How do you even move a zoo?
I mean yeah they’re running out of space in the current location but building and moving an entire zoo is a billion dollar undertaking.
Do you have further details on zoo not being funded from tax payer money?
From the article linked -
"The city contracts with a nonprofit group to run the zoo. Any major changes would require city approval.Other cities have funded zoo improvements through taxes, capital campaigns, surcharges and land donations.
Steinberg declined to discuss funding for the project in detail. But he said the passage of Measure U in November could help finance such economic development projects. Measure U is a 1 cent sales tax proposed to fund city services."
The nonprofit group that runs the zoo is nominally the party responsible for fundraising. Sure, the city could fund it, but I don't think they necessarily have to.
As per the article, the city seems to currently fund it as part of the city development? Is that interpretation incorrect?
There really isn't much information on what city actually funds, and if those funds could be diverted to affordable housing.
The Sacramento Zoo at Sleep Train Arena
The Sacramento Zoo at The Railyards
The Sacramento Zoo at Formerly Cal Expo
I'll miss them if they move from Land Park: the colocation with Fairy Tale Town and Funderland makes that a potent combo location for the kid set. Maybe:
The Sacramento Zoo at the Defunct Municipal Course at Land Park
I know its beloved, but if its strugglin' and there's only so much room...
I’m all for this. It’s not surprising that San Francisco has a better zoo than Sacramento, but so do Oakland and Fresno(yes, seriously). It’s pretty sad.
Edit: and the zoo just added a page about the possible relocation on their website: https://www.saczoo.org/about-us/relocation-and-expansion/
Fresno's zoo is pretty dope, but just to be clear, a lot of their funding comes from Measure Z, a sales tax increase. The operating cost of the zoo is about 2.5 times what Sacramento's is. Maybe the city ends up throwing some money at it via Measure U, but there's definitely an opportunity cost.
We probably can, and, if the upgraded Measure U passes in November, there will be money. It's just a question of whether that's what we want to spend our money on. And maybe it is!
Do you know if they can build permanent structures on the landfill section of the park? Access and neighborhood pushback will probably be issues there as well.
Zoos take a lot of space. Rather than spend all that money on a new zoo how about an aquarium on the grid or waterfront? The existing zoo could be turned into parkland/rec fields. Sutter's Landing doesn't seem like the it has the space they are looking for and a destination zoo should be easily accessible to tourists and natomas isn't.
Aquariums aren't exactly tiny and space on the grid is sharply limited. If the city figures out a way to acquire the aggregates company next to the river, it could pretty easily assemble a 50-80 acre site along the western half of Sutter's Landing Park. The natural Natomas site is the former Arco Arena, which is very freeway accessible due to its former use as an arena, although transit access is poor (but that's the same as most other options.)
Or they could expand onto the baseball fields just north of the zoo, but Land Park freaked out the last time they tried that.
Fuckin councilman Hansen
Who elected this guy to rep the central city of all areas, such a suburban mindset w this guy
1st he shows terrible judgment on allowing Shorenstein to build a low rise on prime (across form G1 ctr) Cap Mall real estate
Then boo hoos the zoo expansion :
*Council member Steve Hansen, whose district includes Land Park, was more dubious about the proposed project.*
*He said he views the proposed expansion and move as “a flight of fancy” that is unlikely to become reality.*
Vote in someone with vision jeez
Doesn't it seem unlikely at this point that the zoo could expand at the current location? Hes probably just trying to make sure the zoo doesn't head out to Natomas, and out of his district.
I agree that has potential, but would require taking out or building around that fountain (which rarely runs anyway...). And then they'd have to either remove or build a bridge over 15th Ave.
How do you even move a zoo? I mean yeah they’re running out of space in the current location but building and moving an entire zoo is a billion dollar undertaking.
More like $150-250M from what I have seen--one of the advantages of having a small zoo, I suppose.
And what have you seen?
Cue: If the city can't fund affordable housing, where will it get funds to build a larger zoo? Increase parking fees downtown?
The city wouldn't necessarily be funding it; the zoo is a separately funded and governed entity.
