[innov8]

Being that West Sacramento is really starting to make a push with lots of
great projects, I thought a thread devoted to the west side was needed.
This article's in today’s SBJ.


West Sac condo tower on tap
150 units will wait for hotter market
Sacramento Business Journal by Michael Shaw
June 8, 2007

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/3189/24wesacdg1.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The 24-story condo tower would rise above the Ziggurat in West Sacramento.

While residential towers have seemingly stalled in downtown Sacramento, a San Diego developer with pension fund backing is seeking approval for a 24-story condominium tower on the West Sacramento riverfront.

Fairfield Residential LLC is looking to build a 150-unit development on about 1 acre between the pyramid-shaped Ziggurat building and the California State Teachers' Retirement System's new headquarters under construction.


"I don't think you can get a better view from a residential project in the downtown area," said Val Toppenberg, West Sacramento's redevelopment director. The site also abuts West Sacramento's River Walk Park.

Fairfield bought the property last year, but the developer said it's likely to wait until conditions are more favorable before building.

"We're not going to rush into a bad market," said Dan Milich, development manager with Fairfield. "We're in a position to wait it out. If you're wondering about a groundbreaking, it's too early for that."

It's also too early to set prices for the condominiums, he said.

Fairfield has time on its side, Milich said, because fees at the site were frozen for 10 years when development agreements were struck.

Meanwhile, the project has a mighty equity partner in the form of CalSTRS. The pension fund has partnered with Fairfield before. In 2006, the fund's real estate portfolio included $95.1 million in assets attributed to Fairfield or its affiliates, according to a CalSTRS investment report.

The West Sacramento condo tower was originally pitched last year as a 17-story building, but developers decided they needed more stories to make the project work, said Jim Bermudez, associate planner with the city.

Fairfield on Thursday was scheduled to seek approvals from the city's Planning Commission for design approval and permission to add seven stories, which would bring the building up to about 240 feet. Planning staff has recommended approval of the changes. The Planning Commission vote was not available before press time. If adopted, the project could go before the West Sacramento City Council within a month.

City officials are optimistic that the project won't suffer the same setbacks as high-rise condo projects on the Sacramento side of the river.

"Given the nature of the project and the nature of their financing, this probably has an excellent chance of moving forward," Toppenberg said.

Fairfield would need to seek a construction loan to build the project, Milich said. Financing of pricey residential projects is scarce these days, judging from the delays and problems with Sacramento's other condo towers. A resurgent housing market, however, might lead to looser lending.

Fairfield struck an unprecedented agreement with the city over affordable housing.

West Sacramento has a citywide policy that typically requires 15 percent of new housing units to be priced so that low- or very-low-income residents can purchase them. Fairfield, however, does not have to provide affordable units within the tower. For the first time, the city allowed a developer to provide off-site affordable housing to satisfy its inclusionary housing rules.


Fairfield paid about $1.9 million to cover the costs of a nonprofit housing agency that acquired 23 low-income studio apartments in the neighborhood that will be refurbished.

Now, off-site affordable housing is an approach the city will consider with other riverfront properties, given the premium land costs there and the additional expense for building vertical developments, said Aaron Laurel, with the city's Housing and Community Investment Department.

Fairfield develops multifamily housing, ranging from small apartment buildings to high rises nationwide, primarily on the East and West coasts. It often acts as construction manager on its own projects.

The site is part of an overall development plan for 18 acres known collectively as Raley's Landing, so named because the development group included Raley's Inc. The overall plan for Raley's Landing was approved last year and includes additional housing as well as office and commercial space on other riverfront sites. Developers involved in other aspects of the plan include Panattoni Development Corp. and Signature Properties Inc.

Signature is now planning the first phase of a 7-acre site north of Raley Field and West Capitol Avenue for lots that would house 134 townhomes, with prices starting in the mid $300,000s, said David Nybo, Signature's director of land acquisition and forward planning. The company is seeking tentative map approval from the Planning Commission and if all goes well, could begin construction within a year. Future phases include a neighborhood coffee shop and restaurant, and two mid-rise projects that would bring the total number of units to about 400.

Large condo projects have not fared well in the past year.

In Sacramento, there has been no word yet from the partners in The Towers on Capitol Mall project -- John Saca and the California Public Employees' Retirement System -- on what will happen with their plans to build twin 53-story condo towers. Saca has failed to come up with enough financing to satisfy the agreement with CalPERS, essentially putting the project on hold.

Craig Nassi, the developer of Aura, another high-rise condo tower in downtown Sacramento, has struggled to secure financing for the project since last fall.

[Sacto]

This is definately good news for W. Sac.

[ozone]

Great news if not great architecture. I'm sure this rendering will not be the final product. I hope it goes through major revision because that looks like 1960's public housing in the Bronx.

[Fusey]

:previous: I was thinking the exact same thing. :haha:

[foxmtbr]

The design could hopefully get a little better, but it's still great news! I think this will sell nicely.

[innov8]

West Sacramento selects Baltimore firm for waterfront project
4 miles of riverfront would become parks, housing, retail
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael ShawStaff writer

June 22, 2007

The Cordish Co., which has redeveloped waterfront sites and large entertainment districts primarily on the East Coast, has been named the top candidate for master developer of a city-owned, 200-plus-acre project in West Sacramento along the Sacramento River.

http://img45.imageshack.us/img45/6741/wsacvk6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The four miles of continuous waterfront property is among the city's prime pieces for redevelopment, though city officials don't have a vision for what will go there.

"We don't know of many other places that have this amount of waterfront land under single ownership," said Traci Michel, senior program manager for the city's redevelopment agency. The agency owns the property, known as Stone Lock Bluff.

City staff selected the Baltimore developer based on its track record for delivering projects and its financial viability, though the City Council must review the selection at a meeting, likely next month. If approved, the city and Cordish will begin negotiations over developing the waterfront land.

Stone Lock is mostly unused land with few areas of public access to the water. It includes the city's wastewater treatment plant that's due to be decommissioned this fall and eventually demolished.

"We did not want plans for this site," Michel said of the city's approach of seeking a developer before it had any concrete ideas for the massive project. "We wanted to find the company most qualified to develop it."

The city has vague ideas that it wants a large central park of 100 acres or more, a marina and neighborhood-oriented retail as opposed to big-box stores. There could be hundreds or thousands of housing units, depending on the ideas that Cordish, the city and the community generate.

The development will cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Initial concepts could be developed by the fall, Michel said.

Cordish topped the list of 10 applicants, selected based on a host of benchmarks, including the experience of top management, financial viability, experience working within a public-private venture and superior architectural design.

"We're looking for someone who will maintain ownership and continually reinvest in this long-term project," Michel said.

The city hasn't yet released the list of competitors for the site, but Signature Properties Inc., which has plans to build in West Sacramento and specializes in urban infill projects, was one of the applicants.


"We're not too familiar with (Cordish), but it appears they're involved in quality projects," said David Nybo, director of land acquisition and forward planning for Signature. "We're looking forward to seeing what they'll bring to the community."

Cordish is a family-owned company that traces its roots back more than 100 years. Company officials were not available to comment late Wednesday.

Its long list of former and current developments include projects in Baltimore's inner harbor and the $650 million ballpark village under construction in St. Louis.

"The Stone Lock District presents an opportunity for a new waterfront neighborhood with retail and entertainment concepts that can become the bellwether for West Sacramento," company vice president Blake Cordish said in a news release. "We look forward to working in partnership with the agency, the city and the community."

[wburg]

Interesting...the train tracks in the illustration are the former right of way of the Sacramento Northern Railway. Some of them are still in use to serve the Port of Stockton and freight customers, but the line south of the lock roughly parallel to Jefferson is actually owned by the city of West Sacramento.

It's an IDEAL place to put a streetcar line, as a third-phase expansion of the system currently being planned. There is open space on either side, originally left clear due to old-school zoning codes and wanting to be away from the train tracks, which might make good spots for TOD mixed-use development trackside. Add that theoretical Broadway Bridge with streetcar tracks down the middle and you've got a great way to provide handy transit and reduce car trips from West Sac to make LPCA happy (or at least slightly less angry.)

The tracks behind Stone Blvd. are still used as a switching yard by YSL, so I'm not sure what their plans are there--it's not like an abandoned railyard where they can just tear things up, if they still hope to ship things by rail (the best way to ship things in big quantities) they'll need a yard somewhere convenient to the port and nearby industries.

[innov8]

http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/371/calstrs520070622fpw9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
CalSTRS

[ozone]

Raley Field diversifies with non-baseball events, upgrades with surrounding projects
By Lakiesha McGhee - SacBee
Thursday, June 28, 2007
http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3293/catsia4.jpg

Heather Layman, from Shell Rock, Iowa, scrambled among a horde of River Cats fans at Raley Field to catch her first foul ball.

She screamed with excitement and clutched the ball tight to her chest, savoring the moment.

But what she will remember most about the West Sacramento stadium, she said, is the park itself.

"This is the first minor league baseball park I've been to and I like that it's a little more intimate," said Layman, 29, as she and her friends watched the River Cats play the Tacoma Rainiers last week.

Near the entrance to the 14,414-seat stadium, a man nicknamed "The Organ Guy" entertained guests with songs. Children played on inflatable structures in a new Kids Corner while school groups attended an assembly about personal values. Employees from Intel were treated to lunch in the stadium's new barbecue "Bull Pen," which opened at the start of the season for private parties.

The evidence is around the stadium: Raley Field isn't just about baseball anymore.

Raley Field is owned and operated by the River Cats organization. Team officials are expanding offerings at the stadium to appeal to a broader audience. In the past three years, non-baseball events at Raley Field have nearly doubled -- from 35 events in 2005 to more than 60 this year.

Attracting visitors are facility rentals for corporate functions, private parties, graduations, festivals and a growing line of concerts, which often sell out, said Alan Ledford, River Cats president and general manager. International soccer and boxing matches have been scheduled this year to compete for area residents' discretionary dollars, he said.

