Depending on your perspective, nights like Tuesday are what make Davis interesting, boring, and/ or at the very least unpredictable. Fifty to sixty people filed into Council Chambers to discuss the future of the Tank House. Ordinary alliances are disrupted for that night and the dispute boils down to two alternatives to the main project.
Alternative 3 is the staff recommended and owner preferred alternative. This alternative calls for a two story building between the Varsity Theater and the Hunt-Boyer Mansion and the Tank House to be demolished, moved, and then reconstructed to the west of a building. Ultimately that project alternative won out by a scant 3-2 vote.
Alternative 5 became the other option on this night. This was Richard Berteaux’s proposal. Quite frankly Rich Rifkin – and the artist rendering – sold me on this alternative, and it became my preferred alternative. This preferred alternative provided a greenhouse-type set up and the broader expanse of open space. Sinisa Novakovic was allowed to speak at length. He made several interesting points. During one point he made he stated that people acted like it would be the “end of western civilization if the tank house is taken down.” He then cited the length of time that nothing has been done in the community to restore the tank house or fix it up.
His choice was to restore it and put up a “beautiful building.” He also suggested that Chuck Roe told him if he did not build three stories, he would not make money. This, he suggested, was evidence that he was putting up vast and considerable personal risk into this project. A claim that I have little doubt, is true.
Barbara King, a long time Davis resident during her comments pretty much summed up a lot of people’s feelings on this project when she expressed regret that she had to oppose Mr. Novakovic and Mayor Sue Greenwald on this project.
In the end, I believed that Alternative 5 was a better project alternative than Alternative 3, that it kept more of the original intact and also created a better feel in a very small space. From the start, the idea of squeezing a building into that narrow space between the Varsity and the Mansion was unsettling.
Rand Herbert, the Chair of the Historic Management Resources Commission (HMRC) argued that the assessment of the impact of moving the tank house on the historic and aesthetic value of the site was opinion rather than fact. In his opinion, adopting alternative 3 would adversely impact two city owned landmarks in order to benefit a private economic entity and he did not feel that was the best approach.
Richard Berteux also spoke at length during the meeting citing the fact that he gave up his seat on the HMRC in order to speak freely on this issue and develop an alternative proposal. He has a strong sense of the value of the Tank House to the Hunt-Boyer Mansion and felt that we were not giving proper value to the importance of what we had there. He further said that he felt open space around both structures were vital and that down the road, the open space might be worth much more than developing this property. Alternative 5 was the best option in his view to preserve and protect this open space.
Tim Allis brought in a petition with 162 signatures as a means to protect the value of historic preservation and open space.
Councilmember Don Saylor was first among the members of the council to speak. Mr. Saylor suggested that some believe that the Tank House is not worth saving, but he called that view uniformed, suggesting that this was a very unique structure. He agreed with the project objectives and the idea of creating new retail commercial development and increasing the vitality on this block. To him it came down between both alternatives 3 and 5, which he suggested in his opinion (and stressed this was subjective) had merit. However, he saw moving the Tank House to the West Side of the building as the preferred alternative and that he believes in his subjective opinion that the Tank House is in a bad location at present. In his view, “alternative 3 is the best option to preserve the tank house in its historic form.”
Councilmember Stephen Souza, in my view, has been consistent in his desire to preserve historic buildings. He was the deciding vote in saving the Anderson Bank Building from drastic alteration, and he lamented during several points in time the lack of historic buildings and sites in Davis–a number that in the core area is just five. He suggested that the historic nature of this site is unique, that nothing like it is in the rest of the city with two historic sites on the same location.
He felt that this project could be done on the other side of the building. While he did not express a preferred alternative, option 5 seemed to be the closest to what he wanted. He also felt that a one-story structure would have been more compatible with the site than a two story structure, which he felt took something away from the site as a whole. He hoped that the site remains in the hands of the city rather than private enterprise.
Councilmember Lamar Heystek spoke at length to this as his most difficult decision that he faced while on the council. He said that there were good people, people he considered friends and allies, on both sides of the issue and that he has kept an open mind throughout public comment. During his comments, it seemed almost as though he were stalling as he thought through his conclusion, but in the end he felt that our standard for economic development should be adaptive reuse on site of historic resources. Councilmember Heystek said that he believes that our neglect of this site–demolition by neglect he called it–was a great crime. He too was supportive of alternative 5 as the best option to hold to the standard of adaptive reuse on site.
As it turned out, Mayor Pro Tem Ruth Asmundson was the swing vote on this, since it was obvious to everyone that Mayor Sue Greenwald would be supporting this and she suggested this a number of months ago in various conversations. Mayor Pro Tem Asmundson was inclined for option 3, but she was adamant about the city retaining ownership of the property.
Mayor Greenwald supported alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. She felt this was a compromise arrangement and that it had adequate setbacks to avoid the encroachment on open space of other buildings. She wants this building to be a model of redevelopment and believes that any negative visual and historic impacts can be mitigated.
She then spoke at some length about her vision. She argued it was hard to imagine a vital downtown without independent theaters and independent coffee houses. I doubt anyone disagrees with that view. The only point in question was really what form this should take. Finally, she argued that the bigger threat to downtown and the core and our values was not by this project, but rather by the threat to tear down cottages in the B St Visioning Project. A point that I also wholeheartedly agree with.
In the end, it was a set of unique alliances that pushed this through. Don Saylor made the main motion for alternative 3 seconded by Sue Greenwald.
Stephen Souza made the substitute motion for alternative five seconded by Lamar Heystek. When that motion failed 3-2, the main motion passed 3-2 with Ruth Asmundson joining in. Once again the Mayor Pro Tem pushed for the city to leave open the ownership issue, an idea that was accepted.
