Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[sugit]

Sacramento developer gets option to buy historic apartment building
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

D&S Development Inc., a Sacramento development firm that has redeveloped many older properties and successfully turned them into new mixed-use projects, has taken over an option to purchase the empty Maydestone building at 15th and J streets, a 34-unit apartment building, according to the investor who previously held to option to buy it.

Joe deUlloa, who owns properties around the city, had an option to purchase the Maydestone for several years, but had been involved in a dispute with the building owner over repairs needed to complete the transaction. DeUlloa said he decided to assign his interest to D&S and move on with other plans, adding that the terms of the deal were “in the low six figures.”

D&S created the iLofts in Old Sacramento by revamping an old Mechanics’ Exchange building and has been turning a former warehouse district on R Street into residential lofts.

Officials at the company could not be reached for comment, but CB Richard Ellis broker Ken Turton, who represented both sides in the transaction, said he expects that a developer with a strong track record like D&S will provide a quality project at the Maydestone building.

[wburg]

Sacramento developer gets option to buy historic apartment building
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

D&S Development Inc., a Sacramento development firm that has redeveloped many older properties and successfully turned them into new mixed-use projects, has taken over an option to purchase the empty Maydestone building at 15th and J streets, a 34-unit apartment building, according to the investor who previously held to option to buy it.


News like this is good enough to make me break my moratorium on using emoticons!
:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[SactownTom]

That is great news--wburg i'll even forgive your use of emoticons. D&S does amazing work. I can't wait to see how they put a shine to the Maydestone. I'm sure it will be top notch. Maybe the city will let them punch some windows into the AT&T building and turn that place into apartments next.

[daverave]

I received an e-mail this morning that raised an alarm about a significant change in the city's approach to development review:

"On Thursday the Sacramento Planning Commission will have a public hearing on a proposal by the Development Oversight Commission (DOC), a City-appointed group of development interests, to eliminate the City's Design Review Commission and change the development approval process in the City so that City staff will make most planning and design decisions administratively, leaving no opportunity for public input."

That last part about eliminating public input may be hyperbole but this e-mail is making the rounds. I got it via ECOS. The functions of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Commission would be combined into a new, seven member board under the new proposal.

More info at City website including letter from DOC:
http://tinyurl.com/ah5pk7

[urban_encounter]

I received an e-mail this morning that raised an alarm about a significant change in the city's approach to development review:

"On Thursday the Sacramento Planning Commission will have a public hearing on a proposal by the Development Oversight Commission (DOC), a City-appointed group of development interests, to eliminate the City's Design Review Commission and change the development approval process in the City so that City staff will make most planning and design decisions administratively, leaving no opportunity for public input."

That last part about eliminating public input may be hyperbole but this e-mail is making the rounds. I got it via ECOS. The functions of the Planning Commission and the Design Review Commission would be combined into a new, seven member board under the new proposal.

More info at City website including letter from DOC:
http://tinyurl.com/ah5pk7



Old news but long overdue. If you've ever attended those meetings (and perhaps you have) then you can see that more often than not, duplicate the work and often times send developers contradictory signals.. Lastly considering some of the less than stellar projects that have come out of design review I have to ask myself "what's the point?"

[daverave]

Old news but long overdue. If you've ever attended those meetings (and perhaps you have) then you can see that more often than not, duplicate the work and often times send developers contradictory signals.. Lastly considering some of the less than stellar projects that have come out of design review I have to ask myself "what's the point?"

Yeah, I've attended plenty of both and they are gruesome, painful experiences. I would contend, however, that projects usually only get tweaked around the edges at design review and that less than stellar projects are more of a case of "garbage in, garbage out." For that I would cast the blame on weak designers and penny-pinching developers, not design review.

[daverave]

Old news but long overdue. If you've ever attended those meetings (and perhaps you have) then you can see that more often than not, duplicate the work and often times send developers contradictory signals.. Lastly considering some of the less than stellar projects that have come out of design review I have to ask myself "what's the point?"

It was quite the contentious meeting tonight and not well-received by either the PC or the public as put forth by the DOC. Some choice quotes from commissioners: "cart before the horse.... blindsided... sounds like a done deal... appalled... not all customers (meaning public) consulted... etc." A former commissioner suggested eliminating the DOC since they are the most junior body. No cost savings analysis was available. There has been little to no input from the PC on the process. The consensus was that the process has already gotten too far, too fast. The public testimony was not favorable either. Wburg sighting! :banana: The DOC claims that they are intending to do public outreach to neighborhood groups. They have a lot of work to do yet with the "yammering band of sour grape swillers" in the words of Marcus B.

[econgrad]

Friday, February 13, 2009
Fix Sacramento’s gateway, too
Sacramento Business Journal

In downtown Sacramento, K stands for Key.

Ask most people how to build a more vibrant downtown and spur growth in the central district, and they’ll tell you K Street is the key. Those people are right; we need a bustling retail and dining district. We need a major investment in the Westfield Downtown Plaza so people go there to shop. We need more businesses that stay open after dark. We might even need (gasp) cars on the pedestrian mall.

But I’m not certain K Street should be our priority. I’d like to trade it in for another letter: J.

J can stand for Judgment. Judgment as in the first impression many visitors to Sacramento get.

Ever driven into downtown off I-5? Exit onto J Street and your first take on Sacramento is bus stops, vacant buildings and borderline blight.

Don’t get me wrong, things are improving. The lovely Citizen Hotel adds some class to Caesar Chavez Park, and the windows from the Grange restaurant filter a nice glow onto the street. And the revamped Elks Building and McCormick & Schmick’s restaurant bring the busyness from the Sheraton Grand down a block or two. But have you ever walked between The Citizen and McCormick’s? Ever done it after dark? It’s less than pleasant.

What you’ll find, should you make the trip, are boarded-up windows, empty sidewalks (aside from a few stray blankets) and dim outdoor lighting (if there is any at all).

The south side of the street does have a few businesses — a Vietnamese restaurant, an urban clothing store, a law school and a liquor store. All but the liquor store are closed after dark. The north side has some offices, but at night the block looks abandoned from the street level.

The big problem is, we want people to make this trek. We want guests at the Sheraton to go eat dinner at Grange. We want people staying at The Citizen to go have a drink at the bar at the Sheraton. And, being a “green city” with few taxis, we want them to walk those three blocks. But, right now, I wouldn’t advise it.

Certainly, there are plans for this stretch. St. Anton Partners has entitled plans for Cathedral Square condos on the south side of the street. Plans for John Saca’s The Metropolitan, a hotel/condo complex, have been entitled for the north side of the street.

But given the economy, neither of those projects are going to get off the ground anytime soon.

So what should we do in the meantime? Well, let’s glance back at K Street for a second. David S. Taylor Interests is looking for a tenant at 1012 K St., formerly a Rite Aid. In the meantime, the company added lighting and is displaying art by Sacramento State students. A simple, low-cost way to make the street a little nicer. J Street property owners should follow the developer’s lead and spruce up their storefronts. A little effort would not only be a gesture of goodwill to citizens, but would also show visitors that Sacramento is actively working on improving the city’s core, rather than simply letting it gather dust until the right project comes along at the right time.

On Saturday, Sacramento will host the Amgen Tour of California bike time trials. More than 75,000 people are expected to visit downtown to watch, not to mention the usual Second Saturday crowds and people coming downtown for a Valentine’s Day dinner. Many of them will first glimpse downtown when they drive onto J Street. These visitors will make downtown vibrant for the day, not to mention spend money at restaurants and hotels.

Let’s hope they are too busy searching for a parking spot to look past the sidewalks to the empty buildings.

[wburg]

Those properties will need more than a little sprucing up...the Copenhagen building is still burnt to a crisp on the inside, and it has been a bat habitat for 20 years. The old Broiler/Biltmore buildings may be salvageable, but are probably a bit the worse for wear after being boarded up and used as occasional squats for the past decade. The Plaza building and the Art Deco building on the corner just need tenants, although the corner building could use a rescue from its awful street-facade remodel: tear out those big things blocking the windows and put a restaurant with a lot of big windows facing the street to kitty-corner the Grange.

The owners of the buildings have no interest whatsoever in "sprucing up" the buildings, because they just want to knock them down and build their towers. Repairing the buildings would make sense, and brighten up a dark patch of J Street, assuming that the owners can stop the visions of skyscrapers dancing in their heads. Personally, I'd like to see it happen: it would be a lot cheaper, and make a lot of sense, to use the existing buildings rather than knock them down.

[econgrad]

Those properties will need more than a little sprucing up...the Copenhagen building is still burnt to a crisp on the inside, and it has been a bat habitat for 20 years. The old Broiler/Biltmore buildings may be salvageable, but are probably a bit the worse for wear after being boarded up and used as occasional squats for the past decade. The Plaza building and the Art Deco building on the corner just need tenants, although the corner building could use a rescue from its awful street-facade remodel: tear out those big things blocking the windows and put a restaurant with a lot of big windows facing the street to kitty-corner the Grange.

The owners of the buildings have no interest whatsoever in "sprucing up" the buildings, because they just want to knock them down and build their towers. Repairing the buildings would make sense, and brighten up a dark patch of J Street, assuming that the owners can stop the visions of skyscrapers dancing in their heads. Personally, I'd like to see it happen: it would be a lot cheaper, and make a lot of sense, to use the existing buildings rather than knock them down.

In the short run it is cheaper, in the long run it costs more: In regular guy terms = A skyscraper dancing in their heads would cost more but return much much more on their investment. Rehabbing the old buildings would not give the investors as much of a return, therefore not receiving (maximizing) as much income as possible from the land/developments. That area is too valuable now for many of those buildings. Skyscrapers dancing in their heads mean better investments in that area...

I am sure with you I will get an opposing response.

[wburg]

econgrad: Hey, you're the guy who posted an article about how the property owners should do something with the buildings that are there, personally I happen to agree with it.

The area is too valuable in theory for those buildings, but not in practice. The buildings remain vacant and unattractive because the only factor the investors consider important is, as you say, maximizing income from the land/developments. Things like unfriendly streets, boarded up buildings and the negative image to that part of the city are not part of the equation.

