Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Bee roundup

Bravo to the Bee for putting a restaurant story on the front page.  I bought a print copy today because it caught my eye.  I guess there's not that much to say when it comes right down to it.  Of all the places that closed, I only mourn Red Lotus, but I think that was a tough concept and maybe too large of a space.  It's so much easier to make a small intimate space feel lively and bustling.  I'm trying to think of other very large restaurants that have done really well in Sac and I can't think of any right now.

BAR also has a feature on Doughbots.  I think he has me talked into reconsidering them for my doughnut dollar.  Does Marie's really just use pre-mixed, artificial stuff?

This article is annoying.  Does it have to be either of these things?  How about it's just a new airport terminal that happens to have more art than average.  He probably has never flown out of the international terminal if he's questioning the need for nicer digs, although will people be flying out of that terminal internationally or just arriving in?

Oy vey, I think I'm going to have to miss this Jewish food fest but it sounds awesome.  Maybe we will one day have a Jewish deli or good bagel shop here.  Sigh.

34 comments:

Anonymous said...

Epic post Heckabecks!

Anonymous said...

Mikuni is ha-yooge and does well, ya?
--------------W

beckler said...

yep, that's one. it's true.

Anonymous said...

Doughbot is not better than Marie's, it just isn't. Everyone stop. It might just be that doughnuts are like Jason Statham movies - the junkier and less ambitious, the better. I feel like the relative lack of fattiness in the preparation might be what's wrong with Doughbot rather than what's right.

-DB

ducko said...

dan walters is a fat-headed republicant. however, i kinda agree with him on this. A huge amount of money to fix up the Sacburg Intergalactic Airport is a waste of a huge amount of money. People are not flying to Sacville because of the grand airport, they are flying to Sacburg 'cuz they have to. This money could have gone into road repairs, schools, cops,anywhere but a fancy schmancy airport.

Anonymous said...

I agree: Terminal B will not be solvent and, in hindsight, will be viewed as a mistake.

NM<

beckler said...

Solvent in what sense?

Anonymous said...

I just want to know if they put the Taco Bell back in. I really miss that.
jamattack!
ps. Also I'd rather the city spend money upgrading the terminals than on yet another failed K st endeavor.

ducko said...

ps. Also I'd rather the city spend money upgrading the terminals than on yet another failed K st endeavor.

i'd rather the city stop wasting money on vanity projects (arena study, gaudy terminals) and spend it on facilities and meals for the homeless and river parkway/parks maintenance. Of course, that ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but I'm not homeless and I have a pool so I don't spend that much time by the river anymore, plus it's so over run with homeless people, so I guess I don't really care about those things. But I will be using the airport tomorrow.
jamattack!

beckler said...

when I went swimming in the river this summer it was nice and not overrun by homeless people.

Anonymous said...

The river is one of the most awesome yet underappreciated things about Sacramento. Every time I go I wonder why I don't go more often.

-miller

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure I understand the term 'gaudy' being applied to the new terminal- it's just good design, it doesn't seem gaudy in any sense. We needed to upgrade the terminal to accommodate growing air traffic, so why not build something of quality. Does everything in Sacto have to be half-assed?

Also- for those bitching about the art: they need to change the law. There's a mandate that 1% of a large project's budget go to fund public art. As I understand it, the Airport project didn't quite reach the 1%.

I wouldn't launch that project today but then, I'd be more tightfisted in general today than I (or anyone) was when the economy was rolling. it's criminal that the city is about to flush half a million dollars down the consultant hole for an Arena that was voted down when the economy WAS good.

The airport on the other hand, will serve its purpose, AND with a pride of place. I don't know about you, but I'm proud that we have a well-designed Sacramento International Airport, and that it's not the Power Balance International Airport.

-omf

Liv Moe said...

Funds did not come from taxpayer dollars!

Gah, this debate gets so old. The monies used for the project were not our hard earned tax dollars although I know that makes much better and more sensational press and gives folks something to crow about.

SMAC recently put together a fact sheet to clear this up although call me a negative Nelly I know people will still keep regurgitating the old-what-about-our-tax-dollars-saw.

Further more the art was considerably less than 1% although I don't remember the exact number because it's been a year since I worked on a research project for the airport.

SMAC's factsheet: http://www.sacmetroarts.org/documents/Quick_Facts_on_the_Airport_Public_Art_v8.pdf

Just in case you don't click the link here's the important gist: "The total terminal construction budget, including the art, is funded through bonds, grants, fees from airlines, an existing surcharge on passenger tickets, concessions, parking and rental cars. This money cannot be used for any other public expense because of Federal law mandating that money earmarked for airports can only be used for airports. Funds did not come from taxpayer dollars."

Sorry for the rant, this stuff grinds me and is the reason art and various other things that make communities liveable are so hard to attain.

ducko said...

GAUDY - Tasteless and showy - but i'm not referring to any art (so simmer down Liv), i'm referring to the expansion itself. There certainly is a middle ground between the waste of money at the airport and "half-assed". How about something sensible that doesn't cost $1,000,000,000?
Why in the world does the Sac Intergalactic Airport need a major expansion project when air lines are cutting flights? For those of you who haven't noticed, we are in a severe economic downturn and frivilous spending like this (can you say PorkBarrel)should be stopped. All that money spent for the airport is like putting lipstick on my dog. And if you don't think that we (taxpayers) don't pay at least a portion of this I have a red rabbit sculpture to sell you.

