Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Dakotasteve66]

At a recent Neighborhood Association Meeting, Ray Tretheway was very excited about the plan that David Taylor and CIM proposed, especially for the 800 block.

[Majin]

pics?

[leftopolis]

Details still sound vague, but the open house @ city hall is tonight. Since "The most ambitious of those projects comes from a team headed by Sacramento’s Rubicon Partners"--I've quoted what the article has to say about them. No info on hight, but with all that being crammed in there, it's got to have some mid/high-rise. "Multi-story"--what is that, anything between 4 and 40 floors? More @ the link...

http://bizjournals.com -- Last of K Street projects unveiled for downtown Sacramento (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/22/story2.html?b=1269230400^3059251&s=industry&i=commercial_real_estate)
The city of Sacramento has offered a sneak peak of development projects submitted for K Street, including details of two projects not shared with the public until this week.

The details come in advance of an unveiling of the projects at an open house planned for Monday night at City Hall.

The most ambitious of those projects comes from a team headed by Sacramento’s Rubicon Partners, which is proposing to build 400 mixed-income residential units and 150 luxury condos as well as a 2,000-seat entertainment venue, urban grocery, a 35,000-square-foot farmers’ market, 375-unit hotel and 125,000 square feet of retail on two blocks.Rubicon and collaborators St. Anton Partners and Preferred Capital Advisors dubbed their project “The AuthentiCity” and say it would encompass the entire 700 and 800 blocks, not just those parcels that are under control of Sacramento’s Redevelopment Agency. The team proposes building multistory developments on those blocks.

A Rubicon principal declined to comment about the project until the open house.

The team suggests that the 700 block, with its mixed-income units, would appeal to young, urban pioneers, while the 800 block would be a World Agricultural Center with the farmers’ market, but also include 250,000 square feet of offices as well as a museum to honor those who embody California’s “innovative spirit.”

The group says it has letters of intent from retail, civic, entertainment and office tenants.

[innov8]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1589/theauthenticity.jpg (http://img176.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticity.jpg/)

Rubicon’s “The AuthentiCity” Proposal

Read more here (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/news/documents/700800LK_RFQ_Update.pdf)

[What is a Rivercat?]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1589/theauthenticity.jpg (http://img176.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticity.jpg/)

Rubicon’s “The AuthentiCity” Proposal

Read more here (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/news/documents/700800LK_RFQ_Update.pdf)

FYI - the pdf is 21MB!

[Majin]

Lowrise.

Can it.

[tronblue]

What year was this drawn? I say that because for some reason seagulls in the sky remind me of shaty water color paintings from the 80's. The buildings look SF like, but there again plants overhanging on balconies soo green minded it hurts. Is this a drawing of buildings in downtown Santa Cruz? Better be a pizza my heart going in there on the ground floor.

[wburg]

Lowrise.

Can it.

I think this is more what Majin has in mind:
http://static3.px.yelpcdn.com/photo/zy_9TQWxjyrSieAxe2lvUw/l

[Majin]

Not a fan of North Korean architecture.

More looking for something like this:

http://urbangreenberg.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sears_tower_1.jpg

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Not a fan of North Korean architecture.

More looking for something like this:

http://urbangreenberg.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/sears_tower_1.jpg

I am with you Majin, although the Sears Tower (that is the Sears tower right??) may be a bit extreme.. How about something 50 to 60 stories?

Sigh, I do not think Sacramento will ever go big...too many small thinkers in this town.

[Formula7]

the Sears Tower (that is the Sears tower right??)

I believe it is the "Willis Tower" these days... but Chicagoans aren't too thrilled about that...

[Mr. Ozo]

The Bridge Housing version is looking the best to me. It finally adds the needed housing to K street while keeping the historic buildings. The alley activation is a plus. Once Greyhound is moved it could be a grocery store.

[innov8]

Sigh, I do not think Sacramento will ever go big...too many small thinkers in this town.

It's not a matter of small thinking but that there are laws in place on banks so
that unless a certain percentage of square feet proposed are pre-leased
(usually 30% to 40%) banks can't loan money to build. This is why 621 CM
was on the proposed list for 7 years before construction started. It was
reduced in size during the 7 years because not enough tenants could
be found to make it 31 stories. Unless a building is built on speculation and
private money, there is no reason to see anything built in Sac over 40 stories.


AuthentiCity
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1131/theauthenticityphases.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticityphases.jpg/)

[Ghost of Econgrad]

It's not a matter of small thinking but that there are laws in place on banks so
that unless a certain percentage of square feet proposed are pre-leased
(usually 30% to 40%) banks can't loan money to build. This is why 621 CM
was on the proposed list for 7 years before construction started. It was
reduced in size during the 7 years because not enough tenants could
be found to make it 31 stories. Unless a building is built on speculation and
private money, there is no reason to see anything built in Sac over 40 stories.


AuthentiCity
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1131/theauthenticityphases.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticityphases.jpg/)

I understand, but this law does not apply to residential as far as I have read. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will look it up myself.

[innov8]

I understand, but this law does not apply to residential as far as I have read. Please correct me if I am wrong. I will look it up myself.

With condos, lenders require half the units in the building to be sold with a
10% nonrefundable deposit down. This was the case with The Towers and most of the
other condos built in the US that weren’t built on spec. Apartments are held to a different
lending standard.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

With condos, lenders require half the units in the building to be sold with a
10% nonrefundable deposit down. This was the case with The Towers and most of the
other condos built in the US that weren’t built on spec. Apartments are held to a different
lending standard.

I did not look it up yet, though I am sure you are correct. The deposits should be refundable as well, but alas...I digress.

[innov8]

The deposits are refundable up to a certain point, then buyers are asked to
commit with a nonrefundable deposit so that the project can secure a loan
to build. Of course, if certain timelines of construction aren’t meet by the
developer, the deposits can become refundable again, which was also the case with The Towers.

[SacUrbnPlnr]

The deposits are refundable up to a certain point, then buyers are asked to
commit with a nonrefundable deposit so that the project can secure a loan
to build. Of course, if certain timelines of construction aren’t meet by the
developer, the deposits can become refundable again, which was also the case with The Towers.

The nonrefundable deposit part isn't quite true in California. State law requires a developer to refund a deposit upon request if construction benchmarks are not met--the first being completion of the foundation work within a speficied timeframe. I know this from having signed sales contracts with deposits for two central city projects--first the proposed Aura condo tower that never came to pass (got my deposit money back) and second on the L Street Lofts (where I now live).

[leftopolis]

AuthentiCity
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1131/theauthenticityphases.jpg (http://img535.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticityphases.jpg/)

Given the other existing buildings in the area, that's about as much density and mixed-use as one could hope for. I vote for this one.

[CAGeoNerd]

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/1589/theauthenticity.jpg (http://img176.imageshack.us/i/theauthenticity.jpg/)

Rubicon’s “The AuthentiCity” Proposal

Read more here (http://www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/news/documents/700800LK_RFQ_Update.pdf)

That's rather underwhelming... :slob: Rather than have several buildings of low-rise height I wish they would combine them into one high rise to create some prominence in the skyline and make something really neat. They could also use the remaining footprint space for open space or other uses. sigh...

And yeah - this drawing does look like they took it straight from a coastal-town's redevelopment plan.. probably just drew the Capital dome in the background and went with it! They should have colored in the seagulls black (crows) or grey (pigeons) and would have helped look more like Sac.

[snfenoc]

That's rather underwhelming... :slob: Rather than have several buildings of low-rise height I wish they would combine them into one high rise to create some prominence in the skyline and make something really neat. They could also use the remaining footprint space for open space or other uses. sigh...

And yeah - this drawing does look like they took it straight from a coastal-town's redevelopment plan.. probably just drew the Capital dome in the background and went with it! They should have colored in the seagulls black (crows) or grey (pigeons) and would have helped look more like Sac.

I'm not sure the cost of combining everything into one big skyscraper is the same as having several smaller pieces. Besides, this plan allows for phases that can be easily abandoned or put off depending on how the economy goes.

Personally, I kinda like the proposal. It seems warm, colorful and inviting. However, I think it is way too ambitious for Sacramento. I'm not sure we have the market for that much housing (especially, 150 luxury units), that much retail and a 375 unit hotel (another hotel is planned for just down the street). The other proposals are a bit more in line with what this city can support. Unfortunately, based on the drawings I saw, they aren't very inspiring. The architecture on the Taylor proposal, for example, looks pretty darn sterile - of course, what else could we expect from the man who brought us 621 Crapitol Mall?

[Ghost of Econgrad]

I'm not sure the cost of combining everything into one big skyscraper is the same as having several smaller pieces. Besides, this plan allows for phases that can be easily abandoned or put off depending on how the economy goes.

Personally, I kinda like the proposal. It seems warm, colorful and inviting. However, I think it is way too ambitious for Sacramento. I'm not sure we have the market for that much housing (especially, 150 luxury units), that much retail and a 375 unit hotel (another hotel is planned for just down the street). The other proposals are a bit more in line with what this city can support. Unfortunately, based on the drawings I saw, they aren't very inspiring. The architecture on the Taylor proposal, for example, looks pretty darn sterile - of course, what else could we expect from the man who brought us 621 Crapitol Mall?

Question: Why do you think we do not have the market for 150 Luxury units and the hotel? I am asking because these numbers seem small to me. 150 units is really not that many (IMO).

[snfenoc]

Question: Why do you think we do not have the market for 150 Luxury units and the hotel? I am asking because these numbers seem small to me. 150 units is really not that many (IMO).

In Your Opinion........ Well, your opinion doesn't count. (Before you say anything, neither does mine.) At the end of the day, the market will decide.

With that said, I'll explain why I have trouble believing this particular proposal will be successful.

The following is a list of the proposal's components:

1) 150 high end luxury condo units
2) 400 mixed income residential units (rental?)
3) 125,000 square feet of retail
4) An urban grocery store
5) A 2,000 seat performance space
6) 250,000 square feet of office space
7) A 375 room four-star hotel


Looking at Sacramento's history, I'm not sure 550 new housing units (on top of the others that will be built or proposed over the next few years) makes sense. The last piece of info I got about L Street Lofts (maybe SacNrbnPlnr has something to add) was they were having a lot of trouble making sales, and I think I heard they have resorted to renting the unsold units. I'm not sure about top 3 floors of the Residence Inn building on L Street, but I walk at night around there, and I don't see a lot of lights on - not a good sign for condo sales. The Towers, Aura and Epic all failed; and there are no signs the Crapitol Grand Tower, the Metropolitan or the Cathedral Building will be built any time soon. (Watch out for today's edition of the Business Journal. I can almost guarantee the world will spite me for making that statement by miraculously providing investors and buyers for each of those projects.) Based on our history with larger residential projects (and 150 units + 400 units is plenty big), what am I supposed to think? Moreover, what is a lender supposed to think? If you can find 150 people who have the means and are willing to move to K Street, pay outrageous prices for small, no backyard condo units and fork out HOA fees each month/quarter, then maybe I'll change my mind.

Westfield is losing tenants. Do we really need to add another 125,000 square feet of retail space (that's a lot of space) to K Street?

There is a large urban grocery store (Safeway) just 20 blocks away. A number of smaller markets are even closer. I'd like to think another larger grocery could compete, but I don't see any of them desperately trying to come down town (unless you count the Grocery Outlet that will open in the old Rick's Uptown Market building on Crapitol).

A 2,000 seat entertainment venue sounds great, but can it compete with the Community Center Theater? Can both survive the competition? I'm not interested in cannibalizing the CCT's (or the Cosmo Cabaret's or Marilyn's) business.

Speaking of cannibalizing, 621 Crapitol Mall and 500 Crapitol Mall have been doing just that to other office buildings around the area. Do we really need 250,000 square feet of more competition? Sure, if the developer can get a company to relocate, but who the hell wants to relocate to Sac? Gimme some names.

Right now, I don't see any reason for another hotel (especially a 375 unit, four-star hotel) in down town Sacramento. Does the convention center plan on adding 200,000 square feet of space? Nope. So what's gonna draw more people to down town to stay the night and fill those four-star rooms? An urban grocery? No. A 2,000 seat entertainment venue? Maybe, but I doubt it - most patrons will probably live in the area. Are people gonna come just because it's there? Well, this is reality, not Ray Kinsella's corn field. Just a couple blocks down the street, a similarly sized, limited service hotel (3 stars?) is planned. Do you really think down town Sacramento needs 750 new hotel rooms? (Hell, I won't even mention the Aloft hotel that's planned just a block or so away......oops, I just did>)

Take a good look at the other 3 proposals, none of them match the size and scope of this one. Are 3 different, successful development teams all wrong about K Street? Is this single development team right? I don't know, I'm gonna go with the majority on this one.

I hope I don't seem disrespectful toward you, that's not my intent. I understand why you think the way you do. I just think you and people like you (Majin) should be realistic.

Recent disappointments have definitely caused me to become more measured in my assessment of proposals than I used to be. Then, I was gung-ho for height (I think I may have been compensating for something). Now, I want to see evidence that height is needed and can be supported. Also, living near down town has caused me to appreciate what the area has to offer; I've even grown to appreciate the smaller things (insert joke here). Most new, tall buildings are uninviting and/or closed after 5 pm. I can admire their height for maybe 15 seconds, but once that is over, I'm gonna want to have some fun. I can have fun at MARRS or the Firestone building. For some reason, 621 Crapitol Mall isn't that much fun.

Now, I know what you are going to say, you're gonna blame it all on government - bureaucracy, right? Well, as a libertarian, I can't even put into words how much I dislike "the government". However, the City of Sacramento has been a rubber stamp for development over the past 20 years. It has subsidized. It has fast tracked. It has offered cheap land. It has put out RFP after RFP. Is it really the city's fault? You might try to blame the state. However, SF, LA and SD are in California, and they have done pretty well on the skyscraper front over the years. So is it really the state's fault? And I don't see how the Feds could be holding little old Sacramento down. Is it possible that Sacramento just can't support the kind of growth we all go gaga over? I know it may be hard to admit, but consider the possibility.

People have been saying for decades that Sacramento should have 40, 50, 60+ story buildings. Well, if our market could support that kind of height, don't you think we'd have it by now?

Whatever happens on K Street, it needs to happen quick. Those two blocks are looking real bad. I would rather see a proposal guaranteed to be built within the next few years get approved, than something that may never get built. If you disagree, take a good long look at the holes in the ground on the 800 block of K Street and on the 300 block of Crapitol Mall and get back to me.

[wburg]

I agree with everything Steve just said. Excellent post!

[Web]

This guy was a trip......he also let off a ton of developers on fees also besides violating the flood zone permits in natomas.....also paid many favors...... and this is how we should better expedite deals with developers...ha!

:)

[wburg]

Is this the story you're talking about?

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/26/2634852/more-questions-about-sacramento.html#storylink=omni_popular
More questions about Sacramento building department
By Ryan Lillis
Published: Friday, Mar. 26, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1B

One day after the Sacramento city attorney said in 2008 that former U.S. Rep Doug Ose could not begin construction on his North Natomas property, the city building department extended an earlier permit – erroneously granted – allowing him to spread tons of dirt over his land.

Funny thing is, Ose says he never even asked for the extension.

The man who granted it: Dan Waters, son of City Councilman Robbie Waters, and the city building department worker also responsible for giving the go-ahead for construction of new houses in North Natomas last year despite a federal moratorium on building there.

Ose is politically close to Robbie Waters and said he is also friends with Dan Waters.

Waters' granting of the extension to Ose is included in 2,529 pages of records City Attorney Eileen Teichert delivered to the City Council Thursday as part of ongoing scrutiny into the city's Community Development Department.

The documents themselves make no allegations of wrongdoing but will likely be the centerpiece of a future audit of the development department. The City Council moved to audit the department after the earlier disclosures of Dan Waters' building permit approvals in the Natomas floodplain.

The report also raises issues of development fees that were deferred.

In one case, a certificate of occupancy for a south Sacramento storage facility was issued in 2008, despite an outstanding balance of $235,780 in storm drainage fees that remains unpaid.

Collection of fees was also delayed on one of the marquee projects of the decade: John Saca's failed attempt to build two condominium towers at the base of Capitol Mall.

From 2005 to 2007, the city collected just $5,045.91 in fees on the giant project, and "waived, under-assessed, deferred or otherwise failed to collect fees for the remainder – all without City Council authorization or approval," according to a summary sheet prepared by Teichert and included with the documents.

Former development department head Bill Thomas sent a letter to the development team on June 6, 2007, demanding $745,973.09 in unpaid fees.

Then, three weeks later, former City Manager Ray Kerridge sent a second letter – but this time asked for $546,505.65, which the developer eventually paid.

It is unclear why the amount owed was decreased.

In the Ose development case, records show that Dan Waters did not issue the original permit. Nowhere in the records of the extension Waters granted does it show he overrode a safeguard or ignored a warning that the development should not be allowed to proceed.

The original permit was issued in February 2008, allowing Ose to move dirt on the North Natomas land where he planned to build offices, hotels and stores.

Development department head Thomas later told The Bee the permit should never have been granted in the first place, because Ose's project had not yet been approved by the City Council, and he was embroiled in a dispute with the city over how much he would have to pay in fees to meet federal and state requirements for habitat preservation.

According to city documents, Ose contended a payment of $151,232 he made in 1999 covered the habitat fee he was required to pay. The City Attorney's Office disagreed, and on Aug. 11, 2008, submitted a formal opinion to the City Manager's Office stating Ose owed $1.5 million in habitat fees before he could proceed with development.

The day after that opinion was submitted, Ose said he began work on the land – on the last day covered by the original permit. That same day, Dan Waters granted Ose a 180-day extension of his grading permit.

City development officials issued a stop work order on the project on Aug. 13.

In an interview Thursday, Ose said neither he nor the lead engineer on his project requested the extension.

"If the city granted me an extension, I appreciate it, but I started the work within 180 days of the permit being issued," Ose said.

Ose, who served in Congress from 1999 to 2005, is closely connected to Councilman Robbie Waters, Dan's father. He serves on Waters' campaign host committee and donated $1,500 to Waters' current re-election campaign in November 2009.

"Robbie and Dan are good friends of mine, and I have absolutely no question about their behavior whatsoever," Ose said. "These are both good people … In my opinion, Robbie Waters is an outstanding public servant and Dan Waters follows in his father's footsteps."

Dan Waters did not return a phone message seeking comment.

Robbie Waters said he wasn't aware that Ose had been granted an extension until Thursday.

"I was not involved in that," he said. "The first time I knew about (Ose's project getting shut down) was when I read about it in the newspaper."

City spokeswoman Amy Williams said the city "will respond when a full audit (of the development department) is complete."

"The City Manager's Office takes this matter seriously," she said. "We will be prepared to implement audit recommendations that are made."

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/26/2634852/more-questions-about-sacramento.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz0jLjESBko

[Web]

Is this the story you're talking about?

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/03/26/2634852/more-questions-about-sacramento.html#storylink=omni_popular

yes....it shows a lot more than just the switch on the natomas stuff this guy was pure crooked......

[wburg]

yes....it shows a lot more than just the switch on the natomas stuff this guy was pure crooked......

While I don't entirely disagree, the article is talking about the organizational culture of the department as a whole, from the top down (city manager Ray Kerridge and development department head Bill Thomas) rather than just one crooked employee.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

In Your Opinion........ Well, your opinion doesn't count. (Before you say anything, neither does mine.) At the end of the day, the market will decide.

With that said, I'll explain why I have trouble believing this particular proposal will be successful.

