Comments on: There be Goats There!

By: McKinley Village | Uneasy Rhetoric

McKinley Village | Uneasy Rhetoric — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 04:19:23 +0000

[...] wants to build 400 houses next to Business 80–in that little eye-shaped parcel of land where goats once roamed–and call it “McKinley Village.” I’m all in favor of infill, and [...]

By: Uneasy Rhetoric » Blog Archive » The Village, part 2.

Uneasy Rhetoric » Blog Archive » The Village, part 2. — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:09:39 +0000

[...] I’ve been meaning to write about this for a while – last Tuesday, January 31st, I attended the standing-room only public meeting on “The Village,” the new development proposed for the spot of land between the Capital City Freeway (Business 80) and the rail levee behind East Sacramento (see my previous post for a map). [...]

By: Uneasy Rhetoric

Uneasy Rhetoric — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:16:20 +0000

Ick. I hadn’t really looked closely. Too back they’re already coming apart.

I have seen folks using the common area from time to time. I’m pretty sure I saw a couple making out on one of the benches once, andI’ve seen someone out there with a dog from time to time.

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:09:17 +0000

Oh, I am all for Metro Square in theory. But the houses already look terrible — trim pieces are cracked and separating on many of the houses, the stucco shows water damage, and overall they just appear cheap and shoddy. Nobody uses the open space, ever. (I walk by there on my way to work, and used to occasionally walk through the center area until they put up all those “No Trespassing” signs.) Unlike the rest of midtown, where people hang out on porches and patios, you just see people drive into their garages and never emerge. Most people thought it was supposed to be affordable housing but they all initially sold for far above market value … right now I think they go for less than the average midtown home, probably because they don’t seem to be holding up very well.

Plus, it’s turned out to be the section of midtown most likely to display Republican campaign signs. There goes the neighborhood. (Kidding. Sort of.)

I always have high hopes for new developments downtown but there hasn’t been one yet that wasn’t a disappointment. I think that one on I Street a block or so from Metro Square is a little better than Metro Square — at least, I occasionally see people using the balconies there, which I have never seen at Metro Square.

By: John (Uneasy Rhetoric)

John (Uneasy Rhetoric) — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:59:55 +0000

Not to mention the fact that the train tracks are still in use…

A prison? Too funny. The article didn’t mention that, although it did mention an auto mall and big-box retail.

Maybe Maya is right and the land should be left as open space. Maybe we could let it go wild (with adequate control for fire, of course) and have a little bird sanctuary or something. It had occured to me once long ago that the space might be good for a park, but whenever I’m in a park that abuts a freeway, I get a little depressed.

Beth, I don’t know the details of Metro Square, but I tend to like that style of development (provided the homes aren’t poorly built) and believe there are ways to make it work on a large scale.

That being said, I was once in a neighborhood in South Seattle that was like a super-sized version of Metro Square: small footprint, semi-detached homes that fit one of about three templates. The neighborhood had a few “common areas,” but when I was there – on a sunny afternoon – no one was using them. The homes were all to help low-income folks become owners, which I’m all for, but the place still felt like a bland suburb, except there were more taxis than SUVs parked on the street.

By: Livinginurbansac

Livinginurbansac — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:54:23 +0000

Apparently, there was a development on the table a long, long time ago, but the neighbors threw a major hissy fit about traffic and it was tabled.

Quite a few years ago (early 90s?) a developer wanted to build an office tower (something like 20-25 stores), condos, retail and a hotel, but the East Sac residence came with a vengeance over that one. The developer was so mad that he threatened to build a prison on the property since it was zoned industral

There are so many obstacles with developing this site it’s nuts, East Sac residence, enviromental issues, the river being right there, no major access points.

I don’t expect this site to be developed in the near future. I’ve heard they want to start in two years, I don’t think there is a chance in hell that happens

By: Beth

Beth — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:23:36 +0000

I am also unexcited about the development although this sounds better than earlier proposals, and I’m also a fan of density. We read the flyer that came in the mail telling us about the development, and all we could envision was yet another complex of Starbucks and Noah’s and Jamba Juice, with some Metro Square-style cheap (to build) housing that will still be overvalued for the area.

There is a community meeting on January 31; I can get the details if my dog didn’t eat the flyer.

By: maya

maya — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 07:23:36 +0000

I love the goats. They make my morning drive over the river very pleasant. I don’t want it to be developed at all. I think it’s not so much a NIMBY as a personal need to see an open stretch of land en route to my little office.