Anonymous said...

Also, I was being a little facetious, for those that don't know me. I love the river! I wish we could all just travel by riverboat.
jamattack!

Anonymous said...

Well, if you've been to the site and call it 'tasteless and showy' then I guess I find your taste suspect. To each his own.

As far as stopping mid-project: Unfortunately, stopping a project of that magnitude halfway through is likely to be nearly as expensive as just going through with it. And, when they planned the expansion, flights were booming.

-omf

ducko said...

then I guess I find your taste suspect

It's an opinion omf, and, like buttholes, everyone has one and they all stink (except your own).

Liv Moe said...

anonymous troll alert!

ducko said...

I assume you mean that towards me, why say that LivMoe? Just 'cuz I don't think the airport expansion is the greatest thing? Have I insulted anyone? Have I been rude or disrepectful? Is disagreeing with you your definition of a troll? Or is this "Heckasac" site just for use by those in your gang?

Anonymous said...

Solvent as in the revenue from the new terminal won't be enough to pay back building costs. The parking revenue and ticket surcharges are going to be at least 25 percent lower than projected; this was supposed to pay back 50 percent of the cost. Plus, the largest tenant, Southwest, is balking at its ticket surcharge; they'll be paying less. Plus, interest rates on the bonds will invariably go up ...

I'm sure it's a great terminal and I'm really excited to check it out, but--get in a time machine and go back to 2000--and don't build it.

NM>

Anonymous said...

Sorry Ducko- your language is kind of a giveaway that you don't know anything about architecture. The term 'Gaudy' evolved from Gaudi, a Spanish architect who made some incredible, strange, highly organic and handmade buildings, mostly in Barcelona. They sort of look like jewel-encrusted melting caves. very over the top- and that's where the term comes from. there is nothing remotely 'gaudy' about the terminal itself- it's a fairly restrained Mid century modern-influenced design... and MCM was largely a reaction against buildings like Gaudi's. Sort of the anti-gaudy.

unless you offer some specific reasons WHY the site is 'tasteless and gaudy' your opinion has zero value. Nobody here knows you, so if you're the resident Architecture Prof at UCD, we're not picking up on that. You gotta give us something that explains your assertion, especially when it seems so completely at odds with the actual site you're describing.

And, yes, everybody has an opinion, but not every opinion is worth listening to. What's that saying../ 'There's no good taste and bad taste- you either have taste, or you don't.'

-omf

beckler said...

On the record- I hate Gaudi

Anonymous said...

my mind: officially boggled.

-omf

ducko said...

You are correct omf, I know nothing about architecture. However, I know what I like and don't like and have opinions on what I like and don't like. What I posted was my opinion and I doubt if you grill everyone who has an opinion as to whether they are an expert or not.
The term I used (gaudy) may have evolved from gaudi but the definition of that word is not"similar to the work of Gaudi".

I apologize for getting all your panties in a bunch by bad-mouthing the airport. Obviously it is some kind of sacred cow for you.

I will now depart from this blog -although, if it is OK with all of you, I will still visit for becklers posts.

ducko said...

ooops, zero value for the origin of gaudy.....

(now I'm gone).....=8:)

ducko said...

p.s.

http://ask.metafilter.com/126891/Does-the-word-gaudy-come-from-the-artist-Gaudi

no no, really...now I'm finally gone.

Anonymous said...

Ducko's right, 'Gaudy' dates to the 1600s at least. I got pwned!

And there is nothing wrong with having an opinion (even a vastly negative one)... the problem is making a blanket statement that seems at odds with the apparent facts without backing up said facts.

Personally, I can't stand Eric Clapton. My opinion is that he sucks. But that's different than making a blanket statement like, 'he's talentless.' Obviously the guy knows how to play- I just don't like what he's playing.

-omf

beckler said...

great now this thread is going to blow up as millions of Clapton fans rush to defend him!

Anonymous said...

OK, I'll modify: he only started sucking in 1966. before that he was OK.

-omf

Anonymous said...

Really? omf, you hate blanket statements? What about "Nobody here knows you..."?

All blanket statements are wrong.

Ha, I crack myself up.

gbomb

Anonymous said...

I love blanket statements! it's 'a blanket statement that seems at odds with the apparent facts without backing up said facts' that i have a problem with. you just gotta back them up.

and do YOU know Ducko? do tell!

-omf

Anonymous said...

No, I don't, I don't think. Not yet. I just got back. Maybe I'll Sherlock it out soon. I do love to snoop. Not only that, but I am good at it. But he/she does seem like a reasonable person.

I maintain my right to take that back if he/she turns out to someone that I think sucks.

gbomb

Anonymous said...

I agree - Ducko seems like a reasonable person (not a troll), even though I strongly disagree with his/her taste in architecture.

also, you have a nice card from Ed Castro waiting for you.

-omf