HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #6601  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2017, 10:28 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,008
I just saw a tweet from an SBJ writer...the group that lost it's court case against Yamanee has decided to contest the decision.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6602  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2017, 10:50 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,129
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
I just saw a tweet from an SBJ writer...the group that lost it's court case against Yamanee has decided to contest the decision.
I'd care more if it looked like the developers were close to breaking ground but absent any court case it didn't look like dirt was going to be moving anytime soon anyway.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6603  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 8:53 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,008
There's no doubt Yamanee faces an uphill battle, especially when it comes to getting financing. Sacramento does not have a great history with high rise condominiums. (The Sawyer does not count since its development team received help from the city. Also, those 45 residences represent only a fraction of the entire building's use.)

I doubt banks are lining up to risk money on Yamanee - what is likely a $50-60 million project. I really wish the developer was open to something smaller, because I think his chances of success would be much greater. Yes, I think the whole J Street corridor needs more density in terms of housing, office and retail. And I agree that a lot of the buildings along J are just too short, too small and too old - they were built for a different time and a much different city. Unfortunately, the developer's mindset - that only a high rise, luxury condominium works in that location - paints himself into a corner. If Yamanee had been proposed as a six or seven story mixed-income building, which is plenty dense and easy to market, it would have been financed and under construction by now. Also, opposition may have been weaker.

Having said all that, these activists, who won't accept defeat, need to get smacked down. They're basically asserting veto power over every decision that duly elected and appointed officials make. Every project that comes down the pike must meet the approval of these activist control freaks.

The law allows for a variance to be granted, as long as there is good reason. I think that growing the central city, adding housing and attracting the attention of developers, builders and investors are all good reasons to grant Yamanee a variance. The City agrees, the neighborhood association agrees and the court agrees. But that's not good enough for the activists, "RESIST!" is their mantra. They will fight this to the end; simply because they want control. The activists know the court will likely side with the City. However, they also know that Yamanee faces long odds, and their continued pursuit against the project shifts the goal post just a little further away.

I really hope the court slaps them with attorney fees. Frankly, I hope they just plain get slapped. For the sake of property rights, for the sake of freedom and for the sake of the rule of law, I hope they get what is coming to them! Granted, it's probably time to change zoning for major corridors through the central city, but the activists would oppose those changes as well.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac

Last edited by snfenoc; Jan 22, 2018 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6604  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2017, 10:20 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
Having said all that, these lefty activists, who won't accept defeat, need to get smacked down. They're basically asserting veto power over every decision that duly elected and appointed officials make. Every project that comes down the pike must meet the approval of these activist control freaks.
These people are often on the left of the political spectrum but ironically quite conservative when it comes to actual change and development of housing in their neighborhoods. I'd guess most of them don't want anything new that would displace older buildings or change the tiny skyline in midtown, which for them would see nothing larger than 4 stories built!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6605  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2017, 12:32 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,008
Your point is well taken.

I did edit my rant a little (I dropped the "lefty" from it) for a couple reasons: First, you could definitely find protectionist behavior on all sides of the aisle. Also, the City and the neighborhood association, whose employees and members probably don't share my political views, actually support the project.

However, I do think the desire to control economic behavior is more likely to occur on the left than on the right. And that is what this continued lawsuit is all about...Control. A certain historian thinks he is the arbiter of all that is good; and he did not take very kindly to having his arguments overruled. If the judgement stays in place, then his whole reason for being (i.e., controlling what gets built in the central city) is gone.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6606  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 2:25 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 575
The P street state office building now has a rendering of the 20-story project on its web page. If it wasn't for that stupid Capitol Protection height limits on buildings this project might have been taller than 300 feet. The design itself isn't great but given the state's track record for awful architecture, it's not terribly bad either. In fact, it looks like the State actually gave the design process some thought.

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/Home/Sacr...tBuilding.aspx

Last edited by Pistola916; Dec 29, 2017 at 2:37 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6607  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 4:07 PM
NickB1967 NickB1967 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
Your point is well taken.

I did edit my rant a little (I dropped the "lefty" from it) for a couple reasons: First, you could definitely find protectionist behavior on all sides of the aisle. Also, the City and the neighborhood association, whose employees and members probably don't share my political views, actually support the project.

However, I do think the desire to control economic behavior is more likely to occur on the left than on the right. And that is what this continued lawsuit is all about...Control. A certain historian thinks he is the arbiter of all that is good; and he did not take very kindly to having his arguments overruled. If the judgement stays in place, then his whole reason for being (i.e., controlling what gets built in the central city) is gone.
Bingo. THIS. They claim to want more downtown development, but heaven help the developer who tries to build any.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6608  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 5:16 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
Bingo. THIS. They claim to want more downtown development, but heaven help the developer who tries to build any.
Not bad, I like it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6609  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 5:00 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967 View Post
Bingo. THIS. They claim to want more downtown development, but heaven help the developer who tries to build any.
It seems that the "They" you are referring to is in dispute and for some depends less on reality and more on personal political proclivities. I've been on a few neighborhood/community boards and have attended numerous meetings and from those experiences I can confidently say that NIMBYs come in all persuasions. The key to understanding what motivates *most* people is in the acronym NIMBY- "not in my back yard." It's usually personal. They'll lose their apartment or view. They're afraid of the noise or that their rent will increase. The latter is where some of the resistant to new development and gentrification is coming. They fear being priced out and being forced to move out of the city center. These people probably have the most legitimate gripe, even if its likely a futile battle. They might seem like "leftists" to outsiders but they are just as likely to be conservative, or at least they'll start out as. Another type of NIMBY is the one who wants to save a *truly* historical or architecturally significant buildings. I get that and they also have a legit case to make. But it's those self-appointed arbiters of good taste and proper heights that really get under my skin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6610  
Old Posted Jan 2, 2018, 5:24 PM
yolonative yolonative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
The P street state office building now has a rendering of the 20-story project on its web page. If it wasn't for that stupid Capitol Protection height limits on buildings this project might have been taller than 300 feet. The design itself isn't great but given the state's track record for awful architecture, it's not terribly bad either. In fact, it looks like the State actually gave the design process some thought.

