Sacramento Suburban Development

[wburg]

But would you call 1this project an example of "suburban development" or urban infill? It's too low-density to call it TOD, but it fits into the existing streetcar suburb pattern pretty closely. How do you draw the line between "suburb" and "urb"?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

But would you call 1this project an example of "suburban development" or urban infill? It's too low-density to call it TOD, but it fits into the existing streetcar suburb pattern pretty closely. How do you draw the line between "suburb" and "urb"?

This is where is gets very murky:

Curtis Park:



South Sac (North laguna)



Night a day difference in street layout and inter connectivity which is an essential ingredient in a walkable walkable neighborhood.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

But would you call 1this project an example of "suburban development" or urban infill? It's too low-density to call it TOD, but it fits into the existing streetcar suburb pattern pretty closely. How do you draw the line between "suburb" and "urb"?

I would call it an Infill project myself, and I have heard many call it an Urban infill project. I understand your streetcar suburb pattern, but its low density. Walkable neighborhoods do not define Urban either (IMHO), because my neighborhood and most suburbs are very walkable, especially in Natomas. Natomas has wider sidewalks than Mid-Town, and a bike trail that goes everywhere that is far away from the roads (unlike Mid-Town). Tough debate though, I have never found a credible definition of Suburb and "Urb" even in my Economic Urban Development classes.... which tends to make me believe the definition is more political than factual. Oh, I have seen definitions, but they are very inconsistent.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

Just because the sidewalks are wider doesn't make it more walkable. Besides, walkability is pretty subjective, but I'd say good walkability comes from good sidewalks and a street layout that's easy to navigate. I could literally get lost and starve to death trying to find my way around some of the cul-de-sac areas of Natomas or Antelope. Hell, I practically get lost whenever I have to be out there already!

[kamehameha]

Banking on housing: Developer buys 500 lots in Wheatland
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw , Staff writer
Date: Friday, December 17, 2010, 3:00am PST .Related:

A major land developer has purchased almost 500 residential development lots in Wheatland, making one of the bigger housing plays during the second half of the year.

Lewis Operating Corp., the 10th-largest land owner in the region, is banking on a turnaround in the housing market during the next few years. The company owns 3,500 local acres, according to Business Journal research, including major holdings in nearby Lincoln.

The firm pursued the deal through the bankruptcy case of the land’s previous owner, Woodside Homes. Officials declined to discuss price, but industry sources said it was about $3.2 million, or $6,400 ...
..

Read more: Banking on housing: Developer buys 500 lots in Wheatland | Sacramento Business Journal

[kamehameha]

This is also the site of the proposed Indian casino and resort(Wheatland). I guess suburban sprawl is not going to stop anytime soon.

[innov8]

WHAT? Wheatland's a suburb of Yuba City and not Sacramento... seriously.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Originally Posted by kamehameha

This is also the site of the proposed Indian casino and resort(Wheatland). I guess suburban sprawl is not going to stop anytime soon.

Historical Preservation (whom almost no one cares about except a tiny, small, loud minority with way too much time on their hands) = Raising Costs of Development, therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Environmental Regulations = Raising Costs of Development and materials.
Therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Developers being forced to use Union Labor (corrupt Union Labor), = Raising Costs, therefore leading to Urban Sprawl.

Only Free Market Development will end Urban Sprawl. Vote American in 2012.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Econgrad

Historical Preservation (whom almost no one cares about except a tiny, small, loud minority with way too much time on their hands) = Raising Costs of Development, therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Environmental Regulations = Raising Costs of Development and materials.
Therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Developers being forced to use Union Labor (corrupt Union Labor), = Raising Costs, therefore leading to Urban Sprawl.

Only Free Market Development will end Urban Sprawl. Vote American in 2012.

I beg to differ. Urban sprawl is more a matter of policy planning at the city/county level than it is up to developer profits. We wouldn't be sprawling out if the County and Cities didn't want to. All it would take to end urban sprawl would be for SACOG to put strict limits on that type of development. And Environmental regulations are often more costly if a developer is paving over hundreds of acres of land building a sub-development than if they were to put the same number of units in a high rise building on a footprint the size of a city block or smaller. So basically, you think if there was no environmental regulation and no union labor then we'd be infilling and not sprawling out? Yeah, right...

