the Kay (San Francisco, Sacramento, Santa Barbara: real estate, crime, landscaping)

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

icametodropbombs: ['The Kay'] name was in fact dreamed up by an expensive consultant. The original idea was a way to package the neighborhood to solicit businesses to move to K Street--in order to explain to potential tenants what their idea was for the district. The main criticism I have heard is "why the rebranding before there are businesses?" and the answer is "Because they originally planned the rebranding as a way to attract businesses." It seems like people aren't all that uncomfortable with the "Kay" part (it used to be common to write "Kay Street" rather than just "K Street") but the "the" seems to stick in people's craw. ...I just hope they figure out a way to get people to stop calling it "the mall," because if we want to talk about horrible rebranding ideas, the idea of turning K Street into a suburban-style shopping mall was downright terrible.

I just hope it inspires development better than re-inviting vehicular traffic and the big 'exciting' poster decals affixed to empty buildings and construction barriers. Both might be at best, suggestive of progress. But getting rid of whatever discourages developement might be imo, more practical.

Originally Posted by icametodropbombs

I take the lightrail every day around K Street. When walking down K in the morning, the first thing the city does is powerwash the sidewalk and the sides of the buildings, which simply reek of urine. It seems to me that the city might want to focus some of the rebuilding effort into solving the problem of why there is urine on the walls and sidewalks instead of just treating the symptom. I think the homeless living on K Street is a major hurdle that needs to be addressed before the area turns into some kind of destination.

Well, I used to ride the blue line home often and walk from downtown to 18th and G. I'd run into panhandling homeless people who for whatever reason, mental illness, lack of employment, ex-cons, etc, were not inherently evil. Most of the nearby shelter services that they facilitate are a short walk from downtown. There are also a few jails that discharge around Sacramento county and word gets around quickly where the freebies, drugs and working people wearing badges with pocket change might be. Besides Chavez Park or the library, there aren't many places for indigent people to hang out here. They aren't the problem as much as how our society has pulled the rug out [mental hospitals, shelter services, enployment training programs]* from under the unfortunate lately.

*Yes, some still exist. But not enough.

[wburg]

Spare-changers will go wherever there is foot traffic--the only way to eliminate people asking for spare change is to make it impossible for people to walk, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Making a city accommodating to pedestrians and sidewalk activity means making it available for everyone, which means that in a walkable place, you're going to get spare-changed once in a while. That's just part of city life.

In terms of urine smell, I dunno, I biked through Land Park last week and smelled urine there too. But in a place where there are no public-accessible restrooms, and people who have no other alternative, that's simply a fact of life. Human beings don't have the option to just not pee. There are, however, alternatives, like the Portland Loo:

The Portland Loo

Of course, a longer-term solution would involve actual housing to replace the thousands of homes that were demolished during the redevelopment area, and reopening the shelters, drug treatment programs and mental health services networks closed over the past couple of decades due to budget cuts. But in the meantime, providing a place where people could actually use the bathroom would mitigate the problem--and be available to all who needed it.

[Sactoslacker]

Originally Posted by wburg

In terms of urine smell, I dunno, I biked through Land Park last week and smelled urine there too. But in a place where there are no public-accessible restrooms, and people who have no other alternative, that's simply a fact of life. Human beings don't have the option to just not pee. There are, however, alternatives, like the Portland Loo:
The Portland Loo

The Portland Loo reminds me of a fancier version of the "outdoor" restrooms I saw in Amsterdam-

Except they drain directly into the canal-blech

[ryuns]

Agreed on bathrooms as low-hanging fruit. UN Plaza in SF has one that's pretty prominent. Honestly, even as a homeful (?) person, I sort of appreciate having them around. If you're visiting a busy city where all the cafes are understandably strict about bathroom use, and the need ever really strikes, a public bathroom that's below your standards is a lot better than nothing.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by wburg

Spare-changers will go wherever there is foot traffic--the only way to eliminate people asking for spare change is to make it impossible for people to walk, which is the exact opposite of what we want. Making a city accommodating to pedestrians and sidewalk activity means making it available for everyone, which means that in a walkable place, you're going to get spare-changed once in a while. That's just part of city life.

Of course, a longer-term solution would involve actual housing to replace the thousands of homes that were demolished during the redevelopment area, and reopening the shelters, drug treatment programs and mental health services networks closed over the past couple of decades due to budget cuts. But in the meantime, providing a place where people could actually use the bathroom would mitigate the problem--and be available to all who needed it.

Yes. To me this is the kind of citizen-friendly thinking that embraces ALL, residents; transient, plain, pretty, disheveled, working, looking, or just visiting Sacramento, that just might encourage people to want to rehab, rethink or remain, contributing to the Capitol City's advancement. Some of the strongest structures began with just one brick.

[wburg]

Instead of calling it the Portland Loo, we could call it the "Sacramento Pee!" --imagine the "Keep the 'Kay' Free of 'Pee'!" campaign!

[Curmudgeon]

How about just the "Kay Pee?" Do us old soldiers proud!

[icametodropbombs]

K Street needs at least two public restroom, from what I have experiences. One near the park, across from the mall. And another one somewhere near the church. That right there would probably solve the constant urine smell in the mornings (provided said restrooms are left unlocked most of the evening).

As for pan handlers, you can never get rid of people asking for money. Higher foot traffic would acrually just make that a more desireable area for them to go since there would be more people to ask.

That said, at the very least, I appreciate when they DO something. There is currently a gentleman who shows up on K street some afternoons with a ukulele and plays some great jams. He just throws down a hat and passerbys can toss some coin in there. That's the kind of person I am more willing to give change to, as opposed to the people who just storm up to you and ask, "Can I get a dollar? No? Then how about a cigarette? You don't smoke? OK, can I use your cellphone?" I mean seriously, wtf is that: you want me to hand you my cellphone? Sheesh.

[shelato]

K Street is already a troubled area. Is adding a public bathroom going to be something that solves an existing problem or just creates new additional problems in the area? In San Francisco these types of bathrooms became shooting galleries for the drug addicts and offered a cheaper venue than hotels for streetwalkers. They also created a large on going maintenance expense. Its expensive to clean and maintain and remove graffiti from these types of spaces. But if you don't do that quite regularly it just adds to the on going perception that the area is really blighted.

Sex, drugs and filth plague city-sponsored public restrooms | SF Public Press

There are cafes restaurants and stores which have bathrooms and those shop owners have a strong vested interest in keeping there restrooms in good working order. So its not that there are no restrooms in this area accessible to the public. These restrooms just aren't publicly owned.

Local government seem to have fairly recurrent budget problems. I know last year the City of Sacramento was closing fire stations on a rotating basis I am not sure that is still the case. But if the public has to choose between closing fire stations or public bathroom maintenance which agency do you think they will want to see hit hardest by the budget cutbacks? When these public bathrooms aren't being maintained because of budget cutbacks what do you think that will do to K Street then?

[wburg]

shelato: Take a look at the "Portland Loo" link to see how Portland addressed these problems--they are simpler and more exposed than the San Francisco "deluxe" models, making them both cheaper and poorly-suited for drug use or prostitution.

The status quo has people turning up their nose. What's your solution?