K Street Pedestrian Mall Renovation

[NewToCA]

Regarding DTP, Westfields is pretty easy to figure out. If you look at the mall redevelopment work they do in San Jose and Roseville the common element is competition. When they feel their property is threatened by outside competition that is LEGITIMATE, they take action. They try to discourage competition by announcing grand plans, hoping the competitor goes away and that the impacted govt area will favor the Westfield property enhancement vision over the new competitor. When real competition arrives, such as Santana Row or The Fountains, Westfields leaps into action and turns their "vision" crap into a reality.

In downtown Sacramento, the Railyard retail area is the driver to activate Westfields. Though I have no knowledge of this, I would bet they are doing things today to try and undermine the momentum of the Railyards, particularly stalling out or minimizing the retail district (such as telling city planners that if they zone down the retail area substantially they will make a more significant investment in DTP). To me, this clearly fits their historical patterns.

The best way to rejuvenate DTP in a meaningful way is to get Pro Bass open and get the Railyards shovels moving rapidly, with a full blown planned retail operation. And the city planners should IGNORE any threats by Westfield as to DTP. They can always sell the property to another developer to enhance it.

Being out here for nearly a year now, my initial observation concerning Sacramento's development problems is that the city govt lacks moxie and toughness. They seem very feeble.

[Phillip]

Westfield can be extremely aggressive defending their malls from perceived new competition. I'm thinking especially of their all out assault on a retail project proposed near their South Center Mall in Seattle.

Westfield isn't afraid to spend money where they see opportunity. Look what they've poured into the Galleria. And they're not anti-Downtown. They've more than doubled the size of San Francisco Centre, next to a skid row much worse than K Street.

I interpret Westfield's general silence and passivity over proposed retail projects on R Street and the Railyards as Westfield thinking DTP just isn't worth fighting for.

I don't see how Bass Pro Shop or other new retail in the Railyards will be a positive for for DTP. They will draw DTP customers away. Santana Row in San Jose is a different situation because it's across the street from Westfield's Valley Fair mall. Even though Westfield doesn't own Santana Row, SR brings more retail traffic to Westfield's neighborhood. If Bass Pro was part of a DTP expansion or across the street from DTP I think it would help DTP. But a mile or two away, no.

[ozone]

Westfield may not be "anti-downtown" but the vast majority of their properties are suburban malls and as such I think Westfield simply does not have the corporate culture that really understands or cares about tradtional downtowns. What works in the suburbs doesn't always appeal to the people who live in Downtown and Midtown. Westfield like Old Sacramento has yet to figure that out.

As for the San Francisco Centre -they had a strong partner who was already highly commited to developing the site long before Westfield showed up on the scene. Plus we are talking about SF -the shopping mecca of Nor Cal. You can't really compare DTP with SFC.

I don't think the Roseville Galleria is really hurting downtown Sacramento. The mall that really hurts downtown Sacramento is the Arden Fair Mall. If Arden Fair Mall was never built we'd have a much more vibrant downtown.

I think all the new housing at the Railyards will minimize the impact on DTP. And I wonder how many of people who will visit the Railyards patronize the DTP now? But if it does draw a few people away-well too bad. No one is to blame but Westfield.

I don't think Bass Pro will have any impact, negative or positive on downtown or the DTP. It's only real importance is being the first store so it'll start generating some traffic -but that's about it.

[Phillip]

Westfield owns three downtown malls in Cali---Horton Plaza in San Diego, San Francisco Centre, and DTP. They've spent heavily to expand and upgrade Horton and SFC. So I think their corporate culture is capable of growing downtown malls. Their lethargy about downtown malls seems particular to DTP.

Most of Westfield's malls are suburban, but I think that's because most malls are in suburbs. Are there companies that just operate downtown malls? If so what do you think one of them could do for DTP? What would make people who live in Downtown and Midtown want to go to DTP?

I agree with you that what works in the suburbs doesn't always work in Downtown/Midtown. But will a different tenant mix at DTP draw in Downtown/Midtown residents? Or do "Downtown people" just not want to shop in a setting like DTP now, enclosed or not?

