What is Sacramento doing wrong? Lets discuss.

[Majin]

What all of the project fall outs and bad news occuring in the last year so, I'd like to have an open discussion on what the city is doing wrong and in what ways we can improve the situation. Wasn't it only two years ago that they hired that city manager out of portland and the matrix system was implemented to cut down on the red tape to getting projects done here. Even with that red tape removed, almost nothing of value has come from it.

As of right now, I am extremely confused on why we are currently in the state we are in right now, in which it seems we cannot come out of. The city seems adamanet about fixing K street mall, but that seems to be going nowhere (when were those RFPs sent out again? Over 2 years ago?), Aura was basically handed on a platter to Nassi yet it seems like thats pretty much over. Even though newer downtown and midtown apartments and condos that have actually been built are filling fast (1801, 21st and L, L street lofts, etc), DR horton pulled out of their plans to build their condos. As far as I know, after L street lofts, there havent been any new apartments or condos proposed (real proposals, no ficticious proposals like Capitol Grand) in the downtown and midtown areas. What are we doing wrong with brining in the new proposals? It seems to me the population is there to support them.

Sorry for the long post that kind of seems like a rant, its just as a person who has a vested interest in downtown (been living here for over 2 years now and dont plan to move), I am just extremely depressed on all the bad news and lack of progress.

[arod74]

Matrix was a good start but it was implemented about the time the bottom was falling out of the market. Looks like the city just suffered from bad timing. With the way financial institutions are lending, or not lending is probably a more apt description, there just aren't going to be any large projects like the towers or aura going up for a long time unless they can back the funding out of pocket like Calstrs and their building going up in west sac or Tsakopoulos and 500cm. The only private project of possible large scale that has a good chance of going foward is CIM/Calpers with their deep pockets on the remains of the towers. As for K street, I've run out of blame to pass around..

[wburg]

A lot of these big dramatic plans were introduced back when money was cheap, and it isn't as cheap now so the big dramatic plans have fallen back. I see a ton of small-site/infill construction going on throughout midtown, so it's not as though nothing is happening, it's just that these are the small, prosaic projects that will really provide the bulk of the housing we're looking for.

People think big during a boom, and it just isn't a boom time anymore. We haven't had a city administration as friendly to development since the bad old days of urban renewal in the 1950s: the current city manager has gone to extraordinary lengths to simplify development, speed processes and remove obstacles. But that still doesn't heat up the real estate market, or encourage buyers to buy or lenders to lend.

About the K Street RFPs: The only one that was approved was the Zeiden project for the 700 block. That has faced a myriad of problems, the most important being land consolidation and freeing the properties from the clutching talons of Mo Mohanna. The other K Street property project, the Woolworth's building at 10th and K, is currently being renovated. The Roos-Atkins building across the street is slated to be renovated. The city has been dead-set on "fixing" K Street Mall for half a century, and they are only recently cluing into the idea that the way to expand retail downtown is to reverse the depopulation of downtown which occurred during the last half of the 20th century.

The other proposals that the post-charrette RFP generated were far too far-reaching: one that asked to be given all four corners of 10th and K, another that asked for practically the entire neighborhood around 7th and K, so they were rejected. So it's no surprise we didn't see those happen: the city kicked them back and went with one project that seemed the most feasible (when it was assumed that Mo Mohanna was a rational, sane person) and one project that the city could execute (which is underway.)

I'm not sure why anyone would consider Midtown stagnant when it comes to construction: there is a hatful of infill going in, from single-lot buildings like the three-story condo project at 23rd and Q to half-block or larger projects like SoCap, the Tapestri brownstones, Trammell Crow, etcetera. Come on out to a meeting of the Planning Commission, or Design Review or Preservation, and you'll see that every week there are new projects coming up for public review. The fact that there is a public review process, rather than simply letting people do whatever, doesn't mean nothing happens here: in fact it can be a great way for those of us with an interest can "watch the game."

So, are there a ton of gigantic projects slated right now? No, but it seems pretty clear that it has more to do with the overall housing market than anything Sacramento is doing wrong. If it's any consolation, the Cathedral tower and Saca's plan B at 10th and J both seem to have a clear path to construction, and we're likely to see more medium-sized things in addition to smaller projects. We might have to wait for the next big boom for gigantic glass and steel monolith series to appear, but don't worry, they'll be along.

