[travis bickle]

Parking requirements are always the bane for any urban project. Parking lots/structures can cost anywhere between $12k and $50k per space. It doesn't take too many required spaces to turn a black project into one bleeding red.

Some cities offer an "in-lieu" fee where if your project doesn't meet the required number of spaces (a far more discretionary number than simple formula spouting bureaucrats would have you believe) you can contribute to a parking fund instead. These are similar to affordable housing in-lieu fees that some cities have. San Diego has such a program but I haven't found anyone in love with it. I'm not sure if funds from this program have been used to finance any multi-storey garages downtown but they might have been. That was the idea anyway.

Your project can also get parking credits if it's close to transit lines and/or stations or part of a TOD. These categories include bus,light rail and rail.

I once proposed an "in-lieu" fee that would have financed a transit jitney system in specific districts which would have offered nearly 24 hour door-to-door service. I thought this was a better idea than using the money to build more garages. Unfortunately, I was the only one who thought that...:(

[Cynikal]

The City is looking into many of the stratagies you just suggested as part of the Central City Parking Master Plan. Stay tuned.

[econgrad]

^ Thanks in advanced for keeping us posted.

[TWAK]

took this today
http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/8012/082107132400ark8.jpg

[wburg]

travis bickle: Some local midtown activists, specifically Dale Kooyman, are advocating for a private "jitney" system using mini-buses for short-headway public transit in the downtown area. If such an idea comes up again, it might be worthwhile to have a meeting with them. From what I have seen, developers (and public commissions) seem to like it a lot when neighborhood groups show up to support a project, rather than to oppose it, and when it comes to measures that enhance public transit it seems like a logical combination.

[ozone]

wburg I get your point about the parking. As I said I'm keenly aware of the parking and traffic issues in the central city. while I choose to live in a place where I don't have to drive every day almost all of my clients do. And that's not going change anytime soon.

The point some of us are making is that many of those underutilized lots should be utilized for more than just storing cars. And I just don't see why developers who are building infill projects in the central city (which already is typically more costly than the suburbs) should be 'on the hook' for parking in the first place. Why is it their responsiblity to provide any amount of parking in a transit-oriented or tranist supportable district? That type of thinking seems outdated and counter productive to me.

Look nobody is trying to convince themselves that bad traffic will make us into a world-class city. Maybe you missed my point. But yes parking scarcity in the city typically does come with prosperity. We can chose to have empty restaurants and shops or traffic/parking issues. Which do you chose? Actually it's not that big of a problem yet compared to other cities. It's just that so many in Sacramento are real suburanites and are not used to city life.

We have a choice to make here in Sacramento. Do we tinker with what we have so we get a few more parking spaces OR do we realize that there is a simply a limit to how many cars we can accomodate (before we start to lose quality of life and business) and start to get serious about providing people with viable options to driving in the first place? Study after study has proven that the more you try accommodate the automobile the worst traffic will become, not the reverse.

So what would your solution to the parking problem be? IMO transit pases and free scooters are not real solutions. And while I'm not opposed to a jitney "system" idea I seriously doubt it will work here. Plus it just allows the city to "opt out" of it's responsiblity to provide an actual transportation alternative.

[Majin]

What housing projects are in the pipeline for downtown/midtown after L street lofts are done?

We need to get a lot more people in the central city, but it seems like there is going to be a huge gap after that project is completed...

[sugit]

There still around 600 u/c even though stuff is being canceled all over the place. (I try and keep the first page of this thread updated with project statuses) The Globe Mills is 143 units, the Cooper Union Building is 50 units. Plus, there is are quite a few townhouse type projects going on.

Tapestri Square: 21st and T Street - 58 Town homes
Washington Park Homes: 17th and D Street - 52 Town homes
Alchemy at R Street: 23rd and R Street - 23 Rentals
Whiskey Hill Lofts: 22nd and S Street - 28 Rentals
North End Lofts: 14th and C Street - 14 Town homes
SoCap Lofts: 7th and R Street - 32 loft style Town homes
14th and R Warehouse Rehad: 14th and R Street - 6 for sale lofts

I also went to the CADA meeting for the 15-story high rise at 16th and N. They have it scheduled to break ground November next year. Its 125 condos and 5K Retail. CADA is giving Lambert what comes to about a 5-6M subsidy on the project. So that one sounds promising. Lambert is also working on 50+ units (around 6-8 stories) at 16th and P which will also get a subsidy from CADA.

Another 84 apartments (4 and 5 stories) and 13K in retail on the two lots at 16th and O by Ravel Rasmussen Properties. That one is scheduled to break ground mid next year. I have a rendering of the 16th and O projects on my camera, so I'll try and post it later. The two buildings look similar to the Fremont Building, but much better.

Surprisingly, Capitol Lofts on R Street is still in motion as well.

You know the one at 10th and K (150+) by Taylor and CIM is going to get a subsidy from the city, so that one you would think is looking good as well.

Trammell Crow (200+) project, Newton Booth (36), Cathedral Square seems be moving along, but who knows. Who knows with the The Metropolitan as well.

Plus, if you go through out midtown and parts of downtown north and south of the CBD, there are small infill projects in a lot of places that you just don't hear about since they are smaller.

I'm not optimistic on The Towers and Auras size projects of the world in the near to intermediate future, but the mid'ish-rise 15-20ish story ones, and the smaller 4 and 5 stories infill projects still look promising and they still add a lot of people (and retail) to the areas.

[wburg]

I passed by Globe Mills on the way back into Sacramento on the train and was amazed by how much they have done there.

Is Whiskey Hill rental or for-sale? I see "condos" on the side and assume they are selling them, although I know that when the plans were going through they were billed as apartments.

Hopefully the RR buildings look better than the Fremont: that one just looks like a La Quinta hotel.

[Majin]

Anybody know what the current progress of the railyards are? Are they still doing the cleanup? Or is it on-hold for now?

[TowerDistrict]

There's also a few mid-rise residential projects slated for R Street. The joint between Regional Transit and CADA (was it?). Then there's the Sares Regis project on 3rd & Q which is around 300 units. And then there's Crystal Ice as well...

I also went to the CADA meeting for the 15-story high rise at 16th and N. They have it scheduled to break ground November next year. Its 125 condos and 5K Retail. CADA is giving Lambert what comes to about a 5-6M subsidy on the project. So that one sounds promising. Lambert is also working on 50+ units (around 6-8 stories) at 16th and P which will also get a subsidy from CADA.

Another 84 apartments (4 and 5 stories) and 13K in retail on the two lots at 16th and O by Ravel Rasmussen Properties. That one is scheduled to break ground mid next year. I have a rendering of the 16th and O projects on my camera, so I'll try and post it later. The two buildings look similar to the Fremont Building, but much better.


Thanks for the update! Were there any renderings for Lambert's long awaited project??

[TowerDistrict]

I believe the railyards plan is almost approved. They just published the EIR for public review last week. It's a horribly dry read. I skimmed all 4,000+ pages for some eye candy, but the best visual example is right on the cover or the Thomas Ent. website.

City of Sacramento Railyards Webpage (http://cityofsacramento.org/dsd/projects/railyards/)

[TowerDistrict]

I'm a visual person, so it's hard for me to track all these developments from a list. And that's basically why I worked up the map in my signature. Even though there may be a couple that have been cancelled or postponed indefinitely on that list, the vast majority are still a go. Even more encouraging yet, is that I haven't included many many projects on that map - and it's still a jungle of infill projects.

[wburg]

The railyards EIR is a draft, there will still be a final one. They presented to Preservation this week, there will be more advise & comment type meetings before it's over. They are clearing dirt and have pledged that none of the remaining Shops buildings will be demolished, PERIOD.

[innov8]

That's not a surprise... I don't think anyone proposed demolishing any of the buildings anyway :shrug:

[wburg]

Actually it was an item of some question: as of a couple years ago, one of the Shops buildings was considered so compromised that it probably wouldn't stand. At this point, Thomas Enterprises considers all of the buildings, from the big ones to the three-story brick shithouse, to be irreplaceable treasures that should be saved. I certainly can't argue with that.

A big issue in the Shops complex area is how much space will be utilized by the Railroad Technology Museum. Thomas has mentioned the Boiler Shop and Erecting Shop specifically, and the turntable, but there are other issues like the space in between these two shops, currently occupied by an electric transfer table, and the yards area to the west of the Boiler Shop, currently used to store CSRM equipment, as well as tracks to access this yard area and the turntable. Simply put, the RTM needs land around it to make the buildings useful and usable.

