HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2921  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 5:39 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
10,000 more housing units would put them down there 365 days a year, and support more businesses.
You are completely disconnected on the "demand" side.

Yes, you raze DTP and plop 10,000 housing units there, but who would live there? K Street is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, but there certainly is no where near the demand for 10,000 housing units.

Put an arena there, lots of businesses and entertainment venues would sprout around it, THEN you would have the demand for more people to live around there.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2922  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 9:05 PM
buckfmsac buckfmsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Anchorage,AK.
Posts: 53
Thumbs down

This arena plan is dead, if the public is allowed to vote on it. Way to many "NIMBY'S" in Sac for this deal to be approved IMO
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2923  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 9:07 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by buckfmsac View Post
This arena plan is dead, if the public is allowed to vote on it. Way to many "NIMBY'S" in Sac for this deal to be approved IMO
There won't be a public vote.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2924  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 9:36 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
There won't be a public vote.

Absolutely true. This is just mud in the water. It will settle to the bottom soon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2925  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 10:07 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
NIMBYs are part and parcel of any city worth living in because it means that people care about and are invested in their city. Oftentimes their objections are for purely selfish reasons but it reflects an certain economic and educated demographic that is healthy for a city.

But that is besides the point. When the Kings move to Seattle it won't be result of Sacramento's NIMBYs. If you really want to blame someone (other than the Maloofs or H. Fargo) then blame the voters of Sacramento County who [during economically good times] rejected a 1/4 cent tax increase that would have paid for a new arena.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2926  
Old Posted Mar 15, 2013, 10:38 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
NIMBYs are part and parcel of any city worth living in because it means that people care about and are invested in their city. Oftentimes their objections are for purely selfish reasons but it reflects an certain economic and educated demographic that is healthy for a city.

But that is besides the point. When the Kings move to Seattle it won't be result of Sacramento's NIMBYs. If you really want to blame someone (other than the Maloofs or H. Fargo) then blame the voters of Sacramento County who [during economically good times] rejected a 1/4 cent tax increase that would have paid for a new arena.
I'm going to go ahead and squarely blame the failure on the Maloofs and Fargo. Fargo for even putting it up for a vote and the Maloofs for virtually campaigning against it.

Fargo was the most incompetent mayor in the history of mayors in the US. Possibly the worst in the world. She mayor'ed this city like we were in the 1800's instead of the 21st century. How she ever got voted in in the first place I will never know.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2927  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 3:01 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
You are completely disconnected on the "demand" side.

Yes, you raze DTP and plop 10,000 housing units there, but who would live there? K Street is a lot better than it was 10 years ago, but there certainly is no where near the demand for 10,000 housing units.

Put an arena there, lots of businesses and entertainment venues would sprout around it, THEN you would have the demand for more people to live around there.
To further the point of the disconnect, is that any developer willing to put 10,000 housing units at DTP would be guaranteed to ask for a subsidy. It's how large projects work.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2928  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 8:58 PM
jbradway jbradway is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
To further the point of the disconnect, is that any developer willing to put 10,000 housing units at DTP would be guaranteed to ask for a subsidy. It's how large projects work.
A recent example being the 700 block of K street mixed use development:

http://downtownsac.org/city-council-...k-of-k-street/

Quote:
This project also signifies a shift in the financing models for development projects. The 700 block of K street project is a good example of a public/private partnership. It leverages significant private investment along with various private and public loans. The financing plan includes full repayment of the loan with interest and a share in the proceeds from the sale or refinancing of the project. More importantly, it represents a new entrepreneurial model for future downtown development. The public sector income generated from this project will support additional development opportunities to be reinvested in the district.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2929  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 10:05 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
I'm going to go ahead and squarely blame the failure on the Maloofs and Fargo. Fargo for even putting it up for a vote and the Maloofs for virtually campaigning against it.

Fargo was the most incompetent mayor in the history of mayors in the US. Possibly the worst in the world. She mayor'ed this city like we were in the 1800's instead of the 21st century. How she ever got voted in in the first place I will never know.
I will not disagree with you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2930  
Old Posted Mar 16, 2013, 11:59 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Who said anything about 10,000 housing units at Downtown Plaza? Not enough room for that unless you built some sort of arcology.

Stop subsidizing suburbs and you won't have to subsidize downtowns, it's that simple. But as long as the suburbs are subsidized, downtowns will suffer. We could have already had those 10,000 units downtown, but we built them in Natomas instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2931  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 12:40 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Who said anything about 10,000 housing units at Downtown Plaza? Not enough room for that unless you built some sort of arcology.