[econgrad]

econgrad: Hey, you're the guy who posted an article about how the property owners should do something with the buildings that are there, personally I happen to agree with it.

The area is too valuable in theory for those buildings, but not in practice. The buildings remain vacant and unattractive because the only factor the investors consider important is, as you say, maximizing income from the land/developments. Things like unfriendly streets, boarded up buildings and the negative image to that part of the city are not part of the equation.

Maybe, or the city has been making it too difficult to tear the old buildings down and put up newer nicer high rises that would attract new businesses. I am not sure how to respond to the "The area is too valuable in theory for those buildings, but not in practice." statement. Area's such as this usually attract higher end class A tenants (large law firms, Banks, etc) and newer buildings appeal to such. This makes a much more profitable long term investment than just rehabbing what is there now. Either way, yes we agree, the area needs improvements. I published the article because it was relating to the thread. I just wish our city and attitudes would shoot for bigger and newer. :cool:

[wburg]

Old buildings don't seem to have that much trouble attracting new businesses: look at Grange, DeVere's/Mix, Cosmo, or many of the other businesses (and residences) locating in old buildings these days. When properly fixed up, an old building can attract new businesses as easily as a new building, so the age of the building isn't an obstacle. An old building that isn't maintained, on the other hand, doesn't draw those tenants.

The theory/practice statement: The owners of the buildings really want to build skyscrapers there, but they can't seem to get their act together for one reason or another. Rather than make use of the buildings they have, and clean up an eyesore in the process, they would rather let them continue to decay. The existing buildings could be made much more valuable, through maintenance and investment in the existing buildings.

The demolition of the existing buildings on both the 10th & J and 11th & J lots has already been okayed during the entitlement process, so that is no obstacle, but even having the buildings out of the way doesn't make things any easier, as we see from the big hole in the ground at 3rd & Capitol. It's more a matter of a property owner without the ability to "get it up," so to speak.

[snfenoc]

This is an interesting discussion that is beginning. I can see both sides of the coin:

During my walks around midtown and downtown, I have found there is a lot to like. However, many sites (especially the ones on J Street referenced above) make me want to vomit. I'm getting tired of the boarded up windows, the dingy facades, the smell of urine, and the lack of interest and life. I wonder... how long I will have to wait for the big dreams that haunt those sites to become reality? Will they ever become reality? I have my doubts. If construction costs (materials, labor, taxes, permitting, CEQA, etc.) don't come down significantly and incomes and economic activity do not rise significantly, I'm afraid Suckramento will not have the market to support 20, 30 or 40 story residential high rises - It sure as hell does not have one now. We may see properties changing hands/developers numerous times over many years and plans go from lofty to lam........uh........not so lofty before things actually happen. Heck, this is occurring already. Wouldn't it be easier to propose the lam....uh....not so lofty project in the first place? Yes, big proposals are more fun (right?), but the smaller ones are way more likely and immediate. When MARRS was proposed, I thought it was the dumbest thing I could ever imagine. "What? Tear it down! Build a skyscraper, dammit! Rehabbing a concrete pillbox does nothing to grow our city." Well, I was wrong. It is quite the lively spot; and I enjoy it a lot. Sure, I can fantasize about new high-rises maybe coming some day in the future, but that gets boring after 20 seconds or so. I'd rather be chomping down on some grub at Luigi's Pizza by the Slice, or high society-ing it at Ella (if I could afford it), or watching Forever Plaid at the Cosmopolitan Cabaret, or drinking tea at the Naked Lounge, or stuffing my face with those awesome chocolate chip cookies at Ginger Elizabeth's. I'd rather be where the life is. The past few years have taught me not to be impressed by plans, but by results.

The other side of the coin: There is only so much land available downtown. If every "historic" concrete pillbox down there is restored and quickly turned around into yoga studios, and news stands, and coffee shops, and bistros, and (insert hip urban hangout here), where will the high rise market go when (if) it actually comes calling? It still costs good money to rehab a concrete pillbox, so is it financially wise to invest in a rehab only to tear it down 5 or 10 years later when the high rise market improves?

What to do? I have no idea.

[travis bickle]

The first three rules I learned about real estate finance are:

1) More is better than less...

2) Sooner is better than later...

3) And something beats nothing all to Hell...

So I find this situation very perplexing. That stretch of J Street has looked like Hell for 30 years now (I can actually remember when Copenhagen was open for business.). Who owns them and what can they possibly have to gain by holding and not developing for so long? Are they waiting for a city pay-out ala big Moe? Good luck there as the City has zero money. Grandiose residential/mixed use? They missed out in the last boom and if you couldn't get a project financed in that market, you need to start over. Nothing residential will fly there for several years.

For years, Sacramento was a notoriously difficult place to move through the development process and that may have hindered efforts along J street. But my own experience over the last several months is of a planning staff and City Manger's office that is completely supportive of good ideas (and yes, I consider the project we're discussing in Sacramento a very good idea). I have to think that any proposal that would remove that wretched blight from J street (including rehabbing the existing structures) would find vigorous support at City Hall.

Are the owners some large corporation that uses the losses on their Sacramento properties as write-offs? Possible I suppose, but that kind of thing isn't as easy as it used to be. I don't know how they can continue to bleed money.

I also think the answer there is think small. Get something going there and energize that dead zone. Too much going around it to let this deplorable condition go on another minute.

I think the latest trend - K Street as an entertainment destination - is finally the one that will be successful. In this case the failure to attract much residential is going to turn out to be a blessing. Only took 40 or so years to figure it out. J Street can be a part of this too.

There is nothing wrong with "maximizing profits." That's why we all would like higher paying jobs for similar hours. But if we can't get the six-figure gig, I think most of us will accept something less instead of remaining out of work. The owners of these parcels along J street would appear to prefer unemployment. I just don't get it.

Btw - That hideous building catty-corner from the Citizen... I was interning in high school for the Architect who did that redesign... window blockers and all... Ed Kado of Ziggurat and 500 CM fame. I doubt he keeps that effort in his portfolio...

[wburg]

The other side of the coin: There is only so much land available downtown. If every "historic" concrete pillbox down there is restored and quickly turned around into yoga studios, and news stands, and coffee shops, and bistros, and (insert hip urban hangout here), where will the high rise market go when (if) it actually comes calling? It still costs good money to rehab a concrete pillbox, so is it financially wise to invest in a rehab only to tear it down 5 or 10 years later when the high rise market improves?


Some vacant places to put high-rises once the market improves:
* The Docks
* The Railyards outside of the Shops area
* 3rd & Capitol
* The parking lot where Aura was supposed to go
* The parking lot next to Heilbron House at 8th & O
* The parking lot at I and 14th behind the phone company building
* The parking lot at 16th and J kitty-corner from Memorial
* The county court parking lot between 7th & 8th at G
* The vacant southeast corner of 8th & K
* H Street between 5th & 6th (it will be available for development once the track relocation is done)

Places to put mid-rises and mixed-use residential once the market improves:
* 3rd & R
* The aforementioned docks & railyards
* R Street's vacant lots in the teens and twenties
* Assorted vacant lots along the railroad tracks between 19th & 20th

None of those places require demolishing anything (or, at least, demolishing anything that hasn't already been demolished.)

But here is a short list of buildings that I personally wouldn't miss if they get knocked down:
* Any Buzz-boxes (the 1-2 story concrete tilt-ups mostly seen along R Street)
* Westfield Downtown Plaza, with the possible exception of Macy's
* The mini storage units along 16th Street
* The vacant bank at 4th & L

If there were any shortage of vacant lots in this town, then we could start talking about what old buildings we need the least. But we've got a lot of lots, and once we get through those, there are even more cheap concrete tilt-ups that we can do without, and shoddily built buildings from the past 20-30 years that won't last long enough to be landmarks.

But we also have a lot of buildings that are grossly underutilized and could be turned into very cool places with less investment--thus spurring positive change in the near future, instead of waiting for the next wave of cranes to arrive. Adaptive reuse is more labor-intensive, less resource-intensive, and has a stronger effect on the local economy, all of which are positive things in grim economic times. It also helps create districts with unique character and feel--people like old buildings if they're kept up, and in a downtown setting they mix very well with new buildings.

[econgrad]

Old buildings don't seem to have that much trouble attracting new businesses: look at Grange, DeVere's/Mix, Cosmo, or many of the other businesses (and residences) locating in old buildings these days. When properly fixed up, an old building can attract new businesses as easily as a new building, so the age of the building isn't an obstacle. An old building that isn't maintained, on the other hand, doesn't draw those tenants.

These are not the tenants I am talking about. As I said, I wish the city would shoot for more. If you read my post, I am talking about high rises Class A office space that attracts Law Firms, Special Interests, Lobbyists, Medical firms, etc. Corporations that employ large numbers of people (in the hundreds, maybe even more). The area is prime real estate for these types of businesses but it is under developed. Saving the old buildings will do this: keep the area under developed and keep Sacramento the same. We need to look bigger, saving all this small stuff is just.. small minded, small thinking (I do not think your a small minded person Wburg, but the ideas of preserving old buildings in an area that demands so much more is just a waste). The idea of preserving in a high value area, low value buildings will continue to bring us what we all complain about in this city: mediocrity.

I know your intentions are good and you feel your ideas are best for the city, but constraining development in this city is going too far if we keep preserving and not progressing. Isn't this the time for "change" everyone?

Where are our grand buildings that house our fortune 500 companies? Not in any of the rehabbed ancient and historical 60 year old buildings we saved. Maybe that is why we don't have any F500 companies in Sacramento.

[daverave]

:previous: "The idea of preserving in a high value area, low value buildings will continue to bring us what we all complain about in this city: mediocrity."

Unfortunately, Econgrad, the trend in this city is for the high-rise construction to be very mediocre while the low-rise, rehab projects represent the better design. How many outstanding (or even non-mediocre) high-rise projects have ever been done here? I can list a bunch of fantastic rehab projects and virtually no good to great new high-rises. I'm a fan of the US Bank building and, to a lesser extent, the EPA building but they both have at least some faces at street level that are completely barren. The Fed Courthouse is a great looking building from a distance but it is a fortress where it counts at street level. Most of the high-rise government projects in this city are design garbage. And when you've got an Ed Kado designing projects like 500 CM, mediocrity is practically assured. That's why it was so exciting to anticipate a project like Aura with it's cutting edge design.