This was a presentation to Preservation, so the focus was on that area. Thomas Enterprises says they want the existing Shops structures declared a Historic Preservation District, and will rehabilitate the buildings to Secretary of Interior standards. In addition to height limitations around the Shops buildings, adjacent new buildings will also follow Secretary of Interior standards regarding structures in a historic district. In addition to the Boiler Shop and Erecting Shop space, museum space is planned in the Blacksmith Shop, although they didn't specifiy what it would cover: my guess is that it is the proposed home for the Yee Fow museum, documenting the history of the Chinese in Sacramento.

Oh yeah, and speaking of other slated projects, don't forget the Ice Blocks and adjacent properties.

[sugit]

Is Whiskey Hill rental or for-sale? I see "condos" on the side and assume they are selling them, although I know that when the plans were going through they were billed as apartments.

They orignally were supposed to be rentals, but by the condos name, I guess they changed their minds.


Thanks for the update! Were there any renderings for Lambert's long awaited project??

No rendering yet. They will have it next month at the cada meeting. They said they have sketches, but they wanted to have the meeting first and make changes before they present the idea they have. They plan to go through DR, PC and PC during the first part of the new year (even though they do not need formal approval). What they did us was the building is planned for 15 stories along 16th street, with the N Street side being 4-stories tall. The ground level won't have retail, but stoop like entries to the units.

Also about 5K in retail all facing 16th street. What I do like is they said the plan for the retail was to attract non-restaurant establishments, because they would save some work (and money) on the vents and other stuff needed for restaurants. They said they would have to go by the market though so if a restaurant wants to open there, they would have to consider it.

They do have a shot of the one planned at 16th and P in their offices, but I haven't had a chance to make it over there to see it.

[TowerDistrict]

15 stories eh? I think that's fne to have the stoop entries on the N Street Side when they include retail on the 16th Street side. There's going to be more traffic on 16th anyway - both foot and car.

For anyone interested, here's the scribble diagram that i got from CADA a few months ago for East End Gateway sites 2 & 3...

http://www.sacfrg.org/images/EEG_2_3.jpg

[Majin]

duplicate post

[sugit]

Yeah, I like the stoop entries on N Street as well.

I really with they could have made more use of those O Street sites though. I do know CADA is trying to make those sites work with as little, if no, subsidy on the project, and I'm sure structured parking would be a tough go. I have to think they will at least get the land for free though. I have to remember to post the renderings of those two sites tonight.

The surface lot on EEG3 was supposed to be a 4 story garage in the first plan by Loftworks. That would have been a much more efficient land use wise, but they said since the lot the garage would be on was so small with a lot of inefficient dead space, it would be built at a big loss costing too much money to build and not being able so squeeze enough revenue generating spots. That was the final nail in the coffin of the original plan.

[Majin]

Are those surface lots? :koko:

[sugit]

Are those surface lots? :koko:

Unfortunately, yes. Surprisingly though, they are more total units in this plan than the previous plan by 15. It'll pretty much be a copy of the Fremont Building across the street parking wise. At very least you can't see it from the street.

[TowerDistrict]

Unfortunately, yes. Surprisingly though, they are more total units in this plan than the previous plan by 15. It'll pretty much be a copy of the Fremont Building across the street parking wise. At very least you can't see it from the street.

Yeah, I think the worst view that you will ever see of these two sites is the above diagram. I can sympathize with the structured parking cost - it's been the talk of late... and I'm looking forward to seeing a project of solid density on a key location make it to construction - rather than languishing in its present condition.

And the density is definitely there.. the CADA rep i spoke with stated that it will be almost exactly the same density as the Fremont Building, which is almost 80 units per acre.

[wburg]

4/5 levels on that EEG 2&3 site seems all right--and while the surface parking lot isn't fantabulous, one can always go back and build a parking structure on the site, or cover the parking with something else.

15 stories seems a tetch much to me. Even 10 I could see on the site, but 15 seems like it's going up in a place where they should be going down, or at least maintaining the line from the adjacent state buildings.

I forget--is any of this CADA stuff going to be low-income?

[sugit]

I forget--is any of this CADA stuff going to be low-income?

The Lambert stuff is all market rate. Not sure about the Ravel projects.

CADA has to keep 25% affordable housing, so if it doesn't come here it will go else where. They are planning a ~100 unit all-affordable project just east of 16th and N (EEG 5) where the Hand-Hand Child Center is. The owner is retiring soon, so when that happen they plan on developing the project there.

[innov8]

The 621 Capitol Mall crane comes down tomorrow.

[innov8]

It looks like Cathedral Square will be the final height of 264'. Appearently
when the Planning Commission did not want to approve the spire and it went
back to the Design Commission. After further review, it was determined that
the Mayor did not support this request and the request for the spire was withdrew.

I don't think it did anything for the tower... I think several others have said the same thing.

http://img516.imageshack.us/img516/8255/1catherdralsquareqv5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ozone]

Do you know the ITA on the demo?

[innov8]

I imagine early next year. When I hear more I'll let you know :leek: :tomato: :fingerscrossed:

[cozmoose]

The 621 Capitol Mall crane comes down tomorrow.

Do you know how high the crane was? was it around 500ft?

just trying to visualize what a 500ft skyscraper would look like in Sac downtown.

[innov8]

^ It was at 488' to the tip-top of the crane... damn close.

[snfenoc]

I'm bored, so I thought I would do a few updates:

Cooper Union is taking shape
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0030.jpg


The L Street Lofts is Completely Topped out (I think)
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0002.jpg


500 Crapitol Mall
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0015.jpg
Orleans "Hotel"
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0025.jpg

Both sites offer only restricted views, but you get the idea. In each case the foundation work is coming along.............slowly (Especially you, 500 Crapitol, pick up friggin pace!)


Yep, the crane for 621 Crapitol is coming down:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0016.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0009.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0014.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0006.jpg

Notice the glass going up the sides of the Tower Feature (AKA, the cheap add-on one uses to make his sterile, crappy, stubby "tower" look better)?
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0007.jpg


That better be one spectacular parking lot when it's finished
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0029.jpg


Cleaning up the site
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0026.jpg
I would take more photos, but the Nazis who run the Westfield don't like pictures taken within the mall - including their urine-soaked parking garage.



The death of the Towers and Aura's moribund condition has made me depressed. Maybe the Tower Bridge can cheer me up:
http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0019.jpg

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb297/snfenoc/Construction%20Update%208-5-07/8-25-07/DSC_0023.jpg


It's not working..................................:dead:

[ltsmotorsport]

I think HOK spent their little time devoted to 621 on the crown and about a 2 seconds on the rest of the building. Oh well, at least CALSTRS is coming along nicely.

[aufbau]

^No doubt the CalSTRS is going to be one of my favorite highrises in the Sac area. The glass cladding isn't even on and it already looks great.

I was walking past L street lofts last night and it looks like they have two loft models on the second floor finished (the northwest corner).

[ozone]

^No doubt the CalSTRS is going to be one of my favorite highrises in the Sac area. The glass cladding isn't even on and it already looks great.

I was walking past L street lofts last night and it looks like they have two loft models on the second floor finished (the northwest corner).

I took a tour of the L Street Lofts several days ago and they had 4 model units open to view. They were pretty nice. I like the corner units the best of course.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

L Street Lofts Topped Out?

The L Street Lofts is not quite yet topped out. The final concrete pour for the roof should occur within the next week or two. The loft models look great, but some of them have a bit too much furniture, which detracts from the loft look. My spouse and I toured the models last Friday. We were especially excited to see how the corner unit looks, as we have purchased the northeast corner unit on the 6th floor.

We can hardly wait to move in!

[ozone]

You should have a pretty good view on the 6th floor. NE corner huh? Oh I look out my window at that corner everyday. Gotta get some binoculars now..just kidding. Congrates on your new digs!

[innov8]

Bob Shallit:
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Low profile: City officials are keeping mum about their efforts to sell a prime piece of Capitol Mall real estate.

Bids were due last week from developers interested in the 2.6-acre parcel near Third Street, known as Lot X.

How many bids came in? Who were the companies that responded? What's the next step?

All those questions were politely unanswered by the city staffer handling the sale.

Assistant City Manager John Dangberg was only a little more forthcoming.

"We got a good response. We're happy with it," he says.

Beyond that, he says, disclosure of any details would be "harmful to the process."

What we're hearing, however, is that many of the area's top development companies submitted bids. Some were notified Thursday that they're on a "short list."

