Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

I am happy to "admit" that I am one of those people. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I don't hate arenas, but I really don't think they are the economic boon that those who are desperate to put their hometowns on the map think they are. But I could be wrong. Maybe a down town arena will put us on the same level as Los Angeles and New York, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt.

Maybe an urban Walmart Supercenter will do the trick.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Maybe an urban Walmart Supercenter will do the trick.

That would improve Downtown's Scooter-ability Index Score!

[ozone]

It takes neither balls or brains to conservatively predict that the Sacramento market cannot support this or that. It's often a smug self-fulfilling prophecy. There is a hell of a lot of room between Sacramento and New York. As others have said, we just want a more vibrant, livable central city. That's not crazy thinking. It's normal. In fact, if Sacramento were not in the shadow of the Bay Area we would probably be there already.

Too many in Sacramento have a Eeyore state of mind. "It will never happen..." Actually, they don't really want it to happen. These yokels can't imagine downtown Sacramento as a truly exciting urban place because they can't imagine themselves in it. Besides they'd rather drive to San Francisco and keep Sacramento familiar, comfortably "Fresnoesque."

Unfortunately (for them) Sacramento is changing. We just need to keep pushing against the old mentality because they won't give up easily. On top of that Sacramento is even more top-down than San Francisco. The folks at city hall are very threatened by anything that doesn't come from 'recognized' sources. So original ideas springing up from residents are highly discouraged. I'm kind of disappointed by Steve Hanson. At least he is not caving into the NIMBYs which I think his main competitor would have. I just think he's not really into his job. We need to keep looking.

[snfenoc]

LOL. Mayor Johnson has spoken multiple times about a downtown arena as being key to create a world class, destination city. After reading these forums and listening to KHTK radio, I suspect many Sacramentans feel the same way. Granted, suspicion and anecdotal evidence don't make a super strong case. However, I'm not the one claiming hundreds of millions in cash subsidies and free land to a development group is key to improving Sacramento's urban core.

Currently, there is increased interest in Sacramento properties. So what? This is hardly evidence that an arena proposal is making the difference. Developers have said downtown is prime for development multiple times throughout the decades, long before an arena was even on the radar. Right now, all we have is a few sketchy proposals and some properties changing hands. Ho hum. Par for the course. The economy is improving...I guess...so why wouldn't we have real estate transactions and possibly some development? CalPERS is about investment. Why wouldn't it want to finally get a return on that hole in the ground? We haven't even seen a concrete proposal for that site. Yet an arena, which itself is in the nascent stage of development, is getting a bunch of credit? For what? Show me some real development that is directly tied to the arena proposal. Actually, show me some development that is directly tied to the arena AND will pay the city back (plus the opportunity cost) for its subsidy. Also, show me that without a new arena, less economically favorable development would happen. Yeah, a couple local developers have credited the arena for why they are rehabilitating older buildings (e.g. the California Fruit Building). So? Big whoop. Come on, that's just advertisement. They want to get in the press. And, frankly, I don't think a couple building rehabs, or even some condos and a hotel will pay the city back for the "investment" it is making. Hell, some of those developments may even require their own public welfare.

I've been to multiple cities with downtown stadiums. All I can say is, "Meh." The buildings are closed 75% of the time. They are big, boring fortresses that stand empty in the middle of real economic activity. Surely, there are better uses of space, especially when I think of all the money the public invests in these things. Just ridiculous. Now, maybe this arena proposal will buck that trend. Maybe it will have lots of shops, restaurants and small/medium sized businesses (with affordable rents) associated with it. Maybe it'll be a gathering place for the community for small events (e.g., concerts in the plaza or farmers markets). But I'm not holding my breath. I want more than some pretty drawings and lip service from the Kings ownership.

I used to think subsidized arenas were good things, but after attending educational forums about the issue, speaking with economists and reading articles about the subject, it's clear that subsidized arenas struggle to return the "investment" communities are forced to make in them. Not only are stadiums expensive to build, but they are also expensive to maintain - a burden that usually falls on the stadium authority (AKA the public). Then, after about 20-25 years, the buildings become obsolete and a new "investment" is required. Yes, stadiums see a lot of economic activity, but that's simply because they concentrate a region's already existent entertainment dollars in one small area. Do they actually create new money for a city or region? If so, is that new money enough to offset the subsidy? I don't think so.

