Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[downtownserg89]

Originally Posted by wburg

The 800 block, on the other hand, that's another story.

Do tell, burgy.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

No, it's still alive. Because it was caught up in all the redevelopment hoopla there were complications, but it is still happening. The 800 block, on the other hand, that's another story.

I thought they were going to start this spring on the 700 block but I also heard that they were waiting for the Berry Hotel Condo project to finish up first. Doesn't Moe own the Hole on K @ 8th? If that's the case you can forget about it. It really interesting that Moe basically founded the Downtown Partnership and that they have done a horrible job of reviving downtown.

[wburg]

Hotel Berry Condo project? The Berry will be rentals, not condos, and they are supposed to open this month. And no, Mo doesn't own the 800 block anymore. It belonged to the redevelopment agency, which doesn't exist anymore, so the property technically belongs to the successor agency, the City of Sacrameto. The 800 block portion was supposed to be developed by David Taylor, CIM and Domus, but the money wasn't encumbered before the end of the deadline for redevelopment agencies prior to their dissolution. Taylor was also focused on the arena stuff, and asked for the money that had been set aside from the Sheraton sale, which was going to be put into the 800 block, to pay for a parking structure in conjunction with the arena (and I think some of it got spent on predevelopment costs.) So there is a plan for the 800 block but no money to pay for it unless a "substitute" for tax-increment style redevelopment is found. Some of the Sheraton money is still around, it is being transferred to a different account at this Thursday's council meeting, I'm not sure why--possibly to avoid having it included in funds that have to be paid to the state as backfill from the end of redevelopment agencies.

Theoretically that money is still around, but it isn't enough for the whole 800 block project by itself. Not sure if they could phase the project rather than building it all at once.

[ozone]

Really I thought the Hotel Berry was going to be condos. Oh well rentals make more sense.

[wburg]

I'm still crossing my fingers that the Kress Building will be condos someday...I'd buy the heck out of one.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

I'm still crossing my fingers that the Kress Building will be condos someday...I'd buy the heck out of one.

They are slowly renovating it. I saw the other day where they have redone the entrance and so that is it more in keeping with the rest of the building -replacing those funky 70's rounded windows with a more square look. It's a beautiful building to be sure.

[Mr. Ozo]

http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite...x?LID=17632561

Something seems to be going on at the Kress building, but it looks like it's going to be all offices, which would be a shame.

[wburg]

We'll see what happens with the new parking guidelines--if Council passes the recommendations being put forth, requirements for parking spaces for any project in the CBD is reduced to zero, which will make it easier to convert old buildings to residential use without providing parking (or building new buildings without providing parking) assuming that banks can be convinced to go along with the idea (real estate lenders are hesitant to provide funds for projects they feel are underparked.)

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

Something seems to be going on at the Kress building, but it looks like it's going to be all offices, which would be a shame.

More office space? Now that's something Sacramento is in desperate need of!

[rampant_jwalker]

Originally Posted by wburg

We'll see what happens with the new parking guidelines--if Council passes the recommendations being put forth, requirements for parking spaces for any project in the CBD is reduced to zero, which will make it easier to convert old buildings to residential use without providing parking (or building new buildings without providing parking) assuming that banks can be convinced to go along with the idea (real estate lenders are hesitant to provide funds for projects they feel are underparked.)

Do you know when the council will be voting on the parking guidelines? This is the first time I've heard about it.

[wburg]

It still has to go to Law & Legislation. Below are the staff report, executive summary and full report as presented to the Planning Commission:

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaV...meta_id=383453

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaV...meta_id=383454

http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaV...meta_id=383455

It's fairly comprehensive, the changes aren't just to the CBD but citywide, with several new categories based on parts of town--CBD is basically I to Q Street east to 16th, "urban" is along business corridors like J Street, Folsom Blvd, Stockton Blvd, Broadway and north along I-5, "traditional" in older neighborhoods like Midtown, East Sacramento and Land Park, and "suburban" for postwar auto suburb neighborhoods like the Pocket and Natomas.

And yeah, I'm hoping that the surplus of office space, combined with some opportunities to convert some commercial buildings to residential (with no parking requirements) in the new parking code, will encourage some developers to do more residential infill in former office properties downtown. Los Angeles introduced a similar ordinance in 2000 and tripled the population of their downtown by turning mostly-vacant office buildings into condos.

