STORYLINE Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

New report offers 'road map' for development at downtown railyards

by Melissa Corker, published on August 22, 2012 at 6:31 AM

Storyline: Politics RSS Feed

1 of 3
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 3
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

The best things Sacramento could do to bring the downtown railyards to life and spur greater development would be to start small and build from the inside out, some say.

That’s the message in a new report from the Urban Land Institute about the potential in the railyards, and it was the topic of a recent Sac Press Live interview with John Hodgson, president of the Hodgson Company and a member of the Urban Land Institute.

Hodgson talked about the ULI report as a roadmap for development in the railyards. It includes recommendations to build incrementally, create interconnected, mixed-use neighborhoods and start with inexpensive interim uses to draw people and develop interest in the railyards.

A number of ideas have been floated for developing the downtown railyards – not the least of which was the recent push to build an entertainment and sports complex on the 240-acre site.

But the ULI report offers neither support nor opposition to an arena, and Hodgson said there is “no silver bullet,” however, he suggested that such a venue could be a successful part of development in the railyards to get the best long-term benefit for Sacramento and the region.

“I think it is an absolutely spectacular idea,” Hodgson said. “We need to create an opportunity for special uses, and the arena could still be an important asset. We need to create the blueprint, though.”

Transformation at the railyards has already begun: A new pedestrian walkway to new railway platforms opened Aug. 13, and renovations on older train station buildings are also in the works. But building out the entire 240-acre site isn’t going to happen overnight, Hodgson said – primarily because it would be too expensive. So, development at the railyards should happen incrementally, and at the same time the plan should create connected, symbiotic neighborhoods

“You have to do this a half block at a time,” Hodgson said. “You can’t put all your residential in one area and all your commercial in another. Midtown is a good example of a diverse mix of uses that makes it a vibrant area of Sacramento. The whole point is you need to create a series of neighborhoods.”

Although Hodgson said he believes an entertainment and sports complex would be a catalyst for further development, there are smaller, more immediate things the city could do to create interest in the railyards and, potentially, lure investors. Some ideas Hodgson suggested include opening some of the historical buildings on the site as museums or opening portions of the railyards site as places for smaller events and social gatherings.

“Have fundraisers out there,” Hodgson said. “Have special events. It has unbelievable potential. The point here is get people out there, and get them to enjoy the space.”

The new ULI report is the result of an intensive, three-month study of the railyards and surrounding areas to determine the potential for the site – but it does not create an ordinance or a mandate for the city, Hodgson said, so the future of the railyards is still largely unwritten.

“With the railyards, you have a new landscape that you can begin to develop and paint a new picture,” Hodgson said.

Read the ULI report here.

Urban Land Institute Railyards ReportMelissa Corker is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press. Follow her on Facebook and on Twitter @MelissaCorker.

Keep up with our political coverage with our weekly newsletter, Sacto Politico. It goes out every Wednesday morning and includes a summary of all the week's political news affecting the capital city, with links to all the interesting, must-read stories from newspapers, magazines and blogs. It also features the best of our live chat series, Sac Press Live. Sign me up!

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

August 22, 2012 | 8:42 AM
ULI has it right. This idea that were going to build some megaplex that will draw people to the Railyards is unrealistic. We should think about starting out doing some temporary installations and special events first. Look at what they have done in Chirstchurch New Zealand after the 2011 earthquake. The used shipping containers to create a pretty cool transitional retail/community core. Look at the trial parklets created in San Francisco. Why not use the some of the old buildings for temporary exhibits? Something like the Venice Biennale and/or a Fringe Festival.
5 3
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 8:46 AM
The Urban Land Institute has no skin in the game, they sound like all the other downtown boosters. I'd like to hear from somebody with money, someone who can actually pay for all these grandiose ideas.
1 6
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:04 AM
What grandiose ideas did they present? The waiting around for some knight in shining armor to come and save the day mentality is part of the reason things don't get done. Doing lots of small things on a small budget will eventually lead to bigger things and bigger budgets.
4 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:25 AM
Mark, did you read the report? Item 15 on the agenda http://sacramento.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3062
2 2
REPLY
edited on  August 22, 2012 | 10:24 AM
I have. What point do you wish to make? Most of the 'big projects' in there were existing. You didn't expect them to come in a chuck it all did you? My question is to you is why complain about their work? It's all helpful in getting to where we need to go. What are your expectations for the Railyards?
3 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 11:16 AM
You sir have your head in the clouds. Is this how you interact with all people with a different perspective than you and question group think? I bring up a valid question, who’s gonna pay for it? Until someone steps up with funding, this is all a waste of time. The original blueprint put forth by Millennia for the railyards in 2003 had all the same suggestions the ULI listed yesterday.