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

I beg to differ. Urban sprawl is more a matter of policy planning at the city/county level than it is up to developer profits. We wouldn't be sprawling out if the County and Cities didn't want to. All it would take to end urban sprawl would be for SACOG to put strict limits on that type of development. And Environmental regulations are often more costly if a developer is paving over hundreds of acres of land building a sub-development than if they were to put the same number of units in a high rise building on a footprint the size of a city block or smaller. So basically, you think if there was no environmental regulation and no union labor then we'd be infilling and not sprawling out? Yeah, right...

Portland tried exactly what you said above, and it is a huge disaster for lower-middle class and the poor who can't afford to live in the City now that the prices are artificially high because of artificial land constraints. Right now, in Sacramento there is a market demand (people who want to live in DT of MT Sacramento) for infill residences and even high-rise living. The reasons we do not see this being developed is because it is too costly to develop, due to the regulations I stated in the first place. No one in their right mind will buy a 1000SF condo on R street for $500,000 when you can get a house in the Fab 40's at 2000SF for $390,000. Condos are entry level purchases for housing, everyone knows that. They are cheap to built and easy to maintain, and should be cheap to purchase. The wealthy in our area do not want to live in Downtown, and may never unless the crime problem is taken care of. That leaves mostly State Workers and Middle-Class Urbanists who cannot afford these expensive condos that are a complete rip-off. The prices are not due to location: do not try and tell me R street is a more valuable location than anywhere in the 40's of 30's or East Sacramento. These residences we are building are too costly to build because of regulations and corrupt unions. If people who have influence to not open their eyes, Sacramento will continue to be stagnant, while the cities around the area benefit from Sacramento's lack of development.

[Web]

lets move to housyon qith no zoning laws

lets move to mexico or china with no enviromental laws

cmon people

or mississippi.....in a tin shaCK

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Econgrad

Portland tried exactly what you said above, and it is a huge disaster for lower-middle class and the poor who can't afford to live in the City now that the prices are artificially high because of artificial land constraints. Right now, in Sacramento there is a market demand (people who want to live in DT of MT Sacramento) for infill residences and even high-rise living. The reasons we do not see this being developed is because it is too costly to develop, due to the regulations I stated in the first place. No one in their right mind will buy a 1000SF condo on R street for $500,000 when you can get a house in the Fab 40's at 2000SF for $390,000. Condos are entry level purchases for housing, everyone knows that. They are cheap to built and easy to maintain, and should be cheap to purchase. The wealthy in our area do not want to live in Downtown, and may never unless the crime problem is taken care of. That leaves mostly State Workers and Middle-Class Urbanists who cannot afford these expensive condos that are a complete rip-off. The prices are not due to location: do not try and tell me R street is a more valuable location than anywhere in the 40's of 30's or East Sacramento. These residences we are building are too costly to build because of regulations and corrupt unions. If people who have influence to not open their eyes, Sacramento will continue to be stagnant, while the cities around the area benefit from Sacramento's lack of development.

More nonsense. Portland's cost of living is lower than Sacramento's, which has no urban growth boundary.

A bunch people have and did buy condos on R street, which isn't really up for dispute since both R street projects sold out or almost did. Most units were priced in the 300,000s which remains cheaper than the Fab 40's.

[rampant_jwalker]

I think econgrad is totally right about the cost of labor hindering high density urban development.

Why does the high school drop-out pouring concrete make more money than the architect and engineer who have masters degrees? Uneducated laborers make big bucks because of how their unions work to artificially drive up their salaries.

If you go to other countries where construction labor is less expensive, you will automatically be able to see the difference in housing typology. It's because when labor is a little cheaper, reinforced concrete construction becomes affordable enough that developers can build it and expect to make some kind of profit. In countries like Greece where there is no unionized labor, the cities are denser and more walkable, and housing costs are more affordable. The building materials cost the same as they do here, but labor is based on a free market system.

