Proposed plans revealed at intermodal community town hall

[Mike0476]

Highlights:

http://sacramentopress.com/headline/54764/Proposed_plans_revealed_at_intermodal_town_hall

Assistant City Manager John Danberg said the following...

..."proposed intermodal facility will be spread out, dispersed and scaled down in a grid form. Plans for the arena involve moving the location as far west as possible – close to the freeway on-ramp – that is not currently the most desirable."

..."arena will also be pushed below grade...normally arenas are 30 to 40 feet below grade, however, the proposed arena will be pushed even lower. With ground water and ground contamination issues...proposal would have a number of preventive design challenges."

"Different modes of transit will be separated by streets and sidewalks so travelers are made to walk from one location to the next – getting more people on the streets...they made this decision based on the advice of the Urban Land Institute to not build a major facility that would act as a barrier to the other side of the tracks."

 

[JB_kings]

Putting the arena below grade will add to the total cost. For example the Toyota Center is 32 feet below street level. The excavation on that arena alone was 12 million ten years ago. And there is no doubt there are some soil contamination issues when excavating deep. So it could add about 5-7% on top of the 387 million now being talked about. Escalators and elevators are much cheaper. Moving it closer to the freeway onramp is good. But that willl involve a substantial change in the arena design. That's why we shouldn't get too excited over the early design concepts.

 

[rainmaker]

Is the Cle arena below grade as well? Just wondering, since the court looks elevated, and to get to the bench, you have to step down two steps off the court. Something tells me that kind of a setup wouldn't mesh well with Reke's ankle.

 

[Livinthedream]

Is it that uncommon for an arena to be built a below street level? Besides the Toyota center, just by visual observation there are many college and NBA arenas built below grade. Barclays Center in NY is below grade, the Verizon Center. Savemart Center in Fresno appears to be as well. Paully Pavilion at UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I have no technical knowledge on this. If the environmental cleanup has been done on the soil at the site, why would there be even more contamination below where they're at now? It's either contaminated or not. I think the water table is the biggest concern in Sacramento. Building it so close to the rivers.

I would think that what the city is introducing is in attempts to get this arena built with the least resistance politically. If the city can gain more profit by spending an extra $10 mil or so upfront to get the arena and railyards planning right, then it's the right investment. It will cost more to try to correct a mistake, then it would to do it right the first time. See Arco Arena.....

 

[JB_kings]

I really wish I could have made it last night. It was probably one of the more important meetings as far as what we might get as an end result. First off I agree that they should lower the arena if it's not a huge budget buster. It just makes it less imposing and it's a going to be there a very long time and it should look right in place now and 30 years from now. Burying as much of the back house stuff under the I-5 is what I was hoping to see as well. I also felt they almost had to purchase the rest of the land between the depot and the new courthouse for their transit hub and tie it all in together. It was also encouraging to see that the design might be tweeked a bit to fit in with the rail yard. They have a blank slate and can really tie in the old and new. Maybe a little more AT&T Park and a little less Sprint Center in the design.

 

[Livinthedream]

I really wish I could have made it last night. It was probably one of the more important meetings as far as what we might get as an end result. First off I agree that they should lower the arena if it's not a huge budget buster. It just makes it less imposing and it's a going to be there a very long time and it should look right in place now and 30 years from now. Burying as much of the back house stuff under the I-5 is what I was hoping to see as well. I also felt they almost had to purchase the rest of the land between the depot and the new courthouse for their transit hub and tie it all in together. It was also encouraging to see that the design might be tweeked a bit to fit in with the rail yard. They have a blank slate and can really tie in the old and new. Maybe a little more AT&T Park and a little less Sprint Center in the design.

I wasn't happy that I couldn't make the meeting last night either. I think the design competition is still coming up, so there will be a chance to voice your opinions, I would think.

