like political events, all-star games, etc? How can you maximize the use of the arena? How many nights a year does it need to be operating to maximize the value? If it is connected to regional transit, would we see an increase of people who visit downtown on a daily basis? When you neglect to plan for these things, you allow for someone else to come in with other plans in mind, which may or may not be a good thing for the city.
These questions are supposed to be answered before you can confidently say that a downtown arena will "revitalize" the area. Now, if the majority of the study was about lining up the money, then I wouldn't be concerned, but it appears (and I could be wrong about this) that a general scheme/design/concept has been agreed upon by the Populous group, and that could be costly, because I'm confident that they put their interns on that project just by looking at the drawings.
Now, now, the whole reason why we are in this mess is because we decided to build Arco on the cheap, remember? Besides, the design of a building of this magnitude should not be taken lightly. Mistakes at this level can have pretty huge consequences, both culturally and financially.
Last edited:
The more extravagant we get and the more moving parts that are involved in the process, the less chance this thing has of getting built. I think that's the bottom line here. Icon was brought in to do a feasibility study on getting an arena built downtown for a price that the city and public could stomach. Though it was briefly discussed about why an arena downtown is important, city planning was in no way a part of their job at this point. In my opinion, that is what KJ and the city planners are going to have to come up with since they want it downtown. For the next 100 days, the ball in is the citt's court as to where and how this thing will get built and how it will affect the rest of the downtown development.
The regional leaders are now in discussion with not only funding this arena, but the overall vision of the area with the arena as a starting point. Things were vague at the request of the city and KJ so that the details could be hammered out behind closed doors. I completely understand what Jim Les is talking about, but our backs are against the wall right now and you have to work with what you have. This is a Sacramento issue and not an Icon issue.
The reason why the Natomas information is minimal is because it was not in their original plans to design anything for Natomas. It was put into the study at the last minute at the request of a council member. This was stated during the presentation on May 26th.
The regional leaders are now in discussion with not only funding this arena, but the overall vision of the area with the arena as a starting point. Things were vague at the request of the city and KJ so that the details could be hammered out behind closed doors. I completely understand what Jim Les is talking about, but our backs are against the wall right now and you have to work with what you have. This is a Sacramento issue and not an Icon issue.
The reason why the Natomas information is minimal is because it was not in their original plans to design anything for Natomas. It was put into the study at the last minute at the request of a council member. This was stated during the presentation on May 26th.
I think a person can be disappointed and happy the thing is being built at the same time. If I absolutely must have a car to get to work I would prefer a BMW but will setle for a Civic. The vehicle is necessary and the style is something extra. If I had nothing, I would be very happy with the Civic. I will always want something extra and don't see that as a negative attitude in any fashion.
Having a more detailed and coherent plan may be in the future and just because everything is laid out within the next year does not mean it has to be built immediately. It can be a 20 year project. It certainly was not ICON's job to do urban planning.
Having a more detailed and coherent plan may be in the future and just because everything is laid out within the next year does not mean it has to be built immediately. It can be a 20 year project. It certainly was not ICON's job to do urban planning.
Last edited:
I think the answer to why they focused on downtown is because "that is where the client wants it to be!" We can't forget that the City is pushing for a downtown arena. We know that. ICON knows that. Why spend a lot of time going over that aspect when it is already pretty much set in stone?
You "would like to see how a connection to regional transit could add value to the site, how it could connect to local transportation, possibly expanding to local neighborhoods, reduce dependence on vehicular transportation, increase foot-traffic (which is good for local businesses, reduces the probability of crime, makes more defensible spaces, etc)."? How could it not? I mean, really, why wouldn't folks use it??? I would, and I live near Galt. I'd catch it in Elk Grove and ride in, no problem. I think this is really a "no-brainer" if there was one.
The master plan isn't ICON's to develop, it is the City's. And they have one. It indeed calls for residential and commercial development. The City of Sacramento's website is down at the moment so I can't link to stuff there. Here is a start with EIR discussions, etc.:
http://ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/380
You "would like to see how a connection to regional transit could add value to the site, how it could connect to local transportation, possibly expanding to local neighborhoods, reduce dependence on vehicular transportation, increase foot-traffic (which is good for local businesses, reduces the probability of crime, makes more defensible spaces, etc)."? How could it not? I mean, really, why wouldn't folks use it??? I would, and I live near Galt. I'd catch it in Elk Grove and ride in, no problem. I think this is really a "no-brainer" if there was one.
The master plan isn't ICON's to develop, it is the City's. And they have one. It indeed calls for residential and commercial development. The City of Sacramento's website is down at the moment so I can't link to stuff there. Here is a start with EIR discussions, etc.:
http://ice.ucdavis.edu/education/esp179/?q=node/380
Jim Les, The open International design competition stage has been done. Out of all the participants, ICON is the chosen group. I guess you have been too busy to follow this but it happened already. If you don't like ICON and Populous, I don't know what to tell you. It's done and the debate is irrelevent and counterproductive at this point. I think they chose the right team because they fit the cities needs to get it done with people who have a strong track record of getting it done.
As for the entire railyards vision, it's been there for many years. Spend some time on the city website there is tons of information, guidelines, planning maps... you name it. It's been through Thomas Enterprises and now Inland. And just my two cents, for every one vision of what it should be, there are countless others who will fight you tooth and nail to go another direction. How things ultimately get done I don't know how. The ones who build get knocked down by those who can manipulate the system to stop you from building. They love to derail a plan but never once have they a workable plan on their own.
