Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[SacRising]

Originally Posted by sugit

In addtion to Washington Park Village you mentioned, L Street Lofts, North End Lofts, 21st and T Townhomes, Marriot Condos, and a few at 14th and R are for sale. That's about 200.

EDIT: Are SoCap Lofts for sale? If so that's another 36. I think the project at 16th and H is for sale too, that's 50 more.

Thanks for the update, and Brandon too. Which ones are the North End Lofts and 14th & R st? Brandon's right, the big towers do steal our focus when there are plenty of small projects being built now. But as far as the larger mixed-use multifamily buildings, most of these are apartments, correct? Aren't these examples more of a townhouse style (Marriott excluded)?

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by brandon12

plus another 36 (I think) at Whiskey Hill at 22 & S. There's also six units at 21 & S, and some of the Alchemy at 26 & R are for sell. In fact, I'm sure there's dozens more that we still haven't mentioned.

The high-rise condos tend to catch the spotlight, but there's ALL KINDS of smaller for-sale infill being constructed right now.

Not to mention their already is a large residential population in the urban core. The day-time population skyrockets and on weekends we have thousands dining, dancing, going to shows, checking out art. I live here and seconds don't go by without pedestrians walking, jogging, and biking by my window. You can't even compare West Sac to the urban core.
It's hard for residents of the 'burbs to believe but people actually walk and bike everywhere here. It's a pedestrian-friendly bubble in otherwise auto-centric Sac.

[Los_Lobo]

Originally Posted by innov8

Ahh, geezzz... will the drama from any of the residential towers ever give
us a break? I know last week all the city council people wanted to meet with
the AURA people in person to go over a few things, maybe not all the meeting
happen so the date to vote was pushed back one week

I watched today's city council meeting. When they announced that item "#21 Aura financing" would be postponed, Robbie Waters said he wanted to know why. They said it was postponed because the council didn't get a chance to look over all the agreements prior to the meeting but the Aura folks said they'd get them the agreements in plenty of time for next week's meeting. Then Waters said, "Oh, I wondered because I was supposed to meet with Nassi today and he didn't show up."

(Yes, I wish the drama would end and they would just build these darn things......)

[sugit]

Originally Posted by SacRising

Thanks for the update, and Brandon too. Which ones are the North End Lofts and 14th & R st? Brandon's right, the big towers do steal our focus when there are plenty of small projects being built now. But as far as the larger mixed-use multifamily buildings, most of these are apartments, correct? Aren't these examples more of a townhouse style (Marriott excluded)?

L Street Lofts is an 8 story building and the one at 14th and R is a small 2 story mixed-use warehouse rehad.

I included the townhouse type projects like North End Lofts and 21st and T Townhomes since I thought that was what you were asking about as well

It's hard for residents of the 'burbs to believe but people actually walk and bike everywhere here. It's a pedestrian-friendly bubble in otherwise auto-centric Sac.

I rarely ever get back in my car after I get home from work. If my wife and I go eat or I go grab drinks, we walk 95% of the time, unless it's really far. So nice to be able to walk off a nice meal or a few drinks.

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by sugit

L Street Lofts is an 8 story building and the one at 14th and R is a small 2 story mixed-use warehouse rehad.

I included the townhouse type projects like North End Lofts and 21st and T Townhomes since I thought that was what you were asking about as well



I rarely ever get back in my car after I get home from work. If my wife and I go eat or I go grab drinks, we walk 95% of the time, unless it's really far. So nice to be able to walk off a nice meal or a few drinks.

I feel you. I don't have a car. I get by walking, biking, using light-rail. Granted my girlfriend has a car that we use mostly just for road-trips. And for the occasional trip to IKEA in West Sac as well .

[TWAK]

would that streetcar ever be able to be upgraded to light rail? West Capitol is wide enough to support it i think, and maybe all those lines that run down Jefferson as well. The west capitol like could eventually cross the causeway and into davis/ucd...which is part of the 20 year plan, yes?

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by Los_Lobo

Then Waters said, "Oh, I wondered because I was supposed to meet with Nassi today and he didn't show up."

how could you miss a meeting about $10,000,000? it's not like he has any other projects going on either...