High rise projects also create the need for copious amounts of parking which sucks up a lot of the prime floor space nearest ground level and negatively impacts life on the street. So while they sometimes may be nice to look at from a distance and feed our ego's desire for a bitchin' skyline, high-rise warehouses for lobbyists, lawyers, special interests and their vehicles usually do nothing for me or for the life of the street.

High-rise residential projects, on the other hand, would be a blessing for generating a critical mass of downtown shoppers and users to make everything else work but that window of opportunity has passed, obviously, for the short-term. Even in this case though, parking is likely to suck up a lot of prime street front real estate.

[innov8]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5949/lavalentinastationrendeco7.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

La Valentina Station goes before the Design Commission tomorrow to develop
a mixed-use development comprising of 63 apartment units, seven live-work
units and approximately 2,500 square feet of ground floor retail/office space.

[econgrad]

:previous: "The idea of preserving in a high value area, low value buildings will continue to bring us what we all complain about in this city: mediocrity."

Unfortunately, Econgrad, the trend in this city is for the high-rise construction to be very mediocre while the low-rise, rehab projects represent the better design. How many outstanding (or even non-mediocre) high-rise projects have ever been done here? I can list a bunch of fantastic rehab projects and virtually no good to great new high-rises. I'm a fan of the US Bank building and, to a lesser extent, the EPA building but they both have at least some faces at street level that are completely barren. The Fed Courthouse is a great looking building from a distance but it is a fortress where it counts at street level. Most of the high-rise government projects in this city are design garbage. And when you've got an Ed Kado designing projects like 500 CM, mediocrity is practically assured. That's why it was so exciting to anticipate a project like Aura with it's cutting edge design.

High rise projects also create the need for copious amounts of parking which sucks up a lot of the prime floor space nearest ground level and negatively impacts life on the street. So while they sometimes may be nice to look at from a distance and feed our ego's desire for a bitchin' skyline, high-rise warehouses for lobbyists, lawyers, special interests and their vehicles usually do nothing for me or for the life of the street.

High-rise residential projects, on the other hand, would be a blessing for generating a critical mass of downtown shoppers and users to make everything else work but that window of opportunity has passed, obviously, for the short-term. Even in this case though, parking is likely to suck up a lot of prime street front real estate.

Your thesis is true about our current rehabs vs current highrises. The parking argument I do not agree with. San Francisco is a car city, I lived there for 5 years. Parking does stink there yes, but people adapt and learn where to park. All the cars there do not cause large parking lots on the surface of the city as we can all see, underground parking lots galore and its just fine. Also, all the people who are going to chime in and disagree that SF is a car based city are wrong and probably never lived there. NYC is a true half and half city, not just because of the subway but also because of all the taxi cabs. It is unfortunate that we do not have highrise living as well, actually it may be more unfortunate than losing out on highrise office space, I agree with you on that too. I just see some Sacramentans being almost self defeatest and not asking for bigger and better, but just patching things up here and there, wow look a new bar (that will close in 2 years) or a new nightclub with a fancy name (which will change in a year). We need to attract large corporations that will employ large amounts of people and support our economy. We need the infrastructure for it. We can't live off a nightclub/restaurant based economy alone... Sacramento is not a vacation town.

[daverave]

Your thesis is true about our current rehabs vs current highrises. The parking argument I do not agree with. San Francisco is a car city, I lived there for 5 years. Parking does stink there yes, but people adapt and learn where to park. All the cars there do not cause large parking lots on the surface of the city as we can all see, underground parking lots galore and its just fine. Also, all the people who are going to chime in and disagree that SF is a car based city are wrong and probably never lived there. NYC is a true half and half city, not just because of the subway but also because of all the taxi cabs.

I'm perfectly willing to concur that SF is a car city; it's a western American city after all. I've lived there also and it is quite easy to adapt... you just rarely move your car during the week and use it primarily for weekend getaways. Underground parking does solve the space and barren streetscape problem for the most part but that is VERY expensive construction and not something that our local developers seem to want to pay for. Their solution tends towards a single level of parking underground, with a ground floor that is mostly parking again with a sprinkling of cramped retail and then a few floors of parking garage above until the "real" building starts around the sixth floor or so. That is just completely f'd up.

I went to Des Moines last year and was blown away by what a urban design nightmare it is. It had quite a few recent "signature" highrises which housed a few Fortune 500 type corporations, mostly in the insurance industry. The streetscape is nearly completely devoted to surface parking, parking garages, and access to parking garages. Due to the lousy weather I suppose, there is a second "street level" at the second floor connected throughout the city with enclosed pedestrian bridges over the streets. There is a smattering of retail at that level plus office building lobbies. It was incredibly depressing but really worth experiencing... once.

[wburg]

Several current projects include class-A office space in historic buildings: the Roos-Atkins department store on 10th & K was recently rehabbed into for-sale office condos, the Retrolodge is office/live-work space aimed at small, start-up entrepeneurs and businesses (which, according to your signature, are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States) and the Elks Building's rehabbed spaces are going to be aimed at office customers who are looking for a unique and beautiful space.

Where are our Fortune 500 companies? Well, US Bank and Wells Fargo are both Fortune 500 companies, and their grand buildings are along Capitol Avenue. AKT is finishing up another tower in that neighborhood that will no doubt attract some of the folks you're talking about, and there's a big fat hole at 3rd Street that could certainly hold something tall.

I suppose I could be accused of thinking small, but that's not the same as small-mindedness: I tend to think about what I see from the street, because I'm on the street downtown a lot. Re-activating the vacant buildings on the 1000-1100 block of J certainly wouldn't keep things "the same," it would change the immediate neighborhood pretty dramatically, in the same way that the existing conversion projects have changed their parts of the street--it's just a matter of connecting the dots. If it becomes the catalyst to change people's initial assessment of downtown Sacramento from "deadsville" to "energetic and active," then the big-money folks will come sniffing around, looking for for-lease office space and vacant lots to plant a new building.

I think, if anything, you're setting your sights too high, which seems to be a problem here: if you constantly have your eyes on the far horizon, you can't see the stuff in front of you that you are about to trip over...or the edge of the cliff!

[innov8]

Where are our Fortune 500 companies? Well, US Bank and Wells Fargo are both Fortune 500 companies, and their grand buildings are along Capitol Avenue. AKT is finishing up another tower in that neighborhood that will no doubt attract some of the folks you're talking about, and there's a big fat hole at 3rd Street that could certainly hold something tall.

For the record, Sacramento doe’s not have any fortune 500 or 1000 company
headquarters located here. Just because a highrise is named after a bank
doe’s not mean its headquarters are in it. I believe this is what econgrad is
talking about. The bank pays for naming rights and maybe occupies a few floors.

I think, if anything, you're setting your sights too high, which seems to be a problem here: if you constantly have your eyes on the far horizon, you can't see the stuff in front of you that you are about to trip over...or the edge of the cliff!

Yes, wburg believes our city sets it's sights to high :rolleyes: can you believe this???
wburg says that setting our sights high is a problem. If we have enough
people like you all think this way, Sacramento will stand still in the past just
like you want it to. This line of thinking explains alot of the negative thinking
that people post as comments in the Bee... it truly amazing :koko:

"you're setting your sights too high, which seems to be a problem here"... I still can't beleive it :jester:

[wburg]

In terms of recent failed projects, yes, it does seem to be a problem. The big hole at 3rd & Capitol stands testament to that. Midtown, the closest thing Sacramento has to an urban success story, stands testament to the importance of thinking small: success comes one storefront at a time.

We've gone over the whole Fortune 500 headquarters issue before: US Bank and Wells Fargo aren't headquartered here, but they have fairly significant offices in the buildings that bear their names. The point is that there are plenty of places where big companies can put big offices, and quite a few places where they can put new office towers. Econgrad seems convinced that the city is full up, with no room to build anything without knocking something else down, and I don't agree. Maybe that's where I can accuse him of small thinking: where he sees no opportunity and considers old buildings to be liabilities, I see lots of opportunity and consider old buildings to be assets that can be used.

Aiming high itself isn't the problem, the problem is doing so without paying any attention to where you're stepping up close--and ending up with failed attempt after failed attempt, and nothing to show for it. And that does seem to be a problem around here.

[innov8]

In terms of recent failed projects, yes, it does seem to be a problem. The big hole at 3rd & Capitol stands testament to that. Midtown, the closest thing Sacramento has to an urban success story, stands testament to the importance of thinking small: success comes one storefront at a time.

Timing and construction costs were the big factor as to why the Towers
failed; people were buying condos with nearly 50% of the units sold
before the structure was out of the ground…this is unheard of anywhere in
this country. If the Towers were have been started 6 months to a year
earlier they would have been completed today. The rest of the country got
big projects going a year or two before the economy started to skid, where
as the Towers were slow out of the gate and high material costs killed it.

We've gone over the whole Fortune 500 headquarters issue before: US Bank and Wells Fargo aren't headquartered here, but they have fairly significant offices in the buildings that bear their names. The point is that there are plenty of places where big companies can put big offices, and quite a few places where they can put new office towers.

Both US Bank and Wells Fargo use about three floors in each tower… so out
of a combined 55 floors, 6 floors used is not a very significant number.

[econgrad]

Wburg, please do not post misinterpretations of what I am saying. Obviously you are having difficulty grasping the concept and point of my original post. Try rereading my post again...slowly. (That's really annoying man).

Daverave: I will not interpret your posts incorrectly so I must ask: Are you saying that you would support the larger high-rises in the area if there were no surface parking impact? Would a good scenario be complete underground parking for the structures so street level unaffected? (I understand it is expensive and your point on Des Moines too) I am trying to understand exactly if you are against the highrise scenario I am for, or are you against the parking lot by-products of the highrise scenario.

I am curious and want to visit De Moines and see what you talking about now.

[wburg]

Okay, I reread your post and you still seem convinced that there is nowhere to build new buildings in the central city and it is impossible to turn historic buildings into Class-A office space. You're wrong about both points.