I'm not big on the idea of an urban Wal Mart. However, I doubt one would require subsidies. And quite frankly, the jobs a Wal Mart provides aren't any worse than getting paid minimum wage to walk through a crow yelling, "Programs! Get your programs!"

The great thing about my position is...I DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! If I am wrong, then great. I'll enjoy the fruits of the arena like everyone else. If my skepticism turns out to have teeth, I get to say, "Told you so!" It's a win-win for me. You see, I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should put itself on the hook for nearly $250 million. I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should give away valuable land. The burden of proof is not mine. I find it offensive that some of the fanatic pro arena people dismiss my concerns. They should have to present A LOT of strong evidence for their claim. Simply pointing to a few property transactions and some talk of bordering development proposals ain't enough.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

The great thing about my position is...I DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! If I am wrong, then great. I'll enjoy the fruits of the arena like everyone else. If my skepticism turns out to have teeth, I get to say, "Told you so!" It's a win-win for me.

Exactly! Like I said. I have the balls to predict that the arena is a win for downtown.

[Deno]

Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc
The great thing about my position is...I DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! If I am wrong, then great. I'll enjoy the fruits of the arena like everyone else. If my skepticism turns out to have teeth, I get to say, "Told you so!" It's a win-win for me.


The Arena will be a win win for Sacramento .

[snfenoc]

Excuse me? How dare you? At least have the intellectual honesty to include the entire statement about why I feel the way I do. In a nutshell: The burden of proof is yours, not mine.


I lived in East Sac, Midtown and Downtown at great expense to myself on a low hourly wage simply because I loved the city. I attended those silly, useless charettes as well as numerous city council meetings. Try staying awake while listening to economic reports. It's always fun when your issue is first on the docket and then the council moves to remove something from the consent calendar and discuss it for an hour. But I was involved. Why? That's an easy answer: I look forward to and praise Sacramento's development into a more livable and enjoyable and productive city. Having said that, I don't think handing out hundreds of millions of dollars and giving away free land to billionaire developers is right. I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think "investing" in a stadium maximizes the public's capital.

Contrary to your belief, it does take balls to consider and talk about Sacramento's economic potential. Reality takes a lot of balls, my friend.

Watching project after project fail all those years ago was depressing to me. I took it very personally. I had a lot of myself tied into those gleaming, lofty twin towers. Unfortunately, the reality of Sacramento's economics reared its "ugly" head - as it has done for decades. However, that negative experience caused me to start appreciating the smaller things, the charming aspects of Sacramento. I didn't lose my love for significant developments, but I did gain a new perspective. Ignoring history means you are doomed to repeat it. An honest look at Sacramento's development history, its economy and its geographical location is often lacking. And instead of moving us forward, I think it holds us back. We have local politicians who are too caught up in thinking big instead of building a foundation of smaller or less flashy things from which the big developments can grow.

[wburg]

Basically, what we're starting to see here is "squeezing the balloon"--when you squeeze a balloon, it shrinks in one spot and gets bigger in another. Right now, the arena project isn't actually creating new wealth so much as it is squeezing it from one part of the city to another. Considering that the balloon has been squeezed from downtown into North Natomas for the past 25 years, I don't mind seeing it being squeezed in the other direction for once, although I recognize that it is still a distortion, and a temporary one at that. Unless we get the housing that we need to make a real economic difference downtown, the balloon ends up leaking back out into the suburbs. The last couple of can't-fail miracle plans to save downtown Sacramento did exactly that, and they failed because the housing that the free market would just naturally take care of never materialized--and too many of the entrenched downtown business interests still didn't believe that people should ever live downtown. We can't afford to make the same mistake again.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

Of course, I highly doubt the most staunchly anti-arena or "arenas/stadiums don't help cities" thinkers will ever acknowledge it. It will be written off as "the economy was improving anyway".

Well, that didn't take long.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

LOL. Mayor Johnson has spoken multiple times about a downtown arena as being key to create a world class, destination city. After reading these forums and listening to KHTK radio, I suspect many Sacramentans feel the same way. Granted, suspicion and anecdotal evidence don't make a super strong case. However, I'm not the one claiming hundreds of millions in cash subsidies and free land to a development group is key to improving Sacramento's urban core.

