Basketball teams come and go. Retail shopping, housing, even sports-arenas (useful and desirable as those undertakings may be) have far better options to locate in places that are already subject to human habitation. The idea of urban infill is not to put new construction on top of large tracts of relatively unoccupied land, but to fill in the smaller vacancies in already occupied areas and, to increase habitable densities in places that have been given over entirely to human occupation. The present Cal-Expo site is certainly not one of those places.

Overview - 'The Land'

(Materials for the 'Land' section of this site are in preparation.)

This section of the website will provide information about the Cal Expo land, as well as a good deal of the land surrounding Cal Expo's boundaries- it's physical description and survey, ecology, micro-climate, natural features, current build-out, toxicity and pollution problems and other aspects of the area's physical presence. Of particular importance in our descriptions will be the surrounding lands, as well as the those within the current boundaries of the site.

While the current site under the purview of Cal-Expo occupies about 360 acres, relatively central to the city of Sacramento, the CEAV Project actually puts into play a considerable part of the land adjacent to the present site, perhaps doubling the size of the area of interest.

The current Cal-Expo/NBA plan, as conceived, impacts the land in a rountinely negative fashion - it covers it with permanent facilities, roads and other build-outs that remove the natural landscape, no matter how architecturally sensitive and interesting those facilities may be. In their vision, the land is simply something one puts things on - a table top for sports-arenas, houses, shopping malls and other "in-fill" projects (anything that short-term developer interests might find to their advantage.)

While Calfornia Advocates for the 21st Century supports sensitive and well-designed urban infill projects, it is strongly opposed to projects which would impact existing public commons and natural landscapes with housing, entertainment or commercial activities that simply remove such valuable assets from our diminishing stock of open space and turn it over to private exploitation. That is not the intent of those who advocate responsible "urban infill" and one of the reasons we oppose the current plans for redeveloping the Cal-Expo site.

In contrast, the CEAV project makes the land - its preservation and restoration - an actual and integral part of the transformed vision for the Cal Expo of the future. The environment is the base metaphor for the CEAV concept. It's restoration, preservation and sustainable managment are part and parcel of the exhibits which are to be showcased right alongside any other 'less natural' exhibits and facilities.

Research stations, reclamation projects and other land stewardship activities are intended as fully public and participating venues that fall within the general mission of the new Cal-Expo. Educationally, aesthetically and commercially, such stewardship is anticipated to attract as much, or more, interest and fair attendance as more traditional exhibits and standing facilities. The Cal Expo, envisioned in CEAV, makes our natural environment more than simply something that is good to think about. It makes it something to do, on-site and 'in vivo', as one of the main attractions of considerable interest to fair-goers of the 21st century.

Getting It Backwards - What's abnormal about "normal development"

The Land is, of course, at the center of what the CEAV is about - What it is, how it is used and, what happens to it as a result of our use.

In the course of our journey to answer these questions about the future of the land called "Cal-Expo" we have learned some interesting lessons.

Perhaps one of the most important of these has been the way our projects typically go about the business of redeveloping land. In the case of Cal-Expo's planning, it is clear that the concept they are working with did not originate in any vision for Cal-Expo or desire to fulfill the mission for which it was intended.

Rather, Cal Expo's project - one that inevitably lead it to the developer community and the NBA - had nothing to do with imagining what Cal Expo could or should be. It began with financial problems and a determination to design a financial landscape to satisfy its need to make up for falling revenues and flagging interest. It was only after searching out some star-studded attraction (the NBA and the Sacramento Kings) that the physical shape of things to come would even be considered. Moreover, as it became clear that would not be sufficient to entice the developer community in a weak economy, the pot would need to be sweetened with housing and retail shopping developments.

In short, it was the tail wagging the dog. Cal Expo's great "concept" wasn't a design for people, or even a design for Sacramento. Certainly it wasn't an idea for the conscientous use of scarce land. It was a design for money. Indeed, even at this late date, their plan for 'building money' isn't really a 'concept' at all. It will be left to developers to put this financial architecture into a package that somehow resembles something people can oooh&ahhhh about, and forget to ask, "Is this really what we want to put on public land. Is this really in the public interest or a best use of the diminishing public commons?

In contrast, the CEAV Project began with a concept. A solid concept for inter-relating real interests and real values that the people of the 21st century would appreciate and utilize for generations to come. Only after we had examined the mission of the California Exposition and Fair, did we set about interpreting that mission in a way that would have relevance, important public value and interest for the remainder of the century, and beyond. More importantly, our interpretation enhanced and extended that mission in ways its orignal drafters only hinted at; but, one which they might have thoroughly approved.

Only then, when our conceptual 'eye' had considered the fundamental reason for such improvement and we had imagined a design that would fully realize its potential; only then, did we begin asking the question, "how can such a concept be underwritten? How do you finance and sustain such an idea?" As with the concept itself, the track to financing a CEAV-like undertaking arose naturally from within the mission and the essential reasons for having a State Fair. It was the conceptual structure that informed us about how the project was to be funded and sustained; not the other way around. We did not need to leverage some vague idea of 'traditional fair' (amusement park rides, racing and livestock exhibitions') with some monolothic, profit-taking development scheme.

There would be room for some of those (traditional activities), of course, if the people of the 21st century continue to find those activities sufficiently interesting to warrant them. Frankly, we believe many of those venues will really do better to relocate to more local and intimate venues such as county and regional fairs, where they can be nourished, rather than have them ride on the back of some giant commercial venture (under CX/NBA) that is certain to eventually overtake them and gobble them up anyway; or, linger on as nostalgia under a transformed CEAV-like Exposition, if the 21st century has really moved on to other interests.

The details of these processes and necessary decisions will be treated in other sections of this website. Hopefully, many of you with experience in such matters as land use and land use economics will provide important materials and analysis of the CEAV concept in the months to come. Many others with expertise in various aspects of this project will need come forward with their own contributions. Inevitably, the matter will rest with all of us. We can; but, only if we do.