HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4881  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2014, 1:47 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
No higher than the capital

Honestly, I think the city should impose a height minimum in a tight zone around the current high rises. Otherwise when the downtown does get revitalized, the core won't be so spread out.
I don't think the Capitol Towers superblock is included in the "Capitol View Protection Act" height limit, but it isn't in the Central Business District (where there is no height limit) either. As I recall the last time I heard about this proposal, they were talking about 25-35 stories. I wouldn't count on the Resources Building or the "bunker" and rooftop park at 8th and O going away anytime soon, unless the state suddenly gets a massive influx of cash and needs enormous new buildings for more state employees.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4882  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2014, 3:07 AM
ThatDarnSacramentan ThatDarnSacramentan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,047
In an ideal world, everything from Front to 10th and N to S would be ripped up, a true grid would be reinstated, and there'd be an emphasis on streetside retail. The more time I spend in other cities, the more I realize that there's just so much Sacramento needs to do for catchup and how badly a series of small mistakes led to our current downtown. Here's hoping the arena and a slew of new projects like this one help to really change downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4883  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2014, 4:16 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Our big need for catch-up is in downtown residential--that's the big mistake that changed everything downtown. We had an extra 30,000 people, still had a true street grid, and the main feature of the neighborhood was streetside retail. But in the mid-20th century, all of those were called "blight" and wiped out with all possible speed in the name of progress. Plenty of other cities did that too, but it seems like the local development community still isn't sold on the idea of people living downtown, which is why every attempt to "revitalize" is based on visitors and commuters, with housing as a passing afterthought.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4884  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 5:38 AM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Although this news is a bit old, there is a chance that the SF Bay Area including Sacramento could host the 2024 olympics. Or also perhaps 2022. In addition to the Arena, we should also shoot for the Olympics too. It would bring in a huge amount of dollars and new facilities

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...2024-olympics/

http://sacramentopress.com/2012/02/2...l-be-a-factor/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4885  
Old Posted Feb 11, 2014, 5:35 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
Although this news is a bit old, there is a chance that the SF Bay Area including Sacramento could host the 2024 olympics. Or also perhaps 2022. In addition to the Arena, we should also shoot for the Olympics too. It would bring in a huge amount of dollars and new facilities

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...2024-olympics/

http://sacramentopress.com/2012/02/2...l-be-a-factor/
The Olympics, although enjoyabe to watch for two weeks every four years, are a singificant waste of money that could be spent on far better public investments, such as infrastrucutre. The Sochi Olympics have cost Russia nearly $50B. The Vancouver Olympics cost $7B. Billions of dollars are spent on things like venues for archery or kayaking that will only be used a couple of times.

Last edited by 202_Cyclist; Feb 14, 2014 at 3:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4886  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2014, 12:48 AM
NME22 NME22 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by enigma99a View Post
Although this news is a bit old, there is a chance that the SF Bay Area including Sacramento could host the 2024 olympics. Or also perhaps 2022. In addition to the Arena, we should also shoot for the Olympics too. It would bring in a huge amount of dollars and new facilities

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/201...2024-olympics/

http://sacramentopress.com/2012/02/2...l-be-a-factor/
Unfortunately, the US Olympic Committee is not going after the 2022 winter Olympics, so that's out. Though Sacramento was asked to apply, we're not really an option to host the Summer Olympics.

The reason why it cost so much for the Sochi Olympics is the city lacked the proper infrastructure. They had to build the infrastructure and THEN the venues. So this is not an issue that your average large American city would have.

I think there is value in having the Olympics, but it's not in the cards for us in the near future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4887  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2014, 10:00 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,251
Quote:
Originally Posted by NME22 View Post
Unfortunately, the US Olympic Committee is not going after the 2022 winter Olympics, so that's out. Though Sacramento was asked to apply, we're not really an option to host the Summer Olympics.