Currently, there is increased interest in Sacramento properties. So what? This is hardly evidence that an arena proposal is making the difference. Developers have said downtown is prime for development multiple times throughout the decades, long before an arena was even on the radar. Right now, all we have is a few sketchy proposals and some properties changing hands. Ho hum. Par for the course. The economy is improving...I guess...so why wouldn't we have real estate transactions and possibly some development? CalPERS is about investment. Why wouldn't it want to finally get a return on that hole in the ground? We haven't even seen a concrete proposal for that site. Yet an arena, which itself is in the nascent stage of development, is getting a bunch of credit? For what? Show me some real development that is directly tied to the arena proposal. Actually, show me some development that is directly tied to the arena AND will pay the city back (plus the opportunity cost) for its subsidy. Also, show me that without a new arena, less economically favorable development would happen. Yeah, a couple local developers have credited the arena for why they are rehabilitating older buildings (e.g. the California Fruit Building). So? Big whoop. Come on, that's just advertisement. They want to get in the press. And, frankly, I don't think a couple building rehabs, or even some condos and a hotel will pay the city back for the "investment" it is making. Hell, some of those developments may even require their own public welfare.

I've been to multiple cities with downtown stadiums. All I can say is, "Meh." The buildings are closed 75% of the time. They are big, boring fortresses that stand empty in the middle of real economic activity. Surely, there are better uses of space, especially when I think of all the money the public invests in these things. Just ridiculous. Now, maybe this arena proposal will buck that trend. Maybe it will have lots of shops, restaurants and small/medium sized businesses (with affordable rents) associated with it. Maybe it'll be a gathering place for the community for small events (e.g., concerts in the plaza or farmers markets). But I'm not holding my breath. I want more than some pretty drawings and lip service from the Kings ownership.

I used to think subsidized arenas were good things, but after attending educational forums about the issue, speaking with economists and reading articles about the subject, it's clear that subsidized arenas struggle to return the "investment" communities are forced to make in them. Not only are stadiums expensive to build, but they are also expensive to maintain - a burden that usually falls on the stadium authority (AKA the public). Then, after about 20-25 years, the buildings become obsolete and a new "investment" is required. Yes, stadiums see a lot of economic activity, but that's simply because they concentrate a region's already existent entertainment dollars in one small area. Do they actually create new money for a city or region? If so, is that new money enough to offset the subsidy? I don't think so.

I'm not big on the idea of an urban Wal Mart. However, I doubt one would require subsidies. And quite frankly, the jobs a Wal Mart provides aren't any worse than getting paid minimum wage to walk through a crow yelling, "Programs! Get your programs!"

The great thing about my position is...I DON'T HAVE TO BE RIGHT! If I am wrong, then great. I'll enjoy the fruits of the arena like everyone else. If my skepticism turns out to have teeth, I get to say, "Told you so!" It's a win-win for me. You see, I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should put itself on the hook for nearly $250 million. I'm not making the claim that Sacramento should give away valuable land. The burden of proof is not mine. I find it offensive that some of the fanatic pro arena people dismiss my concerns. They should have to present A LOT of strong evidence for their claim. Simply pointing to a few property transactions and some talk of bordering development proposals ain't enough.

There have been a number of commercial office buildings transactions according to brokers as a direct result of the proposed ESC. The mall itself was sold twice, once from Westfield and a second time from JMA. Proposals for apartments, condos, boutique hotels and now 301 CM (again). I personally hate the term "world class city". We don't need to be world class. But we do need to help create an environment that puts people to work paying decent wages. We need to be the most livable city. Will it work? We'll see. But we know the status quo was an enormous failure, relying upon suburban housing starts and strip malls. People want to live DT. People want civic amenities. The time is now. There's probably no city with so much vacant land that stands to gain from ancillary development than Sacramento. A 2010 study by the London School of Economics showed that stadiums with the wow factor did provide additional surrounding economic benefit. For me personally I can define my idea of economic benefit in one word HOUSING. We need a lot of it downtown.

[Deno]

Originally Posted by wburg

Basically, what we're starting to see here is "squeezing the balloon"--when you squeeze a balloon, it shrinks in one spot and gets bigger in another. Right now, the arena project isn't actually creating new wealth so much as it is squeezing it from one part of the city to another. Considering that the balloon has been squeezed from downtown into North Natomas for the past 25 years, I don't mind seeing it being squeezed in the other direction for once, although I recognize that it is still a distortion

If growth is promoted there should be enough room for a bigger balloon to benefit all areas.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

There have been a number of commercial office buildings transactions according to brokers as a direct result of the proposed ESC. The mall itself was sold twice, once from Westfield and a second time from JMA.