I'd also suggest that, while it's not a Fortune 500 company, Sacramento is headquarters to the state of California. Its main administrative building is over 130 years old.

[econgrad]

Okay, I reread your post and you still seem convinced that there is nowhere to build new buildings in the central city and it is impossible to turn historic buildings into Class-A office space. You're wrong about both points.

I'd also suggest that, while it's not a Fortune 500 company, Sacramento is headquarters to the state of California. Its main administrative building is over 130 years old.

You know what? :cheers: Thanks for rereading my posts Wburg. That was really cool.
I shall continue. I do mean that, thank you for that respect I shall from now on give you the same. That was very cool of you.

Here is what I am stating, and I am going to copy and paste from some of my posts above too:

In the short run it is cheaper, in the long run it costs more: In regular guy terms = A skyscraper dancing in their heads would cost more but return much much more on their investment. Rehabbing the old buildings would not give the investors as much of a return, therefore not receiving (maximizing) as much income as possible from the land/developments. That area is too valuable now for many of those buildings. Skyscrapers dancing in their heads mean better investments in that area...

I understand that there are plenty of locations in the Sacramento area for highrises and (dare to dream) skyscrapers. The exit off of I-5 on J and K both are extremely valuable areas that is a(although I am not a big fan of this term) "gateway" to our city. First impression, blah blah blah...we both understand that one. Your saying, rehab the buildings in the area is the best scenario, one because it is the most realistic, and two it is better to preserve old buildings, in this area both economically and preservation.

I strongly disagree with these two points for the area in the bee article.

The economic reason, I stated in an earlier post. Allowing developers to truly maximize profits (meaning, cutting short if at all any environmental impact studies (such a corrupt and useless racket, what environment can we screw up in DT Sac? It is already developed. Just let the engineers and analysts figure out the car and people impact and develop accordingly) this would save the developers MILLIONS, and the Towers we would have, as well as Aura etc etc. Also, keep it private 100%, how? TAX breaks! Taxing developments and other fees hinder and raise the costs. These are the real reasons that hinder development in CA.
The Gateway: rehabbing the older buildings would be an improvement yes, but we should shoot for more, always! If we want to be big, shoot for big. Screw SF, we shouldn't even focus on the city so much (I am guilty too) we can build bigger here if we just placed the right variables. Our land is more stable (very very few earthquakes compared to SF), our land is flat, we really have no excuses. If we continue to squabble over preservation and environmental impacts, we will continue to raise costs and continue to be the same old Sac cow town with expanding suburbs and the reall money continuing to move to Folsom and Roseville, while our tax dollars are wasted on the inner city minority (not racial minority, population minority) building and rehabbing smaller projects that the majority of the metro area does not benefit from as much. This does not apply to EVERY area in the DT, sure preserve certain important buildings, but let the public vote on it every single time. It is our tax money, if you are anti market, then at least be pro democracy. This "gateway" could be a great first impression on people visiting Sacramento, CEO's from F500 companies, celebrities, anyone who wants to open a business here or whatever. Imagine impressive highrises and maybe even a Skyscraper with a beautiful park in between (in Tokyo there is an open space between most of the buildings there, green parks. They keep it simple "rocks, grass, trees, water" and it looks great and is just amazing). We CAN do this. We just keep on shooting ourselves in the foot with self defeating thoughts of "Oh its just too costly of Sacramento" and "oh the developers have screwed these up before so forget it" I could go on and on and on. I believe Kevin Johnson believes this, but the rest of the useless council are still acting like the old school Sacramento hick redneck small minded backwards mentality (even if they are democrats) that has spoiled 80 years of great project ideas. The state government produces nothing other than mediocrity. It takes tax dollars and makes life harder for people who really want to add to the economy. Its a waste of space. A fortune 500 company would add much more, much much more to our economy and way of life. A plan that puts a highrise or skyscraper or two or three with some creative and logical engineering at the "gateway" could impress and very possibly draw an F500 or large firms that we do not have here yet. There is a reason SF has more than we do, for one more college grads and upper degrees. Why? They have the infrastructure to draw them. SF have the buildings and real estate that draws these businesses that require more educated and more sophisticated peoples. With more educated and sophisticated peoples we get a more creative, and prosperous lifestyle. And Don't say its the location and beauty of SF that is the draw, Monterrey and Carmel are not drawing any F500 companies are they? No, because of lack of infrastructure (those are extreme examples I know, but you get my point). So screw SF! We can be bigger if we just allow it to happen and not fight it and defeat it! We can be bigger and better! Forgive me for having the "Audacity of Hope" that we can be bigger. We can. All we have to do is place the right variables.

HOLY SH*T! I didn't realize I typed away so long..sorry guys, I guess I got excited.

[Majin]

Great rant I think you're spot on pretty much everything you said. For a second there I almost forgot that you're a big box suburbanite republican.

[econgrad]

Great rant I think you're spot on pretty much everything you said. For a second there I almost forgot that you're a big box suburbanite republican.

:haha:

I'm not a big box suburbanite, I am just really critical with Sacramento because I think it is a travesty, complete travesty that more of us prefer to live in the suburbs than in DT. I want DT to be so incredible that I would want to pay $800,000 for a condo. Being a Republican really has nothing to do with suburbs. Just ask Giuliani. I am for the bullet trains, and for Public Trans, but I am also for supporting cars. I want DT to be a success and something amazing. Sacramento can do it, we just have to get off our asses and stop thinking small. I better stop now before I rant up again! Thanks Majin! I appreciate your response very much. :)

[wburg]

Econgrad, you're wrong about pretty much every single thing in your post; so much so that to detail every point would produce a huge message that would dwarf yours and I wouldn't want to bore everyone with it. I am also sure that you are so convinced about the correctness of what you write that pointing out exactly how you are wrong would be futile. So I won't bother, other than pointing out the fundamental incorrectness of pretty much everything you just said. Majin's eager support merely reinforces that conclusion.

[econgrad]

:previous:

So, one for one against. Anyone have a tie breaker opinion?

[midtownup]

:previous:

So, one for one against. Anyone have a tie breaker opinion?

Sure, I had the same points you had a while back regarding midtown projects, also in response to wburg. Basically, wburg lives in a vacuum tube where economics and business strategy don't matter. :koko:

[BrianSac]

:previous:

Econo, I agree with your rant. :cheers:

[innov8]

Good one econgrad :cheers:

Sometimes I feel sorry for wburg with his beliefs so off the rocker. I guess
when someone believes that our city has set it’s sights to high and that this
has become a real problem like wburg does, most anything else he says
concerning the issue becomes ridiculous.

[bennywah]

hmm good arguments, If I had to throw my two cents in, yes we shouldn't focus on being Like S.F, Sacramento should make its own identity which if you've lived there or know someone who loves the place there is, when I visit and bring friends there blown away by how clean, new, and big Sacramento actually is, which I think you really start to realize that by seeing other places and living in other cities.

however aiming high and big is great, but to aim with out a purpose, or some fundamentals to making projects a success will keep a place lower than it should be. to wburgs point midtown is a great example of starting small and rehabbing can be a success, so thats sac's first small step, its time to take that formula and upsize it for the core of downtown, and I think for a lot of big bold projects to get off the ground there has to be some centerpiece in place that makes the area desirable, unique, worth paying the extra money to live and visit for.

turning old sac into more of a community with lofts and more restraunts and clubs could be the perservation, hip old/new thing, if only a major shopping mall overhaul with really good stores could occupy dt plaza and make it the premier shopping for the area, maybe we should lobby for westfield to sell the place to a developer that will take some risk, and I even agree with econ, lure fortune 500/1000 companies with large tax breaks so they'll do business here, having corporate sponsors will do wonders in getting the kings a new arena and maybe landing another pro sport.

Sacramento will have bigger and better in its future, Its starts with some failures, but people with the vision to keep going forward, and I think the people who venture to take risk in the next 3-5 yrs will be handsomely rewarded, so the process to get them going should be sped up so they save cost and we should give tax breaks to urge development now that will eventually produce jobs and sales tax for the area.

[wburg]

I guess I'm just too conservative for people like Econgrad. I don't worry about where Fortune 500 companies will build their towers: when they arrive, they will build their own towers, we don't have to build towers in advance to attract them like a 50 story fishing lure.

As Econgrad's signature line reads, most of the economy is powered by small local businesses, not Fortune 500 companies, so I'm more interested in incubating and promoting local business than worrying too much about where the big megacorporations are going to put their offices. But I still think that it will be easier to lure in the big boys if they come up J Street to 10th and see open businesses there, even if they're in old buildings. It has to look better than boarded-up buildings that smell like bat poo.

Sacramento has big things in its future, of that I have no doubt. But we shouldn't be so ashamed of our urban heritage that we destroy it in the sake of rebranding ourselves. Great American cities make use of their old buildings: for example, Los Angeles' old Pacific Electric building (formerly the streetcar/interurban company's corporate office and their downtown terminal) is being turned into businesses and lofts, even though it's a nine-story building in downtown Los Angeles where things get much, much taller.

[Web]

Timing and construction costs were the big factor as to why the Towers
failed; people were buying condos with nearly 50% of the units sold
before the structure was out of the ground…this is unheard of anywhere in
this country. If the Towers were have been started 6 months to a year
earlier they would have been completed today. The rest of the country got
big projects going a year or two before the economy started to skid, where
as the Towers were slow out of the gate and high material costs killed it.



Both US Bank and Wells Fargo use about three floors in each tower… so out
of a combined 55 floors, 6 floors used is not a very significant number.

But would the towers be finished? there are buildings thru out the USA unfinished due to the collapse.....also if they were finished How many would be in foreclosure?? Something will get built but it takes the correct timing.

the 400k units would be worth what today???

[innov8]

But would the towers be finished? there are buildings thru out the USA unfinished due to the collapse.....also if they were finished How many would be in foreclosure?? Something will get built but it takes the correct timing.

the 400k units would be worth what today???