Originally Posted by TWAK

would that streetcar ever be able to be upgraded to light rail? West Capitol is wide enough to support it i think, and maybe all those lines that run down Jefferson as well. The west capitol like could eventually cross the causeway and into davis/ucd...which is part of the 20 year plan, yes?

the streetcar would be used instead of light rail, which is used for regional trips - long range 5-10 miles and such. they both serve individual purposes. the streetcar is better for frequent stops and faster loading and unloading. but i don't know if they can run on the same tracks.

and yeah... you're right about the plan

[innov8]

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

how could you miss a meeting about $10,000,000? it's not like he has any other projects going on either...

Old man Waters isn't fond of this project... I'm sure he just over looked the memo
on why Nassi could not meet to his schedule. I'm pretty certain Waters is still a no vote.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

[B]
Easy there Phillip.

No need to get hysterical on us...

I'm not going to get into a comparison of the two cities because this forum isn't the place for a city vs. city argument... While i've never lived in Fresno I do have relatives that live there, which is why your comparisons don't exactly resonate me.. That being said, suffice to say that comparing Fresno to Sacramento is like comparing Sacramento to San Francisco... The three are each unique in there own way....

Two days later I'm in LA and I've calmed down...for now.

I stopped in Fresno on the drive down. I was reading the Fresno Bee in my hotel room and that's where I saw the obituary for the Fresno city planner whose ambition was to see Downtown Fresno become more like his native Prague. (Talk about ambition!) I thought it might be of passing interest to some folks on this board and I posted it, plus an aside comment about some similarities I saw beween Downtown Fresno and Downtown Sacramento.

I'm only seeing all the followup comments now....I had no idea it would turn into what it did....You never know when you're going to touch a nerve.

I might have a couple more Fresno vs Sac comments later. Not sure.

=========

In the 1980's there was a 6 episode miniseries on TV called "Fresno". It was a spoof of "Dallas" and "Dynasty" and starred Carol Burnett as the domineering matriarch of a wealthy raisin family, plus Dabney Coleman, Charles Grodin, Terri Garr, and others.

I didn't see it, but the people who did said it was hilarious. I don't think it ever went to video or DVD. I've never been able to find it anywhere, not even at Tower Video in Fresno, when that existed. Next time I pass through Fresno I'm going to put an ad on Craigslist and see if I can find someone there who has a copy to lend or sell me.

Fresno lends itself to parody and ridicule in a way that Sacramento does not. I don't think Sacramento would take too well to a six-part miniseries making fun of our city. All two million of us might get hysterical....like me.

[bennywah]

^

haha, oh Phil you just love stirring up the pot, ............... it's ok you dont have to answer but you know you do, hehe. Anyhoo at your Fresno vs Sac comments provided some good debate and responses for a period where, things are slow, except that fugly building on alhambra, sheesh that thing is hideous and not even retro its like they just took old plans from the 50's-60's and decided to build it now.

end rant lol

[Nawlijispower]

Aura, Towers, 621, 500, anything downtown......

I was wondering... Does anyone know if other cities run into so many bumps, cliffs, road blocks, etc like we do when it comes to DT development. I know 500CM has gone pretty damn fast but even our wonderful caltrans tried to slow that down.

I have been to most states in the union but none long enough to experience development of their urban cores. I was just wondering if we were all alone in this anti-speedy DT development city.

Just a thought and a question.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Sac is truely twice the size of Fresno. 2.2 million compared to 1.1 million makes a huge difference in terms of culture, retail, arts, diversity.

Fresno MSA has about 1.1 million people today---the same number that Sacramento MSA had in 1980. Since then both metro areas have doubled in size.

But Sacramento's million new residents have overwhelmingly located in the suburbs---Elk Grove, Roseville, Folsom, etc. Only about 182,000 of Sac MSA's population growth since 1980 were additions to the city of Sacramento. The other 918,000 went to the suburbs.

No offense to the good people of Roseville and Elk Grove but those booming areas don't add anything to my sense of Sacramento's "urbanity". In the last year I've never had any occasion to go to Roseville or Elk Grove or Citrus Heights or Lincoln for anything. (I do drive to Rancho Cordova to get my hair cut by a Vietnamese lady, and there are some restaurants in Rancho where I like to eat.)

Despite Sacramento's population explosion 98% of my life in Sacramento takes place in parts of town that were already built out by 1980, which is an area of about 1 million people, about the size of Fresno MSA today. Maybe that's why Sacramento seems not that much bigger than Fresno to me.

