Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III - Page 301

wburg · #**6001** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 5:50 AM**

Yeah, I'm hoping it will be located downtown in that neighborhood, and the taller the better--leaves more space for CADA to build housing.

Bubb90 · #**6002** Posted **Jan 9, 2016, 8:18 PM**

This sounds interesting
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...e53820920.html

wburg · #**6003** Posted **Jan 10, 2016, 3:35 AM**

I like it--adaptive reuse of the old D.O. Mills bank building, which has had a "green roof" since the 1990s (it was used for special events.) In the shorter term, Railbridge Cellars is opening a deli in the ground floor of the landmark Elks Building at 11th and J.

Pistola916 · #**6004** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 6:44 PM**

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...e54284585.html

Majin · #**6005** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 7:19 PM**

Sigh, I'm tired of seeing articles about 301CM. That site is far past the time for some action, especially with huge entertainment center around the Arena that will probably be finished by early-mid 2017. Having that many ammenities (along with the K street area) within walking distance would be a major selling point for condos located on that site.

Also, I'm perfectly fine with the tower being mixed used between the state and housing, as long as the housing component is significant (something like 70%/30% office/housing or 60%/40%).

And it goes without saying ground floor retail is a must.

Pistola916 · #**6006** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin

Sigh, I'm tired of seeing articles about 301CM. That site is far past the time for some action, especially with huge entertainment center around the Arena that will probably be finished by early-mid 2017. Having that many ammenities (along with the K street area) within walking distance would be a major selling point for condos located on that site.

Also, I'm perfectly fine with the tower being mixed used between the state and housing, as long as the housing component is significant (something like 70%/30% office/housing or 60%/40%).

And it goes without saying ground floor retail is a must.

I hope they mean the office portion could take up 20-30 stories. Mixed-use tower at that height is a little underwhelming.

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 13m13 minutes ago
Sounds like the early plans for the potential BOE building at 3rd and Capitol call for tower in the 20- to 30-story range.

Majin · #**6007** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 8:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistola916

I hope they mean the office portion could take up 20-30 stories. Mixed-use tower at that height is a little underwhelming.

Ryan Lillis ‏@Ryan_Lillis 13m13 minutes ago
Sounds like the early plans for the potential BOE building at 3rd and Capitol call for tower in the 20- to 30-story range.

No, it sounds like total height. Very disappointing, to the point where I'd actually be against this tower and rather have a hole in a ground for a sub-30 story tower. We have to wait until his actually becomes a real proposal but if it does come in at under 30 I'll be fighting this at city hall. With the new entertainment district right across the street we can do much better.

fouroheight68 · #**6008** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 9:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin

No, it sounds like total height. Very disappointing, to the point where I'd actually be against this tower and rather have a hole in a ground for a sub-30 story tower. We have to wait until his actually becomes a real proposal but if it does come in at under 30 I'll be fighting this at city hall. With the new entertainment district right across the street we can do much better.

I actually agree

enigma99a · #**6009** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 11:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin

No, it sounds like total height. Very disappointing, to the point where I'd actually be against this tower and rather have a hole in a ground for a sub-30 story tower. We have to wait until his actually becomes a real proposal but if it does come in at under 30 I'll be fighting this at city hall. With the new entertainment district right across the street we can do much better.

Yes, there are plenty of other holes to build a sub 30 tower. I'd say this one needs to be in the 550-650ft range

snfenoc · #**6010** Posted **Jan 12, 2016, 11:55 PM**

Why does it NEED to be 30 floors or more?

If the state is gonna build something, you know damn well the floor plates are gonna be large in area and the total height will be stunted compared to similarly sized, private towers.

While certainly underwhelming compared to twin 53 story towers, those tall beauties were never in the cards. The Towers on Crapitol Mall was a pipe dream. Take what you can get. That hole in the ground has been there for nearly a decade. It's owned by a wealthy investment fund with the power to finance, yet nothing has happened with the site, even during another real estate and credit bubble. What does all this tell you? How long would you wait? What opportunities would you miss?

snfenoc · #**6011** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 12:28 AM**

Could state offices fill a new Capitol Mall tower?

Jan 12, 2016, 2:57pm PST

Ben van der Meer and Allen Young
Sacramento Business Journal

Quote:

Developers connected with the infamous "hole in the ground" at 301 Capitol Mall — vacant since a high-rise project stalled in 2007 — said Tuesday they are talking with potential tenants for a possible new tower on the site...

In the above article, the business Journal indicated that the BOE would likely not occupy a new tower at the Towers on Crapitol Mall site. Thus, a tower there would not likely be on top of what Brown's budget proposes. Instead, it would be part of that budget.

Based on the tone of this article, I am not excited about the site's mixed-use, residential prospects.

The state giveth and taketh away from Sacramento. Much of the demolition and "redevelopment" that left Sacramento with buzz boxes, ugly land scrapers and even a one-story, green, underground office building took place under Brown's first administration, or his father's administration. He owes Sacramento. Will he deliver? I ain't holding my breath.

enigma99a · #**6012** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 2:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfenoc

While certainly underwhelming compared to twin 53 story towers, those tall beauties were never in the cards. The Towers on Crapitol Mall was a pipe dream. Take what you can get. That hole in the ground has been there for nearly a decade. It's owned by a wealthy investment fund with the power to finance, yet nothing has happened with the site, even during another real estate and credit bubble. What does all this tell you? How long would you wait? What opportunities would you miss?

