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.
(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, in vivo, as one of the main
attractions of considerable interest to fair-goers of the 21st century.
The Land is, of course,
is 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 dimishing 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 essentials 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 that, 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 that is certain to eventually overtake them and gobble them up anyway.
The details of these processes 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. Others with expertise in other aspects
of this project will come forward with your own contributions. Inevitably, the
matter rests with all of us. We can, only if we do.