Those companies most likely will be asked to submit a "best and final" bid, then a winner will be named. The city's proceeds from the sale will go toward expansion of the nearby Crocker Art Museum.

The land, which is just west of Third Street on the south side of Capitol Mall, could be used for office, housing or hotel construction.

It was appraised two years ago at $15 million. Will it bring in that much today, with one Capitol Mall office tower already under way, another set to start and a possible glut of office space? And can it attract high bidders now that one proposed residential tower is dead and another is struggling for survival?

We'll see.

Bob Shallit:
Monday, August 27, 2007
On the block: Bids are coming in for one of the area's most-recognized buildings -- the Renaissance Tower at 801 K St.

Owner HDG Mansur, the global real estate investment company that bought the glass-and-granite high-rise for $79.3 million two years ago, recently put it on the market. It's already drawn strong interest from other institutional investors, says Drew Petersen, who is helping market the 28-story property.

The plan is to identify the most promising bidders early next month, then ask them to make a final offer.

The 336,000-square-foot building is about 80 percent occupied, mostly with state tenants, says Petersen, a VP with the Jones Lang LaSalle brokerage firm.

The Renaissance -- known to locals as the "Darth Vader" building -- is an attractive property for a longer-term investor, says Randy Getz of CB Richard Ellis.

Right now it's on a part of K Street that's "challenged," he says. Generously.

But he says the pedestrian mall will be improved sooner or later.

And there's potential for a buyer to find lucrative uses for some of the vacant, oddly configured space on the building's upper floors. It can be filled, Getz says, if leasing agents "think outside the box."

[sugit]

East End Gateway Sites II (4 stories) and III (5 stories). That doom thing looks odd.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1957/eeg23mediumau6.jpg

[wburg]

Interesting...while they're obviously going for a Spanish Colonial Revival kind of look, the dome makes it look slightly less like a La Quinta than the Fremont building. I like it.

One thing I heard: the Fremont Mews currently has 49 vacancies in its market-rate component...apparently $1200/month for a one-bedroom (plus $125/mo for parking) is a bit rich for people's blood.

[TowerDistrict]

i'm no property management whiz, but i don't understand the strategy of setting base prices obviously higher than the market is willing to fully support? sure you get a few, but is it worth it?

why not drop the price by $200 a month and be 100% leased up? what does an empty apartment earn you over the course of a year or two that i'm totally unaware of?

[Fusey]

According to ForRent.com the 1-bedrooms vary from $1375-1525. Yeesh...

[northbay]

^ maybe theyre just trying to limit the units to the "uppity" crowd :D

[travis bickle]

i'm no property management whiz, but i don't understand the strategy of setting base prices obviously higher than the market is willing to fully support? sure you get a few, but is it worth it?

why not drop the price by $200 a month and be 100% leased up? what does an empty apartment earn you over the course of a year or two that i'm totally unaware of?

The three basic laws of real estate/development finance:

1) More is better than less...

2) Sooner is better than later...

3) Something beats nothing all to Hell.

It just takes some people longer to learn that then others.

I've seen many developers learn this the hard way.

PS - Does 621 CM look better in person?

[arod74]

PS - Does 621 CM look better in person?

Yeah I was not digging the look of 621 from the last few photo posts but I was had the opportunity to see the building upclose while shopping at DTP this weekend(yes someone does still shop at DTP) and some of the metal pin striping on the precast concrete siding is doing wonders for the building. The top of the building still has a ways to go but i'm fairly confident that the finished crown will look pretty sharp. The parking garage looks brutal as everyone has observed, not sure what they can do to make it look less offensive.

[neuhickman79]

Well, since there's no Citrus Heights thread (yet), I thought I'd post this here! If this comes to fruition, it will be one of the most exciting suburban projects in the Sac Metro area (besides West Sac which is like our mini-St. Paul!)New vision dawns for Sunrise MarketPlace
Sacramento Business Journal - August 24, 2007
by Kelly Johnson
Staff Writer


In the Sunrise MarketPlace of the future, shoppers could easily stroll between Sunrise Mall and Marketplace at Birdcage on pedestrian bridges.

The setting -- more like a downtown than a typical suburban shopping zone -- might offer housing and offices above shops, restaurants with outdoor dining, and wide-open community gathering places for farmers markets and other activities.

With more than a half-billion dollars in sales last year, the Sunrise MarketPlace business improvement district is the economic engine of the city of Citrus Heights. But to remain competitive, the area must evolve, consultants say. A sea of parking and large, blank exterior mall walls are unfriendly to pedestrians. Instead, the district needs more intensive development with a mix of shopping, homes, offices, entertainment and civic uses.

That's the vision business leaders and community residents have shared, and city officials want to make it the basis for a specific plan for future development. It would be the third in Citrus Heights, joining the specific plans for Stock Ranch and the Auburn Boulevard corridor. The development plan would include an environmental report, eliminating the need to conduct environmental studies for individual projects as they're proposed.

The Sunrise MarketPlace players are still fine-tuning the vision. Any changes to the district would take money and the support of commercial property owners. City and district leaders can encourage them, but ultimately it will be up to property owners whether they want to go along with the envisioned denser, more pedestrian-friendly Sunrise MarketPlace.

The district of 500 businesses generates more than half of all sales-tax revenue for Citrus Heights. In 2006, it generated $606.8 million in sales, down 4.1 percent from 2005. District and city leaders also are concerned about growing competition, longer-term vacancies, aging buildings, piecemeal development, increasing traffic and graffiti. Backers of the new plan say Sunrise MarketPlace can do something about those problems by taking advantage of the resurgence of downtowns and interest in mixed-use projects, smart growth and open-air designs.
Mapping a future

About 50 residents, business and property owners offered their ideas for the district's future Saturday at a hands-on community workshop. Ideas from previous workshops had been condensed into three proposals:

* An east-west-oriented corridor with pedestrian bridges over Sunrise Boulevard, new east-west streets connecting Birdcage to Sunrise Mall, parking garages around the district and mixed-use development on some of the space now used as parking lots
* A north-south-aligned plan adding new streets, designed for strolling, parallel to Sunrise Boulevard through what now are parking lots. This plan also would fill in places along the facade of the mall and around Birdcage with additional retail and commercial development, and dot parking garages around the district.
* A "downtown core" built on a new grid of streets and blocks between and around the current shopping centers. This plan contains denser development and combines elements of the first and second options.

Workshop participants were split into two groups to review the options, and both rejected the north-south concept. One group, which coincidentally contained primarily business owners or operators, preferred the downtown core plan. The other, mostly residents, favored the east-west option.

None of the changes would happen overnight, and some participants suggested Sunrise MarketPlace could start with the first option and phase into the downtown core approach.

The district can't delay for even five years or these changes will never happen, said Karen Hamilton, a district board member and a local Macy's manager.

"We have to start now," she said. "We can't wait."

Gloria Wright, another board member and a manager of four shopping centers in the district for Inter-Cal Real Estate, wants a district with more outdoor dining, housing and offices. The district now is 91.5 percent retail and 8.5 percent offices.

"You have to have a secondary reason to keep them here," she said.

Trish Dawson, who has lived in the area for 25 years, said she's ready to downsize. She'd welcome an opportunity to live in Sunrise MarketPlace if it offered the quality housing she wants.

Other participants said they wanted convenient parking, a shuttle service, less truck traffic and a place where high school graduations and other public events could be held.
Take it on the road

The next steps planned are to ask major commercial landowners who weren't at the workshops to weigh in about the plan, and for city and district leaders to get additional ideas by touring shopping centers across California. The City Council and planning commission would hold a joint study session on the plan before the City Council reviews it, expected in late October.

By mid-October, the city expects to learn whether it was successful in its application for a $350,000 state grant that would go toward creating a specific plan for Sunrise MarketPlace, said Rhonda Sherman, the city's economic development manager.

The specific plan would provide the district's vision with "teeth to implement it," said Kathilynn Carpenter, the district's executive director. "We don't want some vision that sits on the shelf."

Community members can track the district's progress on the city's Web site at citrusheights.net.

Here's the city's website for the Sunrise Marketplace VISIONING PROJECT: http://www.citrusheights.net/home/index.asp?page=1208

[econgrad]

Interesting...while they're obviously going for a Spanish Colonial Revival kind of look, the dome makes it look slightly less like a La Quinta than the Fremont building. I like it.

One thing I heard: the Fremont Mews currently has 49 vacancies in its market-rate component...apparently $1200/month for a one-bedroom (plus $125/mo for parking) is a bit rich for people's blood.