"People don't come here just to watch baseball," Ledford said. "They're here to be with friends, family and co-workers. It's sort of like a town hall for the community."

The new attractions are compensating for a drop in baseball game attendance, which fell from 861,808 in 2000 when Raley Field opened to 728,227 in 2006. River Cats management said the team's "honeymoon stage" is over and the decline is typical.

The River Cats still have led all other minor league teams in attendance during each of their seven seasons.

West Sacramento officials are recognizing the stadium's worth to their growing city. A $5 million street improvement is under way to provide better access to Raley Field and to new housing in the adjacent Triangle area, said Maureen Daly Pascoe, city redevelopment program manager.

"Think boulevard instead of freeway," said Pascoe, describing an intersection under construction at Tower Bridge Gateway and the new Garden Street.

An overpass at Riske Lane is being demolished. Street signals, sidewalks, bike lanes and trees will take its place, Pascoe said. Construction is expected to be completed by year's end.

Future street upgrades to benefit Raley Field will be at Tower Bridge Gateway at Third and Fifth streets, Pascoe said. Other developments include a proposed 2.2-mile streetcar system that would have a stop at Raley Field and link West Sacramento to Sacramento over the Tower Bridge. That project is still in the planning stages.

Tower Bridge sidewalks are being widened to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists.

Raley Field has lured big concert acts such as the Dave Matthews Band from larger arenas such as Arco, which seats 17,317, and the Sleep Train Amphitheatre, which seats 18,500.

West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon said Raley Field has been a catalyst for the city's revitalization.

"Raley Field brought attention to all the possibilities that can emerge on the waterfront," Cabaldon said.

West Sacramento and Sacramento in 2003 adopted a Riverfront Master Plan calling for several public gathering places, a pedestrian transportation loop, new marinas, a pedestrian bridge, homes, offices and retail.

The Triangle area, southwest of Raley Field, is planned for up to 5,000 homes and 7 million square feet of office space, according to city reports. So far, 189 loft-style homes have been built at the site.
"The construction of Raley Field and the success of the River Cats helped establish the area, but it has evolved more slowly than some would have liked," Ledford said.

City officials hope new tactics to draw a wider crowd to the stadium will spill over to retailers.

Grace Sanford, 87, of Alameda shopped with her niece last week at the Raley Field gift shop.

Amid the pickings were a baby pink River Cats T-shirt, meant to attract young girls.

"It makes me feel 20 years younger," Sanford said as she held the shirt next to her body. "Maybe more than that."

[bigd]

Wow, I didnt realize the rivercats attendance was that high. The Devil Rays of MLB only averages 14k per game.

[jsf8278]

Yeah the Devils Rays have been a disaster. They use a crappy dome in beautiful Tampa Florida...how stupid is that? With the dissolution of the Expos not too long ago, I wouldn’t be surprised if MLB tries to do something with the Devil Rays.

Anyway I had no idea Rivercats attendance was that high. With minor league attendance that high, one could make a strong argument that Sac could support a major league team...or at least an NFL team. It’s too bad the city prob. couldn't afford to subsidize the construction of a major stadium.

[brandon12]

The expos weren't disolved, they were turned into the Washington Senators.

As far as NFL and MLB, there is no chance as long as there are two teams in each leage playing in the bay area. That's what makes the A's moving to Fremont so disheartening to me.

Sac's only chance at this point to improve it's big-time sports offering would be if one of it's college teams joined the WAC or similar conference. I understand that UCD's new football stadium is expandable to 30,000. In order to qualify for D1 college football, you have to play in a stadium that seats at least 30,000, I believe, and have a few years in a row of attendance exceeding something like 20,000. Of course, you also have to have a conference that invites you to join, unless you're Notre Dame ;)

That being said, the Sacramento media market would be desirable to any conference wanting to add a team (since all the teams in the conference typically share a large portion of their media revenue) But you have to have a stadium first...

If UCD or Sac St. joined the WAC, I would buy 10 season tickets and have the best 4 saturday afternoons known to man every year. 1A college football is the best sport going in the US as far as party atmosphere. Nothing else even comes close in my mind. Man, what I would give to be 25 again...

[otnemarcaS]

:previous:

Agree with the WAC on football. UCD certainly has a better shot at the WAC than Sac State. Sac State actually plays in the WAC for baseball and Big Sky for most other sports but not all. As far as basketball, I would have prefered Sac State to play in the WCC or at least the Big West (where I believe UCD begins play in a year or two). Regional rivalries is what makes watching college hoops a little more exciting if you are not in the Big Leagues. As a Sac st alumni, I don't really give a damn that Sac plays the Montanas, Idaho states or Northern Colorado. Would rather see 'em consistently play Pacific, USF, St Mary's, UCD, LB state, San Diego, Cal Poly etc.

[wburg]

Speaking of Tampa, I think their arena is accessible by their recently completed TECO trolley system, which uses historic and reproduction streetcars.

[innov8]

Southport conference center, resort planned
By Michael Shaw of The Sacramento Business Journal

July 6, 2007

A conference center and spa resort could highlight a massive development just south of West Sacramento and shelve plans for college student housing.

Developer Riviera Lakes Joint Venture is still considering an active-adult community -- part of an earlier plan -- but is now proposing to add a resort on 587 acres, said Steve Patek, West Sacramento's community development director. The project has a new name: Vina del Lago.

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4906/southportog7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

The developer has also curbed the active-adult community from 2,500 to 2,200 homes and will focus on a resort, possibly including a hotel, instead of the earlier idea called University Park, which focused on student housing. Riviera Lakes officials hope the city will annex the riverfront property.

The altered plan comes just as the city decides how it will guide development in Southport, the southern area of West Sacramento surrounded by the Sacramento River and the deep water ship channel. It's been the city's most active site for new housing developments over the past few years.

Three large communities, including Vina del Lago, would bring a total of about 8,000 homes. This month, the City Council is expected to determine how it will process applications for those developments, whether to examine them together or individually.

The other developments are:

Yarbrough Village, a planned lakeside community with 3,004 homes, a public golf course and trails proposed by ASB Properties Investments LLC.
River Park, a 2,788-home project along 500 acres of riverfront property proposed by Richland Planned Communities Inc.
Richland senior vice president Steve Thurtle said his company remains interested in pursuing its project despite additional costs on developers to improve and repair the city's levees. If the company's project is entitled this year, new-home construction could start in 2009. But construction also depends on an improving new-home market, he said.

Patek said if the applications proceed as expected, public hearings on the two developments could be held this year.

Vina del Lago's representatives could not be reached for comment this week.

City Councilman Mark Johannessen said he wants to know what the developments add to the city before he will consider supporting them.

"My main focus is that we need to determine all the development within the next 15 years and see what benefits they'll offer," he said. "It's got to be a net benefit to the city, or why are we doing it?"

One of the major concerns is traffic. Adding 8,000 homes would further strain Southport's main thoroughfare, Jefferson Boulevard, Patek said. Dealing with that may be difficult, although city staff are preparing a report that will detail options, such as blocking certain left-hand turn lanes to keep traffic moving.

There are no immediate plans to add access points to Southport, which residents reach essentially by one bridge. There had been talk of a new bridge to Sacramento at Broadway, although those plans have cooled in recent months.

It would be an issue as well for Vina del Lago, situated south of West Sacramento's city limits.

The developers have suggested that they build a levee along the city's new southern border if they're annexed into West Sacramento.

Currently, the levee at the city's southern edge isn't adequate flood protection for new homes. Farmers built the levees to protect their fields, not neighborhoods or a resort.

Patek said it's not considered a primary levee, meaning that it doesn't abut water, but improvements would be needed to protect new homes.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/07/09/story3.html

[Phillip]

All these proposed developments on the south side of West Sac would really benefit from a new bridge over the Sacramento River. Minus a new bridge there's only Jefferson Blvd for getting out of the area and that street is already overburdened.

I visited the new Super Wal-Mart in West Sac for the first time. It's the nicest Wal-Mart I've seen---wide aisles, very clean and organized. Maybe being next door to Ikea is keeping them on their toes.

[greenmidtown]

I've actually never ventured into West Sac past IKEA but the other day we drove from downtown to IKEA through the I st. bridge. several observations. we definitely need more bridges. but more importantly. between the river and IKEA/Wal-Mart is a trashy low-income neighborhood. they need to do some serious rehab. it's pretty ugly. For now it seems like all the development is by the freeway or on the riverfront leaving the rest of the city in neglect. there aren't many trees either just a lot of burnt grass. coming from downtown/midtown you feel like you're entering another world.

[Kevin Hassett]

[QUOTE=brandon12;2925028]The expos weren't disolved, they were turned into the Washington Senators.

Washington Nationals

[brandon12]

oops. You're right. Sorry about that.

[wburg]

I've actually never ventured into West Sac past IKEA but the other day we drove from downtown to IKEA through the I st. bridge. several observations. we definitely need more bridges. but more importantly. between the river and IKEA/Wal-Mart is a trashy low-income neighborhood. they need to do some serious rehab. it's pretty ugly. For now it seems like all the development is by the freeway or on the riverfront leaving the rest of the city in neglect. there aren't many trees either just a lot of burnt grass. coming from downtown/midtown you feel like you're entering another world.

If you made it to Ikea, that's most of the way through West Sacramento--the western city limits are a ways past the other side of the highway.

There are some nice old houses in that neighborhood, many of which have faced decades of neglect, but some are still pretty nice. There are a number of developments going in over there--I'm sure you noticed the cluster of new buildings just west of the bridge. LJ Urban is a big investor over there, and has something like a half-dozen different projects underway in West Sacramento. Part of the challenge they face is that the area is still very economically depressed. However, that's not so different from the way midtown Sacramento looked 20-30 years ago: in the 1980s, if you told people you were moving to midtown Sac people thought you were just crazy.