It might be similar to the situation on Florin Road where Florin Mall went out of business, even while the number of people in Florin Mall's market area grew rapidly taking in all of exploding Elk Grove. The new residents weren't "mall people" though and Florin died while new Asian strip centers went up across the street and thrived.

Downtown/Midtown's population will grow but will it grow with people who want to shop in some version of Downtown Plaza? And if so will they be arriving fast enough and in enough numbers to save DTP?

Regarding Arden Fair....it's a peculiar situation having a large regional shopping mall so near a Downtown. But Arden Fair was there during the years when Downtown Plaza did better too. So Arden Fair doesn't explain DTP's decline.

As for Bass, maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think more of their customers are in Roseville or Folsom or Elk Grove than in the Railyards. Still any successful retailer who wants to build their one and only regional store in Downtown Sac I'm all for it.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Phillip

Westfield owns three downtown malls in Cali---Horton Plaza in San Diego, San Francisco Centre, and DTP. They've spent heavily to expand and upgrade Horton and SFC. So I think their corporate culture is capable of growing downtown malls. Their lethargy about downtown malls seems particular to DTP.

Most of Westfield's malls are suburban, but I think that's because most malls are in suburbs. Are there companies that just operate downtown malls? If so what do you think one of them could do for DTP? What would make people who live in Downtown and Midtown want to go to DTP?

I agree with you that what works in the suburbs doesn't always work in Downtown/Midtown. But will a different tenant mix at DTP draw in Downtown/Midtown residents? Or do "Downtown people" just not want to shop in a setting like DTP now, enclosed or not?

It might be similar to the situation on Florin Road where Florin Mall went out of business, even while the number of people in Florin Mall's market area grew rapidly taking in all of exploding Elk Grove. The new residents weren't "mall people" though and Florin died while new Asian strip centers went up across the street and thrived.

Downtown/Midtown's population will grow but will it grow with people who want to shop in some version of Downtown Plaza? And if so will they be arriving fast enough and in enough numbers to save DTP?

Regarding Arden Fair....it's a peculiar situation having a large regional shopping mall so near a Downtown. But Arden Fair was there during the years when Downtown Plaza did better too. So Arden Fair doesn't explain DTP's decline.

As for Bass, maybe I'm stereotyping, but I think more of their customers are in Roseville or Folsom or Elk Grove than in the Railyards. Still any successful retailer who wants to build their one and only regional store in Downtown Sac I'm all for it.

Although I'm not as familiar with San Francisco Centre, I am very familiar with Horton Plaza and can tell you that with the exception of Nordstrom (an original tenant from when the mall was built some 20+ years ago), the mix has declined appreciably over the last ten years. The only money spent on expansion/renovate in this time was when the Robinson's store closed (as part of a merger) and a relative pittance was spent to subdivide the shell and some TIs. The Fourth Ave. facade was also improved several years ago but none of that was Westfield’s money as condos were built by as residential developer with ground-floor street retail. Westfield has spent money on some cosmetic improvements such as painting and minor landscaping, but I don't believe this went too far into seven figures (if that). When Horton plaza opened it had several high-end jewelry/clothing and other destination retail. Today, it looks like it would fit just fine in Des Moines or Omaha. A completely boring mix of tepid retail with little you can't find at a larger Rite Aid.

As usual, Westfield spends freely on its suburban mall, University Town Centre (why does westfield always spell center "re?"). UTC - just east of La Jolla - some years ago underwent a hundred-million dollar plus expansion that added a second level to the northern portion and has, at present, another hundreds of millions dollar expansion under review at the city.

UTC/Horton have lost most of the destination retail to the Fashion Valley Mall, but that hasn't prevented westfield from allowing Horton Plaza from becoming another glorified strip mall. This despite thousands of luxury housing units built over the last ten years in DT San Diego and a thriving cruise-ship and tourism base. Westfield's motto could easily be, "We don't, because we don't have too." If this is how they position Horton Plaza with all of its advantages, why does anyone expect them to treat DTP any differently.