Many rents in MT and DT Sac to me are overpriced for what you get. $800/month would be a market-rate price for the 1 bedrooms at the Mews in my opinion. Not too surprised by the vacancies. It is definitely not a renters market right now...You can rent a 3 bedroom house for $1400 in some areas, and some have swimming pools. I think many people choose this kind of life style and just drive to DT and MT for the nightlife and restaurants because of the overpriced rents. I know I am usually saying that the city should develop the area to cater to the rich to bring them to the area, but I do not think over-priced rent for the middle-class is a good idea at all. When I lived on Geary and Wood St. in San Francisco, I was paying $1100 for a nice one bedroom and I was in an awesome area of town with really cool neighbors. I just do not understand why some apts in MT and DT are high rent and offer so much less. Maybe more and more needs to be built, increase supply, lower the prices....(My rant for the day).

[Majin]

^^ Not quite sure if you can generalize it as that being overpriced for DT and MT... I don't know if you guys looked at any other buildings besides Fremont Mews but..

I currently pay $1235/month for a 520 sqft studio in 800J (including parking), and believe it or not this building for the most part is full. When I moved in, all 1 bedrooms were gone except a 1 bedroom on the penthouse floor, and the studio I am in now was the only one availible. I'm not sure about 2 bedrooms because I didnt ask, but I can tell you from living here and walking around the place everyday that there are a lot of residents here and 90% of them are young (20-25 or so). Ever since moving here its been a huge eye open that there is (or was) a untapped market for young people who want to live in an urban setting.

When I was looking, I can also tell you that 1801L was 100% full and 21st and L was 100% full. Both suprisingly are priced similar to 800J, and apparently they have no problem filling up. I'm not sure what incentive they had to lie to me about being full, as they acutally refered me to 800J since they had absolutely nothing availible and I was looking to move soon. 21st and L wouldnt even let me get on their waiting list.

Same thing with cap towers (the apartment I moved out of), they charged $920 a month for the villas (studio) if I recall correcty and that apartment is always full.

Market rate for DT/MT is definately in the right range for Fremont Mews. I'm not quite sure why they have so many vacancies, nor do I care since I don't paricularly like that building or it's location. 800J, 1801L and 21st and L are IMHO much better buildings in much better locations.

[Majin]

Maybe more and more needs to be built, increase supply, lower the prices....(My rant for the day).

Probably the root of the problem right there... theres probably a huge demand for urban living by young people with money (like me) that isn't met by the supply yet. Even though that means high rents, I think thats a good thing. It shows that the market is here and more should be built.

[wburg]

The problem is construction prices: you can't build buildings, especially taller ones, and make money renting apartments for $800/month. "Market rate" in this market refers to how much it costs the housing builder to make money. $800/month is actually somewhere between "low income" and "very low income" levels of rent. Whoever figures out how to build buildings that people can actually afford is going to make an absolute mint. Just making them taller doesn't solve the problem, because costs go up as the building goes up. There's also a huge demand for urban living by young people who don't have gobs of money, and "weak demand" (many small purchases) is a powerful market effect.

I suppose I'm still pining for the rents of my old two-bedroom townhouse in Marshall School, rent was $495 ten years ago. Or the six-bedroom house in Winn Park we used to rent for $1000 total in the mid-nineties...of course, that didn't have air conditioning!

[wburg]

The inevitable double post

[innov8]

Does 621 CM look better in person?

I think it looks marginal except from two angles

1)
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/8776/621cm820070824fzb2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

2)
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6018/621cm1020070824fow5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Not so nice.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/7991/621cm320070824flb4.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/3921/621cm420070824fpq1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Ahhh, two cranes :D

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9260/calstrs820070824fbi3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

More 621CM here: http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=86268&page=26

[neuhickman79]

Township 9 is a go!
Sacramento Approves River District Redevelopment Plan
Plan Revamps Industrial Area For Housing, Retail


SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The Sacramento City Council unanimously passed the Township 9 development project Tuesday for the city's River District.

Township 9, a $1.7 billion transit-oriented development plan will usher an urban lifestyle into an aging Sacramento industrial zone called the River District, backers said.

The riverfront project includes 65 acres for retail, office space, town homes and lofts.

The River District includes Richards Boulevard, the old railyard and land along the Sacramento and American Rivers.

Banners which state 'Watch Us Grow' that went up on light poles in June herald the new strides being made in the River District.

Recent successes in the River District, the 7th Street corridor, Two Rivers bike trail, and Jaboom Street Park.

Next year, some city offices and police services will move into a building at 300 Richards Boulevard.

Township 9 developers said they hope to break ground in 2008.

[Majin]

In this town it isn't a go until steel rises.

[brandon12]

"Recent successes in the River District, the 7th Street corridor, Two Rivers bike trail, and Jaboom Street Park."
Uh, this doesn't seem to be grammatically correct. Well done, bee.

[travis bickle]

Township 9 is a go!

Does this spell the end of Gold Rush Park?

[goldcntry]

More than likely. It seemed that the Gold Rush Park was more of a Pie-in-the-sky type of wish from the get-go.

[travis bickle]

More than likely. It seemed that the Gold Rush Park was more of a Pie-in-the-sky type of wish from the get-go.

Yeah goldcntry I agree. Gold Rush Park did seem more parts wishful thinking than real possibility. But it was one of those things, like the Towers, that pushed the bar higher for Sacramento and allowed it to dream big.

I think Sacramento desperately needs some kind of great gathering place (like San Diego's Balboa Park where Sunday afternoon walks on the Prado are an institution where you can meet people from all over the County) and I had great hopes that GRP would have filled that void. But looking at the latest railyards plans, perhaps it will.

Keep aiming high, keep dreaming big!

[wburg]

The gathering spaces in the railyards seem a lot more like the kind of spaces you're seeking. Gold Rush Park was just too big and impractical. The Railyards has a number of natural gathering spaces that seem like natural confluences between local history, modern living, and natural splendor.

Township 9 itself is just a small chunk of the Richards Boulevard/River District area. I personally hope that they can keep the industrial uses in the neighborhood: to me, a city needs industry and blue-collar workplaces, as a natural complement to offices, retail and residential areas. Maybe it's just my Chicago upbringing: driving through Chicago or its nearby suburbs, you find tool & die shops, small factories, and other industrial uses throughout the region, generally following the railroad tracks (which go everywhere.) Keeping industry in town also cuts down on commuter trips and sticks close to that transit-oriented walkable metaphor we're all looking for.

[travis bickle]

The gathering spaces in the railyards seem a lot more like the kind of spaces you're seeking. Gold Rush Park was just too big and impractical. The Railyards has a number of natural gathering spaces that seem like natural confluences between local history, modern living, and natural splendor.

Township 9 itself is just a small chunk of the Richards Boulevard/River District area. I personally hope that they can keep the industrial uses in the neighborhood: to me, a city needs industry and blue-collar workplaces, as a natural complement to offices, retail and residential areas. Maybe it's just my Chicago upbringing: driving through Chicago or its nearby suburbs, you find tool & die shops, small factories, and other industrial uses throughout the region, generally following the railroad tracks (which go everywhere.) Keeping industry in town also cuts down on commuter trips and sticks close to that transit-oriented walkable metaphor we're all looking for.

I agree that healthy cities need industrial and "blue-collar" spaces, but if the land's value greatly exceeds the return industrial uses provide, then it doesn't make sense to keep the land industrial. Sacramento has other locations suitable for this type of use. Given this area's location just north of downtown Sacramento (the most valuable land in the Valley) and near the confluence of two mighty rivers, I think it's well past time to reconsider its use. That doesn't mean that we have to tear down everything. Certainly some of the structures there must be well-suited for adaptive reuse. But printing plants make no sense on land now (or soon could be) valued at $100-200/sq. ft.

[snfenoc]

Two developers vying to lure hotel chain to Sacramento
By Jon Ortiz - Bee Staff Writer
Published 1:02 pm PDT Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Two developers with a history of competition are in talks with InterContinental Hotels Inc. to partner with them on rival condo-hotel towers each wants to build in downtown Sacramento.

Denver-based developer Craig Nassi said that he is "close" to signing a deal with the luxury hotelier for Epic, a high-rise he envisions for 12th and I streets.

Local developer John Saca didn't return calls seeking comment about how InterContinental might fit into his 10th and J streets tower, The Metropolitan, but Sacramento business observers confirmed he has talked to the British firm about a deal.

"What we're hearing is that John has spoken with them," said Michael Ault, executive director of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership. Steve Hammond, president and CEO of the city's Convention & Visitors Bureau also said that Saca, who signed Intercontinental to his Towers condo project on Capitol Mall before it failed earlier this year, hopes to renew his partnership with the company.

