Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[TowerDistrict]

i've read before that people of Budapest often have an inferiority complex with Prague. after the fall of communism, most investors poured into Prague while Budapest was largely looked over, yet had the same potential

i think that's something Sacramentan's could relate to - let alone a planner in Fresno trying to achieve what Prague has now.

anyway, Dr. Phil defintely has it right when speaking of what a small spec of the sacramento region we discuss 95% of the time here. but like so many cities, like say washington dc, that small spec has weathered decades or urban neglect. and now that small spec is the main focus of a region 50 times its size. there is a lot to be said for that. it means a sea change in a population's idea of living both now and in the near future.

and what draws many of us here, is that sacramento has those building blocks in place. as far as density statistics go, my crude estimates show DT and MT at a current density of about 8,000 per square mile. and during the work week - it's over 20,000. but it's just that population gap that i find most disappointing. not that i want 100,000+ people here 24 hours a day - it's just not a healthy transition for a city as an entity.

i can only vaguely remeber why i typed all that - but i promise that each paragraph written addressed at least one comment made in the last couple pages... guten nacht.

[sugit]

On this same subject...I was watching High Stakes Poker on GSN last night. (100K min buy in). There was a guy from Sacramento, Dan Harmetz, playing with all the well known poker players. He's an investment banker.

The TV commentators were like "Sacramento! The investment banker capitol of the US!" "If I need an investment banker, he better be from Sacramento!"

I wanted to toss my dish at the tv.....haha

[ozone]

OK here's my take on the street car debate. I agree 100% with those who say that we need to first build a Midtown-Downtown streetcar line and then consider crossing the river. Right now there just aren’t enough people living and working in the West Capitol/Riverwalk area to justify it. Although things are changing there's still very little there, over there. It's nonsense to say West Sacramento is building a high denisty core and Sacramento isn't. I think someone is a little overly enthusiastic for WeSac.

Originally the Modern Transit Society, the citizens group who’s advocacy lead to the reformation of Sacramento’s Light Rail System, had proposed the introduction of a historical trolley loop in the Central City. However, a shift in focus came as part of a growing interest nation-wide in light-rail during the 1970’s as an cost-effective alternative to building more freeways in order to accommodate commuters and new suburban growth.

Today Sacramento’s light-rail mostly serves the suburban commuters and not the Midtown residents. We still do not have a viable transportation system that serves the most transit-supportive district in the Sacramento region: the Central City (Midtown-Downtown-Southside-North End). This is perplexing and frustrating for those of us who live and/or work in Midtown because we are able to easily walk to many of our destinations and yet given that the Central City is a little too large to comfortably navigate it exclusively on foot we are forced to use a car. In order to make Central Sacramento truly walkable (which almost all the great cities of the world are) we need a rail line that links Downtown with Midtown. No other area in Sacramento is truly capable of supporting a streetcar line because no other area has such compact, walk-able residential neighborhoods nor the number of on-street shops and restaurants particularly in the K-J-L-Capitol Avenue corridor.

The recent plan to recreate a historic streetcar line linking downtown Sacramento with the still sparsely built-up West Sacramento shows just how few people in Sacramento really understand what ingredients go into making public transit work well. Only Central Sacramento has enough density and the pedestrian quality that would make a historic streetcar truly successful as viable alternative to the automobile. A historic streetcar from downtown Sacramento to West Sacramento would be more of a novelty rather than a practical, well-used transit option.

The historic streetcars could make use of existing railroad tracks whenever possible. To do this we could retrofit the old rail tracks which run along the riverfront starting at O Street @ the Riverfront Promenade near CAM Crocker Art Museum (eventually the line could be extended to The Docks and/or the western section of the R Street Corridor) then to Front and K streets in Old Sacramento, then northward and by means of a new spur under the I Street Bridge to the Amtrak Depot, which is the gateway to the Railyards Project. From the depot the streetcar could then use the RT light-rail tracks to take it down the K Street Mall then east on J Street to Sutter’s Fort and then back downtown on L or P Street.

Most people who are just traveling around the downtown area will not use light-rail to get around. This streetcar would provide locals and visitors a fun and effective way to get from the Convention Center and the Capitol to Old Sacramento and the Riverfront.

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by Phillip

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 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 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.

Not at all Phillip, it was a good debate. After some thought I can agree with you that Sac has an inferiority complex. But this little bubble in the urban core is the exception; civic pride is as high here as in Portland in my experience. With civic pride also comes defensiveness, you compare us to Fresno and you've got to face the consequences...