In the end, I was swayed toward alternative 5, but on this issue it seems a subjective view as to what alternative best fit the needs for economic development and historic preservation. More troubling to me — yet again — is our neglect of historic buildings in Davis. The issue came up with regards to the Anderson Bank Building and the fact that the city was asked to bail out in essence a private owner who had failed to properly upkeep his property. In this case, as they say, we saw the enemy and it is us. It is us, the citizens of Davis and the city of Davis who failed in historic preservation to the point where the only way that we are able to preserve, is by destroying. This is not a “stomachable” option in my perspective. Our history and our legacy need to be preserved so that future generations can understand where we have come from. I urge the city and those devoted to historic preservation to never allow this to happen again.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
Thanks for the nice summary; I got home around 10, so did not hear the beginning…..but hope the tank house survives the move. Was that discussed at all?
Thanks for the nice summary; I got home around 10, so did not hear the beginning…..but hope the tank house survives the move. Was that discussed at all?
Thanks for the nice summary; I got home around 10, so did not hear the beginning…..but hope the tank house survives the move. Was that discussed at all?
Thanks for the nice summary; I got home around 10, so did not hear the beginning…..but hope the tank house survives the move. Was that discussed at all?
The consensus was that the tank house may not even survive just sitting there in current condition. So they are going to have to refurbish it and keep as much historic character as possible.
The consensus was that the tank house may not even survive just sitting there in current condition. So they are going to have to refurbish it and keep as much historic character as possible.
The consensus was that the tank house may not even survive just sitting there in current condition. So they are going to have to refurbish it and keep as much historic character as possible.
The consensus was that the tank house may not even survive just sitting there in current condition. So they are going to have to refurbish it and keep as much historic character as possible.
At least Mishka’s survived. That is the most important
At least Mishka’s survived. That is the most important
At least Mishka’s survived. That is the most important
At least Mishka’s survived. That is the most important
Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street. It appears that it will be for the winter duration…to allow outside seating. Last year they had a smaller serving tent which was bad enough, but I think this looks like blight, around one of our ONLY remaining historic buildings (which looks great after rehab…..) I asked the manager and he agreed somewhat…but??? since the city is the landlord, is this allowed? Anyone agree with me….I certainly do not like seeing it everyday in the downtown……
Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street. It appears that it will be for the winter duration…to allow outside seating. Last year they had a smaller serving tent which was bad enough, but I think this looks like blight, around one of our ONLY remaining historic buildings (which looks great after rehab…..) I asked the manager and he agreed somewhat…but??? since the city is the landlord, is this allowed? Anyone agree with me….I certainly do not like seeing it everyday in the downtown……
Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street. It appears that it will be for the winter duration…to allow outside seating. Last year they had a smaller serving tent which was bad enough, but I think this looks like blight, around one of our ONLY remaining historic buildings (which looks great after rehab…..) I asked the manager and he agreed somewhat…but??? since the city is the landlord, is this allowed? Anyone agree with me….I certainly do not like seeing it everyday in the downtown……
Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street. It appears that it will be for the winter duration…to allow outside seating. Last year they had a smaller serving tent which was bad enough, but I think this looks like blight, around one of our ONLY remaining historic buildings (which looks great after rehab…..) I asked the manager and he agreed somewhat…but??? since the city is the landlord, is this allowed? Anyone agree with me….I certainly do not like seeing it everyday in the downtown……
I agree with the ugliness of the tent at Bistro 33. If this is going to be semi-permanent, they could do better. Let’s hope that it is very temporary.
I agree with the ugliness of the tent at Bistro 33. If this is going to be semi-permanent, they could do better. Let’s hope that it is very temporary.
I agree with the ugliness of the tent at Bistro 33. If this is going to be semi-permanent, they could do better. Let’s hope that it is very temporary.
I agree with the ugliness of the tent at Bistro 33. If this is going to be semi-permanent, they could do better. Let’s hope that it is very temporary.
Mishka’s survival was important , but not the most important. Historic preservation is the most important.
Ugly tent outside of Bistro 33, so what it’s only for the rainy months. There are more important issues to be discussed instead of being anal about a tent commonly used at restaraunts in other cities and for weddings during rainy the season.
Funny how Sue found herself “in bed” with Saylor and Asmundson on this issue. I guess she’s not a “true” historic preservationist.
I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation. They both stood with us on the Anderson Bank building issue too.
I also appreciate council seeing the importance of keeping the Tank House as city owned property.
Is the Golden Gate Bridge up for sale?
Ann
Mishka’s survival was important , but not the most important. Historic preservation is the most important.
Ugly tent outside of Bistro 33, so what it’s only for the rainy months. There are more important issues to be discussed instead of being anal about a tent commonly used at restaraunts in other cities and for weddings during rainy the season.
Funny how Sue found herself “in bed” with Saylor and Asmundson on this issue. I guess she’s not a “true” historic preservationist.
I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation. They both stood with us on the Anderson Bank building issue too.
I also appreciate council seeing the importance of keeping the Tank House as city owned property.
Is the Golden Gate Bridge up for sale?
Ann
Mishka’s survival was important , but not the most important. Historic preservation is the most important.
Ugly tent outside of Bistro 33, so what it’s only for the rainy months. There are more important issues to be discussed instead of being anal about a tent commonly used at restaraunts in other cities and for weddings during rainy the season.
Funny how Sue found herself “in bed” with Saylor and Asmundson on this issue. I guess she’s not a “true” historic preservationist.
I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation. They both stood with us on the Anderson Bank building issue too.
I also appreciate council seeing the importance of keeping the Tank House as city owned property.
Is the Golden Gate Bridge up for sale?
Ann
Mishka’s survival was important , but not the most important. Historic preservation is the most important.
Ugly tent outside of Bistro 33, so what it’s only for the rainy months. There are more important issues to be discussed instead of being anal about a tent commonly used at restaraunts in other cities and for weddings during rainy the season.