John Lee, InterContinental's western region vice president, declined to comment about either project. "Sacramento is a target market for us," he said, "and we'd love to be in the city."

The InterContinental Hotels & Resorts chain is part of the larger InterContinental Hotels Group PLC based in Berkshire, England. It operates the InterContinental Mark Hopkins hotel in San Francisco and owns the Holiday Inn and Holiday Inn Express chains, among others.

http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/350687.html

[Majin]

Nassi is "close" to signing a deal to put an luxury hotel in Epic... you gotta be f-ing kidding me...........

Somoene get this man out of our town. I think it's about time to give him the boot like Denver did.

[wburg]

I agree that healthy cities need industrial and "blue-collar" spaces, but if the land's value greatly exceeds the return industrial uses provide, then it doesn't make sense to keep the land industrial. Sacramento has other locations suitable for this type of use. Given this area's location just north of downtown Sacramento (the most valuable land in the Valley) and near the confluence of two mighty rivers, I think it's well past time to reconsider its use. That doesn't mean that we have to tear down everything. Certainly some of the structures there must be well-suited for adaptive reuse. But printing plants make no sense on land now (or soon could be) valued at $100-200/sq. ft.

I'd agree to the idea of adaptive reuse of some of the industrial structures--a need made even more critical now that Township 9's approval will result in the demolition of the Bercut-Richards cannery. Not to mention the already disused industrial structures in the neighborhood (does anyone else think that the old city incinerator on North B would make THE BEST NIGHTCLUB SITE EVER?) are potentially very valuable adaptive reuse sites. One of the more important industrial/blue-collar uses, one I have heard mentioned by general contractors, is retaining businesses that specialize in supplying construction materials: electrical wholesalers, lumberyards, carpet/flooring warehouses, etcetera. These provide convenient supply points for contractors building in the central city, as well as for do-it-yourselfers. Buying directly from the supplier, especially local family businesses (like many of them are) also keeps money in the community and saves on gas vs. driving out to some Home Depot in the boonies. This is an issue on R Street too.

I suppose the argument is that while the land itself may be more valuable than the use to a speculator, what is the role of the land as a generator of income? If the use is moved, do the employees leave the neighborhood as well--and what are the benefits of keeping the employees there, and encouraing them to live nearby, vs. having both relocate to the edge of town? Industry in cities is definitely a change vs. old city models: unlike the 19th and 20th century city, most 21st century industries are not grossly polluting places that people don't want to live near (or will only live near if they work nearby.) Cleaner industries make better neighbors. Having lived near several industrial structures, they have definite pluses: they generally have night-time security, don't throw wild parties, and usually keep their grounds in good condition.

[sugit]

Denver-based developer Craig Nassi said that he is "close" to signing a deal with the luxury hotelier for Epic, a high-rise he envisions for 12th and I streets.

That is the funniest thing I have heard in a while. Just like how you have been "close" to groundbreaking on Aura for the past two years.

[travis bickle]

I'd agree to the idea of adaptive reuse of some of the industrial structures--a need made even more critical now that Township 9's approval will result in the demolition of the Bercut-Richards cannery. Not to mention the already disused industrial structures in the neighborhood (does anyone else think that the old city incinerator on North B would make THE BEST NIGHTCLUB SITE EVER?) are potentially very valuable adaptive reuse sites. One of the more important industrial/blue-collar uses, one I have heard mentioned by general contractors, is retaining businesses that specialize in supplying construction materials: electrical wholesalers, lumberyards, carpet/flooring warehouses, etcetera. These provide convenient supply points for contractors building in the central city, as well as for do-it-yourselfers. Buying directly from the supplier, especially local family businesses (like many of them are) also keeps money in the community and saves on gas vs. driving out to some Home Depot in the boonies. This is an issue on R Street too.

I suppose the argument is that while the land itself may be more valuable than the use to a speculator, what is the role of the land as a generator of income? If the use is moved, do the employees leave the neighborhood as well--and what are the benefits of keeping the employees there, and encouraing them to live nearby, vs. having both relocate to the edge of town? Industry in cities is definitely a change vs. old city models: unlike the 19th and 20th century city, most 21st century industries are not grossly polluting places that people don't want to live near (or will only live near if they work nearby.) Cleaner industries make better neighbors. Having lived near several industrial structures, they have definite pluses: they generally have night-time security, don't throw wild parties, and usually keep their grounds in good condition.


Who the hell said anything about speculators? It makes no sense to occupy spectacular sites with low yield uses. We're not talking prohibitive distances here. There are plenty of industrial sites within 15 miles of the Richard's Blvd corridor. I would imagine McClellan could accommodate many of the present uses. Sacramento's premier project right now, the railyards, is replacing industrial land with mixed-use. One of the great appeals of the railyards is the location north of downtown near the river. Richard's Blvd. is next to the railyards and is bordered by two rivers. Are you trying to say putting a carpet warehouse there is better than mixed-use? I don't think many people will buy that one wburg.

I realize a big difference is that the railyards are abandoned and Richard's Blvd. isn't. But again, we're not talking about relocating industrial uses to another time zone. We're talking about creating a unique and livably thriving community on a spectacular site. As far as employees... well, before anyone gets too bent I'd like to know just how many Richard's Blvd. employees live in the immediate area. I'm guessing not that many. And any housing that the newly redeveloped corridor provides would far outnumber the amount lost. I gotta think that's a net gain.

Please... if your against redeveloping Richard's - for whatever reason - just say so. But save the specter of evil "speculators" to advance your cause.

[TowerDistrict]

Its a pretty big stretch of the term to call Nassi and Saca "competitors".

And why would InterContinental be in talks with Nassi? At least Saca had them first, got a subsidy from the city on their behalf, and really stuck his neck out to get it done - no matter how hard it all fell through. Nassi has been nearly invisible through the last couple years. I think he should change the name of "Aura" to "Soon" and "Epic" to "Close".

It also worries me that CIM/CalPERS will be trimming the hotel component on 300 CM.

[reggiesquared]

Do we really need people to write book sized argument threads? This was the "sacramento proposal/approva/construction thread" right???? GEEZUZ. :hell:

[wburg]

Who the hell said anything about speculators? It makes no sense to occupy spectacular sites with low yield uses. We're not talking prohibitive distances here. There are plenty of industrial sites within 15 miles of the Richard's Blvd corridor. I would imagine McClellan could accommodate many of the present uses. Sacramento's premier project right now, the railyards, is replacing industrial land with mixed-use. One of the great appeals of the railyards is the location north of downtown near the river. Richard's Blvd. is next to the railyards and is bordered by two rivers. Are you trying to say putting a carpet warehouse there is better than mixed-use? I don't think many people will buy that one wburg.

I realize a big difference is that the railyards are abandoned and Richard's Blvd. isn't. But again, we're not talking about relocating industrial uses to another time zone. We're talking about creating a unique and livably thriving community on a spectacular site. As far as employees... well, before anyone gets too bent I'd like to know just how many Richard's Blvd. employees live in the immediate area. I'm guessing not that many. And any housing that the newly redeveloped corridor provides would far outnumber the amount lost. I gotta think that's a net gain.

Please... if your against redeveloping Richard's - for whatever reason - just say so. But save the specter of evil "speculators" to advance your cause.

No, you're jumping to conclusions here. You hit the nail on your head in the second paragraph: I see a big difference between abandoned industrial areas and currently occupied ones. The former are opportunities for a change in zone, the latter are "low-yield" (whatever that means) but are active sites that have a role in a modern city, both as centers of economic activity, trip generators and a means to expand the economic versatility of a neighborhood.

And while, no, not a lot of employees of those industries live nearby, and while there is almost no housing in the Richards area (aside from the Dos Rios projects and the small residential area east of 12th Street) that's why I'd like to see more housing there in addition to the existing industry: so someone who works there COULD conceivably live nearby. There is a lot of room in the neighborhood, between currently vacant structures and vacant lots, for enough infill to keep things humming for a while.

Why wouldn't a neighborhood with both industrial and residential uses (and, conceivably, retail) qualify as "mixed use"? I'm talking about creating a livable community with a broad mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. We're thinking along the same lines, I'm just maybe thinking a little farther outside the box than you.

[travis bickle]

Double post

[travis bickle]

No, you're jumping to conclusions here. You hit the nail on your head in the second paragraph: I see a big difference between abandoned industrial areas and currently occupied ones. The former are opportunities for a change in zone, the latter are "low-yield" (whatever that means) but are active sites that have a role in a modern city, both as centers of economic activity, trip generators and a means to expand the economic versatility of a neighborhood.