Admittedly, having 2 million people vs. 1 million has some advantages, even if the difference is 400,000 additional suburban tract homes. 2 million can support major league sports; 1 million means minor league (not counting Green Bay). 2 million usually means more attractive anchors on local TV news. (Although Sac could still use some help in that department.) 2 million gets a better airport, more plane connections, bigger shopping malls, more concerts. It's not nothing.

============

Just Googled and found these urban density figures:

Density of Sacramento: 4,189 people per square mile
Density of Fresno: 4,315 people per square mile
Density of San Francisco: 16,632 people per square mile

Some neighborhoods of S.F. have densities over 50,000 per square mile though, including the neighborhoods where tourists and visitors usually go.

Sac has more high density housing than Fresno, mostly in Downtown and Midtown. But Fresno has more households with 10 or 12 people. Overall density for the two cities ends up about the same.

=============

Sacramento's densest areas are Downtown and Midtown. Those areas will become taller and denser and more urban. Downtown Fresno will probably never develop in that way.

But Downtown and Midtown together are...2% of Sacramento's area? 3%? When the railyards get built out, doubling Downtown's size, maybe Downtown/Midtown will be 5% or 6% of Sacramento? That small area of Sac, which is the focus of most discussion on this board, distinguishes Sacramento from other Central Valley cities. But the other 90% of Sac...to me it's kind of Fresno.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by bennywah

^
haha, oh Phil you just love stirring up the pot, ............... it's ok you dont have to answer but you know you do, hehe.

No, I don't! It just happens!

[brandon12]

I think Phillip's right on most of his points above.

[brandon12]

Phillip, are you gonna post that Fresno Bee article you referenced above?

[bennywah]

^
hey phil I was smiling and laughing the entire time I wrote that, I know sometimes on the internet sarcasm or a lil joking around can be lost in translation, in any case I'm sure in person you always can make a conversation or debate lively.

I do agree with the fact that Sacramento is still mostly suburban, and to one who doesn't venture into the urban core they can't see the special things happening, hence most peoples defensive attitudes about Sac.

San Fransisco doesn't have the area to support sprawling neighborhoods, hence the higher density, much like a large area of San Diego is mostly condo's apt's ect because of geography however the geography creates neighborhoods here in San Diego that seem like higher density small cities, or suburbs, which if someone only visited those mesa burbs could compare San Diego to Fresno, Sac, ect. I guess my point is besides cities like NYC, SF, cities that have to grow up and dense will always seem more urban than cities that have land to create suburbs until you visit there urban cores, and of course a city like San Diego has the benefit of beautiful beaches and great weather.

[brandon12]

I've think SD is just about perfect. the weather, the beaches, the girls, the Mexican food, the skyline, the universities and institutes, the biotech industry. As far as I'm concerned, it would be tough for any medium-sized city to beat it on an over-all basis

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

Phillip, I was born and raised in Portland. I know a little about cities hiding in the shadow of bigger cities, in Portland's case Seattle, and coming out of that redefining themselves. I came to Sac after living abroad 5 years ago. I've fallen in love with the city.

You're lucky to have been raised in Portland. I love that city. It might be my favorite city in the whole U.S. Curiously I don't like Seattle much at all. Bigger isn't always better.

I don't have an inferiority complex at all, I love this city and I choose to live here.

I didn't say you personally have an inferiority complex. I said that the city of Sacramento has an inferiority complex, and that its residents often feel a need to justify and explain what a good place Sacramento is, more than residents of other cities where I've lived, including Fresno and Portland.

I never said Sac was Paris, I said it has more trees than Paris. It's not nor ever will be San Francisco, so what? That doesn't make it Fresno. Suggesting something that irrational suggests to me that you have a complex, maybe you hate living here. I hope you realize a lot of us don't.

I wasn't sentenced to live in Sacramento. I'm here entirely by my own choice. At this moment I'd rather live in Sacramento than in Fresno or San Francisco. Next week that could change.

I didn't mean for this to turn antagonistic. We both like Portland. I like Fresno more than you. All good.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by brandon12

Phillip, are you gonna post that Fresno Bee article you referenced above?

I posted it on Sunday, Brandon. That's what started this whole thing. It's post #240 in this thread.

[brandon12]

oops, sorry. I feel bad for that guy. I hope he died content.