Sacramento Preservation/Adaptive Reuse Projects - Page 6

nevernude · #**101** Posted **Mar 12, 2009, 5:35 AM**

I wonder if he will keep the same design as before. I read he was working with the people who developed the Brewery Blocks in Portland. That is a great development that really helped the Pearl grow. I think Crystal Ice could do the same for R Street. Now just start the Capitol Lofts and R Street could really be something.

Bob Shallit: Former Crystal Ice site getting a thaw?

By Bob Shallit
bshallit@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 11, 2009 - 6:30 pm

Suddenly, prospects are warming up for the former – and mostly vacant – Crystal Ice plant on midtown Sacramento's R Street.

Local developer Mark Friedman's plans for a housing and retail complex between 16th and 18th streets have been "dead in the water" due to the ailing economy. But some last-minute scurrying in recent weeks got the Crystal site included on a short list of city-sponsored projects that will be vying for the state's Proposition 1C housing bond monies.

Friedman, who bought the two-block-long site in 2005, says he suggested the project's inclusion two weeks ago after becoming familiar with the state's scoring system for the bond monies.

Projects that score highest typically "are adjacent to grocery stores and light rail," Friedman says. No other proposed site, he adds, fits that description better than the former Crystal plant, which sits just west of a Safeway store and near a light-rail line.

The Crystal project, which is seeking $3-$4 million, is one of only three housing-related developments to be submitted by city officials next month. The others are the downtown railyard project ($17 million) and the Township Nine housing complex near Richards Boulevard ($10.9 million).

ltsmotorsport · #**102** Posted **Mar 12, 2009, 5:47 AM**

So glad to see this one has a fighting chance as it is one of my favorite midtown projects.

jsf8278 · #**103** Posted **Mar 12, 2009, 6:41 PM**

The Capitol Lofts project has a somewhat new website. The design of the lofts also look a bit different. I couldn't find any sort of time line on the website.

http://www.capitollofts.com

ltsmotorsport · #**104** Posted **Mar 12, 2009, 6:45 PM**

That's cause Capitol lofts is a never-ending vision, not a real project

sugit · #**105** Posted **Mar 12, 2009, 7:43 PM**

The latest on Capitol Lofts is there might be a same hotel as part of the project....I'll believe it when I see it though.

Sachornet · #**106** Posted **Mar 16, 2009, 4:55 AM**

Wburg - What were your thoughts of the work they did to the Shady Lady on Saturday? Any update on when they might open?

wburg · #**107** Posted **Mar 16, 2009, 5:31 PM**

sachornet: I like what they're doing in the Shady Lady, it's definitely a very "hof brau" sort of feel with a lot of dark wood, high-backed booths and the patterned wallpaper (I'd describe it as "bordello wallpaper," a characterization that I'm pretty sure the owners wouldn't mind.) The retro feel is really what they're shooting for, and part of their decoration plan is to have a bunch of photos of Sacramento's bars and breweries all over the walls. It seems like they're shooting for a more comfortable, low-key place instead of a high-energy "ultra lounge." They plan on opening next month.

The baked goods from Magpie were terrific.

The lofts on the second floor were impressive. They vary in size from around 500 to 1100 square feet, in price from about $250K to $380K. There is a small parking area adjacent to the light rail tracks, and each unit has its own parking space (the retail spaces are exempt from parking requirements.) I took some photos, I'll post them later.

econgrad · #**108** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

The lofts on the second floor were impressive. They vary in size from around 500 to 1100 square feet, in price from about $250K to $380K. There is a small parking area adjacent to the light rail tracks, and each unit has its own parking space (the retail spaces are exempt from parking requirements.) I took some photos, I'll post them later.

Am I the only one here that believes these are insanely over priced?
$250K for 500 SF?! Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

wburg · #**109** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 4:23 PM**

If they were in Elk Grove or Antelope, they would be overpriced. In downtown Sacramento, they're not cheap but comparatively reasonable. $200-250K is pretty much the starting price for condos in the central city. The comps are mostly 1980s era and not aging very well. You can get some houses downtown for $250-300K, but a house has extra expenses and hassles (mowing, maintenance, etc) that you don't have to worry about in a condo, or the price is included in the HOA fee (around $150/month.) Those houses are also generally around 1000 sf.

I realize you don't see the appeal of living downtown, but enough folks do that half of the units at 14th & R are already spoken for.

wburg · #**110** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 5:25 PM**

My photos aren't the best in the world, but here are some of the interiors of the lofts at 14th & R. The level of finish and detail in these units is definitely a step above the kind of thing you'd find in a suburban tract home, not to mention things like the polished concrete floors and industrial brick walls. All the units have a lot of storage space, and most have upstairs loft areas that increase the amount of usable space dramatically: you get more "bang for your buck" in terms of use of those square feet. A big suburban tract home is horribly inefficient in its use of space, because space is a resource suburbs have in abundant supply. A well-designed small loft (or small home) can seem as big as a much bigger space that isn't as well-designed.

In historic homes, that kind of design is commonplace because they were generally much smaller than modern buildings. Lofts like these are just re-learning old lessons we forgot in our urge to build big suburban barns to live in.

econgrad · #**111** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

you get more "bang for your buck" in terms of use of those square feet. A big suburban tract home is horribly inefficient in its use of space, because space is a resource suburbs have in abundant supply. A well-designed small loft (or small home) can seem as big as a much bigger space that isn't as well-designed.