And while, no, not a lot of employees of those industries live nearby, and while there is almost no housing in the Richards area (aside from the Dos Rios projects and the small residential area east of 12th Street) that's why I'd like to see more housing there in addition to the existing industry: so someone who works there COULD conceivably live nearby. There is a lot of room in the neighborhood, between currently vacant structures and vacant lots, for enough infill to keep things humming for a while.

Why wouldn't a neighborhood with both industrial and residential uses (and, conceivably, retail) qualify as "mixed use"? I'm talking about creating a livable community with a broad mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. We're thinking along the same lines, I'm just maybe thinking a little farther outside the box than you.

yeah wburg, maybe you are just thinking a little further out of the box than I am. But it still makes no sense to me to put a construction materials yard next to $450k flats. I suppose it COULD conceivably appeal to some, and you may be one of them, but it's not a big plus for most and I sincerely doubt the next-door construction yard makes it into the sales brochure.

Now - lofts built from a converted warehouse - many would find that appealing and there must be those opportunities in the area. I prefer to let this area grow organically as it appears to be doing. Part of that is not letting any government decree that any specific lot remain industrial which is what I'm afraid you prefer. If someone needs wiring wholesale, they can drive another 5 miles to McClellan to get it and I just don't consider that a hardship.

You just can't have an area adjacent to a spectacular, sparkling addition to downtown and bordered by two rivers remain industrial. The market won't allow it. Too many people are going to want to live in an area with those amenities. Township 9 is proof of this.

Oh... and low yield: Low: meaning below an average or a standard. Yield: meaning to furnish as return for effort or investment; = Low-yield: meaning industrial land in a downtown setting.

I'm always here to help...

[travis bickle]

suffering from poster syndrome again...

[wburg]

yeah wburg, maybe you are just thinking a little further out of the box than I am. But it still makes no sense to me to put a construction materials yard next to $450k flats. I suppose it COULD conceivably appeal to some, and you may be one of them, but it's not a big plus for most and I sincerely doubt the next-door construction yard makes it into the sales brochure.

Now - lofts built from a converted warehouse - many would find that appealing and there must be those opportunities in the area. I prefer to let this area grow organically as it appears to be doing. Part of that is not letting any government decree that any specific lot remain industrial which is what I'm afraid you prefer. If someone needs wiring wholesale, they can drive another 5 miles to McClellan to get it and I just don't consider that a hardship.

You just can't have an area adjacent to a spectacular, sparkling addition to downtown and bordered by two rivers remain industrial. The market won't allow it. Too many people are going to want to live in an area with those amenities. Township 9 is proof of this.

Oh... and low yield: Low: meaning below an average or a standard. Yield: meaning to furnish as return for effort or investment; = Low-yield: meaning industrial land in a downtown setting.

I always here to help...

Once again, I'm not insisting on "putting" industrial uses there that aren't there already. I'm also not talking about seeking city-based protection for existing zoning uses. But no, I don't see a problem with putting residential units next to an existing construction materials yard, and from what I saw on my last trip there, folks in Chicago don't seem to have much problem with buying them. Especially if what we're talking about aren't necessarily $450K flats, but rather, say, flats that a state office technician, bank teller, or maybe even someone who works in a construction materials yard could afford.

The plans for Township 9 are spectacular, but I wouldn't say that the design methodology is so much "sparkling" as it is urban, somewhat gritty, and keeping in character with the existing neighborhood's flavor. What I'm talking about is actual MIXED USE: mixed income, mixed zoning (including industry in the mix) and the kind of busy, interesting neighborhood that people are interested in living in.

I don't see how these uses are "low-yield." If industry is the current use, what further investment is required? I didn't ask for definitions of the words "low" and "yield", but an explanation of your use of the term in context. What constitutes a "high-yield" use vs. a "low-yield" use?

[econgrad]

The problem is construction prices: you can't build buildings, especially taller ones, and make money renting apartments for $800/month. "Market rate" in this market refers to how much it costs the housing builder to make money. $800/month is actually somewhere between "low income" and "very low income" levels of rent. Whoever figures out how to build buildings that people can actually afford is going to make an absolute mint. Just making them taller doesn't solve the problem, because costs go up as the building goes up. There's also a huge demand for urban living by young people who don't have gobs of money, and "weak demand" (many small purchases) is a powerful market effect.

I suppose I'm still pining for the rents of my old two-bedroom townhouse in Marshall School, rent was $495 ten years ago. Or the six-bedroom house in Winn Park we used to rent for $1000 total in the mid-nineties...of course, that didn't have air conditioning!

How is it that same types of high-rises and downtown rents in towns such as Nashville or Austin around $800.00 a month? The buildings costs the same to build, California, including here in Sacramento charges way to much for urban living for what you get. I can pay $650 a month, have one roommate and get a house, a large yard with a swimming pool in Citrus Heights or Orangevale, and maybe even Carmichael or Fair Oaks, and then drive into DT when I want to go there. So why would someone pay a higher price for a small studio, with no pool, surrounded by pan-handlers and still developing nightlife? I do not believe there is enough built in the DT area to be competitive, and the prices are therefore overpriced, and the "market-rate" may not be as valid for profit as we are led to believe. I looked at the Mews with much excitement, I wanted to live there when they opened up awhile back, but for what you get the rent was too high. Capitol Towers offers a pool and a gym, but it is old and the prices are also a bit high for what is offered. Maybe this is our urban problem, maybe urban living in CA is beginning to become just too expensive, not that people can't afford it, more like many people believe they are just getting ripped off on rents if they want urban living. I agree with you a lot, whoever can make buildings and rents more affordable to younger wages will do quite well.

[travis bickle]

What I'm talking about is actual MIXED USE: mixed income, mixed zoning (including industry in the mix) and the kind of busy, interesting neighborhood that people are interested in living in.


A lovely theory - but it's never going to sell. As I've said before, development and planning are, like politics, the art of the possible. You may find it appealing to live next to a construction yard, but I will tell you you're in the distinct minority. Of the thousands of residential units I have had a part in developing, not one resident complained when we dismantled and moved the construction yard.

Regarding the yield: Would you put a carpet warehouse on Capital Mall? (alright smart guys - I know that might be better than the hole where the Towers should be...) Point is that no, you wouldn't. not exactly the best use of the property. Was an empty lot the best use where 621 CM is? No, of course it wasn't. That's why it being replaced by a tower. Was the old five (?) story building the best use for 500 CM. No, it wasn't and that's why it's being replaced.

C'mon wburg - I don't have to explain this concept to you...

[travis bickle]

yet another double post - i'm really on quite the role. Please see next post.

[travis bickle]

How is it that same types of high-rises and downtown rents in towns such as Nashville or Austin around $800.00 a month? The buildings costs the same to build, California, including here in Sacramento charges way to much for urban living for what you get. I can pay $650 a month, have one roommate and get a house, a large yard with a swimming pool in Citrus Heights or Orangevale, and maybe even Carmichael or Fair Oaks, and then drive into DT when I want to go there. So why would someone pay a higher price for a small studio, with no pool, surrounded by pan-handlers and still developing nightlife? I do not believe there is enough built in the DT area to be competitive, and the prices are therefore overpriced, and the "market-rate" may not be as valid for profit as we are led to believe. I looked at the Mews with much excitement, I wanted to live there when they opened up awhile back, but for what you get the rent was too high. Capitol Towers offers a pool and a gym, but it is old and the prices are also a bit high for what is offered. Maybe this is our urban problem, maybe urban living in CA is beginning to become just too expensive, not that people can't afford it, more like many people believe they are just getting ripped off on rents if they want urban living. I agree with you a lot, whoever can make buildings and rents more affordable to younger wages will do quite well.

I know far too many people in California for whom their house is an anchor that keeps them from really enjoying life. The costs (mortgage, insurance, bills) are so high that they can afford to do nothing else. You could camouflage this despair when values are appreciating at 20% plus every year and take out some equity to enjoy life, but those days are over.

I anticipate that California is at a tipping point for many people who will sell their homes (if they can - and they can if the price is right) and move to the Nashvilles and the Austins and other areas that offer an outstanding quality of life at nowhere near California prices.

[bennywah]

land cost, and labor in Nashville, and Austin are cheaper than Sacramento, or most of California hence the lower apt rents, and lower building cost. Go to Phoenix its cheaper there as well. Even with a slumping market, most land and houses in the area are still quite a bit more than they were even 5 years ago.