Increasingly you hear grumbling from San Diego leaders regarding what's happening to Horton under Westfield.

Downtown Sacramento and Downtown San Diego are not Westfield’s priorities. Until Sacramento's leaders/citizens/shoppers find a developer that makes downtown the focus, you will be stuck with that decaying, decrepit, forgotten bunker called Downtown Plaza. To think otherwise is just kidding yourselves. DTP was once thriving. Under Westfield, it has become a morgue.

[ozone]

I was about to reply to Phillip concerning Horton Plaza but travis bickle pretty much said what I was going say -only he said it much better than I could -as usual.

I believe the original San Francisco Centre was not built by Westfield but that they acquired it afterwards (just like the DTP and Horton Plaza) and even the recent expansion was already in-the-works by another developer long before Westfield came into it.

Arden Fair might not explain DTP's decline entirely but it's close proximity to the DTP and the fact that DTP was also conceived as a regional shopping mall (to attract people from suburbs to Downtown) means that they are competing entities. A lot of people in the suburbs precieve going downtown a 'hassle' so if DTP doesn't give them a unique experience, something they can't get in the burbs, then there's no way it's are going to attract them.

Unfortunately, DTP is a prisoner of Westfield's corporate cuture. I really don't have much hope for this mythical remodel since Westfield will still own it and the architectural firm they've picked to do the work is *yawn* boring with a capital B.

[Phillip]

Thanks for the detailed update on the Westfield/Horton situation in San Diego, travis bickle. I lived in San Diego in 1998/99. I remember Horton Plaza as busy and vibrant then and wasn't aware that it had slid to the degree you describe.

Fashion Valley and UTC were already well established malls ten years ago so I don't think their presence alone explains Horton's decline. Just like Arden Fair doesn't explain why DTP has been going downhill.

From your account maybe Westfield does have some corporate bias against downtown malls in general then, although I'm pretty sure Westfield already owned SF Centre when the doubling there occurred. Even if Westfield didn't start SF Centre the expansion took place on their watch and it's been a big success for them.

Why do you think Westfield doesn't want to try and duplicate their SF success in downtown Sacramento or from your post, in downtown San Diego now?

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.

I'm not opposed to improvements at DTP. I'm just skeptical that cosmetic remodeling or new tenants, under Westfield's guidance or someone else's, can reverse the general course, especially with R Street and Railyards on the horizon and progress on 700/800K so slow.

[greenmidtown]

Originally Posted by Phillip

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.

True. The idea that a mall should be placed in the center of downtown as the "main attraction" has always puzzled me. Too many American cities fall into that trap. DP has one thing going for it. It never gets crowded which makes for an easier shopping experience. Arden attracts too many people. I prefer DP just to avoid the parking hassles and the crowds. And it's really not as bad as we're making it out to be. Downtown is dead because nobody lives downtown and Friday Night Concerts just aren't enough to attract and maintain any crowds. Past 9 to 5 Downtown Sac is still a ghost-town. I don't understand how Midtown which is so close can see so much development while downtown stagnates.

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Phillip

Thanks for the detailed update on the Westfield/Horton situation in San Diego, travis bickle. I lived in San Diego in 1998/99. I remember Horton Plaza as busy and vibrant then and wasn't aware that it had slid to the degree you describe.

Fashion Valley and UTC were already well established malls ten years ago so I don't think their presence alone explains Horton's decline. Just like Arden Fair doesn't explain why DTP has been going downhill.

From your account maybe Westfield does have some corporate bias against downtown malls in general then, although I'm pretty sure Westfield already owned SF Centre when the doubling there occurred. Even if Westfield didn't start SF Centre the expansion took place on their watch and it's been a big success for them.

Why do you think Westfield doesn't want to try and duplicate their SF success in downtown Sacramento or from your post, in downtown San Diego now?

I wonder how other downtown malls--Pioneer Place in Portland and Westlake in Seattle are faring these days? (I don't know the answer.) If they're experiencing declining sales and tenant drift too, at a time when the populations of downtown Portland and Seattle are rapidly increasing, then maybe there's an issue with the "Downtown Mall" model in general, and it's not so much about Westfield.