As someone who also has a vested interest in downtown/midtown (worked and lived here 14 years and don't really plan on moving ever) I'm more concerned with getting good-quality projects here. We are on the radar when it comes to national attention, from developers as well as folks looking for a nifty city to live, and we are at a phase where we can afford to pick and choose rather than take any project that comes our way simply because we feel like we're too pathetic and miserable a city to be picky. I see progress happening every day, much of it encouraging but some of it alarming. Sorry to go on a rant of my own, but I certainly wouldn't consider construction and interest in downtown at a standstill!

[arod74]

To echo what wburg stated above, there are still plenty of good things happening. West sac looks to be on the verge of some major revitalization along the riverfront, raley's field, and capitol ave corridor. The Crocker expansion is moving along nicely. Midtown is exploding in quality housing, restaurants, and retail. The railyards are on the cusp of something special. If the community center were to be refurbished and major progress was made along K street/DTP, I would be happy to trade all of the above for the loss of some of the large projects put forward over the past few years. It might not be as soon as everyone wants but I'm confident the large projects will come in the long run from this momentum.

[travis bickle]

What Sacramento is most guilty of is lacking the confidence to dream big until far too late in the game. If Saca had started the Towers process a year earlier it would be well under construction by now and probably nearly sold-out. The sales figures for that type of housing proves the market is there. The timing for the financial markets and construction costs weren't.

Despite that, Downtown Sacramento is enjoying a remarkable renaissance for both housing and the skyline... just not together right now. That will change: just not as quickly as we all would like.

[BrianSac]

For one thing, Sacramento needs more private sector companies, both large and small.

Good incomes are the backbone of retail and housing. I'd prefer the bulk of new jobs to be downtown, but if most of the jobs go out to Natomas, Roseville, or Rancho, so be it. Those suburban jobs will still support the "Destination" that midtown and downtown are meant to be in terms of retail, entertainment and housing. People can reverse commute to those suburban jobs from new housing Downtown.

[BrianSac]

I dont understand why those Towers buyers didnt move over to Aura? If they did, wouldn't Aura have the sales numbers needed to get their loans.

Why wont the bankers lend to Nassi. What is so risky about being completely sold out?

Also, if Saca stuck to his orginal plan of building only one Tower, I think PERS would have followed through.

[snfenoc]

Based on what Nassi has said (Grain of Salt Alert!!!), I think he already had the sales numbers required to obtain funding (Plus, I'm pretty sure at least a handful of Towers refugees moved their business to Aura). However, that funding could have been based on a more favorable market. It's possible there is nothing more Nassi can do to move the project along; he may simply be at the mercy of lenders who just don't want to lend.

[Web]

Aura is not happening based on Nassi's track record RE:Reno and was it Denver???

[econgrad]

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

[BrianSac]

Originally Posted by econgrad

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

I agree 1000%!!

[wburg]

It's not something unique to Sacramento: many parts of the development process are mandated by California and federal law. I don't think building in Sacramento is more difficult than anywhere else in the state, from a strictly regulatory standpoint.

Simply put, the market is working, it's just not working the way you'd like it to work right now. Right now the market is demanding a large number of small infill projects to utilize the central city's multitude of vacant lots, and quite a few of those vacant lots and parking lots are being turned into dense, infill-type and primarily ownership/condo rather than rental housing. Anyone who claims that there is nothing being built in Sacramento either hasn't been here or hasn't left their room for a good long while.

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by econgrad

I would state there is too much regulation to develop large projects in DT and MT and other places in Sacramento. Too many enviromental studies that take too long and increase the price to develop. The matrix is in place, yippie..it has not done anything yet, nor I believe will do much at all. We need to let these owners and developers build without all these studies and workshops... That is how New York and Chicago were developed long ago. Let the market work.

Chicago Spire (2,000ft) just started construction...yet Sacramento can't even build a 450ft "skyscraper." pitiful and pathetic.

[wburg]

Chicago proper is about eight times the population of Sacramento, with almost four times the metropolitan area--it's also considerably denser and very built out, with a century-long track record for dramatic vertical architecture, integrated public transit systems, and near-dictatorial city government, as well as being the financial and industrial/transportation hub of the Midwest.