That being said, there is a lot of neat old architectural fabric in the area at the foot of the I Street Bridge (historically known as the Washington district), like the old firehouse (which is scheduled to become a restaurant and wine bar) and the buildings around it, including the little West Sacramento history museum. West of that things get looser--and a lot of those patches of "burnt grass" still flood every year.

[ozone]

Re. West Sacramento today [...that's not so different from the way midtown Sacramento looked 20-30 years ago: in the 1980's] -To the best of my knowledge Midtown never had a bunch of trailer courts and only a handfull of old homes. I understand the greater point you are making but to be fair Midtown had a lot more to work with in the 1980's than West Sacramento does today. That's not to say it's a problem. Sometimes less is more. It seems like there would be less design constriants since there's so little context to fit into.

[innov8]

Ziggurat's big brother
There's a new kid on the riverfront as CalSTRS erects West Sac headquarters
By Mary Lynne Vellinga of The Sacramento Bee

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

http://img527.imageshack.us/img527/3008/calstrstowergq8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
The new headquarters for the California State Teachers' Retirement System, above, will rise 280 feet tall next to the ziggurat building, which until now has been the tallest structure on the West Sacramento waterfront.
Sacramento Bee/Randall Benton

West Sacramento's ziggurat building, long a brash but only child screaming across the river that the city had arrived, is about to get a taller and more subdued sibling.

The new California State Teachers' Retirement System headquarters, now rising on the waterfront, will stand 280 feet tall, nearly twice the height of the ziggurat. The $253 million building will contain 18 floors of parking and office space.

Its design represents a marked departure in style from the attention-getting ziggurat, which local architects have long loved to hate, but which nonetheless has become one of the best known features of the riverfront.

Clad in glass, the CalSTRS building will curve as it approaches the river, coming to a narrow point. The curve will create more views of the river, while the narrow edge of the building facing east will reduce energy use -- one of many green features.

Conference rooms will be in the tapered edge, with the best river views.

"It will be incredible," said Paul Woolford, director of design for the San Francisco office of Hellmuth, Obata + Kassabaum Inc., or HOK, the international architecture firm that designed the pension fund building. "From the tower, you will be able to see the point at which the (Sacramento and American) rivers converge.

"The building is really designed to look like a large, billowing sail of glass, almost as if the wind has caught it," he said. "We took inspiration from the idea that there's this confluence of the rivers, and this is a former shipbuilding site."

HOK designed many of the high-rise buildings constructed in Sacramento during the past 20 years, including Esquire Plaza, the Wells Fargo Center and the new office tower under construction at 621 Capitol Mall.

Its West Sacramento project, expected to open in spring 2009, is winning praise from some of the same design enthusiasts who dislike the ziggurat.

Developer Mark Friedman, who is also pursuing projects on the West Sacramento waterfront, said he likes the building's curved side, and the walking plaza that connects it to the waterfront.

"It does a very nice job of inviting people from the street edge to the water," he said. In contrast, the limestone and beige-tinted glass of the ziggurat makes it feel like an isolated object with no connection to the river, he said.

"One of the flaws of the ziggurat is it doesn't really respond to the attributes of the site," Friedman said. "What they were trying to do was create a monolithic look that emulated the pyramids."

John Packowski of PHA Architects said the CalSTRS building is "striking in its simplicity," although he complained that the north side is too bland.

"This is more indicative of where the future of West Sacramento's architecture is going," Packowski said. The city of West Sacramento last month approved a high-rise condominium tower -- also to be financed by CalSTRS -- next door to the new headquarters. More office and residential buildings also are in the works.

"The city of West Sacramento is at a transformational point," Woolford said. "I don't think it will be recognized as the same place in 10 years."

Yet even as West Sacramento's downtown grows up, Packowski said, it will be hard to obscure the prominence of its pyramid-shaped firstborn in the view from downtown Sacramento.

"You're not ever going to not see the ziggurat," he said.

West Sacramento's longtime Redevelopment Director Val Toppenberg said the city's handling of development projects has changed considerably since the ziggurat was constructed in 1997.

In those early days of cityhood, West Sacramento officials were scrambling to lure some office tenants to the long neglected waterfront.

"We were in a much different position in those days," Toppenberg said.

The man behind the pyramid was Marc Turtletaub, who built it as a headquarters for the Money Store, which he headed. The project was shrouded in secrecy. The Money Store refused to release public renderings until it was completed.

After the Money Store went out of business, the state took over the ziggurat.

"The designers of the CalSTRS building worked with the city very closely to come up with a design," Toppenberg said. "On the ziggurat building, the designer and the owners pretty much came up with the building and said, 'Here it is. Take it or leave it.' "

Still, Toppenberg says he's personally fond of the ziggurat, which was designed by Ed Kado, the architect who recently proposed building a high-rise on the Capitol Mall with a replica of the Parthenon on top, an idea that was later dropped.

"I love it because it was the first building on our waterfront," Toppenberg said. "It created an iconic feature, and it's something West Sacramento has really been able to be proud of."

http://img352.imageshack.us/img352/8274/westsacriverfrontmapsh6.gif (http://imageshack.us)

[arod74]

:previous: I can't think of any project from HOK that I haven't liked but I'm having a hard time getting a good feel of the scale and look of the project from the renderings put out there. It looks a lot smaller than 280ft. I guess since the building is not a typical verticle rectangle and looks to have quite abit of curves, it looks smaller on paper. Very eager to see them finish the frame..

[wburg]

I have to say I like the look of the building: the soft, organic curve and glass do kind of make it a bit more part of the landscape than the sore-thumb look of the Ziggurat.

[TowerDistrict]

:previous: I can't think of any project from HOK that I haven't liked but I'm having a hard time getting a good feel of the scale and look of the project from the renderings put out there. It looks a lot smaller than 280ft. I guess since the building is not a typical verticle rectangle and looks to have quite abit of curves, it looks smaller on paper. Very eager to see them finish the frame..

Judging from the other diagrams posted here, the building may be 280' tall, but it's almost equally wide. That angled perspective of the detailed rendering makes it look half of its actual width.

I think it will look great - especially reflecting in the mornings and evenings. It's good to see some glass-clad buildingd on the west side. They work well with the big sky sunsets we get here in the valley.

[innov8]

Judging from the other diagrams posted here, the building may be 280' tall, but it's almost equally wide. That angled perspective of the detailed rendering makes it look half of its actual width.

I think it will look great - especially reflecting in the mornings and evenings. It's good to see some glass-clad buildingd on the west side. They work well with the big sky sunsets we get here in the valley.

You know, to my surprise after going over there a few times, the building is not
as wide as you might think... or as I once thought. I guess will know soon
now that they have started to erect more steel again this week.

It will look nice over there, that's for sure... and I love how it looks already
when I see it driving south on I-5.

[innov8]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7390/mixeduserenderingofwestid9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This is a rendering in the July issue of Comstock Magazine. They have a feature
story on the city and weather the waterfront area over there is now starting
to get going or is it's another false start... Good read.

[ltsmotorsport]

That is HOT! That would make me want to live in W. Sac.

[COASTIE]

There has to be some great small business opportunities opening up in that area. The population in the area should see some vital growth. Imagine if the A's move to Raley field! There would be plenty of costumers to cater to!

[innov8]

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/3131/calstrs120070726fdx2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/7818/calstrs220070726fgc3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ltsmotorsport]

Imagine if the A's move to Raley field!

If ONLY that were a real possibility.

[JeffZurn]

Nice looking shots Innov8, that 280ft is going to put some needed elevation in the W Sac skyline

[wburg]

I'm interested in some of the smaller residential developments going on in West Sac too: the infill that is taking up the gaps between the older homes in existing neighborhoods, which will help sew together the urban fabric. LJ Urban has a big hand in this, and while I attended part of the meeting they held on Monday (and met some of y'all finally) I couldn't stay for the whole thing. Basically they have about half a dozen little projects, residential or mixed use, plus a planned community garden, sticking close to their "eco-urban" model. Most of the projects are within close walking distance of the planned streetcar line, a plus for keeping car traffic to a minimum.

[foxmtbr]

Woah, that's beautiful! Thanks for posting that rendering. Great update as well! :)

[arod74]

I really like some of the proposals for west sac. The potential to do some really cool things based on the available infill and the eagerness of the city government there bodes well. It will be very interesting what the west side of the river will look like in 20 years if they continue the momentum of the Raley field area and continue redeveloping west capitol ave. Maybe even quicker if they keep stealing away big retailers like Ikea and investing the tax renue.

[kryptos]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7390/mixeduserenderingofwestid9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

This is a rendering in the July issue of Comstock Magazine. They have a feature
story on the city and weather the waterfront area over there is now starting
to get going or is it's another false start... Good read.

anything like this is years away, unless all of those highrises are full of office space...the real estate market is in a slump, not expected to revamp until 2009, so i would say that lenders are going to be weary of investing in any highrise condo buildings in sacramento, or california for that matter...the 1st quarter of this year alone, over 40,000 people defaulted on their mortgages just here in california, on pace to meet the former record of just over 54,000 in a single quarter

[innov8]

State looking for developers to build its West End
By Michael Shaw of The Sacramento Business Journal

August 3, 2007

The state is looking to commercial developers to revive the 1.4-million-square-foot office project in downtown Sacramento known as the West End complex, shelved as a state-financed effort after construction costs spiked.

If developers take over the project, it wouldn't necessarily be built on the original sites, which cover 2½ blocks south and west of the Capitol.

Officials expect to solicit proposals within a month or so for building the massive complex, designed to house the entire California Resources Agency, which employs 16,000 statewide. Sites could be located within three miles of the Capitol. A request for proposals that would describe the project's parameters awaits approval at key state offices such as the Department of General Services and the Resources Agency, said Anne Cavanagh, the project's program manager within General Services.