[POGO]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I was reading the city staff report for the city council meeting today and noted a few interesting tidbits...

• Aura has pre sold sold 65% of the units

• Corus Bank's loan is contingent on Aura having pre sold 51% of the units

• The foundation must be poured by April 2007 in order for Aura to meet contractual obligations to buyers and they expect a 20 month construction timeline

• The cost of the land at 601 Capitol Mall is $13, 750 000 (anyone remember what the city sold it to Taylor for??)

• Plant Construction of San Francisco will be the Genral Contractor.

• Plant has prepared a Guaranteed Maximum Price specification book,
  that caps construction hards costs at $125,900,000..

• Corus Bank will lend BCN $132 million for the project

• Kenlin Capital LLC will lend $14.5 million for Mezzanine financing

• The developer has spent $6 million to date on the project

• The City of Sacramento will (assuming final approval today) will back a Bank of America loan for $10 million

• Total for project: $175,750,000

• The Permits for excavation, grading, utilities and foundation work still haven't been picked up from the city by BCN.

>>>Maybe we can expect BCN to pick up those permits within the next few days or better yet, right after today's city council meeting??

City Staff Report to Council:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaV...meta_id=106359

Couple of questions - I thought Nassi has said in the press that he has presold 80% of the units. I also thought I remember reading that Tishman (of New York) was the contractor. This is the first I have read about Plant. Re the permits: I don't think he can pick up the permits without showing ownership of the land, or a lease agreement to build on someone else's property. I think he has to close the deal with Taylor before he can get permits.

[BrianSac]

[QUOTE=Phillip;2687045]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.

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


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.

Phillip, Thanks for the density figures.

I only piped in on this Sac/Fresno comparison as two friends of mine (a couple) sold there twin peaks home (SF), plus a rental property in San Jose to move to Fresno.

They exchanged their city life for Fresno; specifically for a huge ranch style house in an American River Dr. type neighborhood (minus the American River). They have been in Fresno for two years now; and in my many visits I've seen the area from one end to the other, and there is nothing in Fresno we don't have in Sac.

Fresno State Football is about the only thing Fresno can flap their wings about. The campus of Fresno State sucks btw; Sac State Campus is much nicer (more trees).

Like I said earlier their weather is really worse than ours, hotter longer heat waves, denser longer lasting fog.

Our Downtown and Midtown sets us apart from Fresno in a big way. Even our suburbs are more appealing, namely Roseville, Folsom and Davis.

They have the "perfect" suburban life with a huge pool, backyard and all the trimmings....90% of why people come to Sac and Fresno -- for a bigger suburban home....hopefully that will change when our residential towers get built.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by greenmidtown

A lot of SF residents are from the mid-west, east coast and know little about the West Coast in general outside of Seattle, San Francisco, L.A.. It's also a transient city. It seems like everyone's lived in SF at one point in their lives.

At the SF house warming party, the guys who made the ignorant comments were long time San Franciscans, hmm. The guys who were cool on Sac and happend to know all about Aura and the Towers were newbies from Chicago and Dallas. You may be right, I lived in SF for a year, too.

[BrianSac]

Bob Shallit: High-rise condos with 'waterfront' view
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

Venice by the freeway? Not exactly. But land use consultant Brian Cooley is working on a project along Highway 50 that could sprout nearly 1,000 high-rise condos and retail shops -- all situated near an existing canal.

The proposal is the second for the property, former site of the Mine Shaft Family Fun Center, which sits parallel to the busy freeway between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue.

Auto repo magnate Patrick Willis acquired the land in 2002 and initially planned to partially restore the amusement park and use the rest for auto sales and a call center.


Talks with county and Regional Transit officials led to a change in plans for the banana-shaped parcel that backs up to the Folsom South Canal, which carries water from the American River.

Why high-rises? Given the narrow footprint of the property, "the only way to put high-density (housing) there was to go up," Cooley says.

He reports that the multi-tower project has been well-received by RT, which is considering putting a light rail station nearby. County staffers also like the idea.

"We try to encourage intense development around light-rail stations. I think our office would be supportive of this type of project," says Jeff Gamel, a Sacramento County senior planner.

Its first big test comes in a month or two, when the developer goes before the Board of Supervisors seeking designation as a "special plan area" that would exempt it from some local zoning requirements.

If that goes well, the developers will seek more detailed designs from Nadel Architects and begin what could be a decadelong building process.