Are you saying that JMA had advance knowledge of the arena plan, and bought the mall from Westfield specifically to re-sell to a new Kings ownership group for this arena plan?

Proposals for apartments, condos, boutique hotels and now 301 CM (again). I personally hate the term "world class city". We don't need to be world class. But we do need to help create an environment that puts people to work paying decent wages. We need to be the most livable city. Will it work? We'll see. But we know the status quo was an enormous failure, relying upon suburban housing starts and strip malls. People want to live DT. People want civic amenities. The time is now. There's probably no city with so much vacant land that stands to gain from ancillary development than Sacramento. A 2010 study by the London School of Economics showed that stadiums with the wow factor did provide additional surrounding economic benefit. For me personally I can define my idea of economic benefit in one word HOUSING. We need a lot of it downtown.

How many housing units are required in the current arena plan? There's a maximum of 550 units--but no minimum. I will remain skeptical until we actually start seeing housing projects submitted or under construction in the CBD--not in already residential areas around the arena, where land is cheaper and the housing market has already turned red-hot again over the past few years.

[otnemarcaS]

Honestly, the whole diatribe about the economic impact of arenas on cities has gotten old and tired. The arena may prove to be an economic boom and it may not. The train has left the station. It will be built and then we will see the real economic impact in years to come. I work two blocks from the new arena site so I do see the downtrodden impact of the status quo.

Nobody says an arena guarantees economic stimulation or an arena is the definition of a world class city. Small cities like Fayetteville, Arkansas has a 19,000 seat modern arena. Are they a world class city? Same as 22,000 new arena in Louisville, KY. Are they world class? San Francisco, California does not have a modern arena of any sort. Are they a world class city? Los Angeles built the Staples center and it undoubtedly led to the economic redevelopment of the surrounding area (anybody would be in denial if they did not see the before and after). Are they a world class city?

Btw, I also think world class city is an overused term and in Sac's case nothing more than a political face to stimulate necessary action. A vibrant,livable city will do.

[wburg]

otnemarcaS, we're on the same page there--the train has left the station, we'll see if it does or not--but I'm more skeptical about this particular solution. At best, it's a calculated risk, with the risk burden shifted to the public sector (IMO, the private sector is shielded from much of the risk by the public expenditure.) But a lot of arena supporters (and a lot of people here) are saying that an arena guarantees economic stimulation and is the definition of a world-class city--but they use that overused term to stimulate action whether or not it's necessary.

As to Los Angeles, I'm skeptical about that too. I'd be more convinced if the land across the street from Staples Center wasn't still a parking lot.

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by wburg

otnemarcaS, we're on the same page there--the train has left the station, we'll see if it does or not--but I'm more skeptical about this particular solution. At best, it's a calculated risk, with the risk burden shifted to the public sector (IMO, the private sector is shielded from much of the risk by the public expenditure.) But a lot of arena supporters (and a lot of people here) are saying that an arena guarantees economic stimulation and is the definition of a world-class city--but they use that overused term to stimulate action whether or not it's necessary.

As to Los Angeles, I'm skeptical about that too. I'd be more convinced if the land across the street from Staples Center wasn't still a parking lot.

You mean except for the ex-parking lots where LA Live, the Nokia theater and the Ritz Carlton was built, right?

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by wburg

How many housing units are required in the current arena plan? There's a maximum of 550 units--but no minimum. I will remain skeptical until we actually start seeing housing projects submitted or under construction in the CBD--not in already residential areas around the arena, where land is cheaper and the housing market has already turned red-hot again over the past few years.

That's just the immediate complex adjacent to the arena. That's a cherry on top of the deal, not the main point. The main point is all of the surrounding housing development that will happen/is happening. 550 units are just what the arena developers are proposing, in addition to hotel/office space of similar size. Things like the Commons, 301 Capitol, and all the other mid-to-high rise projects are where we're going to see downtown housing increase.