I have been watching how this city operates for over 30 years; I have submitted comments to the council and commissions many, many times. This city does more to regulate than to spur growth, it spends more time talking about what to do than actually making it happen because time runs out. I have not always thought this way, but the trend is clear and the history speaks for itself.
2 6
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 3:02 PM
Whoa why the venom Hunnicutt? I bet you have submitted questions time and again to the council. Maybe your question is not as valid as you think it is. The question of 'who's going to pay for it' depends on what you mean by 'it.' There is no single 'it' to pay for. It's a lot of different parts - most of which will be privately developed. I think its funny that you are badmouthing ideas which don't seem all that 'groupthink' to me. Maybe you are projecting and just upset because people have a different perspective than you?
3 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:19 PM
There are a group of us who bring awareness to the city council and commissions. If you pay attention, those that get heard and acted upon also have money to contribute to the campaign, I've been active with others for 30 years, I've seen the same dog & pony show decade after decade, maybe someday you will see the light and how these are nothing more than a special arrangement designed to benefit those with influence $$$$$$.
1 4
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 10:11 PM
I'm confused. First you want people with money to come in and realize the Railyards plans and then you criticize people with money. The uncomfortably cozy relationship between those with money and those with power is as old as civilization itself. How is kicking against the bricks going to help? Yelling at council 'who's going to pay for this?' for 30 years doesn't seem very productive to me. Besides every council chamber in America is full of cranks who do nothing but criticize. I for one am really tired of people who can find everything wrong with a thing but never seem to have any solutions. The better way is to direct the focus and money into projects which benefit all parties- most specifically the community at large.
3 0
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 8:53 AM
The title of this article is misleading; this article is about the railyards not downtown.
0 4
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:27 AM
Huh? Last time I checked the Railyards was located Downtown.
2 0
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:39 AM
Oh your right, the NEW downtown. The City and owner of the land don't refer to it that way.
0 3
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 12:44 PM
The Railyards are part of downtown Sacramento and always have been.
2 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:39 AM
ummmmm I think the Railyards and Downtown are two seperate districts located in different areas. Would you say Midtown is located Downtown????
1 3
REPLY
edited on  August 22, 2012 | 10:32 AM
So now we are arguing about where the Railyards are? Really, who cares? And yes to some people think Midtown is part of downtown. Heck some people think East Sac is too. It doesn't really matter and to quibble over whether or not the Railyards is or is not part of downtown is ridiculous. Don't we have better things to talk about? Like-- what do we want the Railyards to look like? Mission Bay in San Francisco- a collection of bland chunky modern mid rises or something special? We have an opportunity to create a unique urban community here - let's not blow it.
4 1
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 12:47 PM
Such definitions are always fuzzy--when I moved to what we call "Midtown," people generally just called it "downtown." Probably the most common definition for "downtown/midtown" is the central city divided at roughly 16th Street--west is downtown, east is midtown. That clearly puts the Railyards in the downtown half of the central city. Considering that the bulk of the workers who worked in the Railyards lived in neighborhoods like Alkali Flat and Southside Park, it becomes clear that "downtown" includes multiple places--we are a big city, and big-city downtowns often include more than one neighborhood.
3 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 10:23 AM
Where's the link to the report, Melissa, and ANY info on the ULI (members, history, local bona fides) or other quotes?
0 1
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 11:11 AM
I have embedded the ULI report and included a link to the Urban Land Institute Sacramento website. Hope that helps.
2 0
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 12:48 PM
Staff report!