Well, let see web. If the Towers took two years to build as proposed and
they were started a year earlier, in theory they would have been topped out
with with the skin already wrapped around the buildings by Jan. of 07’ when
work stopped at the site. At that point, 75% of the project would have been
finished and mostly interior work would need to be done. So yes, I think the
structures themselves would be finished with lots of work still to do on the inside.

Your other questions sound like your just talking out loud because we both know
what the answers would be :(

[wburg]

Good one econgrad :cheers:

Sometimes I feel sorry for wburg with his beliefs so off the rocker. I guess
when someone believes that our city has set it’s sights to high and that this
has become a real problem like wburg does, most anything else he says
concerning the issue becomes ridiculous.

I don't think the city has set its sights too high, but some developers have, and their overly ambitious plans have resulted in problems like abandoned buildings and big open pits. It's not the same thing. In some ways, I don't think the city government sets its sights high enough: instead of recognizing our city's best qualities and capitalizing on them, they try to re-invent the city into something it's not.

It's like a citywide case of low self-esteem, that they think can only be solved with a steel-and-concrete boob job.

[BrianSac]

It's like a citywide case of low self-esteem, that they think can only be solved with a steel-and-concrete boob job.

Edit

[wburg]

:haha: Ya, But, we all like BIG TITS, don't we :haha:

Hey now, Sacramento's skyline isn't huge, but it's perky!

[Web]

lots of teets though!:yes:

[daverave]

Daverave: I will not interpret your posts incorrectly so I must ask: Are you saying that you would support the larger high-rises in the area if there were no surface parking impact? Would a good scenario be complete underground parking for the structures so street level unaffected? (I understand it is expensive and your point on Des Moines too) I am trying to understand exactly if you are against the highrise scenario I am for, or are you against the parking lot by-products of the highrise scenario.

econgrad: Completely underground parking would help to ameliorate the negative impacts of parking requirements but it a waste of resources and is a 20th century paradigm. The way that high-rise parking has worked to date in Sac just guts the chance of positive street-level experiences so, yes, I am "against the parking lot by-products of the high-rise scenario" as presently practiced. I would tend to agree with wburg that there are plenty of great site candidates for high-rises downtown that would not require demolition of decent buildings. Perhaps you could clarify what "the highrise scenario I am for" is, exactly.

My negative feelings about our auto-centric culture tend to color my postings so I will clarify. I've worked in NYC and lived in Boston and SF so I understand a bit about the commuting dynamic and how it is possible to easily exist without a vehicle in major cities. I get almost everywhere locally by bicycle these days and have structured my work life around that decision (although on weekends I sometimes get in my SUV and head up to the mountains :shrug: )

The greatest cities of the world were never designed around the auto and do not devote their most precious real estate to housing vehicles. They do not tear down historical fabric and viable buildings for that function (as Des Moines has done.) The "price" that comes with that situation is the "inconvenience" of having to park, if one must have a vehicle or drive it to work, some distance from the destination or to pay handsomely for the privilege of storing it. "Free" parking should never be available in my mind except for residents in residential sections of cities and even then it should and will be occasionally inconvenient.

I have no problem with large high-rises per se until they have to go through design gymnastics to try and accommodate unreasonable numbers of vehicles, either to satisfy City codes or to meet perceived marketing requirements. Obviously, the lack of a rational and viable public transportation system which connects Sac to the exurban cities and suburbs presents a chicken-and-egg situation where the high-rise development has taken its current pattern. If the city/developer dynamic continues to make parking too easy, then there will never be the impetus to get our public transportation to the point that it needs to succeed.

I don't really have a solution to be honest absent a sea change in the mindset of the typical American and their devotion to all things automotive. That day may be coming sooner than I expected but it won't be pretty.

[travis bickle]

The greatest cities of the world were never designed around the auto

I would suggest that by any measure, Los Angeles is one of the world's great cities and would further suggest that since the 1950s it has been designed around the auto.

if one must have a vehicle or drive it to work, some distance from the destination or to pay handsomely for the privilege of storing it

I would suggest this is already the case in most American cities. Perhaps the pain is not quite to the level you would prefer, but painful nonetheless.

For mass-transit to work, it can't be merely the least painful of the available alternatives. It must be the best choice for a segment of the population. To me, smart growth is giving residents real transportation choices, not forcing them into a (your) preferred choice because all of the others have been artificially made too grim to function effectively.

Most developers would prefer no parking requirements as the cost for such structures can exceed $50k per space.

In the project we are pursuing in Sacramento (meeting with City Manager's office again March 11 for those who are interested), we are trying to create a public transportation system that will be a first choice for a significant percentage of residents, workers and visitors. We want a car to be absolutely optional for many. We do this not because of any government mandate, but because we believe the suburban Sacramento model to be obsolete and that we will create an environment that encourages choices and behavior that are not auto-dependent. We have, so far, enjoyed great support from City of Sacramento staff.

That day may be coming sooner than I expected but it won't be pretty.

We expect it (our project and the ideas behind it) to be very pretty...

[ltsmotorsport]

LA itself though was not specifically designed around the car. The areas that were (mostly post-war) have been feeling the effects of auto-centrism for a few decades with horrible congestion and air quality. It became a great city because of the influx of wealth from many large and powerful industries. LA just became rich at a time when the car is/was king. If LA was a large city a century earlier like NY and Chicago, it would resemble those cities much more.

[econgrad]

I am sorry, I will never agree with this ant-car crap. The car is freedom.

[travis bickle]

LA itself though was not specifically designed around the car. The areas that were (mostly post-war) have been feeling the effects of auto-centrism for a few decades with horrible congestion and air quality. It became a great city because of the influx of wealth from many large and powerful industries. LA just became rich at a time when the car is/was king. If LA was a large city a century earlier like NY and Chicago, it would resemble those cities much more.

But it didn't become a large city a century earlier. It became a large city in the 20th. Post-war, it threw away its outstanding public transportation system and focused on the automobile. It tore out tracks and designed and built freeways instead. This was a proactive, not a passive, decision. It was the prototypical spread-out, low-density, horizontal American city. Many of its new industries required large swaths of land (e.g. aerospace) and larger swaths of parking to accommodate the large number of employees.

Catering to the car was absolutely a conscious, lifestyle decision. Born of an endless summer and an unmatched post-war California prosperity, the automobile represented a freedom that was fundamentally different from that of the drones who dutifully marched into the cold, crowded and dirty subways of the east and for nearly half a century, most Angelenos wanted it that way.

Post WW 2, Los Angeles was designed around the car. It was during this time that it took it's place among the world's great cities. 50 years later, we can argue about the results, but to deny an infrastructure that represents an investment of trillions of dollars and still carries the overwhelming majority of people, goods and services is, at best, a difficult argument to make.

[ltsmotorsport]

I didn't deny anything. I simply stated that LA developed the way it did because of the times in which (post war) it became a big city.

Of course I realize that a majority of people use their cars to get around in LA. The same is true in all large metropolitan areas. But the simple facts of a system being over-burdened can't be denied. There needs to be more transportation choice if LA wants to continue to densify.

[SacTownAndy]

I may be way behind the curve here, but I haven't seen anyone post anything on this yet:

Deal for new courthouse funding to be unveiled today

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 2B


Sacramento County is in line to get funding for a new courthouse under a deal that is near "substantial completion," according to a news release from Assemblyman Dave Jones.

Jones, D-Sacramento, plans to announce details of the courthouse in a press conference at 10:15 a.m. today on the Ninth Street steps of the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse.

Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge James M. Mize and other officials plan to join Jones for the announcement.

The new courthouse is expected to cost $550 million, officials said.

Courthouse Executive Officer Dennis B. Jones said officials do not have a site for the new building yet. Jones said the court officials would like it to be on the site of the two-story parking lot across Eighth Street from the existing facility. It would house 35 to 49 new courtrooms for criminal proceedings.

The old courthouse would be designated for civil matters, according to Jones.

Funds for the new courthouse will come out of a $5 billion lease revenue bond enacted by the Legislature last year.

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1650837.html

[travis bickle]

I didn't deny anything. I simply stated that LA developed the way it did because of the times in which (post war) it became a big city.

Of course I realize that a majority of people use their cars to get around in LA. The same is true in all large metropolitan areas. But the simple facts of a system being over-burdened can't be denied. There needs to be more transportation choice if LA wants to continue to densify.

Here's what you said.

LA itself though was not specifically designed around the car.

I disagree. 'nuff said... :cheers:

[innov8]

I may be way behind the curve here, but I haven't seen anyone post anything on this yet:

Deal for new courthouse funding to be unveiled today

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 2B


Sacramento County is in line to get funding for a new courthouse under a deal that is near "substantial completion," according to a news release from Assemblyman Dave Jones.

Jones, D-Sacramento, plans to announce details of the courthouse in a press conference at 10:15 a.m. today on the Ninth Street steps of the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse.

Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge James M. Mize and other officials plan to join Jones for the announcement.

The new courthouse is expected to cost $550 million, officials said.

Courthouse Executive Officer Dennis B. Jones said officials do not have a site for the new building yet. Jones said the court officials would like it to be on the site of the two-story parking lot across Eighth Street from the existing facility. It would house 35 to 49 new courtrooms for criminal proceedings.

The old courthouse would be designated for civil matters, according to Jones.

Funds for the new courthouse will come out of a $5 billion lease revenue bond enacted by the Legislature last year.

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1650837.html

$550 million is alot of money, I had not heard of this till now. Here's the
costs of some other State projects and what we got for the money.

Federal Courthouse, 6th and I Streets
Project Description: Construction of a 16-story, 380,000 sf office building for
the United States Federal Courts. 19 courtrooms.
Total Project Cost: $134 million
Date of Completion: 1999

State of California East End Project, 15th and Capitol Mall
Project Description: Construction of 1,470,000 gross sf of office and retail.
Approx. $4.2 million was allocated for housing, preservation, lighting and park enhancements.
Total Project Cost: $392 million
Date of Completion: 2003

Cal EPA Building, 10th and I Streets
Project Description: Construction of a 25-story, 765,000 sf office building for
the California Environmental Protection Agency. The building houses approximately 3,500 employees.
Total Project Cost: $170 million
Date of Completion: 2000

[Pistola916]

I may be way behind the curve here, but I haven't seen anyone post anything on this yet:

Deal for new courthouse funding to be unveiled today

Published: Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2009 - 12:00 am | Page 2B


Sacramento County is in line to get funding for a new courthouse under a deal that is near "substantial completion," according to a news release from Assemblyman Dave Jones.