[wburg]

The developers aren't even proposing 550 units, they are just including 550 as a theoretical maximum number of units with no minimum. And from what I see here and other places, the real concern is bringing housing to the urban core and specifically the business district, where almost nobody lives. In my eyes, the arena is the cherry, and so much emphasis is placed on it that the rest of the "sundae" is essentially ignored, treated as superfluous, or people just assume it will work itself out. "With such a magnificent cherry on top, it stands to reason that the rest of the sundae will be wonderful!" is not an adequate description for someone who wants to know what the rest of the sundae is going to include. Things like the Commons, 301 Capitol, and other mid/high rise projects are outside the scope of the arena project--and while I'm sure none would deny the arena was a factor, I don't really think it was the only factor, or even the most important one. We're seeing a number of threads going here--a dramatic generational increase in interest in central city living, high fuel prices, changes in infrastructure, parking and zoning policy, and other cultural changes that have resulted in dramatic shifts to central city housing all over the nation. It seems silly to assume that none of those forces are at work here, and that housing shifts that have been ongoing for years can all be attributed to an arena project that hasn't even been built yet. But the proponents and local media drive home the point anytime anything happens in the central city. New business opens? It's because of the arena. New building gets built anywhere near downtown? The arena did it. Love the nice weather we're having? Must be the arena.

The world is complex, reducing it to one factor is overly simplistic. The arena won't save downtown and won't destroy it. It's just one of many factors.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by jbradway

Nice straw man.

What it will do is exactly what you are seeing it do now. Adjacent properties are being bought up and projects are getting kicked around again.

Nobody wants to be LA or NY. We just want Sacramento to have a better urban core. And the last 8-10 years, space available and bail bonds signs have dominated that end of town.

It motivated me to sell my District 8 house and move back downtown. I live 2 blocks from the proposed site at 600 K street. There's already a lot happening in terms of property transactions and proposals just because people trust the ESC is finally going to happen. But in truth we will only get one crack at this and that's why we need to get it right. An iconic project that is yet uniquely Sacramento and open up to the surrounding area.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

The developers aren't even proposing 550 units, they are just including 550 as a theoretical maximum number of units with no minimum. And from what I see here and other places, the real concern is bringing housing to the urban core and specifically the business district, where almost nobody lives. In my eyes, the arena is the cherry, and so much emphasis is placed on it that the rest of the "sundae" is essentially ignored, treated as superfluous, or people just assume it will work itself out. "With such a magnificent cherry on top, it stands to reason that the rest of the sundae will be wonderful!" is not an adequate description for someone who wants to know what the rest of the sundae is going to include. Things like the Commons, 301 Capitol, and other mid/high rise projects are outside the scope of the arena project--and while I'm sure none would deny the arena was a factor, I don't really think it was the only factor, or even the most important one. We're seeing a number of threads going here--a dramatic generational increase in interest in central city living, high fuel prices, changes in infrastructure, parking and zoning policy, and other cultural changes that have resulted in dramatic shifts to central city housing all over the nation. It seems silly to assume that none of those forces are at work here, and that housing shifts that have been ongoing for years can all be attributed to an arena project that hasn't even been built yet. But the proponents and local media drive home the point anytime anything happens in the central city. New business opens? It's because of the arena. New building gets built anywhere near downtown? The arena did it. Love the nice weather we're having? Must be the arena.

The world is complex, reducing it to one factor is overly simplistic. The arena won't save downtown and won't destroy it. It's just one of many factors.

I think the arena and a reimagined mall are the overriding factors why we are seeing these proposals now. We can agree that there's a demand for both rental and market rate housing in the central city, but without amenities or a catalyst it wasn't going to come now or boom. Westfield sold (and sold low) when the towers faltered. Nobody else stepped up until this was literally a done deal. City staff knew it, we at Crown Down Downtown knew it. How far the ESC takes us is anybody's guess. But the current interest is here because of the ESC, because in almost every case they've said so by referencing the ESC.

[wburg]

That's just it...people are the catalyst, and the most important urban amenity of all. They're selling the cherry on the sundae, the icing on the cake, but with no apparent sundae or cake underneath. It was already starting to arrive before the most recent crest of the boom, now it's just accelerating.

In terms of the sale of the mall, it seems like Westfield held onto it as a loss leader for quite a few years after 301 CM collapsed--and if you want a pet theory, they sold it to JMA with an assurance that it wouldn't continue to be a mall and thus compete with their Roseville facility. Which suggests that JMA was also aware of the pending arena deal and served as a straw buyer of sorts for the subsequent arena team.

And I'm pretty sure that "Was the arena a factor in your recent decision to build/open/stay?" is now a standard question for Bee and Bizjournal reporters, and it's a pretty easy question for them to answer "yes" even if it was a relatively minor consideration--I get asked that question (or variations on it) by media folks and they tend to get a bit miffed when I tell them that I don't think it's all that important...often to the point where they fail to mention that bit in the published article.