The reason why it cost so much for the Sochi Olympics is the city lacked the proper infrastructure. They had to build the infrastructure and THEN the venues. So this is not an issue that your average large American city would have.

I think there is value in having the Olympics, but it's not in the cards for us in the near future.
I think SF is interested for 2024 but would have some spillover to Sac. That would be ok..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4888  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2014, 4:00 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Our big need for catch-up is in downtown residential--that's the big mistake that changed everything downtown. We had an extra 30,000 people, still had a true street grid, and the main feature of the neighborhood was streetside retail. But in the mid-20th century, all of those were called "blight" and wiped out with all possible speed in the name of progress. Plenty of other cities did that too, but it seems like the local development community still isn't sold on the idea of people living downtown, which is why every attempt to "revitalize" is based on visitors and commuters, with housing as a passing afterthought.
As long as its cheaper for builders to construct homes in Elk Grove, Roseville, Folsom and Natomas we aren't likely to see much high density housing. It just doesn't pencil out (yet). There isn't that catalyst to make people want to open their wallets and pay a premium. Not without low income housing subsidies and let's be honest we have enough of that in our central core. Those are not the people who are going to fill bars and restaurants. I think everybody knows that more market rate housing is what downtown needs but you have to make people want to be a part of something that they can't get in the suburbs. To that end we have already seen five commercial properties change hands in anticipation of the ESC. The owners of 555 CM want to build a residential component and maybe even open up then L street side. Things are verge of changing. But market rate downtown housing isn't going to just miraculously happen without a catalyst project.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4889  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2014, 6:28 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
As long as its cheaper for builders to construct homes in Elk Grove, Roseville, Folsom and Natomas we aren't likely to see much high density housing. It just doesn't pencil out (yet). There isn't that catalyst to make people want to open their wallets and pay a premium. Not without low income housing subsidies and let's be honest we have enough of that in our central core. Those are not the people who are going to fill bars and restaurants. I think everybody knows that more market rate housing is what downtown needs but you have to make people want to be a part of something that they can't get in the suburbs. To that end we have already seen five commercial properties change hands in anticipation of the ESC. The owners of 555 CM want to build a residential component and maybe even open up then L street side. Things are verge of changing. But market rate downtown housing isn't going to just miraculously happen without a catalyst project.
The era of cheaper suburban housing is starting to fizzle out--I don't think we have seen the end of sprawl, but a lot of people in the housing market (about a third, I think) just plain aren't interested in a house in the suburbs, even if the house itself is cheaper, because that suburban house comes with expensive hassles like a long commute home, and lacks the sort of physical environment that can't be found in the suburbs but can already be found, to a certain extent, in the central city. That's the market people are already building for in Midtown, in West Sacramento, in Southside and Alkali Flat and even East Sacramento and Curtis Park.

The catalyst is already occurring in every direction around the downtown core, where housing of all sorts (both low-income and market rate) is under construction or in the planning stages. The people in the market-rate housing fill the bars and restaurants, and the people in the low-income housing certainly do as well, and probably also work there (remember, "low-income" refers to people making $20, 30, 40K per year.) Because they live downtown, they spend their money downtown on a day-to-day basis.

You don't have to make people want to be part of something, they already want to be part of it. And the most important "urban amenity" of all is people living in the downtown core.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4890  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2014, 1:01 PM
202_Cyclist's Avatar
202_Cyclist 202_Cyclist is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 5,913
Regarding the end of sprawl, this is a good post.


As it turns out, suburban sprawl actually peaked 20 years ago

"The rate of suburban sprawl peaked in the mid-1990s and has declined by two-thirds since then, even through the giant housing boom. Could this quiet change in land use have caused many of the changes that we're seeing today, from recentralizing job growth to the decline in driving?.."

http://greatergreaterwashington.org/...-20-years-ago/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4891  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2014, 5:58 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Nice! Someone should let the Metro Chamber and the County Board of Supervisors know about that--they are still approving new greenfield sprawl. And yes, that's the other big change that has been underway for a while, but since Sacramento's biggest job sector other than government is building suburbs, the folks with the money are loath to follow this national trend.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4892  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2014, 5:21 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The era of cheaper suburban housing is starting to fizzle out.
I hope that you're right about this.