I know it seems almost inhumane to say that our friends who work in the construction sector should take a pay cut, but I have to agree that the cost of unionized labor here is an important reason why we see so many 2x4-framed single family homes out in the suburbs rather than more concrete and steel condo's in the central city.

Originally Posted by Ghost of Econgrad

Historical Preservation (whom almost no one cares about except a tiny, small, loud minority with way too much time on their hands) = Raising Costs of Development, therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Environmental Regulations = Raising Costs of Development and materials.
Therefore leading to more Urban Sprawl.

Developers being forced to use Union Labor (corrupt Union Labor), = Raising Costs, therefore leading to Urban Sprawl.

Only Free Market Development will end Urban Sprawl. Vote American in 2012.

[Mr. Ozo]

Your right, San Fransisco has no walkability due to the 100% union presence.

Land will always be cheaper in the suburbs than cities regardless of union labor.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

http://www.newgeography.com/content/...-affordability

Here is an excerpt:

Let Them Eat Cake?

They disregard at least some smart growth proponents show about house prices may be characterized, for example, in a comment on the Planetizen website:

"... smart growth can lead to more expensive housing. So what? At least it's REAL value, generated by a higher quality of life, easier commutes, more transit options, walkability and a more enriched cultural experience..." (emphasis in original)

Perhaps it never occurred to the proponents of more restrictive land use policies that not all households have the benefit of incomes typical of urban planners or new urbanist architects. One has to question the "REAL values" of smart growth since most housing consumers place their highest emphasis on things like privacy, security and good schools, not always available at a decent price in urban areas.

In fact, higher priced housing reduces the discretionary income that is crucial to an acceptable standard of living to many households. Millions of households will not be in the market for "a more enriched cultural experience" until they can afford the housing they desire.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Ghost of Econgrad

Condos are entry level purchases for housing, everyone knows that.

"Everyone knows that" is a convenient label for things that generally aren't true. Condos certainly don't have to be entry level purchases for housing--they are a choice for people who want the advantages of ownership housing in a multi-unit setting, such as close to a city center.

One example that comes to mind is a professor I know who teaches at the USC satellite campus in Midtown. He is single and in his 80s--he has no desire for a house and yard, nor a thousand square feet of extra space, nor a car. He lives in the condos above the Marriott at 15th and L, and walks the three blocks between his residence and USC. He travels a lot, and takes advantage of the concierge service the condo/hotel offers.

Now, there are certainly entry-level condos: if $500,000 is a little steep for your blood, you can get a $100,000-200,000 condo these days. The expensive ones offer better views, more amenities, more prestigious locations and more modern features. Some are located in industrial buildings converted to residential use, and people enjoy the aesthetic enough to pay more for the privilege, just as some people are willing to pay more for a historic home for its aesthetic value and rarity. To use a car analogy, a Hyundai will get you to and from work just as well as a Jaguar or a restored antique Mercedes-Benz sedan, but the latter two cost a lot more because of qualities other than the mere ability to get to and from work. This does not imply that everyone should drive a Jaguar or a classic Mercedes, merely that there is more than one possible consumer choice (including, of course, the option of not owning a car at all.)

Econgrad assumes that nobody in their right mind would not want to live in the suburbs, and therein lies his fundamental error--he assumes that everyone should want the same thing, and anyone who doesn't want what he (and, one assumes, his friends) likes best (a single-family home in the suburbs) must obviously be insane.

There is a whole bunch of other wrong stuff in econgrad's most recent couple of posts, but I already refuted it all a couple of years ago so I won't bother boring everyone by reposting it all.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

Econgrad assumes that nobody in their right mind would not want to live in the suburbs, and therein lies his fundamental error--he assumes that everyone should want the same thing, and anyone who doesn't want what he (and, one assumes, his friends) likes best (a single-family home in the suburbs) must obviously be insane.

There is a whole bunch of other wrong stuff in econgrad's most recent couple of posts, but I already refuted it all a couple of years ago so I won't bother boring everyone by reposting it all.