The state can't build West End for what it now would cost; estimates have risen to $620 million, about 59 percent higher than the $391 million expenditure authorized in 2001. Building at today's higher steel and concrete prices would require reauthorization by the Legislature.

But leasing the space after it's built by a commercial developer, with a purchase option down the road, makes more economic sense, Cavanagh said.

The project, known as both West End and West Side, originally was envisioned as two buildings, each taller than 20 stories, replacing smaller offices housing different state offices on two city blocks. Developers could submit proposals to build on the original site or elsewhere. Other sites might include the Richards Boulevard redevelopment area, alternate downtown sites or the West Sacramento riverfront, said John Dangberg, assistant city manager of Sacramento.

Developers of large office buildings await the specifications. Those guidelines, enough to fill three binders, would likely leave the design details to the developers but require them to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards for efficiency and water conservation.

"We're very interested," said John Igoe, a senior vice president with Sares-Regis Group of Northern California, which is working with Ramco Enterprises Inc. and Clark Pacific Corp., a maker of precast concrete structures. The latter two control about 8 acres along the "Triangle" area of West Sacramento riverfront that already has entitlements for office space.

"We don't yet know what (the state's) schedule is for putting out the invitation," Igoe said.

A selling point for the group's property, just south of Raley Field, is the elevation. It sits higher than other areas around the capital and is therefore better protected against flood, said Dan Ramos, vice president at Ramco.

The area is expected to get streetcar shuttle service, which might satisfy the state's requirements that the site be located near rapid transit.

Ramos said developers are more likely to hold down construction costs and create cost-saving designs than on projects done "in house" by the state.

State administrators have met with local government officials in Sacramento and West Sacramento about the project.

Les Bowman, redevelopment manager for West Sacramento, said another major property owner in the Triangle, Fulcrum Properties Inc., also has expressed interest.

While entitlements already exist, the Triangle needs utilities and roads. Bowman said a future transfer of a large complex to the state has implications on the city's ability to pay for that infrastructure. That's because once a building is transferred to the state, it's removed from the tax rolls. The lack of tax revenue would make it difficult for the city to finance sewers, roads and other public works.

Sacramento has also been spreading the word, though officials won't say to whom. "We're contacting others about the project and encouraging them to respond," Dangberg said.

Even after proposals come in, likely within 90 days after the request is issued, which is the standard deadline, the Legislature would have to authorize the new project.

"In some respects, we're in the same place we were last year," Cavanagh said, referring to the fact that requests for developers' proposals haven't gone out. She expects 10 to 15 responses.

As originally conceived, the West End office buildings would have occupied the blocks between N and P streets and 7th and 8th streets. The site also contains the historic Heilbron House, which would have to be preserved or moved.

The Resources Agency now has offices in a building at 1416 9th St. and other leased property.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/08/06/story3.html?page=1

[innov8]

how much bigger is the calstrs gonna be?

It has four more floors to go, two on the west side and four on the east.

CalSTRS (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3008954#post3008954)

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/5665/calstrs220070803foe2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/5273/calstrs520070803fzl3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8739/calstrs820070803fuc9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img467.imageshack.us/img467/24/calstrs1320070803fbc8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[enigma99a]

good pics Mike. And that Old Sac shot is a bit menacing :D

[goldcntry]

It'll give the Darth Vader building a run for its money as a photo hog...;)

[neuhickman79]

A pic I found on flickr.com from user hollielg of the Triangle Project in West Sac:
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y241/neuhickman79/smfday147.jpg

[innov8]

Taken last week from the top of the current US Bank Tower.

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9537/calstrs720070824fuj7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/1166/calstrs520070824fmr6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

More... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=116795&page=6

[JeffZurn]

Great shots Innov8! So it looks like they still have 2 more floors to go?

[innov8]

Thanks Jeff :)

They have made alot of progress since Friday when I took the shots. It looks
like one more floor plus a mechanical floor rising up another 40 feet +/-.
It appears as if the last floors is designed to be a meeting room floor because
it's got really high ceilings, maybe 25'. To get an idea from the close up above,
the tower has risen up three more tower crane sections and has bow or curve
at the top for it's final height.

[goldcntry]

I took a walk at lunch yesterday when I looked out the window and saw the intersting angles taking shape on top. As soon as I get the pics tweeked, I'll post 'em here.


:tomato:

[TowerDistrict]

Towers on fast track in West Sac
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/08/28/21/767-3B29CEMEX.standalone.prod_affiliate.4.gif


Six high-rises will soon be popping into view in West Sacramento. And no, they're not condos. They're huge concrete silos, the tallest topping out at 222 feet. Located along the Port of Sacramento's shipping channel, the silos will store bulk cement that's shipped here and then trucked to local construction sites. Putting a new mark on West Sacramento's skyline, they'll loom larger than the former Money Store building and the state Capitol.

But what's really amazing is how fast these structures are going to zoom into sight. Construction on the Cemex USA project is scheduled to start Sept. 10 and be finished in two weeks. "It will be continuous pour (of concrete), 24 hours a day," says Port Manager Mike Luken, referring to the super-fast construction process. The six silos will go up simultaneously. Circular forms - 60 feet in diameter - will be filled with concrete, then slipped upward as the wall sets. They'll rise about 10 feet a day, until reaching their peak of 162 feet. The central silo, which has a loading elevator in its core, will climb an additional 60 feet.

The long-planned project relocates and expands Cemex's current location, which is served by a rail spur going through West Sac's Triangle area near Raley Field. The area is destined for parks, residences and offices, so the spur had to go. Thus the relocation, funded with $16.5 million from the West Sac Redevelopment Agency and Triangle property owners.

Cemex is spending at least $54 million more to build what a spokeswoman calls a "state-of-the-art" cement terminal, with eventual plans for aggregate storage and concrete mixing. Once the six silos are completed in October, the Cemex facility will be capable of handling 1.25 million tons of cement, generating about $1.25 million in annual revenue for the port.

The Cemex relocation removes a key obstacle to development of the Triangle - and generates needed port revenue. "A win-win," says West Sacramento Redevelopment Director Val Toppenberg.

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/08/28/19/560-3B29SHALLIT.highlight.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2007/08/28/19/921-3B29PORT.embedded.prod_affiliate.4.JPG

[innov8]

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/7915/calstrs220070908jpg2007yx0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/6117/sacskyline20070908jpg20kq0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/9931/skyline320070908jpg2007yz8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[awg]

The image looks like the northeast corner of the Triangle.

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7390/mixeduserenderingofwestid9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)


Proposed other side of the Triangle SW:

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/awg5/TriangleSitePlan.jpg

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e309/awg5/TriangleModel.jpg

Both images were found on a Portland architecture firm's website--GBD Architects.

[Quest]

Any info when they going to start all this construction in West Sac?

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/7390/mixeduserenderingofwestid9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[awg]

I think the hotel stuff that Ramos is proposing is a bit off into the future. The proposals on the other side, I believe, were what was talked about in some of the articles above and are dependant on landing some of the state RFPs. I think there is one for the California Highway Patrol and one of the Department of Water and Resources. Both of those projects would be operational within 24 - 30 months. If either of those go, the site could develop organically over the next 5 or 6 years. If neither happen, then it seems like a long wait.

The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is tough. I found it curious that either of the high-rise towers were taken seriously at all considering there is no precedent for that kind of living anywhere in Sacramento (is there?). Most places do baby steps to figure these kind of projects out and then ramp up the scale over a decade or so. Just seemed like pie in the sky dreams from an outside observer's point of view.

[TowerDistrict]

The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is
tough. I found it curious that either of the high-rise towers were taken
seriously at all considering there is no precedent for that kind of living
anywhere in Sacramento (is there?). Most places do baby steps to figure
these kind of projects out and then ramp up the scale over a decade or so.
Just seemed like pie in the sky dreams from an outside observer's point
of view.

And it seems pie in the sky now, considering neither got built. But all of us
are blue in the face from reiterating the fact that around 600 of the 1,200
units sold without any construction.

The more logical baby steps you mention are definitely in the works with
the Triangle area in West Sac, the Docks, the Railyards and dozens of other
infill projects throughout the central city area of Sacramento. But it's tough
times for residential, both urban and suburban, all over the country. So
noone is in a huge rush to launch any large scale project.

[wburg]

quest: Those are concept drawings, not an illustration of a project in the pipeline. Expect the West Sacramento streetcar to start running in the next 4-5 years, then development will follow. A lot of it will probably look like the projects already sprouting around the I Street Bridge: LJ Urban has a lot of projects in that neighborhood that are more like the urban infill going into midtown Sacramento than anything skyscrapery. What happens next depends on a lot of variables: Will the streetcar project be successful, and spur further development? Will an influx of new residents help the Washington/Broderick/Bryte neighborhoods supersede their bad reputation? Will future leadership follow in the same pattern as Chris Cabaldon, who might be setting his sights on higher political aspirations? Will more bridges be built over the river? Will continuing development in Sacramento drive adjacent land values high enough to spur the kind of construction in the concept drawing?

[ozone]

It's the CHP HQ going out where their training facility is currently? That's east of I-8 I 0 and no where near the downtown riverfront.



"The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is tough."

As the recent Bee's article indicated and others have said the central city is different from the suburbs. The very fact that there was no precedent for highrise living anywhere in Sacramento is what made it seem that much more viable. It's unfortunate that the players and timing was such that they did not get off the ground. However, as far as I can tell there's still a lot of people who are wanting to move into the central city. Their demise actually helped, or will help, a lot of smaller infill projects u/c or planned. So in a way it

Sacramento has a few older midrise apartments (10-15 floors) so it's not that big a jump in scale. The one thing these towers did do is show that the public is very accepting of a larger scale. I know many will disagree with me but I believe downtown needs a little more sprucing up and few more smaller infill projects before it's ready to build 30-50 story highrise condos.