Stop subsidizing suburbs and you won't have to subsidize downtowns, it's that simple. But as long as the suburbs are subsidized, downtowns will suffer. We could have already had those 10,000 units downtown, but we built them in Natomas instead.
If the arena had been built downtown in the first place, it would have attracted business and restaurants, which in turn would have attracted developers to build housing units in proximity to the arena and new restaurants. Then we'd have those 10,000 extra housing units downtown. But we built everything in Natomas instead.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2932  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 1:27 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
That's not really how Natomas worked--the arena (and the sports team) was offered as a gift by the developer in return for the right to develop the suburbs. Basically, it was a gift to leverage their way in, and let them make money by rezoning cheap farmland into expensive suburban land. And as long as we still have farmland to build suburbs on (and don't take other measures to limit their ability to get that farm-to-suburb magic subsidy) they have no real reason to care about building downtown at all.

Nowadays, you don't even have to provide the gift--just the hint of a gift. There's a new chunk of sprawl about to get started in Cordova Hills because the developer said they would provide a college, and the college backed out of the deal but they still got approval--because they might attract another college someday, I guess.

The idea of an arena as development magnet uses reverse logic--instead of being offered by a developer as an attractor for a government's consideration, it's being used by the city as an attractor to developers. But is there any evidence that it actually works that way? If you wash your car, does it really make the weather likely to turn rainy?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2933  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 3:32 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
And as long as we still have farmland to build suburbs on (and don't take other measures to limit their ability to get that farm-to-suburb magic subsidy) they have no real reason to care about building downtown at all.

Nowadays, you don't even have to provide the gift--just the hint of a gift. There's a new chunk of sprawl about to get started in Cordova Hills because the developer said they would provide a college, and the college backed out of the deal but they still got approval--because they might attract another college someday, I guess.
Agree completely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The idea of an arena as development magnet uses reverse logic--instead of being offered by a developer as an attractor for a government's consideration, it's being used by the city as an attractor to developers. But is there any evidence that it actually works that way? If you wash your car, does it really make the weather likely to turn rainy?
See Staples Center in LA. See AT&T park in SF.

I went to Turbo Shine today and had my truck washed. Later today it became a little overcast and muggy. Now I'm hearing that it may rain later this week. Sorry about that. When I wash my truck, it made the weather change. Fact.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2934  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 4:15 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
AT&T Park was built without public subsidy. Staples Center was about 25% subsidized. We're looking at a two-thirds subsidy, if not more--there's a point of diminishing returns on this sort of project, and we're well past it.

Predicting that new housing would be built in San Francisco during a real estate boom is as safe a bet as predicting that it often looks like rain in Sacramento in March. Whether you built an arena or washed your car is coincidence, not causation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2935  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 5:18 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
AT&T Park was built without public subsidy. Staples Center was about 25% subsidized. We're looking at a two-thirds subsidy, if not more--there's a point of diminishing returns on this sort of project, and we're well past it.

Predicting that new housing would be built in San Francisco during a real estate boom is as safe a bet as predicting that it often looks like rain in Sacramento in March. Whether you built an arena or washed your car is coincidence, not causation.
Of Petco Park's total cost of about $474 million, about $300 million was publicly funded. By 2007 (three years after the ballpark opened), redevelopment projects worth approximately $4.25 billion had been completed, were underway, or were planned. Of these, $4 billion was privately funded.

San Diego now enjoys one of the most beautiful and vibrant downtowns in the country. Construction Petco Park was absolutely essential to the spectacular downtown San Diego enjoys.

Investment continues to this day. My own firm is looking at a $90 million, 24 story high-rise apartment building in an area of downtown that were it not for the investment in Petco (which was located in a significantly blighted area), neither we, nor anyone else, would ever consider. And that, friends, is "causation."

If Sacramento wants a similarly exciting, 24/7 downtown, it's going to need a similar catalyst.

Despite the whining from some here, it's that simple...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2936  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 5:46 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
Of Petco Park's total cost of about $474 million, about $300 million was publicly funded. By 2007 (three years after the ballpark opened), redevelopment projects worth approximately $4.25 billion had been completed, were underway, or were planned. Of these, $4 billion was privately funded.

San Diego now enjoys one of the most beautiful and vibrant downtowns in the country. Construction Petco Park was absolutely essential to the spectacular downtown San Diego enjoys.

Investment continues to this day. My own firm is looking at a $90 million, 24 story high-rise apartment building in an area of downtown that were it not for the investment in Petco (which was located in a significantly blighted area), neither we, nor anyone else, would ever consider. And that, friends, is "causation."

If Sacramento wants a similarly exciting, 24/7 downtown, it's going to need a similar catalyst.

Despite the whining from some here, it's that simple...
Sorry to be one of those whiners. But I strongly disagree with you about Petco Park being absolutely essential to downtown San Diego's vibrancy. It is simply not true. I grew up in San Diego I know a little about that town. First off I think it's really a stretch to compare the two towns. The physical and economic characteristics are completely different.