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3062&meta_id=388708

Including *choke* two new arena plans!
0 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 10:52 AM
www.ulisacramento.org
0 0
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 5:18 PM
Okay, here's an idea...the city clerk of Nevada City, Niel Locke, proposed making Nevada City the official "companion city" to Black Rock City, the site of Burning Man, and the idea was shot down by the Nevada City city council:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/22/4749037/push-to-create-close-ties-between.html

Why couldn't we take that role? We have a suitably vacant parcel of land that could have enormous potential for temporary uses, including recently cleaned-up historic buildings that could be exhibit halls or performance spaces. The Railyards could be a decompression space between Black Rock City and the Bay Area, an opportunity for pop-up experimental urbanism and creative expression in our city's backyard.

This recent article, "7 Ways To Reinvent Your City, Burning Man Style" ( http://www.shareable.net/blog/7-ways-to-reinvent-your-city-burning-man-style ) has some great ideas about how the fundamentals of Burning Man can be integrated into "tactical urbanism" in cities around the world--and what better place than our own, just-north-of-downtown urban blank slate? Sacramento already has a large contingent of Burners (BM week typically means a sudden drop in business and attendance at every Midtown hip joint of note, as so many of our city's creative types caravan over the hill to get covered in playa dust) to participate in a locally-sourced variant on the Burning Man theme. Lacking the remoteness of the Black Rock Desert, a local "theme camp" would also be connected to the amenities of Sacramento's central city--from transportation to dining and recreation, and, of course, plumbing.

It's an idea that would immediately raise our city's status on the cultural-hipness radar of the entire country, and provide some much-needed vitality into currently vacated parts of downtown.
6 3
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:13 PM
Where do I sign?
0 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:25 PM
Good idea.
0 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:28 PM
Nice idea but the State won't even let a school be built on first floor of any building within the railyards because there is a liability that someone might get sick while playing outside on the grass or open land. All schools will be on the second floor or higher to lower the risk of getting sick from what might still be in the soil.

The soil might be considered clean by EPA standards, but judging by the States actions, they don’t have enough confidence to also allow school children to play on the grass during recess.
1 3
REPLY
edited on  August 22, 2012 | 10:18 PM
As a some time Burner myself I'm totally down with that idea. It's just the type of (to use an overused phrase) out-of-the-box thinking that we need around here. And I don't think the state would object as much to something like that taking place in the Railyard (in it's current condition) as it would a school. The problem is getting the stick-in-the-muds to accept that idea. If only we had a hip progressive mayor.
2 3
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:47 PM
I'm not talking about schools or even permanent occupancy--just thinking about temporary urban uses in the short term. Call it a "stick-free zone."
2 2
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 10:14 PM
But they will be sleeping on the ground, do you really think the new owner will take the risk of being sued later becasue someone got sick while camping out for a week or so? That area is still considered contaminated even if the EPA says it's okay.
1 3
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 7:31 PM
Has anyone considered how the Federal Courthouse plays into all of this? The proximity of the Federal building could very well dictate how close or tall buildings developed in the area can be to the courthouse. I know they had issues with the close proximity of certain elements of the original intermodal design.
0 1
REPLY
August 22, 2012 | 9:38 PM
The courthouse plan is at least temporarily on hold.
1 1
REPLY
lmw
Author thumbnail
August 23, 2012 | 7:02 AM
Great idea. I would think Nevada City wouldn't have the space for a big thing like that. We do. Or the railyards does. If it were big, it could bring national and international travellers. Who knows? Some of them might have an idea to open businesses in the railyards or in another part of downtown? Do it in the spring instead of Labor Day? It would have to be done right in order to grow, though.

Even just one day music festivals, to start would be a great way for people to begin 'trying out' the space. It would force people to start thinking about putting in grass, other permanent thing like restrooms, entry, etc.
1 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