Quote:
Originally Posted by SacTownAndy
^^^ Speaking of which, can I ask a stupid question? I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about the logistics or finances of building highrise residential, but I've often wondered:
I travel quite a bit for work and bounce around the country farirly regularly. I always pay attention when I'm in a new city of the local development, especially in downtown areas, and given that this is my home, can't help but to compare what I see in each respective place to Sacramento. And I've always wondered, why not here?
Especially in the last 5-10 years, I've seen highrise residential go up just about everywhere. Austin, Phoenix, Denver, Tampa, Salt Lake.... and even Omaha. I was just in Omaha a few months back and noticed several shiny new residential towers on their riverfront.
So my question is, why not here? I mean, I get that California is a more expensive place to build, but if Omaha Nebraska can get riverfront highrise residential, why not Sacramento? Is it laws, regulations, demographics (I can't imagine a highrise condo in Omaha, Austin, or Salt Lake would be priced higher than a similar product here), unproven market? Or a combination of all of the above?
Anyway, thanks for humoring my ignorance. Was just curious if anyone else had any more enlightenment, because I've always wondered... if it can happen "there" (and it's happening "there"), why not here?
|
This may be completely irrelevant but all those cities (Omaha, Denver, Tampa, Austin, Salt Lake, Phoenix) are home to several Fortune 500 companies. Omaha actually has five F500 companies compared to Sac's none. I suppose the uber rich need urban housing. The demand could be there.
Now I don't know if that plays a factor or not but it seems cities that have a strong high-rise residential market are ones where corporate headquarters exist.
Sac does have high-rise residential. The problem is it doesn't have enough.