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/Home/Sacr...tBuilding.aspx
That Capitol Protection height limit is stifling, it really should only apply to the blocks directly adjacent to the capitol. But the rendering appears more thought-out than any existing state office building, as you mention. Does it say anything what the height will roughly be, or are you just basing your height comment off its relative position next to the existing state building at 7th and P (as seen in this link below)? https://www.dgs.ca.gov/portals/1/pstreetbuilding4.jpg
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6611  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2018, 12:16 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolonative View Post
That Capitol Protection height limit is stifling, it really should only apply to the blocks directly adjacent to the capitol. But the rendering appears more thought-out than any existing state office building, as you mention. Does it say anything what the height will roughly be, or are you just basing your height comment off its relative position next to the existing state building at 7th and P (as seen in this link below)? https://www.dgs.ca.gov/portals/1/pstreetbuilding4.jpg
The EIR says the building will be a maximum of 300 feet.

http://sacrbr.aecomonline.net/files/...inal%20EIR.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6612  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2018, 12:50 AM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
The P street state office building now has a rendering of the 20-story project on its web page. If it wasn't for that stupid Capitol Protection height limits on buildings this project might have been taller than 300 feet. The design itself isn't great but given the state's track record for awful architecture, it's not terribly bad either. In fact, it looks like the State actually gave the design process some thought.

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/dgs/Home/Sacr...tBuilding.aspx
I'll just pray the windows don't fall out.
__________________
Be TRUE to YOU
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6613  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2018, 12:16 AM
kamehameha kamehameha is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 167
California budget for 18-19 includes Sac courthouse and River District complex.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ourthouse.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6614  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2018, 11:20 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,139
It's behind a paywall so I can't see the whole thing, but saw this headline in the biz journal.

Construction Getting Closer at Sacramento Commons
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6615  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2018, 9:49 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,008
I read the article. It’s pretty much a summary of what the project could be. The only “major” pieces of information are:

Weidner Apartment Homes, the developer, is in the “predevelopment” stage of the project. This entails discussing the proposal’s entitlement scope with city planners and officials. They’re also talking with potential architects.

They have have a general contractor, Ryan Companies U.S., identified.

The developer’s spokesperson said they would love to begin this summer, but he admitted that is probably a very optimistic timeline.

There was no word on financing. Maybe the developer plans on self-financing the project? Weidner is worth billions. That’s probably wishful thinking on my part.

All in all, I am happy to see that Sacramento Commons is still on the developer’s radar, but this article is hardly proof positive that the project will happen...at least in its current form. Lots of developers have lots of plans for Sacramento; but a lack financing and available contractors seems to be a constant issue.

Plus, we have to remember that wburg’s Midcentury Monstrosity-loving buddies are just itching to sue.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac

Last edited by snfenoc; Jan 22, 2018 at 6:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6616  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 5:35 PM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,001
J Street's going on a road diet.

Quote:
City officials will eliminate one of the three lanes on J Street in midtown to make space for a separated bike lane and to slow traffic so pedestrians feel safer. The changes will take place between 19th and 30th streets.

The J Street “road diet” represents the most dramatic step yet in the city’s decade-long effort to make midtown more pedestrian and bicycle-friendly. That has already included narrowing a handful of one-way streets from three to two lanes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6617  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 5:47 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 804
I'd love to read more on Sacramento Commons but that $117 subscription to the biz journal is a bit much for me..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6618  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 5:50 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 804
Interesting on J St and the others on a road diet-maybe that could motivate some who drive downtown to take transit, bike, Uber/Lyft or walk..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6619  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 6:20 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,008
Quote:
Originally Posted by CastleScott View Post
I'd love to read more on Sacramento Commons but that $117 subscription to the biz journal is a bit much for me..
I certainly have to budget for my subscription.

However, I really enjoy reading about Sacramento development. It's a fun hobby for me. Living in Southern California does not offer me a lot of opportunity to keep track of Sacramento's development the way I used to - walking the grid and East Sac, and driving around Oak Park and Broadway. Also, these forums are not as busy as they used to be - at one point, we had weekly picture updates. Therefore, my only option is to subscribe to the SBJ; it keeps me up-to-date on my hometown's happenings.

Quite frankly, I think a hobby that costs you only $9.75 per month is not that expensive. Now, if they start raising the price beyond that, I might stop subscribing.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6620  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2018, 7:49 PM
CastleScott CastleScott is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento Ca/formerly CastleRock Co
Posts: 804
^ Yeah your right Steve $9.75 isn't bad for a hobby and I know my wife likes that I have nerdy hobbies (I also enjoy trains-like to got downtown to the train station or out to the Roseville yard when I have out of town visitors-also into aviation as did a stint in the Air Force reserves and I work in an office at the Sacramento airport now-I fly drones sometimes too). Since I'm a currently working Federal employee who's pay is in limbo due to the Federal shut down I'm just waiting to get hopefully a lil cash ahead to subscribe-there's a library close in the meantime where I can get a paper journal (do payroll/time keeping/accounting for DHS).
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 10:40 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.