Cooley sees the housing appealing to people who want access to the bike trail, Lake Natoma and eventual light rail. It also dovetails with plans being developed by Aerojet for a massive housing and retail complex -- called Westborough -- to the southeast.

What about the current housing slump?

Not a worry, Cooley says. "We won't be having housing (coming on line) until 2011 or 2012," he says. "By then, who knows what the market will look like?"

* * *

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Phillip

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.

I agree that Downtown/Midtown are the focus of most Sacramento forumers, but that has more to do with the high density developments and the caliber of projects are mostly focused on DT Sacramento.

I think your comparisons about Fresno and parts of Sacramento, such as Elk Grove, Citrus Heights and environs are not far off the mark. Though admittedly the eastern burbs of Folsom and Roseville, have a much different feel and topography than Fresno.

I hope you didn't interpret my statement that DT Sacramento and DT Fresno have little in common, as a slam on Fresno. If so then I certainly apologize. Believe me I enjoy reading about efforts to revitalize that city (or any Valley city). I think it makes a lot of sense to have Fresno as the major city and region in the Southern Valley, enjoy the fruits of redevelopment. A healthy Fresno is good for the entire Valley.

I've said time and again, that every Valley city should be promoting economic growth that encourages the creation of jobs locally. I also believe very strongly that cities should be creating and promoting civic cultural amenities, the creation of new academic instituitions (UC Merced should have been in Fresno), transportation, retail and entertainment opportunities within their central cores; along with high density and transit oriented development..

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by POGO

Couple of questions - I thought Nassi has said in the press that he has presold 80% of the units.

I think Nassi has been less than truthful about sales, in order to encourage people to hurry up and buy. But as the city staff report points out 65% are strong "healthy" sales numbers and well above the lenders 51% requirement.

Apparently BCN and the lenders must think so, because aren't they holding off selling any addtional units until contruction is underway?? (Anybody know if that's the case??)

Originally Posted by POGO

I also thought I remember reading that Tishman (of New York) was the contractor. This is the first I have read about Plant. Re the permits: I don't think he can pick up the permits without showing ownership of the land, or a lease agreement to build on someone else's property. I think he has to close the deal with Taylor before he can get permits.

Tishman was the Contractor origionally identified by Nassi himself.

I imagine the change was a result of Plant's firm price guarantee for hard construction.

Your probably right about the permits.

In any case he has unitl March 31st to close the deal with Taylor.
I just don't think that there's any chance they can have the piles in and the foundation poured by the end of April. (At least i don't think so)

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by ozone

OK here's my take on the street car debate. I agree 100% with those who say that we need to first build a Midtown-Downtown streetcar line and then consider crossing the river. Right now there just aren’t enough people living and working in the West Capitol/Riverwalk area to justify it. Although things are changing there's still very little there, over there. It's nonsense to say West Sacramento is building a high denisty core and Sacramento isn't. I think someone is a little overly enthusiastic for WeSac.

Originally the Modern Transit Society, the citizens group who’s advocacy lead to the reformation of Sacramento’s Light Rail System, had proposed the introduction of a historical trolley loop in the Central City. However, a shift in focus came as part of a growing interest nation-wide in light-rail during the 1970’s as an cost-effective alternative to building more freeways in order to accommodate commuters and new suburban growth.

Today Sacramento’s light-rail mostly serves the suburban commuters and not the Midtown residents. We still do not have a viable transportation system that serves the most transit-supportive district in the Sacramento region: the Central City (Midtown-Downtown-Southside-North End). This is perplexing and frustrating for those of us who live and/or work in Midtown because we are able to easily walk to many of our destinations and yet given that the Central City is a little too large to comfortably navigate it exclusively on foot we are forced to use a car. In order to make Central Sacramento truly walkable (which almost all the great cities of the world are) we need a rail line that links Downtown with Midtown. No other area in Sacramento is truly capable of supporting a streetcar line because no other area has such compact, walk-able residential neighborhoods nor the number of on-street shops and restaurants particularly in the K-J-L-Capitol Avenue corridor.

The recent plan to recreate a historic streetcar line linking downtown Sacramento with the still sparsely built-up West Sacramento shows just how few people in Sacramento really understand what ingredients go into making public transit work well. Only Central Sacramento has enough density and the pedestrian quality that would make a historic streetcar truly successful as viable alternative to the automobile. A historic streetcar from downtown Sacramento to West Sacramento would be more of a novelty rather than a practical, well-used transit option.