[awg]

It's the CHP HQ going out where their training facility is currently? That's east of I-8 I 0 and no where near the downtown riverfront.

Has that been in the paper? I haven't read that. I was under the impression that there were a number of sites up for consideration and the State is evaluating them.

The very fact that there was no precedent for highrise living anywhere in Sacramento is what made it seem that much more viable.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. The simple fact that something doesn't exist would lead most people to believe that there is a good reason for it. It takes the visionary to make the leap of faith. When they do and it works out, there is often a pile of money to be made as they now have the entire market to themselves and can charge essentially whatever they want. But a bank or lending institution will certainly disagree. They want to see successful examples of whatever is being proposed and if one doesn't exist, they get nervous.

Sacramento has a few older midrise apartments (10-15 floors) so it's not that big a jump in scale.

Having worked on high rise buildings the last 4-5 years, that just simply is not the case. There is a huge difference between 150' and anything over 250'. Not just from the perception of the size of the building, but also the techincal requirements of building tall. If the design team hasn't done this before (architect, builder, and developer), there will be A LOT of challenges. It is different in a whole host of ways--plumbing, mechanical, structural loads, everything. Its simply not as easy as adding floors. Codes are cumbersome at that height and any inefficiency in the plan is now multiplied by such huge factors that it quickly becomes a financial disaster. In fact, that is why most high rise buildings are "boring" and stack so neatly all the way up.

[ozone]

I think we are talking about two different things here. I'm not talking about the difference in building skyscrapers vs mid-rises I'm talking about people accepting and embrancing the highrise living.

[awg]

I think you are right... I misunderstood your direction about the scale being from the building side of it, not the living in it side of it. I don't think there is much of a difference between living at 100' above the street or 400' above the street (except the wind perhaps).

But there is a difference in cost between living in existing high-rise construction and new high-rise construction. I'm curious how many of the reservations for either of the proposed high-rises would have been converted to purchases. I know that where I'm at, the average cost of a home in the city is around $300k. A new, nice condo in downtown would run someone from $350k - $600k (and up to the millions). So there is probably a premium, but an affordable one.

What is the average suburban house in Sacramento? I would think either of those high rises would have started in the $700 a sq ft range and with little precedent for condo living, most buyers would expect 1200-1400 sf units = $840,000 - $980,000. (and at that, they would think those were dinky)

Aside from the inexperience of developing these kinds of buildings, I wonder if another pitfall was simply the cost of the units vs the cost of suburban houses. Having to find 1200 buyers that are willing to spend upwards of $1,000,000 for 1400 sf when they can buy a 3000 sf house for half of that was undoubtedly no small feat in itself.

[innov8]

Yesterday evening I was driving west to Davis through W. Sac and noticed
the six concrete silos that they are building along the Port of Sacramento's
shipping channel. I guess they are constructing them 24 hours a day, so that night
on the way back over the Yolo Causeway I could see the work site all lit up.
They look to be at about the halfway point of 160'. The top of the silos
are lit in a circler pattern.

[ozone]

awg I think you hit on the main reason why highrise living does not YET appeal to many people here in Sacramento. I've heard so many people simply scoff at the price of these lofts or condos and then say "I can buy a whole house for that price".

[wburg]

Well, they're right--and they can buy a whole house within walking distance of places where these condo buildings will go.

I suppose I could ask you, what are your arguments in favor of embracing high-rise living?

[sugit]

I've heard so many people simply scoff at the price of these lofts or condos and then say "I can buy a whole house for that price".

I've heard that more than my fair share too. In that sense, it seems it might take a new generation to overcome that "whole house" in the burbs versus loft/condo thinking on a regional level.

Many peoples "value" of a residence is still tied up in size of house and yard. I value many other things other than size and yard (I don't have/want a yard). "Value" is subjective to everyone, and right now the majority of people still see "value" in terms of size of house and yard.

[ozone]

Well I usually say something like yes but your not stuck out in the burbs where you have to drive everywhere. I talked to a women who just moved here from San Francisco and works downtown. She wants to live in West Midtown because she said she wanted to live in the most urban place in the city where she doesn't have drive to get coffee. Nonetheless she said she would still have drive to her work which is downtown at around 5th Street.

What the nimrods around here do not get YET is that what will spur development more than anything else is an effective public transportation system that primarily serves the very walkable central city. We don't have such a system. Light-rail is mostly for the suburban commuter and not the central city.

[wburg]

ozone: Why can't she walk to work from midtown if she works on 5th Street? I work downtown and live in midtown, and I have my choice of walking, taking the bus or taking light rail if I don't feel like driving--which is turning out to be quite often.

I live in a house. It's not a big house (about 900 sf), it doesn't have a driveway, and it doesn't have a big backyard (and I'm considering turning the backyard into a driveway.) I can walk to work, coffee, supermarket or entertainment, and if my feet hurt I can bike or take public transit most of the time. I take bus or light rail to school because it's easier and cheaper than driving, and a lot less stressful.

For people who don't share my obsession with hundred year old homes, there are new projects like Tapestri Square and the SoCap Lofts and a dozen or so other ones that are selling like hotcakes. Those homes are just as convenient for walking or busing/biking downtown, space-efficient, modern, and a lot of them are pretty good looking.

I don't think the nimrods here don't get it, it's just that they're unwilling or unable to pay for it. The streetcar plan with West Sacramento aims to help address some of those concerns in a cost-effective way, although additional bus, jitney and future streetcar expansion sounds like a swell idea too. We share the desire for better public transit, but midtown is one of the places where it's actually something like adequate.

Living in Midtown is not like living in the suburbs. The people who live in single-family dwellings in Midtown are not looking for the same things as people who live in single-family dwellings in Rocklin. For starters, they often started out as people who lived in multi-family dwellings in Midtown and decided they wanted to own a stake in the neighborhood they fell in love with. This neighborhood was built with public transit and walkability in mind--it wasn't until the streetcar that midtown was fully built out, for example, and it was predominant for decades--but most people who worked downtown and lived in Southside or Midtown still walked to work.

So, I will repeat: What are the arguments in favor of embracing high-rise living in Sacramento?

[ozone]

wburg I tend to agree with your point of view more than I disagree but I just do not agree when you say: "midtown is one of the places where it's (public transportation) actually something like adequate." How so?

It's the size of the blocks, the density and mix-use development that makes Midtown walkable but there's almost no viable public transportation to support those on foot. When you say public transportation are you mostly talking about a bus right? Light rail only cuts across the southern half of Midtown and therefore for most of Midtown is only good to get out to the burbs. I also think additional buses and jitneys won't do the trick either. We need a rail line that cuts through the center of Midtown and a cross-town link. So, I will repeat: the nimrods here don't get it -Yet. If they really got they'd be talking about it and willing to pay for it.

By your question I take it wburg that don't see the need or appeal of highrise living?

[wburg]

ozone: Yes, I'm talking about buses. Even with a streetcar system buses are an important part of the system in that they are flexible and have low startup costs. I grew up riding the bus (I didn't have a driver's license until I was 25) so I'm pretty accustomed to it as a way to get around. Although my workplace and my home are both within a couple blocks of light rail, so I use light rail as often as I take the bus.

But walking, at least in decent weather, is the most fun, and the best exercise. There's lots of neat stuff to look at, and plenty of good places to carbo-load or caffeinate on the way!

A streetcar through the northern part of midtown would be very nice indeed, but there are obstacles to overcome--namely, the Union Pacific tracks. The FRA frowns on track diamonds so a crossing at grade is probably out of the question, and a bridge raises other problems. But bus service through the northern part of midtown is all right, at least until evening. I'd like it if they ran all night, but that goes for all transit, and I'm sure you'd agree.

I don't personally feel the need to live in a high-rise. For me, it has more to do with my love of old buildings (and my desire to have a basement to put my model railroad in) than any antipathy towards high-rises in general.

What I'm asking is: what, to you, are the benefits of living in a high-rise condo that can't be obtained any other way? Why is it important to you personally? I recognize that some of those benefits may well be intangible, but I consider that a valid argument, and welcome your input on why it's just cool to live in a high-rise.

[awg]

The advantages some people find of high rise condo living are:

1) The view is generally unbelievable. Quite often, these kinds of projects have views of water or mountains, and always have distant views of something, simply because you are up high.
2) In many cities, the only viable option to live downtown is in high rise condos (for newer units). Occasionally there are rehabs of existing building, but the land is so expensive that building anything new that doesn't maximize the sites available density won't make money. Consequently, there a more new units in high-rises than there are in remodelled old loft buildings (plus a high rise would have 250+ units while a remodel would have 10%-20% of that).
3) Many older people find downsizing from a large house with the maintenance concerns to a high-rise condo in the city to be beneficial. They are generally very close to symphonies, plays, museums, etc. and can spend half of their year there and the other half travelling.
4) Generally speaking, high rise units are really nice. Sitting in a clean modern living room with a view for miles is pretty amazing. It is quite different than having that same living room in the suburbs.

All that said, the real challenge in Sacramento--and its legit--is:

"Is it worth twice the cost for half the home?"

[TowerDistrict]

the main (selling) point is that your home is NOT half the size. When you
are in a dense, urban environment, your home is the city. Thus, you are
not confined to your personal property and your home becomes the theater,
the bar, the restaurant, the cafe AND the 1,000 sq ft you you rest at night.

it's a tough concept to sell to a populace that has never considered a home
to extend beyond their front door. i think as mentioned above, there are
certain demographics awakening to the concept such as empty nesters...
but the idea of snagging the most square footage for the least amount of
money is a deep seated one that isn't likely to dissapear for a long time.

[brandon12]

^Very Good Point TD. Well said.