Downtown SD, and even this particular area of downtown, was already 'up and coming' before Petco arrived. Petco Park only added to what was already going on. Of course, it sparked quite a bit of new development around but if Petco had not been built downtown San Diego would still be a vibrant place. It's the high-rise housing boom that made it so, not a ballpark. And I would gladly bet you that almost all of the people who moved downtown since Petco was built would have done so whether the ballpark was there or not.

While I'm not against a downtown arena I think it is ridiculous to imagine that downtown Sacramento would derive the same benefit from an enclosed arena as San Diego did with an open-air ballpark. They are not the same thing.

Last edited by ozone; Mar 17, 2013 at 6:27 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2937  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 6:58 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Sorry to be one of those whiners. But I strongly disagree with you about Petco Park being absolutely essential to downtown San Diego's vibrancy. It is simply not true. I grew up in San Diego I know a little about that town. First off I think it's really a stretch to compare the two towns. The physical and economic characteristics are completely different.

Downtown SD, and even this particular area of downtown, was already 'up and coming' before Petco arrived. Petco Park only added to what was already going on. Of course, it sparked quite a bit of new development around but if Petco had not been built downtown San Diego would still be a vibrant place. It's the high-rise housing boom that made it so, not a ballpark. And I would gladly bet you that almost all of the people who moved downtown since Petco was built would have done so whether the ballpark was there or not.

While I'm not against a downtown arena I think it is ridiculous to imagine that downtown Sacramento would derive the same benefit from an enclosed arena as San Diego did with an open-air ballpark. They are not the same thing.
While I’m sure growing up in San Diego years ago gives you special insight into downtown San Diego today, I actually do development here now and have since the late 90s.

What I am comparing isn’t the respective downtowns per se; it is the concept of catalyst development and what it can do, if done right, for downtowns in general despite any physical and economic differences, both real and imagined.

The idea that San Diego’s East Village, the area to the immediate north and east of Petco Park was “up and coming” before the ballpark opened is laughably ignorant using anything other than the most absurd definitions of “up and coming.”

For example: I worked on two projects east of 7th Ave (and if you really know “a little” about the town, then you know what that means) before Petco was built. They totaled 27 units (both were three stories) and we were considered leaders and pioneers in the area.

Contrast that with west of 7th (Gaslamp, Marina, Little Italy) where we had five projects with over 300 total units and were just one of many firms doing work in these areas of downtown San Diego.

Today in the East Village, high-rises are common. All of them have been built post Petco with the exception of one, which was built to the immediate north of Petco once the project had been approved and passed all of the legal challenges.

Petco didn’t locate in downtown because of the housing boom. In fact, it is precisely the opposite. The housing boom was a result of an attractive lifestyle afforded downtown residents of which Petco played one of two crucial roles (the other being the opening of the convention center in 1987).

An arena (or other similar catalyst) would help provide the same for downtown Sacramento.

And while you may want to bet your nickles that all people moving to downtown San Diego would have done so with or without Petco, I can tell you unequivocally that most would not have had the opportunity to move downtown as developers wouldn’t have risked so many billions of dollars to build the thousands of residential units without Petco Park there.

To seriously think otherwise is, well, “ridiculous.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2938  
Old Posted Mar 17, 2013, 7:20 PM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Thank you Travis. I was trying to keep it light and simple. The argument had broken down into a simple cause and effect situation in my mind. So public subsidy wasn't primary consideration when I brought up my AT&T Park and Staples Center examples. Fact is, no two time periods, situations or locations will ever be identical. Not possible. We're arguing if a large sports centered development could be a catalyst for business and housing. These arenas and ball parks can affect where housing and businesses are built, how fast it is built and how large of a development is built. The only thing the state of the economy matters to when looking at this is the relative growth rate, not whether it is an actual catalyst.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2939  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 7:49 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Looks like we're going to have to find another $50 million....and another arena operator.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...rena-game.html
Quote:
According to city of Sacramento Manager John Shirey, AEG is not part of the plan to build a new downtown arena at the Downtown Plaza and won’t provide any funding, KCRA 3 reports. That’s even after AEG had previously said it was interested.

Southern California grocery magnate Ron Burkle, named as part of the counteroffer for the Kings by offering to bankroll an arena, was previously part of an investment group making a bid for AEG. But AEG has just been taken off the market by billionaire Phillip Anschutz.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2940  
Old Posted Mar 18, 2013, 9:52 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,046
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Looks like we're going to have to find another $50 million....and another arena operator.
The first part of our post is not new news. That came out a week ago, and frankly, AEG's funding isn't needed since no one has to help the broke-ass Maloofs bridge the funding gap now.

The second part is a fallacy. There's no reason AEG couldn't run the arena just because it isn't contributing to its construction. AEG manages many venues it didn't help build.
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 4:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.