The historic streetcars could make use of existing railroad tracks whenever possible. To do this we could retrofit the old rail tracks which run along the riverfront starting at O Street @ the Riverfront Promenade near CAM Crocker Art Museum (eventually the line could be extended to The Docks and/or the western section of the R Street Corridor) then to Front and K streets in Old Sacramento, then northward and by means of a new spur under the I Street Bridge to the Amtrak Depot, which is the gateway to the Railyards Project. From the depot the streetcar could then use the RT light-rail tracks to take it down the K Street Mall then east on J Street to Sutter’s Fort and then back downtown on L or P Street.

Most people who are just traveling around the downtown area will not use light-rail to get around. This streetcar would provide locals and visitors a fun and effective way to get from the Convention Center and the Capitol to Old Sacramento and the Riverfront.

Very well stated.. I agree with everything you said 100%...
I especially agree that it makes more sense to connect DT Sacramento with Midtown. (Not West Sacramento)

I really hope that when the debate begins, you attend some of the R.T. meetings and present the points that you articulated so well here. If you do, then it will certainly give the board something to consider...


You should at the very least, write a letter to the Sacramento Bee, so that at least some of the R.T. board memebers might see your comments...

[SacRising]

Originally Posted by ozone

OK here's my take on the street car debate. I agree 100% with those who say that we need to first build a Midtown-Downtown streetcar line and then consider crossing the river. Right now there just aren’t enough people living and working in the West Capitol/Riverwalk area to justify it. Although things are changing there's still very little there, over there. It's nonsense to say West Sacramento is building a high denisty core and Sacramento isn't. I think someone is a little overly enthusiastic for WeSac.

Maybe I am overly enthusiastic about W.Sac, so what. The city leaders there are much more proactive and results oriented that their counterparts across the river. I feel much more confidence that a streetcar line will be built if W.Sac is involved. So if the alternative is to have the City of Sac lead the charge, we may see unicorns pulling pumpkin shaped buggies through downtown before we ever see a streetcar line.

The recent plan to recreate a historic streetcar line linking downtown Sacramento with the still sparsely built-up West Sacramento shows just how few people in Sacramento really understand what ingredients go into making public transit work well. Only Central Sacramento has enough density and the pedestrian quality that would make a historic streetcar truly successful as viable alternative to the automobile. A historic streetcar from downtown Sacramento to West Sacramento would be more of a novelty rather than a practical, well-used transit option.

I agree that the streetcar should be built in Midtown and Downtown, but my point is that W. Sac cannot be overlooked, especially since they are the primary driver behind the streetcar effot. How arrogant to say to W.Sac, 'gee, thanks for championing this streetcar campaign, we'll talk after the Midtown line is complete.'

[Sacdelicious]

Originally Posted by SacRising

Maybe I am overly enthusiastic about W.Sac, so what. The city leaders there are much more proactive and results oriented that their counterparts across the river. I feel much more confidence that a streetcar line will be built if W.Sac is involved. So if the alternative is to have the City of Sac lead the charge, we may see unicorns pulling pumpkin shaped buggies through downtown before we ever see a streetcar line.



I agree that the streetcar should be built in Midtown and Downtown, but my point is that W. Sac cannot be overlooked, especially since they are the primary driver behind the streetcar effot. How arrogant to say to W.Sac, 'gee, thanks for championing this streetcar campaign, we'll talk after the Midtown line is complete.'

I agree. The total build-out for West Sacramento is around 100,000 people, with a large percentage of those in new projects located near the river. One of the main goals of this project is to link the two sides of the river...something that this streetcar would be a huge boost at doing. To overlook this link to West Sac (especially since they are a bigger advocate than our city for this project) is irresponsibe. Not that I am denying the need for the streetcar line in midtown, but I think they should at least get equal attention.

Also, in the latest Midtown Magazine, there's a huge section on the history of streetcars in Sac/West Sac, and the history of linking the two cities by rail..Check it out.

[TowerDistrict]

Originally Posted by Sacdelicious

Also, in the latest Midtown Magazine, there's a huge section on the history of streetcars in Sac/West Sac, and the history of linking the two cities by rail..Check it out.

Cool. I'll definitely check that out - with the irony of reading about it in MIDTOWN magazine firmly in mind

I think the gist of this discussion is that there better be a comprehensive and inclusive plan to serve the city of Sacramento as well. If Sacramento wants to pass or wait on an already desired Midtown streetcar plan in favor of serving new development - there should also be a plan for the Railyards and Richards area. Those two developments will be ready years before West Sac could supply the population and workforce needed on their end.