Funny how Sue found herself “in bed” with Saylor and Asmundson on this issue. I guess she’s not a “true” historic preservationist.
I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation. They both stood with us on the Anderson Bank building issue too.
I also appreciate council seeing the importance of keeping the Tank House as city owned property.
Is the Golden Gate Bridge up for sale?
Ann
With all due respect, disagree with the ‘anal’ comment on the tent. If the community will see this blight for the entire rainy season so a business can seat outside patrons, I disagree and wonder if it is in their contract with the city……it blocks the nice view of the historic city hall in an unfortunate and ugly way.
With all due respect, disagree with the ‘anal’ comment on the tent. If the community will see this blight for the entire rainy season so a business can seat outside patrons, I disagree and wonder if it is in their contract with the city……it blocks the nice view of the historic city hall in an unfortunate and ugly way.
With all due respect, disagree with the ‘anal’ comment on the tent. If the community will see this blight for the entire rainy season so a business can seat outside patrons, I disagree and wonder if it is in their contract with the city……it blocks the nice view of the historic city hall in an unfortunate and ugly way.
With all due respect, disagree with the ‘anal’ comment on the tent. If the community will see this blight for the entire rainy season so a business can seat outside patrons, I disagree and wonder if it is in their contract with the city……it blocks the nice view of the historic city hall in an unfortunate and ugly way.
It’s a tent. What is wrong with a tent outside a building? Why are people in this community so critical of such minor things? Blight? Hardly.
It’s a tent. What is wrong with a tent outside a building? Why are people in this community so critical of such minor things? Blight? Hardly.
It’s a tent. What is wrong with a tent outside a building? Why are people in this community so critical of such minor things? Blight? Hardly.
It’s a tent. What is wrong with a tent outside a building? Why are people in this community so critical of such minor things? Blight? Hardly.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. To me it is ugly and covers the attractive city hall site. Have you seen it?
Different strokes for different folks I guess. To me it is ugly and covers the attractive city hall site. Have you seen it?
Different strokes for different folks I guess. To me it is ugly and covers the attractive city hall site. Have you seen it?
Different strokes for different folks I guess. To me it is ugly and covers the attractive city hall site. Have you seen it?
Is it me, or does the tank house discussion remind anyone else of Covell Village in that for obscure reasons Covell Village was made an issue BEFORE Cannery project was discussed. To me, the latter needed to be discussed before the former….
In this case, it would seem that the discussion around the better use of the mansion should occur WITH the discussion of the tank house. Doesn’t it seem backward??
Is it me, or does the tank house discussion remind anyone else of Covell Village in that for obscure reasons Covell Village was made an issue BEFORE Cannery project was discussed. To me, the latter needed to be discussed before the former….
In this case, it would seem that the discussion around the better use of the mansion should occur WITH the discussion of the tank house. Doesn’t it seem backward??
Is it me, or does the tank house discussion remind anyone else of Covell Village in that for obscure reasons Covell Village was made an issue BEFORE Cannery project was discussed. To me, the latter needed to be discussed before the former….
In this case, it would seem that the discussion around the better use of the mansion should occur WITH the discussion of the tank house. Doesn’t it seem backward??
Is it me, or does the tank house discussion remind anyone else of Covell Village in that for obscure reasons Covell Village was made an issue BEFORE Cannery project was discussed. To me, the latter needed to be discussed before the former….
In this case, it would seem that the discussion around the better use of the mansion should occur WITH the discussion of the tank house. Doesn’t it seem backward??
I’m a bit saddened by the outcome last night. While I think A-3, compared to the original Proposed Project, is an improvement, I wish A-5 had moved forward. I am not convinced that Mishka’s could not have succeeded in Berteaux’s vision. With the new two-story building, we are losing a very nice plaza, we are compressing the Victorian mansion, we are destroying an historic grove of orange trees, and we are compromising two historic landmarks.
That said, I think the reconstruction of the tankhouse on the west side is a good thing. In that location, it will be seen by everyone in downtown Davis. Hopefully a fruitful use of it there can be found.
It is true that the west side location, so close to the house, is ahistorical. A 19th Century outbuilding would generally be placed further from the house. However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tankhouses were never in the frontyard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tankhouses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.
I’m a bit saddened by the outcome last night. While I think A-3, compared to the original Proposed Project, is an improvement, I wish A-5 had moved forward. I am not convinced that Mishka’s could not have succeeded in Berteaux’s vision. With the new two-story building, we are losing a very nice plaza, we are compressing the Victorian mansion, we are destroying an historic grove of orange trees, and we are compromising two historic landmarks.
That said, I think the reconstruction of the tankhouse on the west side is a good thing. In that location, it will be seen by everyone in downtown Davis. Hopefully a fruitful use of it there can be found.
It is true that the west side location, so close to the house, is ahistorical. A 19th Century outbuilding would generally be placed further from the house. However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tankhouses were never in the frontyard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tankhouses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.
I’m a bit saddened by the outcome last night. While I think A-3, compared to the original Proposed Project, is an improvement, I wish A-5 had moved forward. I am not convinced that Mishka’s could not have succeeded in Berteaux’s vision. With the new two-story building, we are losing a very nice plaza, we are compressing the Victorian mansion, we are destroying an historic grove of orange trees, and we are compromising two historic landmarks.
That said, I think the reconstruction of the tankhouse on the west side is a good thing. In that location, it will be seen by everyone in downtown Davis. Hopefully a fruitful use of it there can be found.
It is true that the west side location, so close to the house, is ahistorical. A 19th Century outbuilding would generally be placed further from the house. However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tankhouses were never in the frontyard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tankhouses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.