[wburg]

td: On that point, we certainly seem to agree. I like my house, but I sure spend a lot of time tramping around the city doing stuff. Hell, that's what makes walking to work (especially from midtown to downtown) such fun! I do it on my days off, why not do it on a work day too?

awg: Point 1 is taken and appreciated: I used to sneak up into the Darth Vader building (usual excuse was to pick up free tickets won at KWOD) and stare out at the city, the valley and the mountains from an empty office on an upper floor. The point about maintenance concerns is valid, although paying condo fees costs about as much as paying a gardener to take care of your lawn. Or you can do what I do and xeroscape!

Point two is the case in "many cities," but not here, at least not yet. As I have mentioned probably to the point of irritating everyone above, you can get all the cultural and geographical advantages in the existing housing market right now. At some point, probably pretty soon, they will be necessary.

The last point is definitely a question of individual taste: personally I prefer my coved ceilings, hardwood floor and old-school porch, but I can understand the appeal of a modern high-tech interior with a window out on a broad expanse of geography.

[ozone]

Interesting. Good points made by all. I especially like what Tower District had to say.

I like the Victorian I live in. From my second story I can watch the world go by. Plus I live less than a block from a coffeehouse, two blocks from the corner market, a block and 1/2 from work. Only problem is all the noise and my view is limited.

Now if I lived high up I would have A VIEW and I wouldn't have to hear the crazy lady scream all night nor the leaf blowers every morning at 7AM nor the can collectors as they clink,clank,clink,clank down the block, nor that loud pipe motorcycle, nor the ferrell cat in heat, nor... humm.. wouldn't I miss all that..really...come on...admit it...humm..hell no...I'm mov'n on up...I want to get all George Jefferson and get me a "de-lux apartment in the sky"...chumps.

[sugit]

Well said, TD. You said what I was trying to convey, only much much better.

[econgrad]

"Is it worth twice the cost for half the home?"[/QUOTE]

Nope...not for another 10 years probably....DT and MT need a lot more. I have been to every club, restaurant, bar, drink hole, party, museum, etc..it only took a year, and that is just on the weekends, not every weekend either... Its still a small town, not much to offer to pay that much for a condo and or downtown living, or even a dwelling in DT or MT. I may have to drive, but I have my own swimming pool and get to throw sick parties on the hot summer nights in my backyard for a price 1/2 of one of the towers would have been. Oh, and I have 5 bedrooms, 3 baths...for the same price I would maybe have gotten a 2 bedroom condo in the Sac Towers...not worth it.

And do not give me the crap of "Oh, its a lifestyle in Downtown"... I have friends that live downtown, I have lived the "life" in my old apartment on 20th and I, the grid is not that happening..yet.

[TWAK]

the main (selling) point is that your home is NOT half the size. When you
are in a dense, urban environment, your home is the city. Thus, you are
not confined to your personal property and your home becomes the theater,
the bar, the restaurant, the cafe AND the 1,000 sq ft you you rest at night.

sounds like something that costs too much money, at least for me.

[ozone]

It's funny because the sub-urban lifestyle doesn't appeal to me in the least and it never did even when I lived in the burbs. There are urbanites and sub-urbanites. That's OK. Maybe people can't see the value in living in a neighborhood like Midtown. I guess I understand that since I don't see the value in living in a suburban house with 5 bedrooms, 3 bath and swimming pool. I would rather in the country before I ever lived in the burbs again.

I kind of have contempt for all the phonies around here who are so suburban yet think they are so urbane..because they bash Sacramento and say it's 'not a real city'. Very lame. I lived in Bangkok and New York which are both huge cities and while Sacramento is not even close to being what those cities are I'll tell you that it will never become the city we envision with these small-minded people who are always negative. I'll grant you that Sacramento has a ways to go but it's not as bad as some are making out. When Sacramento finally does 'pop' I don't want to see their faces around Midtown or Downtown. Let them stay in the burbs.

When I came back to Sacramento I promised myself that I would not sit around and complain about what we didn't have. Which is use-less. Rather I would work to change things. If you are not working to bring up the level of the city then either move or keep quiet.

[TowerDistrict]

I went to Parlare and Ella last night.... both new to me.

In fact, when i find a place I really like, I have a tough time ever making it
back because there are many places i've yet to experience. As wburg has
said here before, there is never a shortage of things to do in Sacramento..
just not enough time or energy to do them all.

econograd, i'm sure your pool parties are awesome, in fact i spent a lot of
time this summer poolside in the burbs - but each time i did spend a
weekend away from the central city area, i missed something that i would
have equally enjoyed: a band, the art walk, a film festival, etc. i've lived
downtown and on broadway for a combined 5 years now, and i've yet to
even scratch the surface.

[ozone]

So how was your experience at Parlare and Ella?

[sugit]

Reviews so far from Yelp say it's the real deal. Given its the folk at The Kitchen, I would expect nothing less. I'm really looking forward to checking it out. Hopefully they say open late for after show drinks and eats.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/GS1i1OhUWSY7ISmlCnc7Vg

[TowerDistrict]

Parlare was interesting... it seems a bit pretentious on the suface, but it's
actually quite a comfortable place to grab a couple drinks. I didn't stick
around long enough for the band to start playing, but the bar and restaurant
are both decent, and the service was friendly. If you head upstairs, be sure
to notice the cow skin rug (surely a reference to sacramento's favorite
bovine) and the wall sculpture of downtown from an aerial perspective.

Ella blew me away, and they're not even in full swing yet. The restaurant
interior is unparalled. The service was fantastic and the drinks were
absolutely amazing. I'm not usually a fancy pants drink type of person, but
there are a few cocktails that i'll return for... and that's saying a lot for me.

I can't tell you toooo much about the food. We just walked in off the street
and had drinks and sampled items from the cold bar. But we did manage to
ring up two dozen oysters, shrimp and scallop ceviche with yucca chips and
a yellow fin tuna plate. All these dishes were relatively simple, but flawless
in execution. I promise you that there is not a single sushi restaurant in
sacramento that is serving a higher quality tuna than Ella.... and THAT is
saying something too!!

I wish i could delve into more details, but I'm heading to a movie at the
Crest and then it's dinner at Three Monkeys. What's funny about all this, is
that by tomorrow, I'll have filled an entire weekend hanging out in a 3-
block radius... what's even more ironic is that ALL these places are in
downtowns most "troubled" areas.... go figure!! ;)

[econgrad]

It's funny because the sub-urban lifestyle doesn't appeal to me in the least and it never did even when I lived in the burbs. There are urbanites and sub-urbanites. That's OK. Maybe people can't see the value in living in a neighborhood like Midtown. I guess I understand that since I don't see the value in living in a suburban house with 5 bedrooms, 3 bath and swimming pool. I would rather in the country before I ever lived in the burbs again.

I kind of have contempt for all the phonies around here who are so suburban yet think they are so urbane..because they bash Sacramento and say it's 'not a real city'. Very lame. I lived in Bangkok and New York which are both huge cities and while Sacramento is not even close to being what those cities are I'll tell you that it will never become the city we envision with these small-minded people who are always negative. I'll grant you that Sacramento has a ways to go but it's not as bad as some are making out. When Sacramento finally does 'pop' I don't want to see their faces around Midtown or Downtown. Let them stay in the burbs.

When I came back to Sacramento I promised myself that I would not sit around and complain about what we didn't have. Which is use-less. Rather I would work to change things. If you are not working to bring up the level of the city then either move or keep quiet.

I'll see you downtown Ozone!
We can agree to disagree..Yes Ozone, I have lived in Queens, SF, LA and here. Whooptie doo... That does not make your opinion valid that it is a real city, nor does it make my opinion valid that midtown is kind of boring, and downtown is empty at night. As far as art walks, I can drive to 2nd saturday in 10 minutes, park and walk.. then drive home. Not missing a single thing. The phonies are the ones who continue to praise how great midtown is, and then wonder why no one really wants to spend a ton of money on a 2 bedroom tiny condo. "Live The Grid", give me a break. The only reason midtown is at all happening at night is because people like me (us damn suburbanites) drive to places like Streets of London, or The Park, or 58 degrees, in our cars, and hang out and spend our money. Without us, NONE of those places would even exist because there would be no customers. All this BS about Suburbanites and Urbanites is phony as well. We are all just people who decided what to buy and where to live...All my friends who live in MT, like I once did, sure love to come to my place on a Saturday and use MY pool when it's 100 degrees or more here...maybe I shouldn't let them, stupid Urbanites, I can't believe they even know how to swim.

[innov8]

Cemex concrete silos under construction in W. Sac.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1207/wsac120070908jpg2007092xt0.jpg

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2853/wsac220070908jpg2007092ay2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[ozone]

Funny shit econgrad.

[BrianSac]

I'll see you downtown Ozone!
We can agree to disagree..Yes Ozone, I have lived in Queens, SF, LA and here. Whooptie doo... That does not make your opinion valid that it is a real city, nor does it make my opinion valid that midtown is kind of boring, and downtown is empty at night. As far as art walks, I can drive to 2nd saturday in 10 minutes, park and walk.. then drive home. Not missing a single thing. The phonies are the ones who continue to praise how great midtown is, and then wonder why no one really wants to spend a ton of money on a 2 bedroom tiny condo. "Live The Grid", give me a break. The only reason midtown is at all happening at night is because people like me (us damn suburbanites) drive to places like Streets of London, or The Park, or 58 degrees, in our cars, and hang out and spend our money. Without us, NONE of those places would even exist because there would be no customers. All this BS about Suburbanites and Urbanites is phony as well. We are all just people who decided what to buy and where to live...All my friends who live in MT, like I once did, sure love to come to my place on a Saturday and use MY pool when it's 100 degrees or more here...maybe I shouldn't let them, stupid Urbanites, I can't believe they even know how to swim.

I am with you econgrad. You described Sacramento in a nutshell. As for "Live the Grid" I chuckled when I saw that for the first time, but at the same time I thought "good for you marketing people", "play it as much as you can". Better to be positive than negative.