[econgrad]

^ This may be the root of the problem of CA (and Sacramento's) Urbanism. Why are these costs so high, and what can we do to lower them? If these costs where lower, we wouldn't be complaining about no Arena, no Towers, no Aura because they probably would have been built already. Its so cheap for Sac to build up Natomas, and cheap for other areas like Elk Grove to be built, leading to more sprawl, and more negative environmental impact with smog, traffic, land lost and longer commutes. Could it be CA's regulation to save the environment, which raises costs, is in turn, truly destroying our state and causing more sprawl because suburbs are cheaper to develop? If so, is there a solution?

[innov8]

No, you're jumping to conclusions here. You hit the nail on your head in the second paragraph: I see a big difference between abandoned industrial areas and currently occupied ones. The former are opportunities for a change in zone, the latter are "low-yield" (whatever that means) but are active sites that have a role in a modern city, both as centers of economic activity, trip generators and a means to expand the economic versatility of a neighborhood.

And while, no, not a lot of employees of those industries live nearby, and while there is almost no housing in the Richards area (aside from the Dos Rios projects and the small residential area east of 12th Street) that's why I'd like to see more housing there in addition to the existing industry: so someone who works there COULD conceivably live nearby. There is a lot of room in the neighborhood, between currently vacant structures and vacant lots, for enough infill to keep things humming for a while.

Why wouldn't a neighborhood with both industrial and residential uses (and, conceivably, retail) qualify as "mixed use"? I'm talking about creating a livable community with a broad mixture of residential, commercial and industrial uses. We're thinking along the same lines, I'm just maybe thinking a little farther outside the box than you.

Your arguments against more development along Richards Blvd. are just silly
Wberg. Just admit that you’re against change in Sacramento! You have a
problem with any and every new development unless it’s built on an existing
parking lot or it is reuse (unless the reuse changes the building to much :koko: ).
You say you want more housing along the Richards Blvd, area but you don't
want to demo existing warehouses so this can be done. Your theroy that
people will pay top dollar to live next to one of those old nasty warehouses
is nuts.

You also worry about losing warehouse jobs along Richards Blvd. as part of your
argument to stop change in this depressed part of town, but then don’t
even consider that hundreds if not thousands of new and probably better
paying jobs will fill the void. With the new development, there will also be a
tax revenue boost for the city, another thing you fail to see. Why do you
want to save these tilt-up warehouses over there?
They are built the same way as these tilt-up warehouses off of N. Market
Blvd. by the old Arco.

You’re a NIMBY of the strangest kind Wberg, you just have not admitted it
yet on this board. :tup:

[wburg]

ozone: Price inflation in Sacramento is a phenomenon of the last decade, and most of the environmental regulations (CEQA, etc.) have been around for longer. Specifically, serious price inflation (jumps in rents and land values) started occurring after the dot-com boom resulted in a huge increase in rent and land values in the Bay Area, and many real estate speculators decided that Sacramento, with its comparatively inexpensive land, was the next great frontier. The result was the kind of rampant speculation we have seen, where people used to paying Bay Area prices sent the market through the roof, not realizing that Sacramento salaries could not sustain those price increases. One could also argue that stagnant employee wages, another artifact of our current economy, limits the amount that people can pay for housing.

Part of the problem with building things like skyscrapers is that they use materials like steel and concrete. The economic boom in China, as well as the general increase in interest in building up downtowns nationwide, means that these resources are much in demand, and prices for them have vastly increased.

If your theory about government regulation causing increased land values was true, then you could prove it by connecting specific environmental regulation with increases in land prices. If you can do so, and also explain why these price increases took effect specifically in Sacramento, when other California urban areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego don't seem to be as negatively affected by them, you'd have a strong argument. I am eager to see your proof. However, there are other factors at work which, in my mind, are more important than gummit regulation in the recent increases in residential construction prices.

[wburg]

Your arguments against more development along Richards Blvd. are just silly
Wberg. Just admit that you’re against change in Sacramento!
<edit>
Why do you
want to save these tilt-up warehouses over there?
They are built the same way as these tilt-up warehouses off of N. Market
Blvd. by the old Arco.


I won't admit I'm against change in Sacramento because, well, I'm not against change in Sacramento. I'm a strong advocate of adaptive reuse, infill projects, transit-oriented development and a diverse economic base, and have spoken before pretty much every deliberative board in the city on behalf of these causes. If I'm a N____, you're right, I'm definitely of a strange kind: the kind that doesn't meet your stereotype of what a "N____" should be!

It's also interesting that when I talk about structures made of brick (those are, after all, the structures I'm talking about) you assume I'm talking about the tilt-ups. The structures in the Richards Boulevard area I think are worth preserving are buildings like the state printing plant, the city incinerator, and buildings like the vegetable warehouses along Sixteenth Street.

As far as the tilt-ups that are being used, I'd suggest a policy similar to the one in use near the 65th Street transit village: industrial uses there can continue as long as the business is in operation, but once they close down (due to relocation or going out of business) then the use can change. That conforms to a current city policy but doesn't displace viable businesses.

[travis bickle]

ozone: Price inflation in Sacramento is a phenomenon of the last decade, and most of the environmental regulations (CEQA, etc.) have been around for longer. Specifically, serious price inflation (jumps in rents and land values) started occurring after the dot-com boom resulted in a huge increase in rent and land values in the Bay Area, and many real estate speculators decided that Sacramento, with its comparatively inexpensive land, was the next great frontier. The result was the kind of rampant speculation we have seen, where people used to paying Bay Area prices sent the market through the roof, not realizing that Sacramento salaries could not sustain those price increases. One could also argue that stagnant employee wages, another artifact of our current economy, limits the amount that people can pay for housing.

Part of the problem with building things like skyscrapers is that they use materials like steel and concrete. The economic boom in China, as well as the general increase in interest in building up downtowns nationwide, means that these resources are much in demand, and prices for them have vastly increased.

If your theory about government regulation causing increased land values was true, then you could prove it by connecting specific environmental regulation with increases in land prices. If you can do so, and also explain why these price increases took effect specifically in Sacramento, when other California urban areas like Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego don't seem to be as negatively affected by them, you'd have a strong argument. I am eager to see your proof. However, there are other factors at work which, in my mind, are more important than gummit regulation in the recent increases in residential construction prices.

Well, that was a long way to go to state the most basic economic theory - supply and demand. When people want a limited commodity - the price goes up. Some want to have a specific group to blame - in this case, wburg wants to blame "speculators." I don't what the owner-occupied stats for Sacramento are, but most of the stories I read talk about Bay Area "Transplants," not speculators. I'm sure some of that went on, as it does in every bull real estate market, but I've seen no evidence that unbridled land speculation was the root cause of Sacramento's rapid price escalation of the past decade. You're demanding ozone provide proof - where's yours?

As far as regulations costs to housing? It's hard to separate out the environmental costs alone as they are often lumped together or overlap with other fees. But Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center found at least $40,486 of their survey home’s $223,600 selling price can be attributed to government regulation and fees…an increase of 22 percent over the cost of building the actual house.”

Edward L. Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko in a paper prepared for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, found that permit lags of six months can add nearly $7 per square foot to the price of a house. That’s more than $10,000 added to the cost of a 1,500-square-foot home. Double that for a 12-month lag. Those aren't the fees, that's just the delay time. I have had last-minute delays easily exceed these numbers.

They found something else interesting too. “Measures of zoning strictness,” Glaeser and Gyourko write, “are highly correlated with high prices.” In fact, “Almost all of the very high cost areas are extremely regulated.” In some places, especially California, the impact of these restrictions is dramatic. They’ve been instrumental in making housing prices in San Jose, 50 miles southeast of San Francisco, triple the prices in comparable cities elsewhere.

In the Sacramento area, county regulators required developer Marvin “Buzz” Oates to pay more than $2,000 extra per acre of a Sutter Basin property because it was home to roughly 40 giant garter snakes. The total “mitigation” fee was $3.8 million—$93,950 per snake.

When pro-forma-ing projects, we use a standard one-to-one ratio to determine the possible buyer profile: That is, for every thousand dollars the price of a house rises, you lose a thousand potential buyers. If fees account for $40,000 plus of a home's cost - that means you are losing 40,000 potential buyers. Are you trying to claim that that has no affect on the high cost of housing in California?

The evidence is clear, highly regulated locations have a direct correlation on adding costs that limit the housing supply and thus have a direct correlation to higher housing costs. The root cause, as stated above - is supply and demand - but government regulation plays a significant role.