West Sac has made leaps and bounds recently, but most everything is still in the idea phase - Sacramento is primed.

[innov8]

I’d have to agree with ozone, urban E, and TD on this streetcar matter. Sure,
W.Sac wants the streetcars, but right now the city doe’s not have enough
population or business for that matter along the riverfront or the triangle
area to support the streetcars with paying customers.

Beyond the Irontriangle development, CalSTRS and the town homes at the
intersection of where the I Street bridge enters W. Sac, … there’s not much
happening in the area, just a lot of proposals.

Mid-town and downtown Sacramento has a population, enterainment, and an
employment force that can sustain a streetcar system… W. Sac doe’s not.
I think W. Sac should have plan in place for streetcars, but I don’t think at
this time the money should be spent to extend the system over the river.
Now, if the City of W. Sac can subsidize the system on their side of the river
while they are waiting for the development and population to catch up, then
they should be part of the first phase of the plan.

[TowerDistrict]

and here are some comments from the speaker at the light rail anniversary and the author of the sacramento's streetcars book...

http://sacramentohistory.blogspot.co...o-nowhere.html

[foxmtbr]

Originally Posted by BrianSac

Bob Shallit: High-rise condos with 'waterfront' view
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1

Print | E-Mail | Comments (0)

Venice by the freeway? Not exactly. But land use consultant Brian Cooley is working on a project along Highway 50 that could sprout nearly 1,000 high-rise condos and retail shops -- all situated near an existing canal.

The proposal is the second for the property, former site of the Mine Shaft Family Fun Center, which sits parallel to the busy freeway between Sunrise Boulevard and Hazel Avenue.

Auto repo magnate Patrick Willis acquired the land in 2002 and initially planned to partially restore the amusement park and use the rest for auto sales and a call center.


Talks with county and Regional Transit officials led to a change in plans for the banana-shaped parcel that backs up to the Folsom South Canal, which carries water from the American River.

Why high-rises? Given the narrow footprint of the property, "the only way to put high-density (housing) there was to go up," Cooley says.

He reports that the multi-tower project has been well-received by RT, which is considering putting a light rail station nearby. County staffers also like the idea.

"We try to encourage intense development around light-rail stations. I think our office would be supportive of this type of project," says Jeff Gamel, a Sacramento County senior planner.

Its first big test comes in a month or two, when the developer goes before the Board of Supervisors seeking designation as a "special plan area" that would exempt it from some local zoning requirements.

If that goes well, the developers will seek more detailed designs from Nadel Architects and begin what could be a decadelong building process.

Cooley sees the housing appealing to people who want access to the bike trail, Lake Natoma and eventual light rail. It also dovetails with plans being developed by Aerojet for a massive housing and retail complex -- called Westborough -- to the southeast.

What about the current housing slump?

Not a worry, Cooley says. "We won't be having housing (coming on line) until 2011 or 2012," he says. "By then, who knows what the market will look like?"

* * *

Woohoo! I would be able to see them from the window next to me right now. Although I hope to God I'm not still living at home in 2011, haha.

[SacRising]

Originally Posted by Phillip

2 million usually means more attractive anchors on local TV news. (Although Sac could still use some help in that department.)

Oh, man. I had to chime in on this comment. Not to comment on Fresno anchors, I've never seen a Fresno newscast, but I assume they all look like KFed. But do any of the Sactown locals remember the smokin' hot weather girl at KCRA, Angela Buchman? http://www.wishtv.com/Global/story.asp?S=446154 This isn't the best picture, but trust me, she was/is on fire. Here's a better one http://www.kcra.com/anniversary/5012422/detail.html

Thank god we have Adriene Bankert. Ok, I know this wasn't even close to the SSP topic, but I couldn't resist, I'm done.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by foxmtbr

Woohoo! I would be able to see them from the window next to me right now. Although I hope to God I'm not still living at home in 2011, haha.

HA! Well remember that in Rancho Cordova six floors is considered a high-rise

[downtownserg89]

howdy y'all.

if you guys watch tv, and have comcast cable, which i think comes with the On Demand thing, if you go to Get Local and then to About Sacramento, there are a few shows that are pretty interesting. one of the shows is about sac's street names and how they got them, and theres this other show about the underground passageways, shows you where to access them and tells you the history, AAAAAND theres also a show about the old streetcars of back in the day! theres elderly people reminicing about the good ol' days, and well its nice to watch. just thought i'd let you guys know if you didnt already know.