I still believe one of the best of features of Sacramento is having a huge Arden Park "estate" with a giant pool, and all those trees. Same goes for Land Park, and all of our other great suburban neighborhoods.

Midtown is very nice and getting better. But it makes me laugh because the density is so small. In my book, its not really "urban" until the neighborhood obtains an average height of 3 to 8 stories. Midtown will never reach that density. Midtown is sort of like an "urban" college town without the University, its sort of like Santa Barbara but not nearly as upscale without the beach and pier. Its "University" is the thousands of state workers that spend their money in the most "urban" of settings Sacramento has to offer.

Back on topic, sorry, didnt realize, this thread is about West Sac after reading econograds post.

[wburg]

Sign me up for the pro-Grid faction...what's even funnier is that I have a friend a couple blocks away in Midtown who does have a pool.

Actually, part of Midtown's college town feel is because thousands of Sac State and Davis students (not to mention Sac City, the USC extension, etc.) live in the neighborhood, and its general long-term appeal to young people with funny hair and preferences for obscure music. Some of them grow up to become state employees because they still dig it.

The density of Midtown is leaps and bounds ahead of the suburbs. The average Midtown lot is 40x80, with a smattering of 40x160 except for very rare exceptions, and a large number of those lots are duplexes, four-plexes, six-plexes and dingbat apartments having as many as 12 units. While that isn't Super Urban Dense Central, it does work out to around 20-30 DUA, plus the fact that a lot of those houses are shared by many people to save on rent (some friends of mine share a six-bedroom house where I used to live: they turned two downstairs rooms and a chunk of the basement into bedrooms so they could have 8 people living there fore $250/mo each!) Add the dense new developments into the mix and you get quite a total. Compare that to 3-4 DUA in new suburban developments.

And Econgrad is just wrong. He's just too out of the loop to know where the parties are down here. I find plenty to do and more I don't have time to do, and I *never* go to places like 58 Degrees, the Park, or other suburbanite hangouts. The closest I do is walk by and scare the customers with my downtowniness.

People don't want to spend money on a 2 bedroom tiny condo because they can get a kick-ass Midtown bungalow for less money! It really is that simple...

[neuhickman79]

BrianSac and econgrad....MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE if you don't like it here!!!!!! Stay in the suburbs and stay out of skyscraperpage. You are infesting us with your suburban filth! Seriously, I cannot believe I am seeing this from people on here when the case is made so well for urban living. Sacramento is not the best example of urban living. But, please don't come here and bag on Sacramento as many people here love this city passionately (including myself!). WTF are you doing here if you don't even like Sacramento as it is!? My advice....shutup about how sucky you think Sacramento is or look around at the gem of a city we have and start making a positive contribution to this forum!

[ozone]

I expect nothing less from most Sacramentans. So many people have put this town into their little mental box and if anyone does not agree with them they are considered unsophisticated rubes. This town has the most negative people I've ever met anywhere. Instead of always badmouthing the city or constantly saying it'll never happen here why don't you spend some of your energy making a difference, trying to change things. I'm tired of socially lazy people who want everyone else to do it for them. Most of my friends are business people and designers who are trying to change things and all we get from the peanut gallery is this kind of shit. Well thankfully we aren't doing things just for you or your money (as precious as that is to us).

Anyway as you say this is way off topic so this will be my last comment on this.

[BrianSac]

BrianSac and econgrad....MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE if you don't like it here!!!!!! Stay in the suburbs and stay out of skyscraperpage. You are infesting us with your suburban filth! Seriously, I cannot believe I am seeing this from people on here when the case is made so well for urban living. Sacramento is not the best example of urban living. But, please don't come here and bag on Sacramento as many people here love this city passionately (including myself!). WTF are you doing here if you don't even like Sacramento as it is!? My advice....shutup about how sucky you think Sacramento is or look around at the gem of a city we have and start making a positive contribution to this forum!

I guess the truth hurts. Geeez all econgrad did was tell the truth. I love Sacramento for many reasons. I personally was not ragging on midtown nor Sacramento as a whole. I like midtown a lot for many reasons and I spend alot of money in midtown. I personally contribute to small businesses and support their success. I go out of my way to spend my money downtown/midtown. For example, I need a new collar and leash for my dog, instead of going to petsmart in the suburbs I will look for a small business that caters to dogs in midtown....thats a small example. When I want to shop at Macys, I make sure I go downtown first, despite how much I dont like downtown plaza.

I pesonaly would rather have the arena in the railyards or along the Sacto river in WEST SAC, over cal expo.

My only comment is that midtown is not really "urban" regarding density compared to other cities, like SF, NYC, Chicago, Montreal. Now if you want to compare midtown to the suburbs of course its more dense. I'm just trying to raise the bar a little; compare downtown/midtown to "real" cities, not the suburbs.

Midtown is clearly "urban" in the sense of all its small businesses and restaurants, bookstores, etc. I fully support all those places and "the grid" itself is one of Sacramento's greatest assets because it allows for walkability and density....its great place to walk your dog, too...so urban!

Oh, i workout downtown, too....i guess thats urban too.

There is nothing either one of us said to elicit such a reactionary response.

[BrianSac]

I expect nothing less from most Sacramentans. So many people have put this town into their little mental box and if anyone does not agree with them they are considered unsophisticated rubes. This town has the most negative people I've ever met anywhere. Instead of always badmouthing the city or constantly saying it'll never happen here why don't you spend some of your energy making a difference, trying to change things. I'm tired of socially lazy people who want everyone else to do it for them. Most of my friends are business people and designers who are trying to change things and all we get from the peanut gallery is this kind of shit. Well thankfully we aren't doing things just for you or your money (as precious as that is to us).

Anyway as you say this is way off topic so this will be my last comment on this.

Oh, and by the way, Ozone, I had a small business of my own for 2yrears on 19th street in the heart of midtown. I shared a massage studio with 2 other people. Part of my business was "pro bono", if you will, catering to the HIV positive people so they could receive massage services at a great discount if not for free. A gov't grant paid for these services which by the way is no longer available at the time. I ran my business in addition to my other full time job.

Half of my business was for these special needs clients, the other half for full paying customers.

Dont be so quick to judge.

Dont you just love the roof of the new Calstars building in WEST SAC, :-)

[econgrad]

BrianSac and econgrad....MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE if you don't like it here!!!!!! Stay in the suburbs and stay out of skyscraperpage. You are infesting us with your suburban filth! Seriously, I cannot believe I am seeing this from people on here when the case is made so well for urban living. Sacramento is not the best example of urban living. But, please don't come here and bag on Sacramento as many people here love this city passionately (including myself!). WTF are you doing here if you don't even like Sacramento as it is!? My advice....shutup about how sucky you think Sacramento is or look around at the gem of a city we have and start making a positive contribution to this forum!

Tell me to shut up? Glad this is just a forum...
First off, I never bagged on the city. I am bagging on the people who hold downtown and midtown as something sacred compared to the terrible suburbs where the majority of us live. The truth is, there really is no difference. The people are the same, the restaurants are pretty much the same, and the bars and clubs and parties (Wburg, your downtowniness doesn't scare anyone!...don't be a dork, you have made me think about preservation, something I have never really cared about before. And I hope we see each other at a party downtown sometime and you would know who I really am...but I will remain anon on this thread. And you say Streets, The Park, and 58 degrees are now suburban Hangouts?? Well, Old I's, The Distillery, Golden Bear, Blue Lamp, Zebra, Bennies (Q street), and even those urban parties would be emtpy without people driving into downtown and hanging out and spending money....there would be nothing downtown at all without the so called suburbanites coming to visit.) that are happening in midtown are full of all the people who live in Roseville, Folsom, Carmichael, etc. I was responding to another post from someone asking why somoeone would buy a condo in West Sacramento or Downtown Sacramento, when you can purchase a house with a yard and pool for less in the outer areas. My point was, there is no good reason yet, and yet people are marketing Midtown as something special, I claim it is not anything special yet. Do I want it to be special? Yes! Read all my previous posts and you will see I stick up for this city just as much as everyone else, I even went after the administrators who run this forum because they let some jerk off try to make Sacramento look bad when he posted the thread about the Train attack. Remember?
So, back to the main issue before this drama because you are hurt from criticism of your "Sacred Midtown"...boo hoo...

Most people in the Sac Metro Area, will not buy an expensive condo in Downtown yet, because it is just not worth it if you can buy an incredible house for the same price on American River Drive in Carmichael. So, the condos are just not worth it yet. Over time, downtown will be built up, and become something special (I hope...) but it looks like not for another decade or so.. right now it offers nothing different than what Folsom, Roseville, or Davis cannot offer. The same people who hang out downtown are the same people who live in the suburbs. Ask around at the next 2nd Saturday, the streets are full of people, and 80 percent of them, looking at the art, drinking free wine, walking around dressed night, performing music in the streets,etc, live in the suburbs! Get over yourselves. We are all in the same metro area....

[otnemarcaS]

I'll see you downtown Ozone!
We can agree to disagree..Yes Ozone, I have lived in Queens, SF, LA and here. Whooptie doo... That does not make your opinion valid that it is a real city, nor does it make my opinion valid that midtown is kind of boring, and downtown is empty at night. As far as art walks, I can drive to 2nd saturday in 10 minutes, park and walk.. then drive home. Not missing a single thing. The phonies are the ones who continue to praise how great midtown is, and then wonder why no one really wants to spend a ton of money on a 2 bedroom tiny condo. "Live The Grid", give me a break. The only reason midtown is at all happening at night is because people like me (us damn suburbanites) drive to places like Streets of London, or The Park, or 58 degrees, in our cars, and hang out and spend our money. Without us, NONE of those places would even exist because there would be no customers. All this BS about Suburbanites and Urbanites is phony as well. We are all just people who decided what to buy and where to live...All my friends who live in MT, like I once did, sure love to come to my place on a Saturday and use MY pool when it's 100 degrees or more here...maybe I shouldn't let them, stupid Urbanites, I can't believe they even know how to swim.