As for the entire railyards vision, it's been there for many years. Spend some time on the city website there is tons of information, guidelines, planning maps... you name it. It's been through Thomas Enterprises and now Inland. And just my two cents, for every one vision of what it should be, there are countless others who will fight you tooth and nail to go another direction. How things ultimately get done I don't know how. The ones who build get knocked down by those who can manipulate the system to stop you from building. They love to derail a plan but never once have they a workable plan on their own.
I think you're 100% right about the "more moving parts, the harder the project" point. I agree with that, and on that note, this study accomplishes exactly what it set out to do. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, either. And you're probably right about the city being in control of the master plan as well. That would only make sense. I'll have to scroll through their website when I have time to see what they have in mind. As for your answer about the Natomas information being included at the request of a council member, well, I didn't know that. I guess I can let that slide then. But still, I would expect more from my peers at the Populous group, to be perfectly honest.
JB, it is my understanding that ICON would fall more under the category of consultant rather than designer. I believe they were hired to get the wheels moving and to guide the city with the process. If you look at their diagram in the first page or so of the report, they have a chart that shows them as a mediator between the City (client) and the designer/developer team. Usually the architect is supposed to be the mediator between client/developer, but that's an in-house problem with the profession of architecture. With that in mind, ICON was successful, so perhaps my criticism of them is unwarranted, and I should stick to critiquing the Populous group and the city of Sacramento for not being ambitious enough.
I understand the need/desire to play it safe, though. I feel like I should clarify that so that I don't come across as some debbie-downer. I should also point out that any of my dissatisfaction has less to do with me as a basketball fan, and is more politically/professionally motivated, so this may not be the best board for me to air all of my grievances. But nevertheless, here I am.
I'll close out by saying that it's not impossible to do something grand. Even similar cities out there do things like this. Granted, the timeline is limited, which SERIOUSLY constrains the project. But cities similar in scale like Portland, or Minneapolis (right Glenn?), Seattle (a little bigger, but still) make decisions with their buildings all the time to help carve out their niche and create their identities. Sac can do the same. I'm not gonna give up hope just yet.
Last edited:
Jim Les, I never misunderstood you or misunderstood your attitude towards this project. (Actually it's St. Paul which makes it more miraculous 
). Perhaps people forgot that you are an architect/urban planner and that your attitude would be different than the typical man on the street.
Yes, the City in the end controls what happens or maybe the people that own the land which makes the potential for it being disjointed more likely. In any case, my experience was zero until I saw the marvelous downtown of St. Paul (repititous, I know) and what it did for that town is amazing. The arena was a small part. Without seeing what was done, no one can really understand what I had in mind and what I think Jim Les had in mind. It is VERY ambitious.
The area CAN be special. I don't have a clue how it can be done given the City doesn't even own the land. Until something happens that really doesn't fit in a coherent way, there is nothing wrong with what has been done so far. We don't have an unlimited budget.
Let's build the dang arena and get over the biggest hump. That's the immediate challenge and it is not guaranteed. The more ambitious ideas cannot be pursued without an arena.
). Perhaps people forgot that you are an architect/urban planner and that your attitude would be different than the typical man on the street.Yes, the City in the end controls what happens or maybe the people that own the land which makes the potential for it being disjointed more likely. In any case, my experience was zero until I saw the marvelous downtown of St. Paul (repititous, I know) and what it did for that town is amazing. The arena was a small part. Without seeing what was done, no one can really understand what I had in mind and what I think Jim Les had in mind. It is VERY ambitious.
The area CAN be special. I don't have a clue how it can be done given the City doesn't even own the land. Until something happens that really doesn't fit in a coherent way, there is nothing wrong with what has been done so far. We don't have an unlimited budget.
Let's build the dang arena and get over the biggest hump. That's the immediate challenge and it is not guaranteed. The more ambitious ideas cannot be pursued without an arena.
What makes you guys think that this won't be special and there has been no planning or any of things you are talking about? I've spent countless hours looking over the many documents on the city website. There are plans and visions for many areas of downtown. Have been there for years. Just go look for them. There are also realities that impact these plans. They have faced many issues that also other cities face as the economy went into the tank. The original developer of the railyards went bankrupt. This is just too complex to explain without writing a book here. Take the time and go look if it's interesting to you.
We are getting off the topic, but what ICON and Populous have produced so far is just a start. If the style is not acceptable to the city, it's easily changed and almost certainly will change as the process goes along in discussions with the Maloofs and NBA. The study shows estimated costs to build a facility of a certain square footage with a listing of desired amenities. Consider this an initial estimate and pretty pictures to get the ball rolling for moving forward with looking for funding.
To sum it up, it's not vision and planning that have been lacking, it's funding and putting the people in place that can make it happen and overcome the obstacles.
We are getting off the topic, but what ICON and Populous have produced so far is just a start. If the style is not acceptable to the city, it's easily changed and almost certainly will change as the process goes along in discussions with the Maloofs and NBA. The study shows estimated costs to build a facility of a certain square footage with a listing of desired amenities. Consider this an initial estimate and pretty pictures to get the ball rolling for moving forward with looking for funding.
To sum it up, it's not vision and planning that have been lacking, it's funding and putting the people in place that can make it happen and overcome the obstacles.