Jones, D-Sacramento, plans to announce details of the courthouse in a press conference at 10:15 a.m. today on the Ninth Street steps of the Gordon D. Schaber Courthouse.

Supervisor Roger Dickinson, Sacramento Superior Court Presiding Judge James M. Mize and other officials plan to join Jones for the announcement.

The new courthouse is expected to cost $550 million, officials said.

Courthouse Executive Officer Dennis B. Jones said officials do not have a site for the new building yet. Jones said the court officials would like it to be on the site of the two-story parking lot across Eighth Street from the existing facility. It would house 35 to 49 new courtrooms for criminal proceedings.

The old courthouse would be designated for civil matters, according to Jones.

Funds for the new courthouse will come out of a $5 billion lease revenue bond enacted by the Legislature last year.

http://www.sacbee.com/ourregion/story/1650837.html

So are we looking at a mid-rise building here?

[TWAK]

they should just use that to build capitol grand tower.

[daverave]

I am sorry, I will never agree with this ant-car crap. The car is freedom.

Not agreeing with the ant-car crap? What about the roach-car crap? Bug-car crap? j/k

I can't be vehemently anti-car either as I too enjoy the ability (freedom) it gives to get places at the drop of a hat. To be fanatically anti-car would be hypocritical or would require me to more fully use the woeful public transportation systems of California, many of which do not serve places I love to go.

The point that I am trying to make is that I remain anti-"devoting insane amounts of real estate to the temporary housing of personal vehicles in an urban environment." I have no problem with office buildings in the 'burbs that are surrounded by acres of asphalt because that is the only thing that works in that situation to get workers to their place of employment. It's just that in urban settings the waste of resources, both financial and material, to provide 300 sf for every parking space is counter-productive and ultimately unsustainable, especially with regard to the life it sucks out of the streetscape.

The car may represent freedom to you but as conservatives are fond of saying, "freedom isn't free." The 3.5 million traffic deaths in this country alone since the advent of the automobile, the cumulative impacts on our health and welfare due to our auto-dependence, and the individual and societal expense to maintain that dependence expose the cost of that freedom. Who among us hasn't lost a friend or family member on the roads (as I did just last month?)

I can see that we come from different world views so we will have to agree to disagree. The medium to long-term future of the automobile in its present form looks pretty grim to me. I can see that as both a bad and a good thing. Thank heavens the flying car never got off the ground (pun intended)!

[ltsmotorsport]

I wonder if they're gonna have some underground connection to the jail and that's why the price tag is so high.


I disagree. 'nuff said... :cheers:

The central city, and surrounding areas, are the classic central city type development. No six lane thoroughfares there. That's what I meant by that comment.

[daverave]

Found this in the Sacramento images thread, look at all of the land/space/resources expended to house vehicles (including the monstrous, nasty backside of 500CM) !!!
IMHO, this will never be the path to a "Great City."
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/4520/dsc00778b.jpg
Thanks Jeff Zurn!(photographer)

[slaiguy]

Regarding the courthouse...I do not know about the parking structure as the best site because the county car fleet for downtown is located on the lower level underneath the parking structure, it seems like it would be easier to build on the parking lot for jury duty that sits to the north of the courthouse

[Rick'sSkyline]

Regarding the courthouse, why is the price tag so expensive? Are we talking about a mid to high-rise building here? When I heard about the price tag, I automatically assumed it was going to be a high-rise.

[econgrad]

Not agreeing with the ant-car crap? What about the roach-car crap? Bug-car crap? j/k

I can't be vehemently anti-car either as I too enjoy the ability (freedom) it gives to get places at the drop of a hat. To be fanatically anti-car would be hypocritical or would require me to more fully use the woeful public transportation systems of California, many of which do not serve places I love to go.

The point that I am trying to make is that I remain anti-"devoting insane amounts of real estate to the temporary housing of personal vehicles in an urban environment." I have no problem with office buildings in the 'burbs that are surrounded by acres of asphalt because that is the only thing that works in that situation to get workers to their place of employment. It's just that in urban settings the waste of resources, both financial and material, to provide 300 sf for every parking space is counter-productive and ultimately unsustainable, especially with regard to the life it sucks out of the streetscape.

The car may represent freedom to you but as conservatives are fond of saying, "freedom isn't free." The 3.5 million traffic deaths in this country alone since the advent of the automobile, the cumulative impacts on our health and welfare due to our auto-dependence, and the individual and societal expense to maintain that dependence expose the cost of that freedom. Who among us hasn't lost a friend or family member on the roads (as I did just last month?)

I can see that we come from different world views so we will have to agree to disagree. The medium to long-term future of the automobile in its present form looks pretty grim to me. I can see that as both a bad and a good thing. Thank heavens the flying car never got off the ground (pun intended)!

Yea, I bet we didn't hangout four-by-four-ing in the Rubicon together drinking Coors light and spittin Copenhagen while shootin small animals for fun, but I would like to thank you for calling me a conservative and not a goddamn neocon. :cheers:

[econgrad]

Tuesday, February 24, 2009, 2:44pm PST | Modified: Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 1:01pm
City Council OKs purchase of Hotel Berry
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer
View Larger

The Sacramento City Council approved the purchase of the decrepit Hotel Berry, a move that includes the relocation of all its residents and closing the building.

The city already invested $5 million in a plan to have nonprofit corporations rehabilitate the apartment building, which dates to 1929. But a $21 million rehab effort that was supposed to be largely funded by selling federal tax credits last year was stymied by the economy and the lack of demand for the credits.

The nonprofit owner, Trinity Housing Foundation, agreed to sell the building to the city for $1 because it and the developer cannot afford the upkeep. The six-story Hotel Berry is about 50 percent vacant.

Relocating residents, operating costs, and paying off outstanding debt is estimated to cost $2.3 million. The city transfered money from other housing accounts dedicated to providing single-room occupancy housing to cover that cost.

[econgrad]

Wednesday, February 25, 2009, 2:39pm PST
Jones: Funding likely for new Sacramento courthouse
Sacramento Business Journal - by Michael Shaw Staff writer

Assemblyman Dave Jones, a Democrat from Sacramento, on Wednesday announced funding will likely be available for design and site acquisition for a new criminal courthouse in Sacramento. The existing Gordon D. Schaber courthouse is overcrowded and unsafe, he said, and is second in line on a statewide list of facilities that need updating or expanding.

An entirely new courthouse is expected to cost about $500 million.

Under legislation he co-authored, the state can issue up to $5 billion in revenue bonds to pay for new courthouses. He said he expects revenue bonds will be more attractive to investors than general obligation bonds, which the state has had trouble selling due to the earlier budget crisis. The revenue bonds are paid back through court fines and fees.

Jones and other leaders also announced that transfer agreements have been negotiated for 466 court facilities statewide between county authorities and the state. The state is taking over the court system to enact needed improvements. Maintenance costs will now fall to the state as well.

“Our courthouses are in a state of disrepair,” Jones said. “With the completion of agreements to transfer court facilities from counties to the state, state-funded improvements can finally begin.”

Jones is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

[daverave]

The courthouse definitely needs to be replaced as it was built, as anyone who has been there can attest, well before security became such an overarching concern AND before energy use/waste became another critical design issue. I've sat in courtrooms there (as a juror and witness, not a defendant!) and was amazed at the visible gaps to the outside that exist above doors behind the witness stands. Talk about your energy sieve. However, other than over-the-top concerns about "terrists", I have no idea why the price tag would be that high. There's probably going to be a ridiculous amount of expensive parking garage provided for it, although in this case I could see some of the justification.

[daverave]

An entirely new courthouse is expected to cost about $500 million.

Under legislation he co-authored, the state can issue up to $5 billion in revenue bonds to pay for new courthouses.
Jones and other leaders also announced that transfer agreements have been negotiated for 466 court facilities statewide between county authorities and the state.

There goes 10% of the $5 billion on the first courthouse! Just 465 to go! :haha:

[LandofFrost]

A new court house is a terrible waste of money. Why can't we build civic buildings that last more than a few decades? Seriously, just build one that we don't have to replace for a few hundred years, like they do in europe.

Also instead of tearing that building down, couldn't we just repair it? Refurbish it?.... I'm guessing that would cost somewhat less then $500,000,000.

[wburg]

yeah, there isn't much sense in "green building" when construction waste (and demolition debris) are such a huge percentage of the stuff going into landfills. If the doors have air gaps, it's typically a hell of a lot cheaper to fix the air gaps than to replace the entire building. The greenest building, after all, is one that is already built.

The issue of capacity is a bigger problem: due to the explosive growth of western cities, facilities that were perfectly adequate 40-50 years ago are now far too small for the cities they serve. Sacramento's municipal answer (building a new City Hall behind the historic City Hall, expansion of state offices into a nearby campus of buildings) has worked pretty well.

[innov8]

Swanston Station Transit Village

The proposed Swanston Station Transit Village is a long-range urban design
that would guide public and private improvements in the Swanston Station
Transit Village Specific Plan area. Encompassing roughly a ½ mile radius
around the Swanston Light Rail Station, the plan includes mixed use land
that promotes a mixture of office, commercial, open space, and medium and
high-density residential uses with 36 units per acre.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6007/swanstonstationtransitv.jpg (http://img22.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swanstonstationtransitv.jpg)

The Long-Term Plan includes approximately 213 acres of the Swanston
project area and would result in approximately 2,596 new dwelling units and
505,515 sf of new commercial space. The project could increase the
population within the City by up to 6,670 residents at buildout in 2030.

Last week a Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to the City for review.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6007/swanstonstationtransitv.jpg (http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swanstonstationtransitv.jpg)

[brandon12]

$500M for a courthouse? I'm sorry, but there is NO way I can be supportive of that, even in my hometown. That is simply ridiculous. This country is going to hell quicker than I thought if that price seems reasonable to people. Give me a fucking break. $500M...