In historic homes, that kind of design is commonplace because they were generally much smaller than modern buildings. Lofts like these are just re-learning old lessons we forgot in our urge to build big suburban barns to live in.

wburg · #**112** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 9:14 PM**

Yes, yes, econgrad, we all know you like big suburban homes. Why do you think these lofts are overpriced? How much do you think they should cost?

Majin · #**113** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 9:39 PM**

Jeeez wburg its amazing how on somethings we are so similar but on most things we are complete opposites.

Same goes for you econgrad.

wburg · #**114** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 9:44 PM**

So Majin, what do you think of the lofts? Maybe it would help to have the input of someone less fond of old stuff than I am. I know your place at 800 J is probably not real gigantic: what do you like about living in a compact space?

Majin · #**115** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 9:59 PM**

I'm biased like you I don't like big tract homes either so I can't be really objective. Yes I much rather live at 14th and R than a McHouse in a McCity like Folsom or Roseville.

Majin · #**116** Posted **Mar 17, 2009, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

what do you like about living in a compact space?

Missed your last question. I'm not into having a large front and back yard to take care of. I'm also not into wasted space or the poor construction quality of tract homes.

Grimnebulin · #**117** Posted **Mar 18, 2009, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

sachornet: I like what they're doing in the Shady Lady, it's definitely a very "hof brau" sort of feel with a lot of dark wood, high-backed booths and the patterned wallpaper (I'd describe it as "bordello wallpaper," a characterization that I'm pretty sure the owners wouldn't mind.) The retro feel is really what they're shooting for, and part of their decoration plan is to have a bunch of photos of Sacramento's bars and breweries all over the walls. It seems like they're shooting for a more comfortable, low-key place instead of a high-energy "ultra lounge." They plan on opening next month.

I just spoke with Jason and he said they'll be opening in three weeks. He also said they'll have a lot of live music - mostly jazz - schweet! Can't wait.

econgrad · #**118** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 1:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

Yes, yes, econgrad, we all know you like big suburban homes. Why do you think these lofts are overpriced? How much do you think they should cost?

The costs of construction on DT and MT Sac are inflated because of bureaucracies. These are worth no more than $90,000 to $150,000. The costs of building them are so high not because of natural market causes. The costs are high to construct because too many people are involved. Also, downtown Sacramento will be a failure if it continues to avoid catering to families. Urban renewal will continue to be a failure and have to be tax funded if we cannot find a way to lower the prices and increase the size of what if offered for families. You will continue to see more and more companies locating in Folsom and Roseville, and more money and people continuing to move to those areas until Sacramento wakes up. You already know my opinion on this Wburg.... funny you even ask this question.

wburg · #**119** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 2:49 AM**

If, as you claim, construction costs are high because of "bureaucracies," then why are the existing homes in downtown/midtown (buildings that have stood for decades) in the central city so expensive? These buildings are already built--thus there are no "bureaucracies" making their construction more expensive--but they still command a premium price. Why?

Also, if these "bureaucracies" result in higher prices, why are Sacramento's outer neighborhoods less expensively priced than downtown/midtown? They are governed by the same city government "bureaucracies," but homes are less expensive. Why is that?

travis bickle · #**120** Posted **Mar 19, 2009, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wburg

If, as you claim, construction costs are high because of "bureaucracies," then why are the existing homes in downtown/midtown (buildings that have stood for decades) in the central city so expensive? These buildings are already built--thus there are no "bureaucracies" making their construction more expensive--but they still command a premium price. Why?

Also, if these "bureaucracies" result in higher prices, why are Sacramento's outer neighborhoods less expensively priced than downtown/midtown? They are governed by the same city government "bureaucracies," but homes are less expensive. Why is that?

Not sure of the costs in Sacramento, but I can't imagine it's too much different. In metro San Diego, government fees range from about $40-60k per home. This includes everyone from the fire departments to the school districts. In addition, the long approval process and the inevitable design/engineering revisions probably cost an additional (I'm guessing here) $75k, probably more, but these are spread out over the number of homes and the size of the home.

Put them together and you are looking at a $50-75k per unit to build a single family home - less for multi-family just to feed the "Bureaucracy."

Why do existing homes cost as much as new homes despite not having to pay government fees? C'mon wburg... you know the answer to that. The fees drive the costs for the entire market, not the other way around.

If government adds $60k into the value of your existing home through fees, are you not going to include that into the price of your home when you sell? No one forces you too and it's not a conscious decision, but those new-home fees are part of what the market will bear.

Secondly, in a rising real estate market, the new buyer does pay the fees indirectly through increased property taxes as a result of the higher selling price.

Does the government add to the cost of a home? Obviously the answer is an emphatic yes and it is a significant number. If you use the old rule of thumb that for every $1000 rise in the cost of a home you disqualify 1000 borrowers, then government fees and associated costs prevent at least 50,000 people from owning each specific home. That has a huge impact.

Equally as obvious: the review process is a necessary one that has resulted in many better projects and communities.

The question becomes are we getting our money's worth?