I still believe a significant catalyst project (ESC) as well as a more permanent public market would help attract even more people. I know that the prospect of a new arena going up motivated me to sell my D8 home and relocate back downtown. I know of others planning the same move. We don't need twin 53 story buildings. But there's so much that can be done to help grow the central city population again. That's something that we can all agree upon.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4893  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2014, 5:22 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Nice! Someone should let the Metro Chamber and the County Board of Supervisors know about that--they are still approving new greenfield sprawl. And yes, that's the other big change that has been underway for a while, but since Sacramento's biggest job sector other than government is building suburbs, the folks with the money are loath to follow this national trend.

Very true....
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4894  
Old Posted Feb 17, 2014, 5:56 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
Saw this in the Bee today: suddenly the economics shifts and agriculture on land intended for sprawl makes more money!
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/17/616...igh-value.html

There is a lot more going on downtown than an arena. $300M spent in that part of downtown will make a big difference in that specific neighborhood, but the real difference will be made by the ancillary development--and that's what we don't have a clear picture of yet. The number of 550 housing units maximum gets tossed around--but no minimum!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4895  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 6:10 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Saw this in the Bee today: suddenly the economics shifts and agriculture on land intended for sprawl makes more money!
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/17/616...igh-value.html

There is a lot more going on downtown than an arena. $300M spent in that part of downtown will make a big difference in that specific neighborhood, but the real difference will be made by the ancillary development--and that's what we don't have a clear picture of yet. The number of 550 housing units maximum gets tossed around--but no minimum!

The Kings will need the ancillary development because of their stipulation that they will not take a bigger piece of the media pie. I wholeheartedly agree that the arena is just a fraction of what we may see and housing will need to be a big component of it. Its pretty exciting times for the central city.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4896  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2014, 5:31 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,402
If the Kings will need the ancillary development, I'd like to see something in writing to that effect, like the successful example in San Diego, where there were specific numbers and targets for ancillary development. Housing is absolutely key and the first priority--they have a maximum number of housing units, but no minimum number of units. We've already seen a weakening of the regulatory environment--instead of a PUD, it's a "design district" which leans more toward "should" rather than "shall" in its enforcement language.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4897  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2014, 11:45 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,976
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
If the Kings will need the ancillary development, I'd like to see something in writing to that effect, like the successful example in San Diego, where there were specific numbers and targets for ancillary development. Housing is absolutely key and the first priority--they have a maximum number of housing units, but no minimum number of units. We've already seen a weakening of the regulatory environment--instead of a PUD, it's a "design district" which leans more toward "should" rather than "shall" in its enforcement language.

I wouldn't be opposed to more detail in the final term sheet in relation to some of the ancillary development (the housing component). I think it's very important to obtain a more clear picture of when we can expect more housing. I'm less concerned about commercial office space since we have a glut of office space.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4898  
Old Posted Feb 25, 2014, 4:12 AM
Web Web is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 523
The owners will make a fortune on the billboards and the "Free" city land to develop in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4899  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 2:20 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,141
Boutique hotel plan emerges for Marshall Hotel
By Ryan Lillis and Hudson Sangree
rlillis@sacbee.com

Published: Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014 - 4:24 pm

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/27/619...#storylink=cpy
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4900  
Old Posted Feb 28, 2014, 2:44 AM
NikeFutbolero's Avatar
NikeFutbolero NikeFutbolero is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
Boutique hotel plan emerges for Marshall Hotel
By Ryan Lillis and Hudson Sangree
rlillis@sacbee.com

Published: Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014 - 4:24 pm

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/27/619...#storylink=cpy
Thank god

That corner is ghetto as hell.
__________________
SAN FRANCISCO 49ERS
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:49 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.