Google "Ron Paul"

[wburg]

whoa, the Swanston plan involves finally straightening out the curve around the Lumberjack parking lot? It's about time...originally the Light Rail segment from Arden to Swanston was part of Sacramento Northern's "Swanston Branch" (it provided streetcar service there 80 years ago!) and the line ran through what is now the Lumberjack lot...but between the point when SN abandoned the right-of-way and Light Rail was built, the Lumberjack owners paved right over the rails to make a parking lot. So RT, rather than sue for the return of their ROW, ran the line around Lumberjack.

And I'm still hoping that a streetcar line can be included from this new Swanston transit station to the new arena/Cal Expo complex. It would also link residents of this new infill development directly with Kaiser, Arden Fair mall, and other office and retail spots up Arden...given my druthers, run it up Arden and down Expo, turning at Hurley or Howe, with a spur at the arena for "pulse" traffic. It would mitigate a lot of transportation problems and be handy for just about anyone visiting the area.

[innov8]

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4665/1600hstreet.jpg

As reported in this weeks SBJ, the condo project at 16th and H has been
foreclosed on and Thunder Valley has been reduced in size from 23 to 15 floors.

[ltsmotorsport]

I forget, is that condo project already built?

[innov8]

Yeah, it was finished last summer. At first they sold the units as condos
then in the fall they were turned into rentals.

[Phillip]

Crown Books is moving into the North Natomas location where Borders was located until January. I saw a Crown Books banner outside today and they were wheeling in merchandise. That was a fast turnaround! I haven't heard the name "Crown Books" in a long time. I thought Crown Books were all gone too.

edit to add: Oops! I meant to post this in "What's Going on" thread, not Construction Approval.

[innov8]

As was reported last year, sometime this year the CHP will be moving into its
headquarters on Richards Blvd. at the Continental Plaza. In June of 2007,
the City Planning Commission extended various entitlements for the
fourth phase of Continental Plaza for an additional ten years (Oct. 2017)
because market conditions to build the 810,000 sf structure were not
possible and because the proposal would revitalizes an existing developed
area and encourages the intensification of uses around light rail stations
which is expected to be built there in the next 5 to 7 years. I don’t
believe this rendering had been posted here of phase IV… so here it is.
It’s planned for the corner of Richards Blvd. and 7th Street.

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5634/continentalplazaphazeiv.jpg (http://img9.imageshack.us/my.php?image=continentalplazaphazeiv.jpg)

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/meetings/commissions/planning/

[creamcityleo79]

Swanston Station Transit Village

The proposed Swanston Station Transit Village is a long-range urban design
that would guide public and private improvements in the Swanston Station
Transit Village Specific Plan area. Encompassing roughly a ½ mile radius
around the Swanston Light Rail Station, the plan includes mixed use land
that promotes a mixture of office, commercial, open space, and medium and
high-density residential uses with 36 units per acre.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/6007/swanstonstationtransitv.jpg (http://img22.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swanstonstationtransitv.jpg)

The Long-Term Plan includes approximately 213 acres of the Swanston
project area and would result in approximately 2,596 new dwelling units and
505,515 sf of new commercial space. The project could increase the
population within the City by up to 6,670 residents at buildout in 2030.

Last week a Draft Environmental Impact Report was submitted to the City for review.

http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/6007/swanstonstationtransitv.jpg (http://img294.imageshack.us/my.php?image=swanstonstationtransitv.jpg)

I know I haven't posted in a while. But, I thought I would make a comment on this one since it hits so close to home.

It is very interesting to me that VERY shortly after USAA (my employer) announced that they would be closing our Sacramento office (most of the commercial space in the project area), that the Draft EIR was submitted. The announcement was made 2/12/09. It's sad to see this is going to happen after we leave (if it happens). The company is relocating all eligible employees who want to (including my husband and myself) this summer and the office will be officially closed by September. I don't know what impact (positive or negative) this has on the proposal. But, again, it makes me sad...and it is very interesting. By the way, we're moving to Colorado Springs, in case anyone was wondering.

[Deno]

Another company relocates out of state. I don't know of any company who would want to locate in this state.

[nevernude]

Found this on the CADA site. I think the Bizjournal has an article too.

East End Gateway Site 1 (16th/N Streets)
CADA Board Selected Developer for EEG1 - Friday, March 20, 2009
Em Johnson Interest and Nehemiah Community Reinvestment Fund Holdings (NCRFH), a member of the Nehemiah family of companies, has been selected as the developer for East End Gateway Site 1. Located on the northwest corner of 16th and N Streets, the site is currently occupied by a parking lot and a small apartment building.

The selected proposal identifies sources of equity and construction financing and emphasizes the development of mid-rise entry-level “workforce” housing. The structure was designed by Devrouax + Purnell Architects and will be 8 floors (7 floors over a concrete podium). The structure will contain 98 condominiums, 6,000 s.f. of retail and 120 parking spaces. Construction is scheduled to begin in October 2010 and be completed by January 2012. The total project development cost is estimated at $37 million.

Projects completed by Em Johnson Interest include the Fillmore Heritage Center and North Beach Place in San Francisco (in partnership with Bridge Housing), Richmond Village, and Palm Villas in Oakland. NCRFH was the joint venture partner in developing over 1,900 units of housing in California, is the developer of the Township 9 project in Sacramento's River District, and provides community lending throughout the United States to help revitalize economically stressed neighborhoods.

[innov8]

:previous:

Here's the rendering. It's kinda funny to see the buildings on the left
in the backgroung.

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/mz1613/16thNSt98condo6000sfretailEMJIRe-1.jpg

[econgrad]

Bob Shallit: Nehemiah teams with Bay Area firm on midtown condo-retail project
bshallit@sacbee.com
Published Tuesday, Mar. 31, 2009

A Bay Area company known for turning blighted urban sites into cultural hot spots has been tapped to build an eight-story condo and retail project along midtown Sacramento's 16th Street corridor.

Em Johnson Interest Inc. of San Francisco will team with a division of Sacramento-based Nehemiah Corp. on the $37 million project, which is scheduled to start construction next year.

It won't be just another residential complex, says Nehemiah chief exec Scott Syphax.

"This is a signature site," he says of the property a block from Capitol Park at the northwest corner of 16th and N streets. "And this will be a transformative project."

One goal is to link the 98-unit project with the planned Capital Unity Center museum across the street.

A similar neighborhood connection is a hallmark of Em Johnson's highest-profile project in the Bay Area.

Along a once-blighted block in San Francisco's Fillmore District, the company completed a 13-story building in 2007 that includes condos, a restaurant, a nightclub and center celebrating the Fillmore's jazz heritage.

That type of neighborhood-changing project is one reason the Johnson-Nehemiah team was selected for the project, says Marc de la Vergne, development manager of the Capitol Area Development Authority, which owns the parcel.

Another was the likelihood of Johnson-Nehemiah getting construction financing from a large East Coast union pension fund, enabling the project to get under way quickly and "contribute to Sacramento's economic recovery," de la Vergne says.

He views the project – with condos priced between $296,000 and $500,000 – as a bridge to other CADA projects planned for 16th at O and P streets, as well as the proposed Crystal Ice mixed-use project at 16th and R.

"If we can get these all out of the ground," says de la Vergne, "you'll see the most dramatic transformation of any urban corridor in the city."

On the move

In this year's biggest lease deal, chipmaker Numonyx Americas has agreed to take 96,000 square feet in a new Folsom complex.

About 400 local employees will relocate in December, moving from current digs at Intel Corp.'s Folsom campus to a 58,000-square-foot building that Sacramento-based Evergreen Co. developed "on spec" at 2235 Iron Point Road.

Another 50 to 100 staffers will join them in mid-2010 when a 38,000-square-foot addition is completed. It will accommodate Numonyx's need for additional space for the design and testing of computer chips.

"This was a spec project that turned into a build-to-suit, which is unusual," says Dennis Neeley, a senior VP with Grubb & Ellis, who represented Evergreen in the deal.

Numonyx was formed a year ago through a merger of Intel's flash memory division and a unit of Swiss tech giant STMicroelectronics.

[urban_encounter]

Anyone know the status on the Cathedral Lofts (or whatever it's called)..??

I was down there last Sunday for Mass at the Cathedral and noticed every business has vacated with signs on the window saying they are going to "knock down the building.".


I thought we are stil years away from that project. It would be horrible idea to let them knock it down and have surface parking lot there indefinitely.

[wburg]

Do you mean the ones at 11th & J? The businesses there have been vacant for a long time...

[SacUrbnPlnr]

Anyone know the status on the Cathedral Lofts (or whatever it's called)..??

I was down there last Sunday for Mass at the Cathedral and noticed every business has vacated with signs on the window saying they are going to "knock down the building.".


I thought we are stil years away from that project. It would be horrible idea to let them knock it down and have surface parking lot there indefinitely.


If you browse St. Anton's website, www.antonllc.com/contact.html you will see no mention of Cathedral Square (it used to be listed as a pending project). This may suggest that the project is not going to happen soon.

[econgrad]

Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 12:12pm PDT | Modified: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 11:43am
GSA stimulus list: $8M for Sacramento
Sacramento Business Journal
Dennis McCoy | Sacramento Business Journal
The Sacramento Federal Building received $2.2 million for upgrades.
View Larger

The General Services Administration plans to spend almost $8 million of its stimulus funding for government buildings in Sacramento, according to a list of projects obtained late Tuesday by the Washington Business Journal.

California would receive $243.8 million in GSA spending, 4.4 percent of the total $5.5 billion. It is unclear when GSA will officially release the list; agency officials could not be reached for comment Tuesday night.

The region’s building industry has been anxiously awaiting the list of projects, hoping to get a piece of the federal pie designed to bring the country out of recession. (A list of all GSA projects, as submitted to Congress.)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed by President Obama in February, calls for major new construction and energy efficient modernization of federal office buildings, courthouses and land ports across the country. Of the total $5.5 billion, GSA is planning to put $4.27 billion toward “high-performance green building” modernization and improvement.

Sacramento will receive $7.9 million for energy-efficiency modernization of two buildings — $5.7 million for the Robert T. Matsui U.S. Courthouse and $2.2 million for the Sacramento Federal Building.