[rampant_jwalker]

Thanks for the info wburg! Can't wait to see what happens when the new policies go up for council approval in September. After reading the recommendations in the report, I'm blown away. This could open doors in a big way for privately funded downtown and midtown development. No redevelopment agencies required!

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by wburg

And yeah, I'm hoping that the surplus of office space, combined with some opportunities to convert some commercial buildings to residential (with no parking requirements) in the new parking code, will encourage some developers to do more residential infill in former office properties downtown. Los Angeles introduced a similar ordinance in 2000 and tripled the population of their downtown by turning mostly-vacant office buildings into condos.

^This. City governments and planners need to start realizing that to have a successful downtown/urban core you have to have people who live there. I recently spent a Sunday afternoon in downtown Stockton. Makes Sacramento's downtown look bustling by comparison. It was a ghost town. Why? No one lives in their downtown. Fresno is another good example. It's sad because just like Sacramento, these cities rose from the ground in the first half of the 20th century and gave us some really neat buildings and the high population density which kept those downtowns thriving as the places to be. The flight to suburbia is what has killed all of these downtown areas, and governments and planners have done nothing to acknowledge or help this. Thankfully lots of places are coming to this realization, including Sacramento (though it seems like it's being dragged kicking and screaming...)

[wburg]

Most of the city staff I know are already convinced--it's the private sector that needs more serious convincing. The generation of city planners that were raised with the idea that nobody should ever live downtown have pretty much retired.

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

^This. City governments and planners need to start realizing that to have a successful downtown/urban core you have to have people who live there. I recently spent a Sunday afternoon in downtown Stockton. Makes Sacramento's downtown look bustling by comparison. It was a ghost town. Why? No one lives in their downtown. Fresno is another good example. It's sad because just like Sacramento, these cities rose from the ground in the first half of the 20th century and gave us some really neat buildings and the high population density which kept those downtowns thriving as the places to be. The flight to suburbia is what has killed all of these downtown areas, and governments and planners have done nothing to acknowledge or help this. Thankfully lots of places are coming to this realization, including Sacramento (though it seems like it's being dragged kicking and screaming...)

Fresno is headed in the same direction as Sacramento. Their newly adopted general plan is very similar with emphasis on corridor development and less on sprawl. They also used new modeling technology to convince their conservative council members to adopt the most progressive alternative. Planning is definitely getting better as wburg alluded to.

[wburg]

The other folks who will need convincing are the adjacent counties who are still very much in love with suburban sprawl--to the point where El Dorado County is claiming smart growth and infill is part of a United Nations plot!

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

The other folks who will need convincing are the adjacent counties who are still very much in love with suburban sprawl--to the point where El Dorado County is claiming smart growth and infill is part of a United Nations plot!

This is true. The lower Placer and El Dorado spurb is the Nor Cal equivalent of Orange County circa. 1980's -sans the beaches and Mickey Mouse.

I think a difference between Fresno and here is that Fresno's suburbs are not as large, independent or wealthy as ours. El Dorado Hills/Granite Bay is in the top wealthiest communities in the country -a fact that is not so well-known outside of Sacramento.

As a side note it's interesting just how many downtown Sacramento properties are owned by residents of Placer and El Dorado counties. Could this explain some things?

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

Most of the city staff I know are already convinced--it's the private sector that needs more serious convincing. The generation of city planners that were raised with the idea that nobody should ever live downtown have pretty much retired.

One good thing about aging.

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by wburg

The other folks who will need convincing are the adjacent counties who are still very much in love with suburban sprawl--to the point where El Dorado County is claiming smart growth and infill is part of a United Nations plot!

Don't get me started on the Agenda 21 lunacy.

And speaking to the surrounding counties, I know Fresno is very concerned with what Madera County is planning just across the river from them.

Placer, Sutter, and El Dorado Counties aren't very forward thinking in controlling sprawl either. On the crazy train to OC-north.

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

Originally Posted by ozone

One good thing about aging.

but still here in sacramento A LOT of narrow-minded people who cant live without car and think that walking on the streets is not normal, i dont know when sac built all these appts and condos who will live in them?