That "pipe dream" was just a couple units short of hitting the quota. Blame the economy or the competition (aura) but the market was there. 301cm is not going to be a bunker.. Its the gateway to downtown and need to be an epic building. CIM built a landscraper at 8&J and makes me worried they will do something similar here

snfenoc · #**6013** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 2:28 AM**

No, the market wasn't there. You're still drinking that Kool Aid?

The economy had a nice run over the past couple years. (Of course, much like the previous "up" economy, it has a tenuous foundation of easy credit.). Additionally, more and more people want to live in the city. Businesses are hiring again and expanding. So...why haven't we seen an epic proposal for the site? The only huge proposal we've seen that's actually getting built at this point is the arena and DOCO, which combined have received a huge subsidy.

I'm sorry, but I think your expectations are out of step with reality.

SacTownAndy · #**6014** Posted **Jan 13, 2016, 10:37 PM**

First phase of massive downtown housing project could break ground this year

Jan 13, 2016, 1:32pm PST
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal

Construction could get underway by year’s end on the first phase of development for the Sacramento Commons housing project.

City officials are reviewing specific proposals for mid-rise buildings on the western half of the site, with up to 412 residential units.

Dave Eadie of developer Kennedy Wilson said his firm anticipates a planning and design commission hearing this spring, and formal building permit applications by late summer.

“We’re moving along as quickly as possible,” said Eadie, Kennedy Wilson’s senior vice president of entitlement and development/commercial investments. Kennedy Wilson submitted plans for two project parcels to the city at the beginning of the month.

...Construction of the mid-rise buildings should take about 16 months to be completed, not counting site work. Realistically, Eadie said, those buildings could open in late 2017 or early 2018.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...g-project.html

snfenoc · #**6015** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 5:16 PM**

Former Greyhound station to become retail space with parking garage
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ail-space.html

Jan 14, 2016, 7:19am PST
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal

Quote:

A long-dormant site about a block from Golden 1 Center in downtown Sacramento will get a makeover in about a year.
Broker Ariel Fox of Retail West said the former Greyhound bus station at 701 L St. will become renovated retail space alongside a new 300-stall parking garage.

“There’s been tremendous interest, especially from restaurants and fast-casual type places,” said Fox. She’s listing the space on behalf of owners Dave Kassis and Danny Benvenuti...

I think some of us saw this kind of "development" coming... Why build expensive housing when you have guaranteed arena and "DOCO" parking income for less than half the price? I'm libertarian and all, but I might look the other way if the city demanded that it be (at least partially) wrapped with some housing. Granted, I like the retail aspect of it. Having said that, a grocery store right there would be pretty nice.

enigma99a · #**6016** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Former Greyhound station to become retail space with parking garage
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ail-space.html

Jan 14, 2016, 7:19am PST
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal

I think some of us saw this kind of "development" coming... Why build expensive housing when you have guaranteed arena and "DOCO" parking income for less than half the price? I'm libertarian and all, but I might look the other way if the city demanded that it be (at least partially) wrapped with some housing. Granted, I like the retail aspect of it. Having said that, a grocery store right there would be pretty nice.

What 701L could have been

Majin · #**6017** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 6:01 PM**

I really hope he needs to go to the city or planning comission before actually doing anything....?

To they have a chance to stop this garbage. Yes a unused building that close to the new entertainment district is better than building a parking garage. If the owner doesn't have any real plans I rather him just wait and sell it to a real developer after the success of the arena district becomes apparent in 2017.

With the properties surrounding the arena, in general, I rather the buildings stay empty until 2017 rather than a rush to build quick lackluster garbage in order to make a quick easy buck.

Pistola916 · #**6018** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 6:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Majin

I really hope he needs to go to the city or planning comission before actually doing anything....?

To they have a chance to stop this garbage. Yes a unused building that close to the new entertainment district is better than building a parking garage. If the owner doesn't have any real plans I rather him just wait and sell it to a real developer after the success of the arena district becomes apparent in 2017.

With the properties surrounding the arena, in general, I rather the buildings stay empty until 2017 rather than a rush to build quick lackluster garbage in order to make a quick easy buck.

At this point I'd opt for a 7-8 story mixed use residential building there over a 2 story and a "parking tower" -- which is a nicer way of saying garage. That lot deserves better.

Majin · #**6019** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 6:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pistola916

At this point I'd opt for a 7-8 story mixed use residential building there over a 2 story and a "parking tower" -- which is a nicer way of saying garage. That lot deserves better.

8 story.... if it were a year from now and there have no other proposals on that site for whatever reason until then. I'd probably bite the bullet and approve that. But right now? Why lock yourself into that when arena/hotel/marshal hotel/K street apartments aren't even done yet?

There is a ton of development under construction just within 1-3 blocks of that location that is going to completely change the neighborhood. Why lock yourself in with a parking garage?

Anyhow, like I said, I really hope this needs some type of "usage change" planning commission/city council approval or something.

snfenoc · #**6020** Posted **Jan 14, 2016, 6:43 PM**

Developers seek the path of least resistance. They want to maximize income, while minimizing risk. The Sacramento market has a fair amount of risk to it, and its ROI is smaller than say San Francisco. The city subsidized a huge entertainment development that would demand a shitload of parking. The 701 L site is like two blocks from the arena/DOCO. What did we expect? I wonder if the city will get a cut of the parking proceeds from this project (if built). Otherwise, its parking income may go down, which is bad, cause it's got a huge bond to pay off.

Public/Private Partnerships = Moral Hazards