Sactown Photos

[Ryan@CU]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

What kind of shots are you looking to get? Skyline, nature, people, etc.?

All the above. But for now, mostly Skyline. I'm using these for transition shots.

[rampant_jwalker]

There are some great views of downtown from the top of the Elks Tower. Rail Bridge Cellars opens the penthouse on Saturdays for wine tasting and if you talk to them you could probably get some nice shots from the roof deck that's attached to the space! http://railbridgecellars.net/penthouse/

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

Originally Posted by rampant_jwalker

There are some great views of downtown from the top of the Elks Tower. Rail Bridge Cellars opens the penthouse on Saturdays for wine tasting and if you talk to them you could probably get some nice shots from the roof deck that's attached to the space! http://railbridgecellars.net/penthouse/

Can we just walk in on 2nd Saturday?

[innov8]

CADA has really come through in the redevelopment of 16th Street.
East End Gateway 2 & 3 has turned out better than I had hoped.
It took seven years from proposal to completion and the results
are fantastic. Development Costs $26 million









16 Powerhouse is moving right along. Work is currently being done on 6th
floor and the installation of windows. This high-end, six story complex with
apartments going for $1,700 to $3,500 per month will be Sacramento's first
privately funded midtown housing development at $16.4 million.







The Warren is just starting to move the dirt around. This $34 million project
is a far cry from what was proposed there in 2007 link. Construction ends
first quarter 2015.



Sacramento City Unified School District-owned property… several proposals
being considered.

[creamcityleo79]

WOW! The East End Gateway 2 & 3 are SO Sacramento!!! I love it!!!

[enigma99a]

Sucks about the Warren. It was cut in half and the previous proposal looked MUCH better. In reality DT has a lot of open area to develop and costs rise the higher you go. So we get sprawl

My concern is if we keep inserting these 4-7 story buildings in the middle of downtown, open lots will start to get constrained. In the case of 800J, I would rather the city say we have the lot planned for something like the metropolitan and leave the lot empty. If 800J was on 17th and J, fine, but keep the CBD clear of that kind of garbage. Also on the subject of 800J, who wants to rent? Anyone with cash will want to buy a unit. I guarantee a nice tower with views and purchasable units would be a hit.

[wburg]

Ownership housing is a huge deal, simply because there is so little ownership in the central city--only 10% is for-sale housing, 90% is rental. And we're not seeing the ratio change much with new construction, lots of apartment buildings (close to 1000) and maybe 100 or so for-sale condos, primarily row houses. Even then, I'm not complaining about all the new housing under construction--it's a first step back to the 58,000 or so we had down here in 1950!

[Majin]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

My concern is if we keep inserting these 4-7 story buildings in the middle of downtown, open lots will start to get constrained.

This is also starting to seriously concern me. Lots of new construction going on, but nothing past 7 stories, so if we keep going at this pace there will be no lots for high rises left but lots of shiny new 7 story buildings scattered throughout midtown.

I really hope some buildings with some height start to get build. Or at least the city starts declining midrises if we truly have another housing boom and a bunch of developers start proposing 7 story buildings all thoughout the city. Save that stuff for East Sac, Oak Park, Broadway, etc.

[wburg]

7 story midrises in East Sac? Unlikely...most of East Sacramento is still zoned for 3-8 units per acre, which limits things to single-family homes. I wouldn't expect anything higher than 3-4 stories even along Alhambra and the J Street/Capitol corridor.

The current crop are limited to 7 or so stories because if you go above that height you have to start following high-rise building codes, and can't use the "one-story concrete podium with wood above" building technique that we're seeing in Midtown. The 16th Street and R Street corridor is just about right for that midrise technique, and since that's already the most densely populated part of the city, mid-rise buildings add a lot of housing punch without disrupting a neighborhood that is already seeing a lot of success.

The place for high-rise residential is farther to the west, especially in the CBD between H and Capitol. If the Metropolitan, Cathedral and second coming of 3rd and Capitol get built, they certainly should be high-rises to provide higher population density in those zones where nobody live. Of course, it will also be needed in the Docks, Railyards and River District areas, but unfortunately the new proposed owner of the Railyards has already said he doesn't envision more than half the 10,000 housing units called for in the current Railyards plan--so halve the number of condo towers there.

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by wburg

7 story midrises in East Sac? Unlikely...most of East Sacramento is still zoned for 3-8 units per acre, which limits things to single-family homes. I wouldn't expect anything higher than 3-4 stories even along Alhambra and the J Street/Capitol corridor.

The current crop are limited to 7 or so stories because if you go above that height you have to start following high-rise building codes, and can't use the "one-story concrete podium with wood above" building technique that we're seeing in Midtown. The 16th Street and R Street corridor is just about right for that midrise technique, and since that's already the most densely populated part of the city, mid-rise buildings add a lot of housing punch without disrupting a neighborhood that is already seeing a lot of success.

The place for high-rise residential is farther to the west, especially in the CBD between H and Capitol. If the Metropolitan, Cathedral and second coming of 3rd and Capitol get built, they certainly should be high-rises to provide higher population density in those zones where nobody live. Of course, it will also be needed in the Docks, Railyards and River District areas, but unfortunately the new proposed owner of the Railyards has already said he doesn't envision more than half the 10,000 housing units called for in the current Railyards plan--so halve the number of condo towers there.

I agree that so far we are putting the right density in the right places, and high rise towers, and the prices of units that go with them, have a small market here. We still have plenty of sites where towers were proposed that are available for those developments.

