Quote:
Originally Posted by nevernude
I want the Thomas development to be successful. We all do. But if it falls through and the city ends up with the land again, it is something to think about.
|
The city of Sacramento hasn't owned the Railyards property since the 1860s, when it was a swamp. Union Pacific acquired it when they bought Southern Pacific, and sold it to Thomas Enterprises. If Thomas decides to back out, the property would not revert to the city, although considering that they borrowed $55 million from the city to pay for the purchase, it seems only fair that they give the property to the city in place of the cash--at the very least.
I agree with the approach of having more than one developer. The current Railyards plan includes requires multiple architects. Most of the features you mentioned, including ground floor retail/residential above and expected minimum height, are already part of the Railyards specific plan: the shortest buildings will be around 75 feet nearest the Shops buildings and along the "Boxcar Parks," 150 feet a little farther out from both, and in some portions no height limits at all. Because these were part of the plans the city developed, they would most likely apply to a future developer should Thomas back out. Although, as we saw in North Natomas, the price of developing a good community plan is eternal vigilance...
The problem with giving developers land is that it may not be the city's to give. The city has essentially acquired the land on the 700/800 blocks of K, but many of the properties on R Street are not land the city owns. Some were purchased during the last run-up and are sitting vacant (or demolished) until the market gets better.
Going full steam ahead is pretty much impossible right now, seeing as there is very little steam. The city of Sacramento can't just take people's property and give it away, and it does not have unlimited funds to hand out to subsidize development (in fact, it doesn't have much funds at all these days.) So in the short term it seems most prudent to go after the low-hanging fruit: inexpensive but effective projects that make use of existing resources.
Obviously I'm a big fan of adaptive reuse, as that type of project tends to be less expensive than new construction, is more economically beneficial at the local level (restoration requires more labor) and more environmentally friendly (restoration requires less materials, energy and stuff going to the landfill.) Adaptive reuse can be the greenest projects of all.
The projects that have succeeded lately are the ones that are providing something unique: while many of the central city faux-urban-loft projects aren't selling worth a darn, projects like LJ Urban's Good and D&S Development's iLofts are selling like hotcakes, because their product is the genuine article. Instead of faux-styled townhomes billed as "lofts," D&S sells real ones. Instead of token greenwashing billed as "sustainable development," LJ Urban pioneered LEED-ND in the region and showcases their building's ground-breaking green features.
It's all about building a better mousetrap.