And we ain't. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a fact.

We have to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run. Right now we're walking, and occasionally breaking into a brisk jog, which has resulted in several dramatic face-plants. You say we can't build a 450-foot skyscraper: I'd retort that we haven't yet, but we haven't stopped trying, either.

[cozmoose]

Originally Posted by wburg

Chicago proper is about eight times the population of Sacramento, with almost four times the metropolitan area--it's also considerably denser and very built out, with a century-long track record for dramatic vertical architecture, integrated public transit systems, and near-dictatorial city government, as well as being the financial and industrial/transportation hub of the Midwest.

And we ain't. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a fact.

We have to crawl before we can walk, and walk before we can run. Right now we're walking, and occasionally breaking into a brisk jog, which has resulted in several dramatic face-plants. You say we can't build a 450-foot skyscraper: I'd retort that we haven't yet, but we haven't stopped trying, either.

Just to put things in perspective.

Chicago has 22 buildings over 450 ft under construction (including 3 over 1,000ft)
Chicago has 5 building over 450 ft that are currently on hold, waiting construction
Chicago has 19 building over 450ft that are proposed.

So many cities that are similar in size, or even smaller than Sacramento have skyline that dwarf Sacramento's. Why?

Its not that this city can't walk....its just that when it comes to buildling skyscrapers in Sacto, this city is chained to 1000 lb anchor that is endless environmental studies, commission boards, town meetings, tree huggers, nimbys, anti-growth, mayor with little power, save any old stuff, nothing gets done until i have my say, and nothing new gets built until we give money to homeless and schools mentality.....and this area sorely lack big companies and super rich people. Its a wonder that anything gets built at all.

I would also whole heartedly support near dictatorial city government!

[Cynikal]

I finding it really surprising that people think Sacramento is the only city where projects are slowed by CEQA. Seriously, do you know how development works? Even nationally, NEQA has the same effect on projects.

I would recommend to the last couple of posters (with the exception of Wberg) to take the Planning Academy at the City or learn about the process and better yet get involved.

[arod74]

Your on the money Cynikal. The same environmental studies, commission boards, town meetings, and special interests are a part of every city developement effort across the country. And cozmoose, I don't know of any towns that are similar in size to Sacramento that have a skyline that dwarfs Sacramento. Portland, Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Orlando, Memphis, San Antonio, etc. are all comparable. One might argue that Sacramento's skyline might even be better than most of those cities.

[innov8]

Very few states require the process of an EIR before projects are built.
This process can take 6 to 8 months of valuable time and can even derail a
project from being built if the market starts to change during that waiting
period. Of course, that has not stopped SF and LA from building huge
projects, but they are also branded as cool places to live and play as well
as have a long history of successful out comes, Sacramento doe’s not
have this kind of reputation.

For future high-rise residential to be built in Sacramento, we need at least
one project to get off the ground and sell units. Once this great feat has
happen, I think more banks will be comfortable lending money for high-rise
condos in what would be a proven market. At this stage we need Aura or
Cathedral Square to get built and be a success, if this doe’s not happen,
lenders will have a hard time seeing Sacramento as a good place to invest in
high-rise condo living.

[wburg]

I'll echo Cynikal's comment about the Planning Academy. I took it last year and it was lots of fun, very educational, and a great way to meet others interested in the same topics, as well as city staffers. Plus they provide a free dinner! It also provides an invaluable inside look at why the planning process works the way it does--and sometimes why it takes longer than some might prefer.

coz: Those 22 buildings were built over the course of the last 80 years, not overnight. Chicago started growing "up" a lot earlier than Sacramento, because it has been a big city for over a century, whereas we are still new to big-city status, and because of our geography and economy (and national trends in urban development) we grew out instead of up. That's changing, but the change is going to take some time.

[arod74]

Originally Posted by innov8

Very few states require the process of an EIR before projects are built.

I find it pretty hard to believe that projects in metro areas with any type of highrise construction aren't required to pass some form of EIR whether it be city, county, or state. If not I'm heading straight outta state so I can be the first developer to propose a supertall made of pure cheese and depleted uranium