Baseball parks can be retro or classic, but It's not very often arenas are done that way. I'd like to see some ideas on how you can make an arena a AT&T Park style, but I have no problems with the Sprint Center or Staples Center design either.

 

[Warhawk]

Yeah, I ended up working until 8:30 at the office and then came home and worked some more on a proposal that was due today. No way I could be there. Almost the same situation today. Ugh. People need to get off their vacations and back in the office! So I can take a vacation next, of course.

 

[JB_kings]

I wasn't happy that I couldn't make the meeting last night either. I think the design competition is still coming up, so there will be a chance to voice your opinions, I would think.

Baseball parks can be retro or classic, but It's not very often arenas are done that way. I'd like to see some ideas on how you can make an arena a AT&T Park style, but I have no problems with the Sprint Center or Staples Center design either.

Nationwide Arena is probably one of the best examples for combining a classic brick style with some modern influence.

 

[Dr. Spaceman]

Not too crazy about these latest design proposals. I'm not sure the desire to build below grade is worth both the substantial extra cost along with the substantial design headaches. It's not as if the rest of downtown is suffocating visitors with its imposing scale. In fact, our city's center could do with some added scale to its front end. Why shove it below street level?

I'm also glad to hear that the committee is leaning toward the intermodal facility in spite of them presenting the scaled down and spread out model. I appreciate the thinking behind the latter, but I think centralizing the various transportation entities would be more forward-thinking and more convenient for those visiting from outside the city. Retail and dining would still sprout tremendously around this area, regardless of the transportation setup. Why throw more wrenches into this when you have a perfectly good model to build upon already? Time isn't exactly our best friend on this issue at the moment.

 

[JB_kings]

It entirely depends on where the arena ends up getting positioned. If it's up against the I-5 onramp, then height is not much of an issue as the freeway already has tall sightline. If it's more centrally located in the railyards, then yes it probably should go down one level. Looking at the design guide for the whole railyards, they are keeping the building height limited within a certain range of the historic buildings. It's one of those things that is very cheap to 3D model virtually and see what it will look like and then decide if the extra 20 million is worth spending on excavating and grading. In any case, I don't think at this point its going to kill the deal. It sounds like they are working on some of the issues that have been identified since the Taylor/ICON presentation. And it's great that we as citizens can follow along or participate.

 

[Livinthedream]

I love brick buildings, but it's mostly an east coast thing in my opinion. It's just a personal preference on design, but what I really want is for this thing to get built. I'll be happy with retro or modern.

I'm not sure why it has to be built so low either. I hear what the ULI concerns are, but it's downtown, which makes height almost irrelevant in my mind. Everything is bigger downtown. As long as the design is nice, who cares?

 

[Trueblood]

Is it that uncommon for an arena to be built a below street level? Besides the Toyota center, just by visual observation there are many college and NBA arenas built below grade. Barclays Center in NY is below grade, the Verizon Center. Savemart Center in Fresno appears to be as well. Paully Pavilion at UCLA. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I have no technical knowledge on this. If the environmental cleanup has been done on the soil at the site, why would there be even more contamination below where they're at now? It's either contaminated or not. I think the water table is the biggest concern in Sacramento. Building it so close to the rivers.

I would think that what the city is introducing is in attempts to get this arena built with the least resistance politically. If the city can gain more profit by spending an extra $10 mil or so upfront to get the arena and railyards planning right, then it's the right investment. It will cost more to try to correct a mistake, then it would to do it right the first time. See Arco Arena.....

Every arena is below grade. The only one I can think of that isn't is the AAA in Miami since they are right on the water. If they were to dig a hole too deep, Lebron would be playing hoops in scuba gear.

 

[JB_kings]

The presentation from the meeting: http://www.thinkbigsacramento.com/assets/Public-Reports/ULI-Panel-Report.pdf

Now that I have read the presentation, I am fairly impressed with their recommendations. They are looking at the big picture of what should go where and how it will all work together. Allowing for public space like a plaza and preserving the view toward the historic central shops was saved. I notice that one thing that ULI was very concerned about on the first presentation in January. The high speed rail terminal stacked onto the commuter rail was a big mistake as it would isolate the depot district off from the railyards. They moved it east and the need for double decking is no more.