I agree with Ozone that when suburbanites come to Midtown it's for what they can't find in the suburbs--one of a kind shops, boutiques, galleries, restaurants, plus Downtown's unique ambience, history, and walkability. Downtown needs more of all the above. By their nature malls are full of chain stores. Another company besides Westfield might attract more upscale chains, but they'll still be chains and probably in the suburbs already.

I'm not opposed to improvements at DTP. I'm just skeptical that cosmetic remodeling or new tenants, under Westfield's guidance or someone else's, can reverse the general course, especially with R Street and Railyards on the horizon and progress on 700/800K so slow.

Make no mistake, Horton is not nearly as bad as DTP, but the trends for both are clear. An owner who has neither the vision, the funds nor the desire to change these malls from stagnant dumps into vibrant shopping experiences. OK - that's being a bit harsh on Horton, but not on DTP. Horton still benefits from tourists and is still active at times. But locals have absolutely no reason to go there and that wasn't true ten years ago.

I agree that the idea of suburban values - standard chain stores surrounded by acres of parking and catering to a specific catchment area - are probably inappropriate for urban malls - but simultaneously, using precious downtown property for a low-end mall of Targets, t-shirt shops and a few fast food joints seems equally foolhardy. Why on earth would you subsidize that kind of business model?

And while some people hate crowds (I'm sure the feeling is mutual), shop owners of course adore them so a lack of crowds is not exactly an attribute. In my view, midtown grew for a few reasons. These include growth that was not government dictated but organic, a dense local population, a unique experience derived from primarily gay owners/clientèle that brought unorthodox products/marketing/business styles to the region, and historic buildings that provided architectural excitement. Midtown is an area unlike anything east of SF; south of Portland, north of LA and west of... jeez, I don't know... what is like it to the east, and how far do you have to go? Anyway, that kind of shopping experience is going to attract people of all kinds, but is very hard to duplicate.

But that's why you need a team with vision, and Westfield just doesn't have it. Westfield will put all of its best efforts, ideas and money into Roseville (as much as some people here apparently hate it) while they let downtown Sacramento atrophy and die. Nothing will change that equation until Westfield is out of the picture.

We need a team that will re-examine incorporating an arena into the mall and find reasons for success, not see it as a hammer through which you can extort more public funding. We need a team which will immediately start to incorporate housing into all redevelopment plans. We need a team that will attract one-of-a-kind local entrepreneurs, other destination retail as well as large high-end stores like NM and/or Bloomingdales, and we need a team that will create an architectural showplace highlighting both Sacramento's historic past and its limitless future. We need a team that sees all the possibilities, instead of why things can't be done. A team that sees Sacramento as a partner, not an albatross or a just a bank. We need a team that believes in Sacramento.

Westfield is none of those things.

[wburg]

I'm going to agree wholeheartedly with Travis Bickle here. Midtown grew into the great place it is because the city hasn't been mucking about with it for half a century, and the market grew itself. Also, unlike downtown, lots of people live in midtown, in much closer density than the suburbs. In fact, every "improvement" the city tries downtown tends to shove more neat stuff into midtown and other peripheral areas: the displacement of tenants from the 700 K block pushed two tattoo/piercing parlors and a comic shop into Midtown, and a record shop to Broadway, but they are only the most recent effects.

Midtown was basically what drew me to Sacramento. I used to come visit midtown regularly in high school and on summers home from college, and moved down here in the early nineties. The rent was cheap, there was good public transportation (I didn't drive then) and you could look like a mutant freak and not be hassled the way one did living in the suburbs.

Claims that the central city was a dead zone until a couple years ago are grossly exaggerated: I found a lively, busy district filled with used bookstores, vintage clothing shops, comic shops, coffee shops, cheap and unique places to eat, and places to see bands (even if many weren't recognized entertainment venues.) At the time, the city was doing a full-court press to get people into Downtown Plaza/America Live! but I found nothing there that sparked my interest at all, and no needs that weren't satisfied by local businesses in midtown, aside from the occasional run to Safeway.