I’m a bit saddened by the outcome last night. While I think A-3, compared to the original Proposed Project, is an improvement, I wish A-5 had moved forward. I am not convinced that Mishka’s could not have succeeded in Berteaux’s vision. With the new two-story building, we are losing a very nice plaza, we are compressing the Victorian mansion, we are destroying an historic grove of orange trees, and we are compromising two historic landmarks.
That said, I think the reconstruction of the tankhouse on the west side is a good thing. In that location, it will be seen by everyone in downtown Davis. Hopefully a fruitful use of it there can be found.
It is true that the west side location, so close to the house, is ahistorical. A 19th Century outbuilding would generally be placed further from the house. However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tankhouses were never in the frontyard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tankhouses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.
i wasn’t really very wedded to either plan (even less so the tankhouse, honestly), but i am sorry to see the shaded green patio swallowed up. i hope that whatever building gets built, someone involved in the planning has the sense to realize that it is outdoor seating that gives sidewalk culture so much of its life and energy. it is a pity they couldn’t find a way to leave the orange grove intact.
at this point, my main concern is that the new building actually deliver on its promise to bring vitalization to that downtown block. it’s been dead space ever since the old cafe in the tankhouse closed down; such a tragedy to neglect a spot so pregnant with potential. not all change is bad, but just erecting a buildng there won’t automatically work.
please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project, and that they’re planning on planting a bunch of greenery to humanize whatever gets built.
i wasn’t really very wedded to either plan (even less so the tankhouse, honestly), but i am sorry to see the shaded green patio swallowed up. i hope that whatever building gets built, someone involved in the planning has the sense to realize that it is outdoor seating that gives sidewalk culture so much of its life and energy. it is a pity they couldn’t find a way to leave the orange grove intact.
at this point, my main concern is that the new building actually deliver on its promise to bring vitalization to that downtown block. it’s been dead space ever since the old cafe in the tankhouse closed down; such a tragedy to neglect a spot so pregnant with potential. not all change is bad, but just erecting a buildng there won’t automatically work.
please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project, and that they’re planning on planting a bunch of greenery to humanize whatever gets built.
i wasn’t really very wedded to either plan (even less so the tankhouse, honestly), but i am sorry to see the shaded green patio swallowed up. i hope that whatever building gets built, someone involved in the planning has the sense to realize that it is outdoor seating that gives sidewalk culture so much of its life and energy. it is a pity they couldn’t find a way to leave the orange grove intact.
at this point, my main concern is that the new building actually deliver on its promise to bring vitalization to that downtown block. it’s been dead space ever since the old cafe in the tankhouse closed down; such a tragedy to neglect a spot so pregnant with potential. not all change is bad, but just erecting a buildng there won’t automatically work.
please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project, and that they’re planning on planting a bunch of greenery to humanize whatever gets built.
i wasn’t really very wedded to either plan (even less so the tankhouse, honestly), but i am sorry to see the shaded green patio swallowed up. i hope that whatever building gets built, someone involved in the planning has the sense to realize that it is outdoor seating that gives sidewalk culture so much of its life and energy. it is a pity they couldn’t find a way to leave the orange grove intact.
at this point, my main concern is that the new building actually deliver on its promise to bring vitalization to that downtown block. it’s been dead space ever since the old cafe in the tankhouse closed down; such a tragedy to neglect a spot so pregnant with potential. not all change is bad, but just erecting a buildng there won’t automatically work.
please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project, and that they’re planning on planting a bunch of greenery to humanize whatever gets built.
While I personally think that option three is a good use of the space I also feel the loss of the trees is sad. Still as open space that place is never used by anyone so what we are losing is a viewshed and a dilapidated tank house. So what? The tank house is only historically significant to those who romanticize the Davis that existed when this was not a world class university town. Forget the tank house the mitigation should be for the trees.
The alliance of Saylor and Greenwald is more about Sue Greenwald helping out her personal friend and neighbor Sinisa whose relationship goes back to before Sue was on the council when he supported her in her efforts to get the frat boys down the street at the end of Rice Lane under control. So while I like the project let us not be so naive as to think that Sue is doing this for some altuistic motive. In reality she is just helping her friend take a risk on expanding his business holdings.
I know I am writing this anonymously so people will take it with a grain of salt but look at all the stuff Sinisa has gotten out of the council since Sue has been on it and I bet she has supported every single one of his projects. Her votes speak for themselves. So the next time someone condemns the other members of the council for supporting their friends lets just remember that Sue Greenwald is not above doing the same thing.
While I personally think that option three is a good use of the space I also feel the loss of the trees is sad. Still as open space that place is never used by anyone so what we are losing is a viewshed and a dilapidated tank house. So what? The tank house is only historically significant to those who romanticize the Davis that existed when this was not a world class university town. Forget the tank house the mitigation should be for the trees.
The alliance of Saylor and Greenwald is more about Sue Greenwald helping out her personal friend and neighbor Sinisa whose relationship goes back to before Sue was on the council when he supported her in her efforts to get the frat boys down the street at the end of Rice Lane under control. So while I like the project let us not be so naive as to think that Sue is doing this for some altuistic motive. In reality she is just helping her friend take a risk on expanding his business holdings.
I know I am writing this anonymously so people will take it with a grain of salt but look at all the stuff Sinisa has gotten out of the council since Sue has been on it and I bet she has supported every single one of his projects. Her votes speak for themselves. So the next time someone condemns the other members of the council for supporting their friends lets just remember that Sue Greenwald is not above doing the same thing.
While I personally think that option three is a good use of the space I also feel the loss of the trees is sad. Still as open space that place is never used by anyone so what we are losing is a viewshed and a dilapidated tank house. So what? The tank house is only historically significant to those who romanticize the Davis that existed when this was not a world class university town. Forget the tank house the mitigation should be for the trees.