One though that sounds interesting but not sure how it would work is the idea of attaching the ESC to the historic depot building. Which would mean that the arena design would have to compliment the depot brick and tile roofing. I'm really excited to see if this idea is going to stick.

 

[fiction916]

what purpose would the historic depot serve in these configurations? would it have any functional use?

 

[Sluggah]

Ugh. Key Arena is practically underground. That ended well for Seattle. I wonder if it becomes harder to renovate. Thing is butt ugly.

 

[nebs]

Ugh. Key Arena is practically underground. That ended well for Seattle. I wonder if it becomes harder to renovate. Thing is butt ugly.

Oh my good god. That's the Key Arena??

 

[JB_kings]

what purpose would the historic depot serve in these configurations? would it have any functional use?

It has to function as a normal depot. They will sell tickets, luggage check-in, etc. The reason is that the city received funding to remodel the building to earthquake standards. If it is not used for this primary purpose, the funding has to be returned. Not a small amount either. Something like 15-20 million I think. They can put in some shops and food service, but the primary function of the depot must not change. So they can't just change it into all retail or tear down the building.

 

[JB_kings]

Oh my good god. That's the Key Arena??

I've seen it in person. That picture is soemwhat nicer than it looks up close. It was gutted and extensively remodeled similar to the Oakland arena about 15 years ago and the only thing they left was the roof. Which is somewhat nostalgic because it dates back to the Seattle Worlds Fair in 1962. They had a nice little spacey theme going there. But it really got dated fast.

 

[Sluggah]

Oh my good god. That's the Key Arena??

lulz. that was the exact look on my face after I drove up to Seattle to see a game when we faced them in the playoffs a few years ago. It's awful.

but hell. if we get a new arena, i don't care if it's ugly as sin...as long as the kings stay.

 

[Section 101]

It has to function as a normal depot. They will sell tickets, luggage check-in, etc. The reason is that the city received funding to remodel the building to earthquake standards. If it is not used for this primary purpose, the funding has to be returned. Not a small amount either. Something like 15-20 million I think. They can put in some shops and food service, but the primary function of the depot must not change. So they can't just change it into all retail or tear down the building.

Think he's talking about the historical buildings in the middle of the RR that are empty. I think they want to turn them into a rail road museum.

 

[JB_kings]

Think he's talking about the historical buildings in the middle of the RR that are empty. I think they want to turn them into a rail road museum.

Ok, those are the old shops.

 

[Sluggah]

How many railroad museums can one city support?

 

[Section 101]

How many railroad museums can one city support?

They would move or add to the current one.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

It's not like trains are paintings easily hung on walls, I would love additional space added, hell lay down some track between them and have a little train ride between museums.

well ok, its a nice thought

 

[kennadog]

I like the spread out intermodal facility best. I think that was a good recommendation from the ULI.

They should push the arena down. Part of the wonderful attraction of the area is the historic buildings. The depot building is really a cool buidling and most of it's current space isn't even used. To have shops and eating places in there would be great. I know the ULI imagined shops and an indoor farmer's market in the old RR shops, sort of like the ferry building in SF. That place bustles with energy.

I believe the old shops are brick or have brick? I'd have to try and find a picture.

As to soil contamination, I believe encapsulation was part of the solution, meaning burying it with clean fill? Seems like I read that, but I'm not sure. If so, then how deep the arena would go, could make a difference.

 

[Warhawk]

As to soil contamination, I believe encapsulation was part of the solution, meaning burying it with clean fill? Seems like I read that, but I'm not sure. If so, then how deep the arena would go, could make a difference.