And, of course, Midtown is great because it is filled with these amazing old buildings. Part of why I got into all this historic preservation stuff was because I can't imagine Midtown without them. Don't worry--there are still plenty of parking lots and Buzz-boxes to do infill projects on.

[travis bickle]

Midtown was bustling even in the mid-late 80s when I last lived in the Sacramento area. It is rapidly becoming more cosmopolitan than San Diego's Hillcrest district (the major gay neighborhood in San Diego) and it is already far more tolerant - and thus more inviting - than San Francisco's Castro. That combined with spectacular tree canopies that keep it noticeably cooler in the summer and original architecture that give it a look difficult to duplicate today, make it truly one of Sacramento's great secrets to all outside of the region. I think even that is changing as it is getting increasingly mentioned in travel magazines and blogs and not just those catering primarily to the gay community. I envy those who live there now because every time I'm there, what is already great just seems to be getting better. It became this way au natural, with no "help" from government. As wburg alludes, the difference between the success of midtown with little government interference and downtown with all-too-much government interference is striking. wburg: Has Sacramento/state/feds provided much money for historical preservation in midtown? If so, it would appear to be another case where when government limits its intrusion to providing seed money that then allows the private sector to blossom, the results are often impressive.

[wburg]

double post

[wburg]

egads, triple post!

[wburg]

travis: Other than preservation of Sutter's Fort, not really. From what long-term residents have told me, back in the seventies people thought that folks who moved to midtown (places like Boulevard Park and Poverty Ridge) to fix up old houses were crazy or idiots. Redlining was still in effect, so one had to come up with cash to buy the houses (although they were dirt cheap) and at least one person bought his house with a credit card because nobody would finance you in redlined neighborhoods. Most of the neighborhood fix-up was done by do-it-yourselfer types, many of whom got into neighborhood activism after seeing historic homes decayed or destroyed to put up shabby four-plex apartments or faceless office buildings.

There has been some city assistance in the formation of historic preservation districts, which make it harder to knock down or shabbily modify old buildings, but a lot of "remuddling" happened before that took effect and still goes on (especially people who replace their double-hung sash windows with cheap vinyl dual-pane windows.) There is a small "preservation grants" program that the city is setting up, mostly small grants of around $500-1000 for those without the means to do their own home repairs, but that's about it. Mostly a small stick and perhaps a few shreds of carrot.

My generation were mostly college-age or post-college slacker types who moved down here because rent was cheap, it was way prettier than the suburbs, and there were things to do. For a long time, people could work part-time at someplace like EMH, StateNet or Tower (often the only place one could work if you had facial piercings or funny haircuts), rent an inexpensive and cute (if somewhat ratty) apartment or house (in 1993 I paid $125-150/month to rent a room in a six-bedroom foursquare) and spend the rest of the time making artwork, playing in a band, or spending far too much time hanging out at bars or coffee shops. The result was the growth of an organic creative culture that is still prominent today.

[travis bickle]

wburg - were many of the homes converted to apartments? I seem to remember a few. Are there any "seeding" programs now specifically designed for midtown? Any facade improvement programs? CIB? I'd really like to see a study of how midtown has evolved and any lessons we could learn from it.

Yeah, it's funny how many "cool" districts have been created because of cheap rent. I guess some neighborhoods react best with no government interference at all... kind of like people. Downtown San Diego used to be one of those cool, somewhat untamed districts, but "cheap" disappeared about 12-15 years ago. Oh well, there are others. Of course cheap doesn't always mean cool. I lived in the Pacific Beach section of San Diego for much of the 90s. It's cool, but it was never exactly cheap.

[wburg]

travis bickle: Some larger homes were converted to apartments, while others were built that way, either as apartments, duplexes/triplexes, or boarding houses.

