STORYLINE Sacramento Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Image 1 of 8

No high resolution image exists...

Image 1 of 8
Loading images

The city of Sacramento has announced its plans to demolish the Bel-Vue Apartments, a registered city landmark, in order to clear land on 8th Street for a potential future parking structure.


Located adjacent to the now-vacant corner of 8th and K Street, the Bel-Vue was built in 1910 as the American Cash Apartments. Built in the Craftsman style with Asian overtones, the three-story brick building contains apartments above a commercial ground floor. When the Bel-Vue was built, it was one of many downtown apartment buildings. If it was built today, the Bel-Vue would be described as a mixed-use, transit-oriented infill project. The building is currently owned by the city of Sacramento’s housing and redevelopment agency, the result of a complex land exchange between Mohammed “Mo” Mohanna, Z Gallerie owner Joe Zeiden, and the city of Sacramento. This land exchange was part of the currently stalled plans to rehabilitate the 700 block of K Street.


The city’s plan is to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) containing two possible alternatives for buildings to be built on the site, and then demolish the existing buildings. One alternative is a pair of residential towers 300 feet high, running from K Street to L Street along 8th, originally proposed by former owner Mohanna and developers John Saca (of the failed 301 Capitol Mall project) and John Lambeth. The other alternative is a 300 foot hotel tower at the corner of 8th and K, currently vacant, and a six-story parking structure on the site of the Bel-Vue and the other buildings at the corner of 8th and L. There is no developer or investor specified in the EIR notice of preparation; the city of Sacramento plans to create the EIR and demolish the Bel-Vue and nearby buildings on speculation, in case a developer appears who is interested in constructing the buildings the city has proposed for the site.


When the city of Sacramento acquired the Bel-Vue building and its neighbors, it was an occupied apartment building with several retail tenants on the ground floor. There were also commercial tenants in the adjacent buildings, and apartments above most of those buildings. The city of Sacramento evicted the residents, and today only one retail establishment, a Chinese restaurant, occupies the Bel-Vue, aside from a parking garage in one of the buildings facing L Street.


All of the buildings on the site have a role in local history. 815 L Street, constructed in 1915, was most recently the site of a nightclub of the same name. In 1957, the site was one of the original Sam’s Hof Brau locations. The side of the building, invisible from the street, still bears a painted mural advertising Sam’s. La Rosa, an Italian restaurant opened in 1927, occupied the site before the Hof Brau. On the corner of 8th and L is the Feldhusen Building, a two-story building with ground floor retail and residences upstairs. It was built in 1895 and remodeled in 1954. It was home to many businesses including grocery stores, dressmakers, and the Diamond Club Tavern card room.
Buildings like the Bel-Vue were once commonplace in Sacramento, but over the years they have become very rare.

Today, some developers seek out historic buildings for residential projects, converting them into modern apartments or condominiums. Local companies like D&S Development (http://www.dandsdev.com) have completed projects like the Old Sacramento iLofts and 1409 R, and are now restoring the historic Maydestone Apartments at 16th & J Street. Architect Mike Malinowski, contractor Bruce Booher and CFY Development helped convert the Globe Mills grain mill complex into unique residential lofts. At the Railyards, developer Thomas Enterprises will make the historic Southern Pacific shops buildings the focal point of a new downtown neighborhood. Other adaptive reuse projects like the Citizen Hotel, MARRS, the Cosmopolitan and the Firestone Building show how vacant historic buildings can be made into exciting, unique urban destinations. Projects like these are often more popular than newly-built projects because they offer one-of-a-kind places to live, work and play in an urban setting. They appeal to those who want to be close to the action of the central city and their downtown workplaces, or just like the unique character of historic buildings. Instead of demolishing the Bel-Vue, the building could easily be repaired and returned to its role as a place to live, with businesses on the street to serve downtown’s residents. Restoration of historic buildings is also a greener option than new construction, as it needs far fewer building materials and requires far less landfill space (where the demolished building’s components would end up.) If sales of recent projects like the 1409 R lofts (opened in April and already two-thirds sold) are any indication, these projects are popular even in slow economic markets, while urban infill projects in new buildings are far less successful. Historic buildings can also qualify for tax credits and other incentives that can make rehabilitation cheaper than demolition and new construction. In the right hands, the Bel-Vue could be a gorgeous, attainable new home for Sacramento’s residents for another hundred years.