The alliance of Saylor and Greenwald is more about Sue Greenwald helping out her personal friend and neighbor Sinisa whose relationship goes back to before Sue was on the council when he supported her in her efforts to get the frat boys down the street at the end of Rice Lane under control. So while I like the project let us not be so naive as to think that Sue is doing this for some altuistic motive. In reality she is just helping her friend take a risk on expanding his business holdings.
I know I am writing this anonymously so people will take it with a grain of salt but look at all the stuff Sinisa has gotten out of the council since Sue has been on it and I bet she has supported every single one of his projects. Her votes speak for themselves. So the next time someone condemns the other members of the council for supporting their friends lets just remember that Sue Greenwald is not above doing the same thing.
While I personally think that option three is a good use of the space I also feel the loss of the trees is sad. Still as open space that place is never used by anyone so what we are losing is a viewshed and a dilapidated tank house. So what? The tank house is only historically significant to those who romanticize the Davis that existed when this was not a world class university town. Forget the tank house the mitigation should be for the trees.
The alliance of Saylor and Greenwald is more about Sue Greenwald helping out her personal friend and neighbor Sinisa whose relationship goes back to before Sue was on the council when he supported her in her efforts to get the frat boys down the street at the end of Rice Lane under control. So while I like the project let us not be so naive as to think that Sue is doing this for some altuistic motive. In reality she is just helping her friend take a risk on expanding his business holdings.
I know I am writing this anonymously so people will take it with a grain of salt but look at all the stuff Sinisa has gotten out of the council since Sue has been on it and I bet she has supported every single one of his projects. Her votes speak for themselves. So the next time someone condemns the other members of the council for supporting their friends lets just remember that Sue Greenwald is not above doing the same thing.
Point well taken about Sue Greenwald and her friend Sinisa. However, I am just glad the City Council made a decision already. Now maybe they can get back to business and talk about more important things that have been put on the back burner for so long.
Point well taken about Sue Greenwald and her friend Sinisa. However, I am just glad the City Council made a decision already. Now maybe they can get back to business and talk about more important things that have been put on the back burner for so long.
Point well taken about Sue Greenwald and her friend Sinisa. However, I am just glad the City Council made a decision already. Now maybe they can get back to business and talk about more important things that have been put on the back burner for so long.
Point well taken about Sue Greenwald and her friend Sinisa. However, I am just glad the City Council made a decision already. Now maybe they can get back to business and talk about more important things that have been put on the back burner for so long.
“please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project”
Maria O. is Sinisa’s architect. Whatever specific’s she comes up with will go through an extensive design review (according to what Sue told me a while ago). Maria is a very talented architect, IMO.
“please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project”
Maria O. is Sinisa’s architect. Whatever specific’s she comes up with will go through an extensive design review (according to what Sue told me a while ago). Maria is a very talented architect, IMO.
“please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project”
Maria O. is Sinisa’s architect. Whatever specific’s she comes up with will go through an extensive design review (according to what Sue told me a while ago). Maria is a very talented architect, IMO.
“please someone tell me that ogrydziak isn’t the architect on this project”
Maria O. is Sinisa’s architect. Whatever specific’s she comes up with will go through an extensive design review (according to what Sue told me a while ago). Maria is a very talented architect, IMO.
ugh. i have no doubt she is both talented and a nice person, but i just cannot stand the angular turn of the millenium loft style that she is fixated upon. not a personal judgement so much as an extreme dislike for that particular aesthetic.
one of the reasons that i tend to lean towards the historical preservation side of the argument isbecause so much postwar architecture is awful to look at (and most of the time, to live in as well).
ugh. i have no doubt she is both talented and a nice person, but i just cannot stand the angular turn of the millenium loft style that she is fixated upon. not a personal judgement so much as an extreme dislike for that particular aesthetic.
one of the reasons that i tend to lean towards the historical preservation side of the argument isbecause so much postwar architecture is awful to look at (and most of the time, to live in as well).
ugh. i have no doubt she is both talented and a nice person, but i just cannot stand the angular turn of the millenium loft style that she is fixated upon. not a personal judgement so much as an extreme dislike for that particular aesthetic.
one of the reasons that i tend to lean towards the historical preservation side of the argument isbecause so much postwar architecture is awful to look at (and most of the time, to live in as well).
ugh. i have no doubt she is both talented and a nice person, but i just cannot stand the angular turn of the millenium loft style that she is fixated upon. not a personal judgement so much as an extreme dislike for that particular aesthetic.
one of the reasons that i tend to lean towards the historical preservation side of the argument isbecause so much postwar architecture is awful to look at (and most of the time, to live in as well).
What exactly has Sinisa “gotten out of the council?” The Varsity project was the best things to happen to the city (financially and culturally) in a long time. And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.
The “bait and switch” maneuver that came to fruition last night almost worked, but thanks to Don, Sue, and Ruth, the city managed to maintain its integrity.
The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.
What exactly has Sinisa “gotten out of the council?” The Varsity project was the best things to happen to the city (financially and culturally) in a long time. And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.
The “bait and switch” maneuver that came to fruition last night almost worked, but thanks to Don, Sue, and Ruth, the city managed to maintain its integrity.
The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.
What exactly has Sinisa “gotten out of the council?” The Varsity project was the best things to happen to the city (financially and culturally) in a long time. And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.
The “bait and switch” maneuver that came to fruition last night almost worked, but thanks to Don, Sue, and Ruth, the city managed to maintain its integrity.
The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.
What exactly has Sinisa “gotten out of the council?” The Varsity project was the best things to happen to the city (financially and culturally) in a long time. And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.
The “bait and switch” maneuver that came to fruition last night almost worked, but thanks to Don, Sue, and Ruth, the city managed to maintain its integrity.
The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.
“And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.”