Is your argument that weak that you now have to make stuff up? You know I want the city to be huge, I am pointing out why it is not and probably never will be.

[wburg]

And I am pointing out why you're wrong about that. There are plenty of reasons why Sacramento grew outward rather than upward--cheap farmland to build on, government subsidies for highways and sprawl, and white flight away from the central city. Pretty much the same reason that every other American city that had room to expand did so in the 20th century.

Been reading a rather interesting little treatise called "Building Rules" by Kee Warner and Harvey Molotch, about local government controls' effects on development. Molotch is the originator of the "Growth Machine" thesis* and this work focuses on several case study cities in southern California. The study cities used various limits on growth and development, ranging from limits on numbers of building permits, urban boundaries, design districts, low-income housing requirements, etcetera.

What Warner and Molotch found was that generally, regulatory limits on development don't actually stop development, but they do shape it, and it can often result in development that is more in line with a city's long-term objectives. Smokestack-chasing and efforts to deregulate to attract business didn't actually result in more business and development than would have otherwise occurred, but it often meant diverging from a city's overall objectives for growth, due to their greater willingness to accept whatever developer came along with a project, even if it wasn't the best project.

The bottom line: Cities with standards tend to get better projects, just don't set your standards too high.

* Growth Machine thesis: the idea that cities grow suburbs because developers want to turn cheap farmland into expensive suburbs, the increase in value means more property taxes, so politicians promote sprawl because it's easier than raising taxes and their main supporters want more suburban development. Eventually growth machines break down as their infrastructure becomes too expensive and new expansions cost more to provide with services than the increase in tax base generates.

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

Your right, San Fransisco has no walkability due to the 100% union presence.

Land will always be cheaper in the suburbs than cities regardless of union labor.

I agree with your point, In San Francisco land is the major cost for any development, which actually makes it cheaper for developers to build high density than sprawl.
Here in Sacramento land is still pretty cheap so labor is the major cost of a new development. Sacramento is not a wealth center like San Francisco either... most families here can only afford to buy something less than $200,000, which means a house somewhere in the sprawling suburbs....
If labor costs were not artificially driven up by unions, it would be possible to offer high density housing for sale less than $200,000 in Sacramento. If that happened, our city would be radically transformed.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Originally Posted by wburg

* Growth Machine thesis: the idea that cities grow suburbs because developers want to turn cheap farmland into expensive suburbs, the increase in value means more property taxes, so politicians promote sprawl because it's easier than raising taxes and their main supporters want more suburban development. Eventually growth machines break down as their infrastructure becomes too expensive and new expansions cost more to provide with services than the increase in tax base generates.

I have been reading this crap since college. You need to study Economics so when you are reading these progressive academic's, you will see they have nothing to do with the real world. The Authors, are well known academic progressives, and the more and more these progressives are being exposed, the more and more you see they are twisting the truth. Try reading the Wall Street Journal, if you need help understanding it, give me a message. I will be glad to help.

For anyone else who has not heard of Harvey Molotoch, the author Wburg is pushing above, here is a quote directly from Harvey Molotoch just for those who want an introduction into progressive thinking:

Direct from Harvey Molotoch:
"We are all misfits. The most developed sociology in the world exists in the country inhospitable to it. (Molotoch showing his Anti-American Mentality). The related US traits of individualism, jingoistic arrogance, and lack of a labor party tradition, combine to make sociology a suspect endeavor. (Here is where Wburg and his author are exposing what they truly believe "COMMUNISM".)

Unfortunately I cannot copy and paste, therefore I will leave a link for everyone else to read the silliness of academic progressives, whom are just communists that put out untrue thesis' for people like Wburg to eat up. The real answer to what progressives will not tell you is this: They want to control your lives through every means necessary. They do not believe in individual freedom or choice. Private property is a joke to them. Wburg, just admit your a commie, and admit that all these "thesis" you read are biased and based on the progressive movement. A movement that disagrees with our own US constitution and free market system.

To others that read what I have posted, notice that I post statistical data and facts, not biased thesis from communists.
Also, I use Modern Data mostly, not Data from the 70's and 80's.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RgJ...0wrong&f=false