I completely agree with you on this, econgrad. "Live the grid" is comical, especially affordability wise. I wanted to buy a place too and was not going to spend the ridiculous kind of coin they wanted for smallish midtown condos or lofts. I wanted a new modern place at reasonable prices. To each their own. Some want an older, victorian house or bungalow. Sorry not me. I bought in Natomas 'cos it's close enough to MT/DT where, granted, most of the entertainment and nightlife is. No different than, say, going to the Gaslamp quarter in downtown San Diego or Pioneer Square area in downtown Portland. While I also sometimes go to the restaurants, Natomas has enough restaurants and retail, thank you.

People that drive into MT certainly adds to the vibrancy. It certainly is less vibrant in the weekend daytime IMO, especially DT. Also, all this talk about less parking in MT may be desired by some residents but is really nonsense until there is a truly adequate and convenient transportation network in Sacramento (like in Portland or SF). Try getting from Natomas to Midtown without driving. Good luck. Less parking in midtown means the "surburbanites" that drive into and patronize MT/DT businesses will just go elsewhere. I'll gladly take light rail into MT/DT if it was available (like I've done to say Folsom). Midtown business certainly do not share this desire to reduce parking. Unlike SF, Midtown business still need "surburbanites" to help their business because the density just isn't there yet.


BrianSac and econgrad....MOVE SOMEWHERE ELSE if you don't like it here!!!!!! Stay in the suburbs and stay out of skyscraperpage. You are infesting us with your suburban filth! Seriously, I cannot believe I am seeing this from people on here when the case is made so well for urban living. Sacramento is not the best example of urban living. But, please don't come here and bag on Sacramento as many people here love this city passionately (including myself!). WTF are you doing here if you don't even like Sacramento as it is!? My advice....shutup about how sucky you think Sacramento is or look around at the gem of a city we have and start making a positive contribution to this forum!

A little harsh, I would say. You can like and criticize a place at the same time (e.g SF and it's traffic, homelessness, cost, etc). Folks here may like a lot about Sac but still criticize the mayor, city council, traffic, certain developments etc. There is lots more to like about Sacramento than just Midtown. Recognize that. If every Sac suburbanite decided to move to Midtown, then it would take a nano-second before the complaints about any and everything starts to spill out.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy midtown but midtown alone does not Sacramento make.

[deeann]

If we're taking "sides" here then sign me up for the pro "Greater Sacramento Area" faction. This "boundary disconnect" mentality I've seen within the last few years is just plain surreal.

And to keep this topical- I could've sword someone asked if there was anything new going on in W.Sac, but can't find it now. But if someone did, ask me on Tuesday ;)

[wburg]

My only comment is that midtown is not really "urban" regarding density compared to other cities, like SF, NYC, Chicago, Montreal. Now if you want to compare midtown to the suburbs of course its more dense. I'm just trying to raise the bar a little; compare downtown/midtown to "real" cities, not the suburbs.


What you're saying depends largely on exactly what parts of SF, NYC, Chicago or Montreal you're talking about. I've never been to NYC or Montreal so I don't really have a basis for comparison, but I know San Francisco and Chicago pretty well. The vast majority of those cities' area are NOT skyscrapers, or even 5-8 story buildings.

Think about neighborhoods like the Castro in San Francisco, or Melrose in Los Angeles. They're primarily 1-3 stories tall, but they're certainly urban. People are out walking and interacting with the city, shopping, etcetera. They don't need to be high-rise urban because there is enough capacity for urban living in historic building types. If you head west or south from downtown in San Francisco, you run into architecture that starts to look a lot more like things you see in midtown Sacramento. A bit closer together, and a bit taller on average, but the same concepts apply because they were mostly built around the same time.

Chicago tells the same story. Sure, there's plenty of tall in Chicago, largely because it was a city of a million people 110 years ago, and back then suburbs had to be a lot closer in. But there are still many neighborhoods of predominantly 2-3 story single-family detatched dwellings throughout the city of Chicago--not out in the Chicagoland suburbs, but in the city itself, in neighborhoods like Lincoln Park and south Chicago.

Here's San Francisco (pretty recognizable):
http://www.noehill.com/sf/vics/fulton1198/alamo_vics_thumb.jpg
Here's Chicago (Lincoln Park):
http://www.camelotrealestate.com/uploads/listings/68D57D5D87374A389C3AAD13222EABC0.jpg

econgrad: Actually, the point of the discussion was more along the lines of, Why would people buy high-rise condos when they could buy in midtown/downtown, with a choice of detatched new, attached condo new, mid-rise new, or historic, at a lower price?

And yeah, we probably should meet in person sometime and talk about this stuff face to face, which is generally more fun and less acrimonious than all this anonymous muttering via the Internet.

otnemarcaS: I agree with you on the parking issue re: suburbanites spending their dollars downtown is good, except for one thing: San Francisco ABSOLUTELY depends on commuters, driving or not. They're a boutique city, and if people stopped coming from the greater Bay Area (and Sacramento) for dining, culture and entertainment (not to mention commuters) who work there but can't afford to live there), the city would find itself in one hell of a financial pickle!

Anyhow, to kind of try and sidle this back in the direction of West Sacramento, one reason this subject has come up because it is the contention of developers (like LJ Urban) that West Sacramento's proximity to downtown provides an opportunity to create a "new Midtown" of equal proximity and similar levels of urban intensity. That was the original intent of the guys who first built West Sacramento a century ago (and they also put in a streetcar) and the new round have similar ideas. While it will take a good long while for West Sac to grow a Midtown-like culture, I can see it happening.

[econgrad]

If we're taking "sides" here then sign me up for the pro "Greater Sacramento Area" faction. This "boundary disconnect" mentality I've seen within the last few years is just plain surreal.

And to keep this topical- I could've sword someone asked if there was anything new going on in W.Sac, but can't find it now. But if someone did, ask me on Tuesday ;)

The "boundary disconnect" mentality is what set me off in the first place (I take it personally because it even affects the music scene here), but I do apologize for causing all the rants on the West Sacramento thread...I was the one who asked about new stuff in west Sac, but I re-edited (re-wrote) my thread to make it less insulting towards certain individuals and more appropriate for the forum. My bad....
:grouphug:

Wburg, I pretty much live at Golden Bear most nights of the week...maybe we will run into each other.

[BrianSac]

What you're saying depends largely on exactly what parts of SF, NYC, Chicago or Montreal you're talking about. I've never been to NYC or Montreal so I don't really have a basis for comparison, but I know San Francisco and Chicago pretty well. The vast majority of those cities' area are NOT skyscrapers, or even 5-8 story buildings.

Uh, just cant let it go, can you.

First of all, I never said anything about skyscrapers.

Seocndly, I said 3-8 stories, not 5-8 stoires.

Thirdly, you forgot the part where I call midtown "urban" because of its businesses, restaurants, etc.


The buildings and houses in SF are all right next to each....makes a big difference regarding density and SF fits the bill of 3-8 stories in 40% of its neighborhoods. Chicago is wide and big and there are many, many neighborhoods that fit the 3-8 story pattten.

The point is: Besides downtown, Midtown is our most urban/dense neighborhood, yet its only 1-2 stories average.

Dont you just love the new Calstarss building in WEST SACRAMENTO. I wonder if they will light it up at night like the pyramid building?

[deeann]

Econograd, Yep, I helped with music promotion/other stuff in the late '80's/early '90's and it yeah, really wasn't that hard to get someone from Citrus Heights, Carmichael, South Sac, etc. (most anywhere in the greater metro area) to come to a show in MT/DT and vice-versa with getting people from Midtown/Downtown out to a show elsewhere. I just saw/still see it as kind of one big city and I met really neat people from all over the area (and still do meet neat and get to work with people from all over the area).

And in general maybe that's just naive thinking (since I've had my share of insults directed at me to my face (not just the internet) from where I've live or have lived before and just chalked it up to some random a-holeness), but maybe now there is for real those "visible/invisible boundaries" designated by map lines and closed-wall mindsets that must not be crossed. Though I'd like that to change for the better.

[econgrad]

Econograd, Yep, I helped with music promotion/other stuff in the late '80's/early '90's and it yeah, really wasn't that hard to get someone from Citrus Heights, Carmichael, South Sac, etc. (most anywhere in the greater metro area) to come to a show in MT/DT and vice-versa with getting people from Midtown/Downtown out to a show elsewhere. I just saw/still see it as kind of one big city and I met really neat people from all over the area (and still do meet neat and get to work with people from all over the area).

And in general maybe that's just naive thinking (since I've had my share of insults directed at me to my face (not just the internet) from where I've live or have lived before and just chalked it up to some random a-holeness), but maybe now there is for real those "visible/invisible boundaries" designated by map lines and closed-wall mindsets that must not be crossed. Though I'd like that to change for the better.

Me too...I agree.

[kryptos]

Dont you just love the new Calstarss building in WEST SACRAMENTO. I wonder if they will light it up at night like the pyramid building?


lol

[BrianSac]

lol

glad you got a chuckle, made me laugh too

[innov8]

Last Saturday morning I got the chance to take some shots from the CalSTRS tower.
It was quite the experance at 7am. Some of these photos will be in a future photo
thread of mine, so... take a look, it was way cool.

W. Sacramento waterfront- 19 story office building (CalSTRS HQ)
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=3089740#post3089740

http://img105.imageshack.us/img105/3355/calstrs720070908jpg2007ps9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/4821/calstrs420070908jpg2007zq7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1016/calstrs17120070908jpg20ke6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[BrianSac]

Shweet!

Nice close-up. and the sunrise is perfect. can't wait to see the rest of them.
:)

[Quest]

Great shots. How did they let you go up there?

[goldcntry]

I :tomato:

am :tomato:

so: :tomato:

jealous! :tomato: