Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

No Fortune 500 companies in Sac.

I'm not looking for Sac to have one super tall, honestly. If it someday happens, great. But I rather have several 300-430 foot high-rises that adds to the CBD's density and urban scale.

I'm looking forward to seeing the modifications to the Vanir Tower.

The ONLY way I could ever see a supertall building in downtown Sacramento is if the state government somehow found it advantageous to concentrate most of its employees in one place downtown.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by Majin

Why? Every mixed used project in midtown over the past decade has had no issues leasing, rents are increasing, demand is increasing. What risk is there these days?

An upward tick in interest rates, for starters, and they are at record lows.

[CastleScott]

Just looking over some pics earlier I just wonder how some of those 4-6 story stick or timber builds will hold up in a seismic event-do they treat the wood so it won't split when these things happen vs steel or reinforced concrete?

Oh btw looks as if the Klimpton hotel tower by the Golden One Center is on its final floor.

[DenseCityPlease]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

Just looking over some pics earlier I just wonder how some of those 4-6 story stick or timber builds will hold up in a seismic event-do they treat the wood so it won't split when these things happen vs steel or reinforced concrete?

Oh btw looks as if the Klimpton hotel tower by the Golden One Center is on its final floor.

The answer is - quite well.

Structural failures during seismic events are largely a function of inadequate shear strength and/or lack of flexibility in load bearing walls to accommodate deflection. Type V wood-framed construction, which has substantial amounts of both, is just about the safest structure possible within which to experience an earthquake.

A single story wood framed building (like a house) would probably be safest of all, followed shortly thereafter by a multi-story wood framed building of the type you're referring to. Drywall nailed to studs is actually a surprisingly resilient assembly assuming the building has been properly engineered.

[CastleScott]

^ Thanks buddy-you summed it up very well-the wonders of wood!!

[LandofFrost]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...d-in-2017.html

Looks like yamanee might move forward.

Yay to getting one condo building downtown-ish. Portland has gotten 12, Seattle 27 and SF a gazzilion this cycle.

[CastleScott]

^ This is great news!

[Pistola916]

Could historic downtown mansion be torn down or moved to make way for state offices?

The new tower will be between 600,000 and 800,000 square feet and hold at least 3,000 workers. That’s gigantic. It will likely be one of the tallest buildings in the city. And the Heilbron House is standing in its way.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/new...#storylink=cpy

The smart thing to do is build a slimmer tower that reaches 40-50 floors. Knowing the state, they'll opt for a wider, thicker structure that tops out at 20 stories.

[yolonative]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Could historic downtown mansion be torn down or moved to make way for state offices?



The smart thing to do is build a slimmer tower that reaches 40-50 floors. Knowing the state, they'll opt for a wider, thicker structure that tops out at 20 stories.

Taller/slimmer would be a nice addition to the skyline, but anything taller than 5/6 stories from the state is a huge step up.

Is there any other news or mention of this 7th and O St high rise? Or is this the first mention of it? Can't seem to find additional info on it.

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by yolonative

Is there any other news or mention of this 7th and O St high rise? Or is this the first mention of it? Can't seem to find additional info on it.

Under Gov. Brown's proposal to upgrade/replace government buildings, the state is trying to replace the Resource Building, which is 17 stories.

They want to break ground in 2018, so *hopefully* we see renderings this year. I don't want to see a copy of the West End project.

Most recent story I found:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...te-office.html

[Deno]

Why couldn't this height rise state building be built in the railyards?

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Deno

Why couldn't this height rise state building be built in the railyards?

Well I believe that the state already owns the land which makes it easier. But I've been saying for years that the City of Sacramento should try and do some sort of land swap with the state so that no more life-less office blocks are built in the O Street Corridor. That area would be so much better if those lots were turned into mix-use, mid-to-high-rise housing.

[CastleScott]

^ I agree the railyards would be a good fit and why not a land-swap, this is an obvious win-win.

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ I agree the railyards would be a good fit and why not a land-swap, this is an obvious win-win.

The city doesn't own the land in Railyards. It's owned by a private developer.

The State owns a good chunk of O Street. In the 1960's when Pat Brown "bought" if from the city for pennies. Some of it became CADA but there are still big parking lots functioning as land banks for future development.

Perhaps too much to ask the State to keep the mansion where it is and incorporate housing and retail into the office building surrounding it. Too lazy to look but I'm sure I posted something similar about this very block years again on this forum.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

The city doesn't own the land in Railyards. It's owned by a private developer.

The State owns a good chunk of O Street. In the 1960's when Pat Brown "bought" if from the city for pennies. Some of it became CADA but there are still big parking lots functioning as land banks for future development.

Perhaps too much to ask the State to keep the mansion where it is and incorporate housing and retail into the office building surrounding it. Too lazy to look but I'm sure I posted something similar about this very block years again on this forum.

I believe the city owns a small part of the Railyards or adjacent to it. Regardless the city does own other properties downtown.

[Majin]

Does anyone in the know have any idea what is going on with these projects?

1. Marshall Hotel near arena
2. Grey hound station near arena
3. 8th and K
4. 15th and Q
5. 25th and J
6. 19th and J
7. Township 9

Any other projects I'm missing?

[Surefiresacto]

Saw that the Q19 development broke ground yesterday

https://sacramentopress.com/2017/01/...ixed-use-site/

[snfenoc]

This article in the SBJ gives a good idea of what projects are likely to start and summarizes the hurdles to development.

Projects that have started or may start this year include the following:

• Q19 (about 70 units)
• Moe's 19J (173 Units)
• Yamanee (134 units - if wburg and crew get out of the way)
• 23rd & K (9 units)
• Stockton & T (214 units).

Bay Miry's (D&S Development) 15Q project (73 units), a newly forming project at 15th and S called The Parker (76 units) and Downtown Commons (1000+ units) have no timetable set quite yet.

I'm not sure about The Press building, a large project that is supposed to go up on the site of the Bee's parking garage.

Basically, all these expensive urban housing projects face a lack of available financing, equity partners and labor shortages. Lending partners are risk averse. This, and big government invasion into capital financing practices, cause the need for equity partners. People with money don't know much about Sacramento. There's little track record when compared to the Bay Area; so the portfolios for area developers may appear weak. (If I have money, I want to invest it in a city I know about, with a developer who has a track record for delivery.) Even if a developer can secure the capital, a contractor needs to be found. There are not enough construction laborers; so there are supply and demand issues. Consequently, the bids for projects are often higher than expected.

Increased area rents may be helpful. Still, lenders need to lend; equity partners need to be wooed; Sacramento needs to appear as a well-known, good place to invest; and construction workers need to be available.

Long-delayed housing projects finally may be getting underway

Jan 27, 2017, 5:54am PST
Ben van der Meer
Staff Writer
Sacramento Business Journal

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacrament...ly-may-be.html

[ltsmotorsport]

"The Parker" is simply a re-branding of the previously approved 15th and S project. I would think the current owner may be trying to sell the property/entitlements. And by Downtown Commons I think you may have meant Sacramento Commons? That site just sold so hopefully we see construction from the new owners in the coming year.

You're correct on all the points the article makes too; its still a tough environment to get projects out of the ground even with strong demand. Hopefully with Ice Blocks and 700 K coming this summer, it will show/prove how strong the central city market is for new housing

[Majin]

Has anyone seen the recent pic of the Kings "midrise" apartments on 8th and K? Isnt a project that size entirely inappropriate at that site? We already have taller buildings in Midtown and if 19th and J and 25th and J start construction this year we will have much more taller housing in midtown.

Also, isnt even the next door apartments at 7th and K taller? I could see if they just rehabbed an existing building, but they are starting from a hole in the ground and its still just the standard 5 story building that is already poping up all over midtown. We don't need another one downtown.