That is partially true. The original RFP/RFQ included the Varsity and the tankhouse and the mansion. Sinisa’s proposal ignored the mansion, altogether. And that’s a shame, because the tankhouse is a component of the mansion property.
In the deliberation last night, Stephen made it clear that he felt the RFP ought to have been disaggregated from the start. Regardless of who is right on that, what’s done is done and still no proposals for a productive use of the mansion have come forth.
Don Saylor told me he wants the Victorian used as a “Yolo County Visitor Center.” (He said that at the same time, maybe 6 weeks ago, that he “would not support building any building in the plaza space.” I guess he changed his mind.) I’m unconvinced that there is any demand at all for a visitor’s center. Who needs it? It strikes me as the kind of place no one will ever go. Further, it would fail to accomplish the primary economic goal — to increase the economic activity on 2nd Street. I much prefer Sue’s idea — to expand the yard space and permit outdoor mansion dining.
“And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.”
That is partially true. The original RFP/RFQ included the Varsity and the tankhouse and the mansion. Sinisa’s proposal ignored the mansion, altogether. And that’s a shame, because the tankhouse is a component of the mansion property.
In the deliberation last night, Stephen made it clear that he felt the RFP ought to have been disaggregated from the start. Regardless of who is right on that, what’s done is done and still no proposals for a productive use of the mansion have come forth.
Don Saylor told me he wants the Victorian used as a “Yolo County Visitor Center.” (He said that at the same time, maybe 6 weeks ago, that he “would not support building any building in the plaza space.” I guess he changed his mind.) I’m unconvinced that there is any demand at all for a visitor’s center. Who needs it? It strikes me as the kind of place no one will ever go. Further, it would fail to accomplish the primary economic goal — to increase the economic activity on 2nd Street. I much prefer Sue’s idea — to expand the yard space and permit outdoor mansion dining.
“And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.”
That is partially true. The original RFP/RFQ included the Varsity and the tankhouse and the mansion. Sinisa’s proposal ignored the mansion, altogether. And that’s a shame, because the tankhouse is a component of the mansion property.
In the deliberation last night, Stephen made it clear that he felt the RFP ought to have been disaggregated from the start. Regardless of who is right on that, what’s done is done and still no proposals for a productive use of the mansion have come forth.
Don Saylor told me he wants the Victorian used as a “Yolo County Visitor Center.” (He said that at the same time, maybe 6 weeks ago, that he “would not support building any building in the plaza space.” I guess he changed his mind.) I’m unconvinced that there is any demand at all for a visitor’s center. Who needs it? It strikes me as the kind of place no one will ever go. Further, it would fail to accomplish the primary economic goal — to increase the economic activity on 2nd Street. I much prefer Sue’s idea — to expand the yard space and permit outdoor mansion dining.
“And, if anyone cares to read the original request for proposals on the Varsity, it clearly includes the development of the Tank House site as part of the package.”
That is partially true. The original RFP/RFQ included the Varsity and the tankhouse and the mansion. Sinisa’s proposal ignored the mansion, altogether. And that’s a shame, because the tankhouse is a component of the mansion property.
In the deliberation last night, Stephen made it clear that he felt the RFP ought to have been disaggregated from the start. Regardless of who is right on that, what’s done is done and still no proposals for a productive use of the mansion have come forth.
Don Saylor told me he wants the Victorian used as a “Yolo County Visitor Center.” (He said that at the same time, maybe 6 weeks ago, that he “would not support building any building in the plaza space.” I guess he changed his mind.) I’m unconvinced that there is any demand at all for a visitor’s center. Who needs it? It strikes me as the kind of place no one will ever go. Further, it would fail to accomplish the primary economic goal — to increase the economic activity on 2nd Street. I much prefer Sue’s idea — to expand the yard space and permit outdoor mansion dining.
“The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.”
Don’t fool yourself, Davis is turning into a feudal estate that looks more and more like Disneyland. Like the owner of Bogey’s said in the Sacramento Bee article about the closing of his bookstore, looking at downtown these days is like looking at a lover who went for a facelift. She comes back and, sure enough, the wrinkles are gone. But so is her face.
Sinisa is merely a minor vassal, which is why he got grilled in public by City Council and is oh, so stressfully exposed in the media.
“The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.”
Don’t fool yourself, Davis is turning into a feudal estate that looks more and more like Disneyland. Like the owner of Bogey’s said in the Sacramento Bee article about the closing of his bookstore, looking at downtown these days is like looking at a lover who went for a facelift. She comes back and, sure enough, the wrinkles are gone. But so is her face.
Sinisa is merely a minor vassal, which is why he got grilled in public by City Council and is oh, so stressfully exposed in the media.
“The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.”
Don’t fool yourself, Davis is turning into a feudal estate that looks more and more like Disneyland. Like the owner of Bogey’s said in the Sacramento Bee article about the closing of his bookstore, looking at downtown these days is like looking at a lover who went for a facelift. She comes back and, sure enough, the wrinkles are gone. But so is her face.
Sinisa is merely a minor vassal, which is why he got grilled in public by City Council and is oh, so stressfully exposed in the media.
“The truth is, Sinisa and his business partner have been put through much more stress than necessary because they are not connected politically – unlike all the big developers in town.”
Don’t fool yourself, Davis is turning into a feudal estate that looks more and more like Disneyland. Like the owner of Bogey’s said in the Sacramento Bee article about the closing of his bookstore, looking at downtown these days is like looking at a lover who went for a facelift. She comes back and, sure enough, the wrinkles are gone. But so is her face.
Sinisa is merely a minor vassal, which is why he got grilled in public by City Council and is oh, so stressfully exposed in the media.
“Sinisa is merely a minor vassal..”
… not being a part of the Whitcomb(Davis’ Godfather) family.
“Sinisa is merely a minor vassal..”