No, no seeding programs, no facade improvement programs--not sure what a CIB is. There is currently a plan for a Midtown PBID to complement the downtown program. Some neighborhood community organizations, like SOCA, were established as combinations of advocacy groups for local preservation and also as clearinghouses of information regarding how to properly restore old homes and lists of reliable contractors. So it wasn't really "the free market" working to preserve the neighborhood as much as independent social organizations and interpersonal networks, and quite a bit of yelling at City Hall.

It should be noted that business was always quite involved with the various projects downtown that were directed by the city. There really wasn't that much interest in midtown, real-estate wise, aside from fixer-upper types, low-end landlords, and the occasional mid-range developer who specialized in knocking down old Victorian homes and putting up fourplexes, or knocking down whatever and putting up concrete tilt-ups.

The main "free-market" effect in play in midtown was a condition of oversupply: lots of housing stock in poor condition, and a limited number of people interested in renting them--which meant low rents and minimally maintained buildings. The result of that was growth in market sectors that flourish in such environments: used bookstores, record stores, secondhand shops, coffee shops (pre-Starbucks) and small music venues.

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the same stuff was also found along K Street during that era. Record stores, secondhand shops, greasy-spoon cafes, old-man dive bars, and other such things as you also found in midtown were all around K Street, mostly shuttered because the city wanted "high-end amenities" instead of what the market would bear. Hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties, and a lot of them, because they were relatively marginal, never reopened or relocated because they couldn't afford the rent in a new building.

[ozone]

One thing to keep in mind is that a lot of the same stuff was also found along K Street during that era. Record stores, secondhand shops, greasy-spoon cafes, old-man dive bars, and other such things as you also found in midtown were all around K Street, mostly shuttered because the city wanted "high-end amenities" instead of what the market would bear. Hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties, and a lot of them, because they were relatively marginal, never reopened or relocated because they couldn't afford the rent in a new building.

I don't understand.. if as you say hundreds of businesses were displaced in the redevelopment of downtown in the fifties and sixties then why are we still dealing with an awful lot of discount/secondhand shops, greasy-spoons, and old-man dives and flop houses on or around K Street? Maybe they were moved off of M Street to create the Capitol Mall but obviously they were not forced out of downtown. K Street suffered like every other main retail street in America due to suburbanization -or as you put it -'market forces'. As a retailer I can walk up and down K Street and see what the merchants are doing wrong. If I talk to them about it they always start to blame city hall or something else. To blame city hall for their mistakes like blaming the devil for all human error.

When anyone complains about the displacement and destruction by redevelopment or in the name "progress" I think they should keep in mind that usually the city did this on behalf of, and at the request of, a certain segment of the business community and city hall often did not initiate it.

[Trojan]

What is being built on the corner of 8th and K Street? I drove by today and there is dirt on the ground with a fence around it. Anyone know? Or wait, is that where the fire was?

[ozone]

Yup

[wburg]

ozone: The hundreds of businesses included many sorts of businesses, and the redevelopment area went from I Street to R Street, from the waterfront to 8th Street/10th Street. The residents of the old waterfront flophouses moved into the old "upscale" hotels (believe it or not, the Marshall and the Berry used to be fancy hotels.)

So far as I know, there is only one junk shop in the central business district (the "99 Cent Store" on Tenth,) only one old-man dive bar (Henry's) and the remaining greasy spoon restaurant caters primarily to state workers.

As to the "flop houses," if they weren't there those folks would be sleeping on the street: the ones who are sleeping on the street are, for the most part, folks who used to sleep in the flop houses when there were more of them.

I suppose I don't consider things like secondhand shops, inexpensive diners, record stores and used bookstores to be a huge societal problem in midtown--in fact, they're part of midtown's appeal, as they are part of the greater category of independent small businesses. They're part of the solution, not part of the problem.

You are correct in that redevelopment primarly served (and continues to serve) a certain segment of business, primarily those who wanted to expand the central business district into nearby residential neighborhoods. The city wasn't an unwilling partner, in fact they were very active in the redevelopment process: when a public referendum to borrow money for redevelopment was flatly rejected by voters, the city council decided to borrow the money anyway.