The California projects on GSA’s list include:
Federal buildings

* Bakersfield U.S. Courthouse, $31 million

Ports

* Otay Mesa U.S. Land Port of Entry, $21.3 million

Funding for green building “full and partial building modernization projects”

* 50 United Nations Plaza, San Francisco, $121 million
* U.S. Courthouse, Los Angeles, $4.4 million
* Philip Burton Federal Building Courthouse, San Francisco, $7.4 million
* Edward J. Schwartz Federal Office Building & Courthouse, San Diego, $5.4 million
* Ronald Dellums Federal Building, Oakland, $8.1 million
* Federal Building & Courthouse, Fresno, $3.6 million
* Edward R. Roybal Federal Building & Courthouse, Los Angeles, $8.5 million
* 300 North L.A. Federal Building, Los Angeles, $15 milion
* Menlo Park Science Center, Menlo Park, $6.9 million
* Richard H. Chambers U.S. Courthouse, Pasadena, $477,000
* Niguel Chet Holifield Federal Building, Laguna $2.6 million


Washington Business Journal

[wburg]

Sounds like the news in the Bay Area development community is that the city of Sacramento is handing out free money. I wonder how many other proposals like this we'll get?

http://sacbee.com/latest/story/1753759.html

Bob Shallit: New hotel on Sacramento's Lot X? Depends on who you ask
ShareThisBy Bob Shallit
bshallit@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Apr. 3, 2009 - 2:21 pm
The owner of downtown Sacramento's Embassy Suites hotel wants to build a new hotel just up the street.

The response from at least one top city official? A big yawn.

John Kehriotis, a Bay Area developer and part owner of the Sacramento Kings, says he's been working for months on the idea and has lined up Hilton Hotels to be his partner on a nine-story, 300-room hotel at "Lot X." That's the city-owned 2.6-acre parcel at the southwest corner of Third and Capitol Mall.

Kehriotis says the property would be a top-tier Hilton, filled with local art reflecting its proximity to Old Sacramento, the Crocker Art Museum and the Sacramento River.

"I don't build plain-Jane projects," he says, adding that the riverfront Embassy Suites has been a big asset to the city and this one would be "even better."

It would take at least three years to plan and build, coming on the market when the economy is likely to be "robust again," Kehriotis says.

The developer, head of Santa Clara-based MK Investments, says he's asking the city for "very little money."

That's not how Assistant City Manager John Dangberg sees it.

Kehriotis is seeking "$30 million or more," says Dangberg, "and we don't have $30 million to give him."

(The developer responds that the subsidy could come from a deferral of various taxes.)

Dangberg says Kehriotis also wants the city to provide the land for free and do necessary cleanup work.

As far as the city's concerned: "There's no there there," Dangberg says.

[Majin]

Yes, a nine story building is going to get a big *yawn*

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, and the guy wants the city to hand him the land and money on a silver platter. GTFO.

[Pistola916]

Wasn't the city or David Taylor looking at building a 500 room Hilton on K street? What ever happen to that proposal?

[sugit]

It was Bob Leach (guy who built the Le Rivage Hotel on the river) is the one looking to build a Hilton at 8th and K.

The city entered into an ERN back in October for a 9-month period, so maybe we'll hear something soon on where it stands.

[econgrad]

:offtopic:
WHY THE F*CK cant stupid idiots driving in midtown and downtown stop at crosswalks?!?! I was almost hit and I saw so many other people having to be so cautious because people in Sac do not understand that cars need to stop at crosswalks when people are crossing....WTF is wrong with Sac drivers?

[Majin]

It's the city. Deal with it. I've been almost ran over mulitple times in pretty much every city in california. LA being the worst.

[econgrad]

^

Lived in LA, never had that prob. Neither in Santa Cruz, SF and when I lived in NYC. I think that most people in Sac are just not used to people walking in the streets yet so they do not understand they are supposed to stop without a light telling them to.

[Majin]

I have a more basic question. What were you doing in midtown and why weren't you in a SUV?

[econgrad]

I have a more basic question. What were you doing in midtown and why weren't you in a SUV?

I was in my Sequoia! Girls love my SUV...I was at Harlow's, many Hummers and SUV's all around midtown. :cheers:

[wburg]

^
I think that most people in Sac are just not used to people walking in the streets yet so they do not understand they are supposed to stop without a light telling them to.

Pretty much; the general consensus among people I know is that the worst offenders are people who live in the outlying areas where the only folks walking on the street are the people whose cars broke down up the block. Folks who actually live in the central city either realize that people walk or they are the ones walking. Hopefully, as more people move to the central city, there will be more people walking to nightlife entertainment--and fewer people driving (and driving home drunk!)

Walking to nightclubs (and then walking home) is a very nice thing. The only down side is that it's harder to do a post-nightclub food run. Well, and having to dodge drunk people driving back to Elk Grove or wherever.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

I think the brains of people of who live in suburbs are unable to process the visual images of pedestrians in crosswalks and, therefore, don't see them. This provides a legitimate medical excuse to for running them down. Also, I believe the flashing yellow pedestrian lights (such as the ones in midtown at K & 20th) create a hypnotic state that makes suburban drivers think the pedestrians are deer in the headlights, causing them to speed up. :jester:

[wburg]

The flashing yellow light at 20th & K is interesting...I keep waiting for them to hang a disco ball from it.

[Majin]

Does anybody have a list of companies that are leased at 621 CM?

[nevernude]

I don't have an official list, but I know law firm Downey Brand has 4 floors. The California Restaurant Association or something has an office. Camellia Women's Health has an office. The California Court of Appeals is there. US Bank of course is in there. That's all I can think of off the top of my head.

[sugit]

The Palmer Team is another...

[econgrad]

Bringing the money home
kyamamura@sacbee.com
Published Thursday, Apr. 09, 2009

Pet projects, district priorities, pork.

Whichever term you prefer, Sacramento-area members of Congress last week requested more than $1.1 billion worth of them, from $400,000 for a Folsom hospital helipad to $154 million for major Natomas levee improvements.

All but one of the region's five representatives posted funding requests on the Web, as required by new congressional rules. The fifth, Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican whose district stretches from El Dorado County to the Oregon border, did not ask for earmark dollars because he opposes the system. The latest round of requests is for the next fiscal year.

Critics have charged that the process is prone to abuse, using expenditures like Alaska's $223 million fabled "bridge to nowhere" as examples of pork gone wild.

Congress has installed reforms for the 2010 fiscal year, such as requiring members to post requests online, mandating a 20-day federal agency review and forcing for-profit companies to undergo a competitive bidding process.

Some members said they have a duty to obtain money for worthy causes.

"My job as a member of Congress is to bring back funding to help the projects so important to our region," said Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, adding, "I believe I know what's important to my district more than some bureaucrat."

Steve Ellis, spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, said that while the new disclosure rules are a positive step, the process remains flawed because projects receive funding based on political influence, not merit. The majority party and leaders receive the most money.

"Right now, if you had the best project in the country, the worst place to be located would be in the district of a safe freshman Republican, because they've got no juice," Ellis said.

Democrats Thompson and Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, each requested about twice as much as GOP Reps. Dan Lungren of Gold River and Wally Herger of Chico each did. All said their requests are greater than what they expect to be awarded.

Thompson, who represents Napa, made several requests dealing with threats to the wine industry, such as $30 million to control the glassy-winged sharpshooter insect. He also sought $3 million for a viticulture and tree crop research center at the University of California, Davis. For West Sacramento, he wants $10 million to deepen the Deep Water Ship Channel and $6.7 million for levees.

Lungren and Matsui asked for several water-related projects, both requesting $66 million for a Folsom Dam spillway project to reduce flooding and $20 million levee improvements in south Sacramento County streams.

More than half of Lungren's requested dollars deal with flood protection and Folsom Dam. He also sought money for research programs he said could occur at two former Air Force bases in transition, McClellan and Mather, both in his district.

"I have made it very clear that if we could get an overall judgment that there be no earmarks, I'd be willing to give up my earmarks," Lungren said. "Having said that, I have a district different from some others in this area, in that my district is the site of one of the greatest flood potentials in the entire United States."

Matsui asked for $154 million for Natomas levees in a project that marks the region's largest modern levee upgrade. Without her request, she said, the project could lose federal funding.

"I have to always take the lead on flood protection, because we're the most impacted and I think that's the role of this particular district," Matsui said.

Matsui also sought money for smaller programs, such as $49,910 for a Sacramento 2-1-1 social services information hotline and $651,000 for a senior citizen legal services project at McGeorge School of Law.

She said the process is appropriate because without it, federal officials "wouldn't know where to put the money. They couldn't possibly have people in every state, every district to know what the needs are."

McClintock did not ask for money, contrary to the practice of his predecessor, Republican Rep. John Doolittle of Roseville, known for bringing home federal funds.

In a Bee opinion piece this week, McClintock wrote, "Bad process tends to make bad policy – and allowing individual congressmen to direct federal funds to their favorite supporters and causes is the worst process we've come up with yet." McClintock could not be reached Wednesday for comment.

Some local officials in Placer and El Dorado counties questioned McClintock's stance.

"We're not surprised, but we're disappointed," said Placer County Supervisor Jim Holmes, who represents Auburn. "We have plenty of projects worthy of federal dollars that are not 'bridges to nowhere' or anything like that."

Holmes said Placer supervisors visited Washington this year and asked a McClintock aide for several requests, from $10 million for a wastewater treatment plant to $2 million to widen Auburn-Folsom Road. Earlier earmarks paid $70 million to alleviate the Interstate 80 bottleneck in Roseville, he noted.

Placer officials gave their requests to California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. While the House deadline was Saturday, the Senate has given its members more time to compile their earmark lists.

Herger and Lungren said they agree philosophically with McClintock, but their districts have distinct needs that led them to request money.

Herger's biggest request – $109 million – is for a new fish screen and pumping plant at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam. He said that's necessary due to environmental regulations, which he fears could threaten farm access to water.

"If I didn't represent an area that is so flood-prone and so in danger of having its water shut off because of its environmental laws, I probably wouldn't be asking for any earmarks, either," Herger said.