… not being a part of the Whitcomb(Davis’ Godfather) family.
“Sinisa is merely a minor vassal..”
… not being a part of the Whitcomb(Davis’ Godfather) family.
“Sinisa is merely a minor vassal..”
… not being a part of the Whitcomb(Davis’ Godfather) family.
To those of you griping about Maria O: have you bothered to look at the design of the building? There’s nothing remotely “awful” or “postwar” about it. In fact, if you’ve bothered to pay attention at all to this discussion, you will note that the building has alwasy been described as being modeled after early San Francisco brick Victorians.
To those of you griping about Maria O: have you bothered to look at the design of the building? There’s nothing remotely “awful” or “postwar” about it. In fact, if you’ve bothered to pay attention at all to this discussion, you will note that the building has alwasy been described as being modeled after early San Francisco brick Victorians.
To those of you griping about Maria O: have you bothered to look at the design of the building? There’s nothing remotely “awful” or “postwar” about it. In fact, if you’ve bothered to pay attention at all to this discussion, you will note that the building has alwasy been described as being modeled after early San Francisco brick Victorians.
To those of you griping about Maria O: have you bothered to look at the design of the building? There’s nothing remotely “awful” or “postwar” about it. In fact, if you’ve bothered to pay attention at all to this discussion, you will note that the building has alwasy been described as being modeled after early San Francisco brick Victorians.
“The Varsity project was the best thing to happen to the city (Financially and culturally) in a long time.”
Of course losing the Palms, whose owners were interested in the Varsity, to Winters was the worst thing.
Still I don’t have a problem with Sinisa or his business projects. Even though I will point out that at the time Sinisa got the Varsity his was not the only possible outcome for the theatre.
My comment was about how Greenwald has voted to benefit her friend. When other elected officials do things for their friends its all a big cabal so I just think that it is important for some disclosure in this case as well.
“The Varsity project was the best thing to happen to the city (Financially and culturally) in a long time.”
Of course losing the Palms, whose owners were interested in the Varsity, to Winters was the worst thing.
Still I don’t have a problem with Sinisa or his business projects. Even though I will point out that at the time Sinisa got the Varsity his was not the only possible outcome for the theatre.
My comment was about how Greenwald has voted to benefit her friend. When other elected officials do things for their friends its all a big cabal so I just think that it is important for some disclosure in this case as well.
“The Varsity project was the best thing to happen to the city (Financially and culturally) in a long time.”
Of course losing the Palms, whose owners were interested in the Varsity, to Winters was the worst thing.
Still I don’t have a problem with Sinisa or his business projects. Even though I will point out that at the time Sinisa got the Varsity his was not the only possible outcome for the theatre.
My comment was about how Greenwald has voted to benefit her friend. When other elected officials do things for their friends its all a big cabal so I just think that it is important for some disclosure in this case as well.
“The Varsity project was the best thing to happen to the city (Financially and culturally) in a long time.”
Of course losing the Palms, whose owners were interested in the Varsity, to Winters was the worst thing.
Still I don’t have a problem with Sinisa or his business projects. Even though I will point out that at the time Sinisa got the Varsity his was not the only possible outcome for the theatre.
My comment was about how Greenwald has voted to benefit her friend. When other elected officials do things for their friends its all a big cabal so I just think that it is important for some disclosure in this case as well.
“I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation.”
So now Steve Souza is a progressive? Target, anyone? What about the B St. corrdor?
And watching the meeting on TV, I couldn’t help but think that Lamar Heystek’s histrionics before annouincing his vote might have been more appropriate for the daytime soaps. He kept lamenting the “process,” saying repeatedly, “but this is the process we have,” ignoring the fact that he helped to create and perpetuate that process by voicing support for the project and voting to continue negotiations. It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…
I pity any small business person who has to do business with the city.
“I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation.”
So now Steve Souza is a progressive? Target, anyone? What about the B St. corrdor?
And watching the meeting on TV, I couldn’t help but think that Lamar Heystek’s histrionics before annouincing his vote might have been more appropriate for the daytime soaps. He kept lamenting the “process,” saying repeatedly, “but this is the process we have,” ignoring the fact that he helped to create and perpetuate that process by voicing support for the project and voting to continue negotiations. It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…
I pity any small business person who has to do business with the city.
“I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation.”
So now Steve Souza is a progressive? Target, anyone? What about the B St. corrdor?
And watching the meeting on TV, I couldn’t help but think that Lamar Heystek’s histrionics before annouincing his vote might have been more appropriate for the daytime soaps. He kept lamenting the “process,” saying repeatedly, “but this is the process we have,” ignoring the fact that he helped to create and perpetuate that process by voicing support for the project and voting to continue negotiations. It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…
I pity any small business person who has to do business with the city.
“I appreciate councilmembers Heystek and Souza for their support of historic preservation.”
So now Steve Souza is a progressive? Target, anyone? What about the B St. corrdor?
And watching the meeting on TV, I couldn’t help but think that Lamar Heystek’s histrionics before annouincing his vote might have been more appropriate for the daytime soaps. He kept lamenting the “process,” saying repeatedly, “but this is the process we have,” ignoring the fact that he helped to create and perpetuate that process by voicing support for the project and voting to continue negotiations. It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…
I pity any small business person who has to do business with the city.
“So now Steve Souza is a progressive?”
Nope.
“It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…”
Nice.
“So now Steve Souza is a progressive?”
Nope.
“It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…”
Nice.
“So now Steve Souza is a progressive?”
Nope.
“It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…”
Nice.
“So now Steve Souza is a progressive?”
Nope.
“It was almost laughable to watch him there, twitching behind the microphone, while just offstage the puppetmasters pulled his strings…”
Nice.
“Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street”
I was stoked to see this comment. I totally agree. That thing is SO UGLY.
“Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street”
I was stoked to see this comment. I totally agree. That thing is SO UGLY.
“Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street”
I was stoked to see this comment. I totally agree. That thing is SO UGLY.
“Is anyone else concerned about the very large pretty ugly white plastic tent that Bistro has erected on F Street”
I was stoked to see this comment. I totally agree. That thing is SO UGLY.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tank houses were never in the front yard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tank houses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.”
Sorry, Rich, but you are WRONG:
In fact, I’ve not seen one single case of an URBAN (that is “city”) RESIDENTIAL tank house in either Davis or Woodland that was located in what was the front yard at the time the tank house was built, or even close to the front of the house in a side yard. In fact, very few RURAL (that is, “farm”) tank houses were located in the “front yard” (the area between the main access road and the main ex trance of the house).
Those that were, tended to be in their unusual locations due to practical reasons such as pumping from the river (the house faced the river), placing the tank house between the barn or other agricultural buildings and the house so that both could be served by one tank and windmill (reasons not applicable in town), etc.
In assessing an appropriate relocation for the Hunt-Boyer Tank House to conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the proper criteria is the general practice for RESIDENTIAL URBAN tank houses at the time the tank house was built (not where farm tank houses might be, and especially not where a farm tank house might be today after the property has been overtaken by a suburban development with new streets); in Davis historically, residential tank houses were in back of the house.
In fact, the overwhelming number of both rural and urban tank houses were located to the rear of the house, either near or attached to the kitchen (which was often a later addition to the back of the house), or far behind the house near stables and other auxiliary outbuildings. This is based on extensive research in such sources as the Sanborn Insurance maps and the 1879 Atlas of Yolo County.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tank houses were never in the front yard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tank houses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.”
Sorry, Rich, but you are WRONG:
In fact, I’ve not seen one single case of an URBAN (that is “city”) RESIDENTIAL tank house in either Davis or Woodland that was located in what was the front yard at the time the tank house was built, or even close to the front of the house in a side yard. In fact, very few RURAL (that is, “farm”) tank houses were located in the “front yard” (the area between the main access road and the main ex trance of the house).
Those that were, tended to be in their unusual locations due to practical reasons such as pumping from the river (the house faced the river), placing the tank house between the barn or other agricultural buildings and the house so that both could be served by one tank and windmill (reasons not applicable in town), etc.
In assessing an appropriate relocation for the Hunt-Boyer Tank House to conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the proper criteria is the general practice for RESIDENTIAL URBAN tank houses at the time the tank house was built (not where farm tank houses might be, and especially not where a farm tank house might be today after the property has been overtaken by a suburban development with new streets); in Davis historically, residential tank houses were in back of the house.
In fact, the overwhelming number of both rural and urban tank houses were located to the rear of the house, either near or attached to the kitchen (which was often a later addition to the back of the house), or far behind the house near stables and other auxiliary outbuildings. This is based on extensive research in such sources as the Sanborn Insurance maps and the 1879 Atlas of Yolo County.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tank houses were never in the front yard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tank houses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.”
Sorry, Rich, but you are WRONG:
In fact, I’ve not seen one single case of an URBAN (that is “city”) RESIDENTIAL tank house in either Davis or Woodland that was located in what was the front yard at the time the tank house was built, or even close to the front of the house in a side yard. In fact, very few RURAL (that is, “farm”) tank houses were located in the “front yard” (the area between the main access road and the main ex trance of the house).
Those that were, tended to be in their unusual locations due to practical reasons such as pumping from the river (the house faced the river), placing the tank house between the barn or other agricultural buildings and the house so that both could be served by one tank and windmill (reasons not applicable in town), etc.
In assessing an appropriate relocation for the Hunt-Boyer Tank House to conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the proper criteria is the general practice for RESIDENTIAL URBAN tank houses at the time the tank house was built (not where farm tank houses might be, and especially not where a farm tank house might be today after the property has been overtaken by a suburban development with new streets); in Davis historically, residential tank houses were in back of the house.
In fact, the overwhelming number of both rural and urban tank houses were located to the rear of the house, either near or attached to the kitchen (which was often a later addition to the back of the house), or far behind the house near stables and other auxiliary outbuildings. This is based on extensive research in such sources as the Sanborn Insurance maps and the 1879 Atlas of Yolo County.
Rich Rifkin wrote:
“However, it is wrong — though often repeated by some Davis preservationists — that “tank houses were never in the front yard; they were meant to be in the back.” About half the tank houses in the Davis area were actually in front yard locations, right on the street.”
Sorry, Rich, but you are WRONG:
In fact, I’ve not seen one single case of an URBAN (that is “city”) RESIDENTIAL tank house in either Davis or Woodland that was located in what was the front yard at the time the tank house was built, or even close to the front of the house in a side yard. In fact, very few RURAL (that is, “farm”) tank houses were located in the “front yard” (the area between the main access road and the main ex trance of the house).
Those that were, tended to be in their unusual locations due to practical reasons such as pumping from the river (the house faced the river), placing the tank house between the barn or other agricultural buildings and the house so that both could be served by one tank and windmill (reasons not applicable in town), etc.
In assessing an appropriate relocation for the Hunt-Boyer Tank House to conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the proper criteria is the general practice for RESIDENTIAL URBAN tank houses at the time the tank house was built (not where farm tank houses might be, and especially not where a farm tank house might be today after the property has been overtaken by a suburban development with new streets); in Davis historically, residential tank houses were in back of the house.
In fact, the overwhelming number of both rural and urban tank houses were located to the rear of the house, either near or attached to the kitchen (which was often a later addition to the back of the house), or far behind the house near stables and other auxiliary outbuildings. This is based on extensive research in such sources as the Sanborn Insurance maps and the 1879 Atlas of Yolo County.