The city is looking to completely redesign Capitol Mall and the public is waiting to hear who the winner is. In about 3 ½ weeks a winner will be announced and the Big Idea catalyst will then move forward.
My hope is that the city goes with an idea where less is more, it’s a design phrase that describes movements in various forms of art and design, especially visual art. Many of the most memorable public places are simple in design and gently draws your attention to the natural beauty of the area … by doing more with less.
All entries that planted trees in the center of Capitol Mall or want to build a structure that will block the view of the State Capitol from the Tower Bridge were all losers in my book. The Capitol View protection ordinance established in 1992 will immediately disqualify any of these ideas. More than half of the submissions did not even bother to read the instructions talking about the view corridor. Also, the removal of all vehicles driving up and down Capitol Mall rubs me the wrong way. Being able to drive down ten blocks up to the State Capitol a very unique experience and should be incorporated into whatever design is chosen.
Many designs incorporate blocks that are not even owned by the city like the former Towers site between 3rd & 4th. I don’t get this at all? I don’t remember reading anywhere that CalPERS is planning on donating the land and the city clearly can’t afford to buy it in the near future.
Anyway, you can look at all the submissions at the http://saccatalyst.com/ website, where you can vote for which designs you like the best!
I checked out most of those yesterday, I personally liked the forth choice down in your post, mostly for the giant green roof and amphitheater. I think the first one you showed is way too over doing it for the area and I must have missed the space needle one when I was going through them.
ReplyDeleteDidn't have a ton of time to look through them, but I didn't see any with the Champs Elysees-style street in the middle. Remove the median, make the sidewalks (way) bigger on both sides and change the front of the buildings along Capitol Mall to have restaurants, cafes, small museums and stores along the walk. This is easy from a landscape perspective and would eventually make the area MUCH more walkable.
ReplyDeleteI agree Erin, I also like the forth one too, but I'm not so sure about the building at the Towers site. Lot X would be a great place for an amphitheater, but I'm pretty certain they have plans to sell the land when the market stabilizes. I think the proposals that are focused within the boundary area and don't intrude on the view corridor will have the best chance of actually being used. I'm sure building costs will play a roll as well, if not, this vision to improve Capitol Mall will fade away like many other big ideas that arn't backed by a true funding source.
ReplyDeleteForget the view corridor, the best way to add life and vibrancy to that part of town is by adding people. The third one down might not be the prettiest, but it would get the job done. And the views from the top would be better than the current view corridor anyway.
ReplyDeleteI assume your joking about forgetting the view corridor? The Capitol View protection ordinance killed off three proposed high-rises along K & L Streets when it first became law.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, nearly half the submissions will be eliminated because of this 20 year old zoning ordinance that's also a state law.
Great post and pretty exciting to see people imagine the space in a new light. As you mention, somewhat constrained by the view ordinance (and probably rightly so) and the relatively small amount of space. I would just love the area to be more engaging, and could envision a time where folks drove out from the 'burbs to spend the day downtown, walking the mall, going to Crocker, etc.
ReplyDeleteresponse was pitiful to this "competition" but since the Central Valley AIA is a woeful bunch of pitiful folks what would you expect?
ReplyDeleteProgram...where? the mall...what? well we don't really know but we've tried everything else all over town and spent Sac into the poorhouse with wasteful redevelopment activity...we need some help, BAD...why? because we're really pitiful and can't figure this out ourselves...
why would anyone submit to such a nebulous deal? and pay for the right to submit? typical schmucks in the AIA...
therefore the response was minimal to say the least...50?...in this time of depression/recession in the construction industry?
there was one thoughtful presentation concerning trees of California which should not cost that much and a grand avenue approach (Champs...) is a good idea except there will be NO shops and restaurants to fuel the activity...just state brown baggers and sleazy lobbyists...
Why do you think Jon Jerde had to sue the developer he brought into the railyards to get his fair cut of what turned out to be a redevelopment scamorama?
I truly like to reading your post. Thank you so much for taking the time to share such a nice information.
ReplyDelete