HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #121  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 3:36 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,127
The problem is that building affordable units in the central city can't be done without subsidy--the price of land is too expensive, and you can't just slap together cheap OSB and drywall single-family homes the way you can in a suburban neighborhood. The Warren is actually price-subsidized a bit, which is why the units are as affordable as they are. $400,000 is cheaper than the units at 17th and L or the ones above the Marriott, and they offer things that little single-family houses in the suburbs don't--like immediate proximity to the capitol and nearby state and business buildings, no lawn to take care of, views of Capitol Park and the coastal mountains. The units are affordable to someone making $60-80K a year, and for someone who works downtown, they probably wouldn't need to own a car, or if they did, they wouldn't have to drive to work, thus saving that expense.

Proximity and location are factors in home ownership--remember, the three rules of real estate are "location, location, location," not "square footage, square footage, square footage."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #122  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 5:53 PM
Korey Korey is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 94
Gonna keep this derail going a bit more....

It's nice to see stuff go up in the grid but when I can buy a full on house (Not in midtown but Alkalai/Mansion/Southside Park) for less than 400K no way am I going to buy a condo, views or no.

Really wish the East End Gateway building had gone up instead of this Warren, looked much nicer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #123  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2010, 8:09 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 193
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The problem is that building affordable units in the central city can't be done without subsidy--the price of land is too expensive, and you can't just slap together cheap OSB and drywall single-family homes the way you can in a suburban neighborhood. The Warren is actually price-subsidized a bit, which is why the units are as affordable as they are. $400,000 is cheaper than the units at 17th and L or the ones above the Marriott, and they offer things that little single-family houses in the suburbs don't--like immediate proximity to the capitol and nearby state and business buildings, no lawn to take care of, views of Capitol Park and the coastal mountains. The units are affordable to someone making $60-80K a year, and for someone who works downtown, they probably wouldn't need to own a car, or if they did, they wouldn't have to drive to work, thus saving that expense.

Proximity and location are factors in home ownership--remember, the three rules of real estate are "location, location, location," not "square footage, square footage, square footage."
I understand you pay for location, but what I'm saying is a 600 sq ft 1-bedroom apartment is hardly a "singly family home". And the types of people who are the target buyers (young working professionals) can't afford those places. 400k? No young professional can afford that, especially today. There does not exist the demographics to support places which cost that much for so little.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #124  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2010, 1:41 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,127
Single-family homes are nice if you like single-family homes. Some folks don't like doing yard work and want a higher-altitude view. Others just like new buildings.

Most of the units in The Warren are priced for people making $60-80K a year, the larger ones are market-rate. Where are you getting the figures about $400K for 600 sf? In any case--the East End Gateway was intended to be all market rate, so its units would have been even more expensive.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #125  
Old Posted May 12, 2011, 5:39 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868
The Metropolitan

I think it’s safe to say the Metropolitan won’t be built. Without subsides, it
appears most large residential projects won’t get off the ground and the
permit to build has just expired.

Northeast corner of 10th & J Streets
40 Story tower/ 435 ft
Architect Kwan Henmi
Developer: John Saca
652,000 total sq. ft.
7,000-11,000 square foot restaurant at the ground floor
190 unit residential condo
190 room hotel tower
Swimming pool on roof
975 parking spaces

This project was first propose in 2007 and died 2011 due to the continue
decline in real estate prices and economic recession.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #126  
Old Posted May 12, 2011, 5:48 PM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 851
That one saddens me. It really looked like a top notch project, and it would've done a lot for downtown and Cesar Chavez Plaza.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #127  
Old Posted Aug 12, 2011, 3:03 AM
downtownserg89's Avatar
downtownserg89 downtownserg89 is offline
sactown's hitting puberty
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: downtown, Sacramento.
Posts: 372
Went for a bike ride around the flats earlier and couldn't help wonder if this project was considered dead.




Since the Alkali Flat neighborhood is finally getting the much needed attention it deserves, this project would make more sense now compared to 2008 when I first read about it.
__________________
facebook.com/buffslut
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #128  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2012, 6:13 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868
This was a glance at what downtown had proposed in September of 1988. Back then the Central
Library Tower was to be only 14 stories but later became 25. Also, you’ll notice
6 towers planned for the R Street Corridor. For the next two years neighborhood activist
like the Sacramento Old City Association and Environmental Council of Sacramento
asked to City to limit the size of high-rises proposed for the area and put a building
moratorium on the R Street Corridor area for a year till all concerns were addressed.
By late 1989 one of the proposals canceled their plans while California Capitol Center
downsized their projects in an attempt to meet opposition halfway. The California
Capitol Center went from 39 stories to 15, housing planned for the project was cut in
half to just over 200 units and the hotel portion was removed. By early 1990, this project
and another abandon their plans with the building moratorium still in place
and costs rising. By mid 1990, the city lift the moratorium putting additional fees
in place for all high rises built downtown but outside the central business district.


Last edited by innov8; Feb 13, 2012 at 4:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #129  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2013, 1:36 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868


This was an idea that was floated by both Westfield and BFDM in 2005-06.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.