In recent years, the city of Sacramento has seen many proposed projects fail to materialize. The failure of projects like John Saca’s 301 Capitol Mall towers at 3rd and Capitol resulted in ugly, gaping pits in our city’s urban fabric. Projects like the 700/800 block, bogged down by unexpected resistance and a poor economy, sit languishing, waiting for a better plan to appear. Projects that encourage the demolition of landmarks encourage speculators to allow their historic downtown properties to sit vacant, deteriorating for years or even decades, with the hope of an eventual skyscraper-shaped payoff that may never arrive. More forward-thinking developers could turn the same buildings into Sacramento's urban showpieces.


No developer or investor has been named by the city to actually build this project or pay for it, and even if a developer and/or investor does arrive, if they want to make significant changes to the plan they would need to complete a new environmental document, making this effort worthless. The sacrifice of one of Sacramento’s irreplaceable historic buildings would be for nothing. And even if the city’s long shot is successful, and a developer does build the project, we will lose a historic landmark and a quarter-block of potentially useful buildings for a six-story parking garage in a neighborhood with many underutilized parking garages.


To give public comment about this issue, contact Jennifer Hageman of the City of Sacramento’s Community Development Department at jhageman@cityofsacramento.org or (916)808-5538. Written comments should be sent to Jennifer Hageman, City of Sacramento Community Development Department, 300 Richards Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95811. Comments are due before 4:00 PM on July 27, 2009.
 

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

July 3, 2009 | 03:06 PM
Bill, even if the entire building can't be saved, couldn't the facade be saved and incorporated into part of the new building like they have done in other cities on the east coast? It is unique and of architectural significance. Downtown has lost so much if that architectural history.
1 1
REPLY
July 3, 2009 | 03:58 PM
Facadism is pretty common here too--look at the Esquire, the Public Market building or even the Citizen Hotel. The problem is that demolition except for the facade destroys the utility of the building and its value as a built structure. The construction of a new building could be many years off, and the city wants to demolish the whole block now--it would not be practical to just leave the facade standing on its own for an untold number of years.

There is no new building, just a plan to make a plan for a new building. That's why demolition of the Bel-Vue and neighboring structures is so premature, and so pointless.
2 0
REPLY
July 3, 2009 | 04:33 PM
WOW! At least when the Renaissance Tower was approved to replace the old Clunie Hotel, they did not do the demolition till the plans and financing for the tower were in place. So now will have another empty plot of land downtown in exchange for the possibility of a six story parking garage, GREAT!
2 0
REPLY
July 3, 2009 | 07:30 PM
Somehow, I missed the "years off" part of your article when I skimmed through it. That being the case the destruction should not be allowed.

Yes, I'm aware of the very few facadism" here but I'm talking block after block in parts of Philadelphia and other eastern cities. We just don't have that volume here.
1 1
REPLY
edited on  July 4, 2009 | 08:10 AM
Very interesting and comprehensive. I suspect William you have some expertise in historical buildings/architecture. If so, perhaps you should list your credentials at the end of your story??
0 1
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 10:18 AM
I am a regular writer on local history here at Sacramento Press and for Midtown Monthly Magazine, and write books on local history for Arcadia Publishing:
http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=9780738547961
http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=9780738531472
http://www.arcadiapublishing.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=9780738559001
1 0
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 09:41 AM
Wow, I really look forward to parking in that structure. Good job City of Sacramento
3 1
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 09:48 AM
OK, I looked at all the photos and fail to see the architectural beauty of the building. It looks like urban ghetto style. Ball and chain it. However, the story was quite interesting. Nice work.
3 4
REPLY
edited on  July 4, 2009 | 10:18 AM
The building is in rough shape because it has not been maintained. A little rehab work, paint and maintenance would make the building shine--a wrecking ball would just make another hole in the ground. The city of Sacramento has just let the building sit, falling into disrepair, because they apparently just want to knock it down. I consider that a short-sighted attitude.
3 0
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 10:04 AM
Real cities have variety and the combo of old and new do that. This structure has been vacant for too long - when it was inhabited by local businesses and residents it was alive and somewhat maintained. Buildings cannot speak for themselves but if they could i'm guessing they don't like being neglected. With a little love it can easily be a showpiece - like 14th & R and 18th & Capitol. Very few of the lively businesses at 18th & Capitol sit in new buildings. Most are rehabbed old buildings, some historic, some not. We have so few large scale craftsman commericial buildings and our history is our strength yet our city doesn't get that this (our history) is our asset and draw that no one else in the region can duplicate. I recommend those who think this building is 'ghetto' go to the Magnificent Mile and Lakeshore Waterfront in Chicago - or even closer to home in San Francisco and tell that to them. Real cities have character and variety - we are a real city so we need to act like it. Any plan for this block should include the rehab of the Bel Vue. A gem and Landmark for good reason. Excellent article - I plan to send a letter to city staff next week and hope other will as well.
2 0
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 11:22 AM
Excellent piece on speculative but unrealized dreams of kleenex box developers and the historical gems in the rough they destroy... Thank you for sharing your insights...
1 1
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 02:00 PM
The city wants to destroy the building not a developer. WBurg said "No developer or investor has been named by the city to actually build this project or pay for it." This is all the cities doing right now.
2 0
REPLY
CCC
edited on  July 4, 2009 | 12:39 PM
nice comment oracle, just because you don't see the beauty does not mean it is not there. Just what is "Urban Ghetto Style"? Do you regularly use the word ghetto as an adjective? I suppose a hole in the ground would be more to your liking? Maybe you could name it another vapid, uninformed architectural style too. See you in Granite Bay. Didn't you read what WBurg said? That is all ok with you? Really? Sheesh.
3 3
REPLY
July 4, 2009 | 06:31 PM
Beuty is in the eye of beeholdr! Looks at me!
2 1
REPLY
July 5, 2009 | 09:27 AM
Oracle apparently holds an opinion shared by many, i.e. new is better, out with the old etc. I don't share that opinion at all. The greenest building is the one that's already built. Transit oriented development is the wave of the future despite the political opposition. Tearing down anything to put in a parking structure for cars and trucks is a dubious goal at best. Thanks, William.
1 3
REPLY
edited on  July 6, 2009 | 10:23 AM
The rest of the scenario is scary. No developer, no plans, no EIR. Question: who's gonna get paid to create another vacant lot?
1 0
REPLY
July 6, 2009 | 12:59 PM
Woes Me! Perhaps they should build a big giant Safeway? So sad. Everybody who works for the City these days seems to be from Somewhere's Else, (Name a State Here). They have no nostalgia for a City they weren't raised in, that is just a stepping stone in a life's career. They are just working their way to "Real" job in a "Real" city like Portland or Seattle. We just sit here like lumps and let them chip away at our town. I do however hope that an article such as this will spur outrage beyond my own, (I will contact the City officials mentioned in the article.)
2 0
REPLY
July 6, 2009 | 10:31 PM
The city wants the comments in hard copy letter which is very odd - i intend to do email and hard copy. It's due at the end of the month and I also intend to ask that the city consider a third alternative in the EIR that include the rehab and adaptive re-use of the Bel Vue and Sam's Hof Brau. It's the original Sam's a cultural icon for sure.
2 0
REPLY
July 6, 2009 | 04:30 PM
Today's Sacramento Bee included a mention of this project in the Bob Shallit column, including the name of a developer and hotel company. I will write a follow-up to this article including the previously unknown details in the next day or two.
1 0
REPLY
July 28, 2009 | 10:19 AM
These vacant buildings bring more blight into an already questionable area. I doubt the City has the resources for maintanence not to mention funds for bringing a relec back to code. Just imagine the liability the city would face if they allowed anyone to occupy a structure that had structural, electrical, plumbing, ect... issues. I say bring it down and start over. They could easily salvage materials from the building and rebuild in replica fasion using todays codes and earthquake standards. Safety First followed by appearance.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
TYPE YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW
EDIT YOUR COMMENT IN THE BOX BELOW cancel edit

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

Cancel Submit

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Forgot Password?
New Users Create an Account Here
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