But, but!!! I was absolutely hammered by the idiots in the Bee because I said that was sometimes performed on contaminated sites! You mean I was right? I knew what I was talking about? Be still my heart!

 

[Livinthedream]

I like the spread out intermodal facility best. I think that was a good recommendation from the ULI.

They should push the arena down. Part of the wonderful attraction of the area is the historic buildings. The depot building is really a cool buidling and most of it's current space isn't even used. To have shops and eating places in there would be great. I know the ULI imagined shops and an indoor farmer's market in the old RR shops, sort of like the ferry building in SF. That place bustles with energy.

I believe the old shops are brick or have brick? I'd have to try and find a picture.

As to soil contamination, I believe encapsulation was part of the solution, meaning burying it with clean fill? Seems like I read that, but I'm not sure. If so, then how deep the arena would go, could make a difference.

I understand the recommendations of the ULI and can't really argue with what they say is best. However, beggars can't be choosers. Hardly anything has gotten off the ground in the railyards and it's struggle to get going. So if ULI recommends that the arena be 60' below grade and the developers say we can only make it work at 40', then do it at 40'. Make the adjustments to the railyards plan accordingly. I worry that nothing will ever get built in the railyards if the city holds tight to all 'recommendations.'

I believe it happened a few years back that a developer wanted to build a hi rise in Sac and the mayor then shot it down because it would block her view of the Capital from city hall. I'm sure that was recommended as well. The developer built his hi rise in some other city and Sac lost out on business. After seeing this happen time and time again in Sac, it's my only fear when it comes to this arena. Protecting one thing at the expense of the city as a whole. That's my rant for the day.

 

[kennadog]

Well, everything is still conceptual at this point. I like the intermodal "square," instead of some monolithic arena/interpodal building as originally conceptualized. That would end up being a visual block of the railyards area as a whole, and cut it off from the rest of downtown. Exactly what you don't want to do, if you want revitalization and people traffic in both areas.

In the UC Davis report, they discussed different arena/stadium plans that worked or didn't work and why. I'd have to go back and look it up, but I do know some didn't have the expected revitalization effect, because it was cut-off from the area it was supposed to help. Not a good design and/or location. Maybe I'll try and find it later.

 

[Livinthedream]

Well, everything is still conceptual at this point. I like the intermodal "square," instead of some monolithic arena/interpodal building as originally conceptualized. That would end up being a visual block of the railyards area as a whole, and cut it off from the rest of downtown. Exactly what you don't want to do, if you want revitalization and people traffic in both areas.

In the UC Davis report, they discussed differnt arena/stadium plans that worked or didn't work anbd why. I'd have to go back and look it up, but I do know didn't have the expected revitalization effect, because it was cut-off from the area it was supposed to help. Not a good design and/or location. Maybe I'll try and find it later.

You're putting the arena at the very edge of downtown and the railyards, not in the middle. It will be up against I-5, which is already an obstruction, so you're not adding anything to the problem there. Nobody wants a monstrous monolith and I understand the concept of not blocking the railyards and the possible implications of doing that. I just don't believe that at it's current conceptual location it presents that big of a problem. The city will do their due diligence and review the feasibility of building well bellow grade, beyond the usual. However, I'd be extremely suprised if the end result isn't the city saying that pushing the arena as far west as possible is a better, more cost effective solution.

 

[Warhawk]

You're putting the arena at the very edge of downtown and the railyards, not in the middle. It will be up against I-5, which is already an obstruction, so you're not adding anything to the problem there. Nobody wants a monstrous monolith and I understand the concept of not blocking the railyards and the possible implications of doing that. I just don't believe that at it's current conceptual location it presents that big of a problem. The city will do their due diligence and review the feasibility of building well bellow grade, beyond the usual. However, I'd be extremely suprised if the end result isn't the city saying that pushing the arena as far west as possible is a better, more cost effective solution.

Agreed. Rather look at a new arena than the old elevated I-5.