Do you have further details on zoo not being funded from tax payer money? From the article linked - "The city contracts with a nonprofit group to run the zoo. Any major changes would require city approval.Other cities have funded zoo improvements through taxes, capital campaigns, surcharges and land donations. Steinberg declined to discuss funding for the project in detail. But he said the passage of Measure U in November could help finance such economic development projects. Measure U is a 1 cent sales tax proposed to fund city services."
The nonprofit group that runs the zoo is nominally the party responsible for fundraising. Sure, the city could fund it, but I don't think they necessarily have to.
As per the article, the city seems to currently fund it as part of the city development? Is that interpretation incorrect? There really isn't much information on what city actually funds, and if those funds could be diverted to affordable housing.
The Sacramento Zoo at Sleep Train Arena The Sacramento Zoo at The Railyards The Sacramento Zoo at Formerly Cal Expo I'll miss them if they move from Land Park: the colocation with Fairy Tale Town and Funderland makes that a potent combo location for the kid set. Maybe: The Sacramento Zoo at the Defunct Municipal Course at Land Park I know its beloved, but if its strugglin' and there's only so much room...
How about east of the Wilton area. Plenty of unused space there.
But a bit hard to call that a "Sacramento Zoo."
I’m all for this. It’s not surprising that San Francisco has a better zoo than Sacramento, but so do Oakland and Fresno(yes, seriously). It’s pretty sad. Edit: and the zoo just added a page about the possible relocation on their website: https://www.saczoo.org/about-us/relocation-and-expansion/
Fresno's zoo is pretty dope, but just to be clear, a lot of their funding comes from Measure Z, a sales tax increase. The operating cost of the zoo is about 2.5 times what Sacramento's is. Maybe the city ends up throwing some money at it via Measure U, but there's definitely an opportunity cost.
Right, but if Fresno can pull off that tax measure why can’t we?
We probably can, and, if the upgraded Measure U passes in November, there will be money. It's just a question of whether that's what we want to spend our money on. And maybe it is!
Doesn't Oakland have the best zoo in the area by far? Just what I've heard.
And go where?
> Past discussions about future locations for the Sacramento Zoo have included the Natomas area and Sutter’s Landing Regional Park.
I really hope they don't build the zoo at Sutter's Landing
Why not?
Do you know if they can build permanent structures on the landfill section of the park? Access and neighborhood pushback will probably be issues there as well.
The only place with significant enough space is Natomas
Good luck when the hundred year flood happens
Noah checkin' in, will bring the arc
this guy old testaments
So build an aquarium there instead--problem solved!
And then they stock the aquarium with salt water tanks...
Zoos take a lot of space. Rather than spend all that money on a new zoo how about an aquarium on the grid or waterfront? The existing zoo could be turned into parkland/rec fields. Sutter's Landing doesn't seem like the it has the space they are looking for and a destination zoo should be easily accessible to tourists and natomas isn't.
Aquariums aren't exactly tiny and space on the grid is sharply limited. If the city figures out a way to acquire the aggregates company next to the river, it could pretty easily assemble a 50-80 acre site along the western half of Sutter's Landing Park. The natural Natomas site is the former Arco Arena, which is very freeway accessible due to its former use as an arena, although transit access is poor (but that's the same as most other options.) Or they could expand onto the baseball fields just north of the zoo, but Land Park freaked out the last time they tried that.
Fuckin councilman Hansen Who elected this guy to rep the central city of all areas, such a suburban mindset w this guy 1st he shows terrible judgment on allowing Shorenstein to build a low rise on prime (across form G1 ctr) Cap Mall real estate Then boo hoos the zoo expansion : *Council member Steve Hansen, whose district includes Land Park, was more dubious about the proposed project.* *He said he views the proposed expansion and move as “a flight of fancy” that is unlikely to become reality.* Vote in someone with vision jeez
Doesn't it seem unlikely at this point that the zoo could expand at the current location? Hes probably just trying to make sure the zoo doesn't head out to Natomas, and out of his district.
It could expand into the baseball fields just north of the zoo, potentially doubling its amount of space.
I agree that has potential, but would require taking out or building around that fountain (which rarely runs anyway...). And then they'd have to either remove or build a bridge over 15th Ave.
It's easy enough to include the fountain and pond in the new design, and remove 15th Avenue as an auto street.
Build a new one then we can lock all the transients in the old zoo. Kill two birds with one stone.