[travis bickle]

deleated repeated post

[travis bickle]

ugh!

[travis bickle]

Too much Red Bull ...

[travis bickle]

deleted repeated post

[travis bickle]

x

[innov8]

I won't admit I'm against change in Sacramento because, well, I'm not against change in Sacramento. I'm a strong advocate of adaptive reuse, infill projects, transit-oriented development and a diverse economic base, and have spoken before pretty much every deliberative board in the city on behalf of these causes. If I'm a N____, you're right, I'm definitely of a strange kind: the kind that doesn't meet your stereotype of what a "N____" should be!

It's also interesting that when I talk about structures made of brick (those are, after all, the structures I'm talking about) you assume I'm talking about the tilt-ups. The structures in the Richards Boulevard area I think are worth preserving are buildings like the state printing plant, the city incinerator, and buildings like the vegetable warehouses along Sixteenth Street.

As far as the tilt-ups that are being used, I'd suggest a policy similar to the one in use near the 65th Street transit village: industrial uses there can continue as long as the business is in operation, but once they close down (due to relocation or going out of business) then the use can change. That conforms to a current city policy but doesn't displace viable businesses.

Uh, what doe's "N____" mean? Doe's it hurt to say the truth out loud?
Your the master of double speak, saying one thing but meaning another.

Travis, ease-up on the post button ;)

[ltsmotorsport]

^ This may be the root of the problem of CA (and Sacramento's) Urbanism. Why are these costs so high, and what can we do to lower them? If these costs where lower, we wouldn't be complaining about no Arena, no Towers, no Aura because they probably would have been built already. Its so cheap for Sac to build up Natomas, and cheap for other areas like Elk Grove to be built, leading to more sprawl, and more negative environmental impact with smog, traffic, land lost and longer commutes. Could it be CA's regulation to save the environment, which raises costs, is in turn, truly destroying our state and causing more sprawl because suburbs are cheaper to develop? If so, is there a solution?

That's the thing though; it's NOT cheap to build sprawl. The cost of building new roads and other infrastructure is huge, for the home builders and local governments. They also use the same building materials and their costs have risen just as sharply. The difference is that since sprawl has been a proven product for more than a half century, and urban renewal projects are just getting recognized as being proven products, the banks are still wary on urban projects.

As for what actually drove up materials costs so much in the last couple years, the only real explanation I've heard is oil prices, but that even seems a little suspect. The worthless dollar I'm sure has a lot to do with it, since we get a lot of materials from overseas now.

[reggiesquared]

Is wburg NoNewArena????? :D

[TWAK]

so this new project would be getting rid of industrial jobs?

[wburg]

itsmotorsport: Indeed, you hit the nail on the head! It's only cheap to build sprawl because of the massively government-subsidized freeways that feed them--and, of course, their proven status as a product means that many developers like them. Part of why ECOS (including many in the preservation and central city neighborhood association community) is filing a lawsuit against CALTRANS is to try and stop some of that senseless highway expansion that will drive more sprawl.

innov8: I don't like the N-word because it suggests that there are two extremes, either someone who enthusiastically supports any development that comes down the pike or someone who won't back any project ever. I don't fit into either category, and neither do most of the folks in the preservation community that I know (heck, at my neighborhood association meeting last night, several of us were talking about how the 800 J building should have been 20-30 stories tall instead of its current form!)

Words like that shut out conversation and cooperation and reduce debate to name-calling. It's also a word that doesn't stick, considering the number of things that I have wanted in my backyard, and the public support I have given, with what little power I have as a private citizen, for projects that I felt were worth supporting. If not supporting every project makes me worthy of your epithet of choice, well, I don't know what to think about that. I don't understand it, and don't see any need to play along with it.

[TowerDistrict]

so this new project would be getting rid of industrial jobs?

No. i haven't been following all this discussion, but nothing in Township 9 or the Railyards would be eliminating industrial jobs. There may be a few businesses relocating, such as the Habitat for Humanity's ReStore - but there aren't going to be any jobs eliminated by the development.

In the case of the ReStore, they had been taking advantage of the property owner's charitable rental rate for years. That allowed them to make the move to their new location in a MUCH nicer building in the Army Depot.

Any business in that area has been long aware of redevelopment efforts and for the collective River District plans. It would be impossible for any area business to claim they were blind-sided by any of this.

Edit: maybe what was implied is that there would be DOWNTOWN industrial jobs lost? not that a worker is terminated, rather they are relocated.

[innov8]

innov8: I don't like the N-word because it suggests that there are two extremes, either someone who enthusiastically supports any development that comes down the pike or someone who won't back any project ever. I don't fit into either category, and neither do most of the folks in the preservation community that I know (heck, at my neighborhood association meeting last night, several of us were talking about how the 800 J building should have been 20-30 stories tall instead of its current form!)

Words like that shut out conversation and cooperation and reduce debate to name-calling. It's also a word that doesn't stick, considering the number of things that I have wanted in my backyard, and the public support I have given, with what little power I have as a private citizen, for projects that I felt were worth supporting. If not supporting every project makes me worthy of your epithet of choice, well, I don't know what to think about that. I don't understand it, and don't see any need to play along with it.


Ah common, you know which category you sit in the most… you short track
record on this forum speaks for it’s self. And your telling me you that you
now wish that 800 J was 20+ stories taller? 800 J is the most bland new
building in DT and you want to see more of it… I think your just saying that
to sound like you want things to change DT. You have supported maybe a
couple of new projects in DT that involve building an entirely new structure,
other wise you give it the AX saying something of the sort “the alley walls
need to be preserved” like at the Cathedral Square or “what about reuse?”

Wberg, covers been blown, your in the preserve everything or reuse NIMBY camp... and that's okay, just admit it

[downtownserg89]

wow, it has been way too long since i've been on here. i miss being up to date with all these projects and bragging to all of my friends. i swear any site we'd drive by i'd be like oh yeah that's gonna be a real nice restaurant, or it will be 30 stories and completed 2009, etc. nowadays i'm like uhhh i dont know dont ask me!! in case i didnt tell y'all what happened, i got a virus. too much adult content viewing, and it wont let me go online from home, and i havent fixed it yet... so yeah. anyway, it's good to read up on all the updates. i really did miss hearing from you guys on a daily basis. but yes, i need to get back to work! i started college finally, woohoo!!:banana: who knows when i'll be online again, BUT.. next time i do, i wanna hear about how aura broke ground HAHA yeah right. like that'll ever happen.

[Web]

The cost of building new roads and other infrastructure is huge, for the home builders and local governments.

Don't the developers pass this on to the homebuyer etc etc etc?????

[Fusey]

Developer interest high in building massive state office project
By Mary Lynne Vellinga - Bee Staff Writer
Published 7:50 pm PDT Thursday, August 30, 2007

The state of California is looking for a private developer to build one of the largest state office projects in history, and contenders on both sides of the Sacramento River are lining up.

More than 100 people crowded into a briefing earlier this month for potential bidders to build a new 1.4 million-square-foot headquarters for the state Resources Agency somewhere within three miles of the state Capitol.

"There are probably 20-plus development firms that could turn in a proposal," said Anne Cavanagh, project manager for the state Department of General Services, which is overseeing the effort. Proposals are due Nov. 6.

The state turned to the private sector after concluding that the project - formerly dubbed the West End - would be too expensive for the state to build itself.

The state is asking bidders to submit two proposals: One for 700,000 square feet of space and another for twice that much. The larger amount would allow the state to bring about 4,000 employees of the Resources Agency together in one place. If that's judged too expensive, about half that many would locate in the new building, with the rest remaining in existing leased space, Cavanagh said.

Bidders can propose to build on a private site within three miles of the Capitol or on state-owned property already slated for the West End project, originally envisioned as two towers.

The state plans to contribute its downtown land at no cost, a provision some potential bidders said was unfair to those with private sites.

[neuhickman79]

Now, if only architect demand is high so we can get a quality project out of this!

[ltsmotorsport]

I don't know why they would think about another site when the original has an LRT station on its door step.

Just build the Golden State Tower already. :D

[ozone]

I'm assuming those complaining about the West End site are those who have private land to be developed. Well I for one would not like to see yet another SOB (State Office Building) in the O Street area. I'd rather it be developed into high density housing with ground level retail. O Street is pretty much dead after 5 pm and on weekends and not too lively during the weekday. One more SOB there would be another nail in the coffin. The state should sell the WE site (at a reasonable cost) for 'green' urban housing and give the office bid to a developer that has land somwhere else. I know I'm such a dreamer.