I too am extremely disappointed in the Railyard's next owner's statements. This needs to be the next urban neighborhood for Sacramento, and I from his project experience, it would be safe to assume he's looking at more business space. We need those residences to make that area vibrant and not simply an office and tourist destination that most locals avoid.

[ltsmotorsport]

Also, I do agree though that some of the recent projects are a bit lacking, especially considering what the Warren site originally had planned.

For an even better example, the new iteration of The Creamery is back at the Planning Commission this Thursday. It quite pathetic especially considering it's first proposal as well (anyone have that on hand?). The developer is from socal and specializes in SFH developments so lack of imagination isn't too surprising; just hope our officials see that as well.

[wburg]

The second iteration of the Creamery design look a little better than the first ones, which were even more Natomas-ish, and altered the street layout at the request of the neighborhood and the Planning Commission. A little more contemporary, rather than the vague nods at historic styles, but neither one exactly knocks my socks off. Alkali Flat needs the housing and investment, but that doesn't mean settling for a minimal effort or bad design.

Here's the earlier design:


Here's the more recent one:


These will be on 10th/11th between C and E Streets, around 100 units on 3 blocks, kind of like the units at 2500 R Street, or the smaller units at Tapestri Square.

[ltsmotorsport]

I totally agree that the updated design is an improvement, but as I think we both said, not very innovative. Alkali Flat certainly does need the housing, but the whole central city certainly deserves further thought in a project than simple trying to slap up SFHs as fast as possible to make a quick profit. That's what open suburban tracts are for (unfortunately).

[wburg]

There is a market for those single-family homes--they are getting snapped up as quickly as they get built, and as mentioned elsewhere, the multi-unit buildings aren't for-sale units. And they aren't the same as suburban tracts in many respects, as they are built to higher density (20-25 dua instead of 8-10) and are located in transit-rich, walkable/bikeable places. I think we could use more innovative design for homes of this type, but there is still room for this kind of traditional high-density SFH homes in Midtown, Southside and Alkali/Mansion Flat. It doesn't get much press, but there are also a lot of small projects going into the little 40x80 and 40x160 vacant lots that have sat for years. Here's a pic of an alley unit going in behind the little red Victorian next to the recent condo unit formerly occupied by Tuli Bistro (now "Trick Pony" pizza), next to another recent small infill building:



It's an alley unit along R Street, and the architect gave it a bit more thought in terms of contemporary design.

Compare this with Northwest Land Park, which has similar density but even worse design, and is nowhere near light rail or high-frequency bus, or McKinley Village, which will be built to about half this density, again with no nearby transit orientation and limited walkability. I know this is "skyscraperpage" and people here like big tall stuff, but in many ways these small projects are just as important. And if Midtown and surrounding areas gets filled up with small infill, that pushes more development energy for tall/high back into the CBD and brownfield areas where it belongs.

By comparison, here's the model for Northwest Land Park:

[ltsmotorsport]

I don't disagree that there's a market for the higher density SFH in the central city, just that this site in particular, which is nearly 3 square blocks, should have a more innovative concept besides one type of housing product. It would be great to get some for sale units in attached-unit buildings, but you've spelled out the issues for developers in those developments before.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by wburg

How is this not illegal to build this in the grid?

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Majin

How is this not illegal to build this in the grid?

This another example of poor use of open areas. Seriously, the city needs to come up with a plan of what they want in certain areas and push developers to meet those goals.

[wburg]

They already have, it's called the City of Sacramento general plan, and this is just the sort of thing that is called for in the city's land use and urban form diagram--a mixture of Urban Neighborhood Low (12-36 dua) and Traditional Neighborhood Medium (8-21 dua) right alongside a higher-density business corridor. If you're familiar with urban transects, the area we're talking about is T4/T5 transition.

Surprised to see such NIMBY attitudes here. This kind of infill project, along with CADA's mixed-income apartment construction, is part of why we're finally seeing population growth in the urban core after 20 years of slow shrinkage. A lot of good, small projects that actually get built and inhabited are worth a lot more than a handful of renderings that get Majin all stimulated but never get built. The result is speculative holes in the ground instead of neighborhoods filled with people whose money is spent primarily within their urban neighborhood, which encourages small businesses to locate in their proximity.

As the grid starts to fill and the economic power of more central city residents comes into play, we can build on that success and we'll see high-rise residential in the high-rise zones, despite the best efforts of those who still want downtown to be office/entertainment only.

[creamcityleo79]

Hi all...does anyone know where to find Sacramento skyline pictures from the 70s or 80s?

[ozone]

Wburg is right on about the reason for and the benefits of mid-rises in the grid. I don't mind all the mid-to-low rise infill. It's generally contextual and doesn't generate opposition. There is plenty of room for high-rise downtown. But I do disagree somewhat that high rises need to be confined to downtown. The only thing is that downtown has the infrastructure to deal with them.

Let's not forget that for years the city opposed high-rises, even as late as Mayor Fargo who once said we shouldn't put high-rises next to the river, even downtown. Plus we don't have a corporate-driven economy which pretty much created the modern skyscraper.

But what is going to really bring lots of new high-rises to our downtown is the residential, not government or corporate offices. We need to go all Vancover. We have no views to protect. No problems with shadows. But for that to happen people need to envision it. To get an idea of what that would look like and then to embrance it. And then for the city to make it a goal. How willing is the city to be so bold?