The following is a list of the proposal's components:

1) 150 high end luxury condo units
2) 400 mixed income residential units (rental?)
3) 125,000 square feet of retail
4) An urban grocery store
5) A 2,000 seat performance space
6) 250,000 square feet of office space
7) A 375 room four-star hotel


Looking at Sacramento's history, I'm not sure 550 new housing units (on top of the others that will be built or proposed over the next few years) makes sense. The last piece of info I got about L Street Lofts (maybe SacNrbnPlnr has something to add) was they were having a lot of trouble making sales, and I think I heard they have resorted to renting the unsold units. I'm not sure about top 3 floors of the Residence Inn building on L Street, but I walk at night around there, and I don't see a lot of lights on - not a good sign for condo sales. The Towers, Aura and Epic all failed; and there are no signs the Crapitol Grand Tower, the Metropolitan or the Cathedral Building will be built any time soon. (Watch out for today's edition of the Business Journal. I can almost guarantee the world will spite me for making that statement by miraculously providing investors and buyers for each of those projects.) Based on our history with larger residential projects (and 150 units + 400 units is plenty big), what am I supposed to think? Moreover, what is a lender supposed to think? If you can find 150 people who have the means and are willing to move to K Street, pay outrageous prices for small, no backyard condo units and fork out HOA fees each month/quarter, then maybe I'll change my mind.

Westfield is losing tenants. Do we really need to add another 125,000 square feet of retail space (that's a lot of space) to K Street?

There is a large urban grocery store (Safeway) just 20 blocks away. A number of smaller markets are even closer. I'd like to think another larger grocery could compete, but I don't see any of them desperately trying to come down town (unless you count the Grocery Outlet that will open in the old Rick's Uptown Market building on Crapitol).

A 2,000 seat entertainment venue sounds great, but can it compete with the Community Center Theater? Can both survive the competition? I'm not interested in cannibalizing the CCT's (or the Cosmo Cabaret's or Marilyn's) business.

Speaking of cannibalizing, 621 Crapitol Mall and 500 Crapitol Mall have been doing just that to other office buildings around the area. Do we really need 250,000 square feet of more competition? Sure, if the developer can get a company to relocate, but who the hell wants to relocate to Sac? Gimme some names.

Right now, I don't see any reason for another hotel (especially a 375 unit, four-star hotel) in down town Sacramento. Does the convention center plan on adding 200,000 square feet of space? Nope. So what's gonna draw more people to down town to stay the night and fill those four-star rooms? An urban grocery? No. A 2,000 seat entertainment venue? Maybe, but I doubt it - most patrons will probably live in the area. Are people gonna come just because it's there? Well, this is reality, not Ray Kinsella's corn field. Just a couple blocks down the street, a similarly sized, limited service hotel (3 stars?) is planned. Do you really think down town Sacramento needs 750 new hotel rooms? (Hell, I won't even mention the Aloft hotel that's planned just a block or so away......oops, I just did>)

Take a good look at the other 3 proposals, none of them match the size and scope of this one. Are 3 different, successful development teams all wrong about K Street? Is this single development team right? I don't know, I'm gonna go with the majority on this one.

I hope I don't seem disrespectful toward you, that's not my intent. I understand why you think the way you do. I just think you and people like you (Majin) should be realistic.

Recent disappointments have definitely caused me to become more measured in my assessment of proposals than I used to be. Then, I was gung-ho for height (I think I may have been compensating for something). Now, I want to see evidence that height is needed and can be supported. Also, living near down town has caused me to appreciate what the area has to offer; I've even grown to appreciate the smaller things (insert joke here). Most new, tall buildings are uninviting and/or closed after 5 pm. I can admire their height for maybe 15 seconds, but once that is over, I'm gonna want to have some fun. I can have fun at MARRS or the Firestone building. For some reason, 621 Crapitol Mall isn't that much fun.

Now, I know what you are going to say, you're gonna blame it all on government - bureaucracy, right? Well, as a libertarian, I can't even put into words how much I dislike "the government". However, the City of Sacramento has been a rubber stamp for development over the past 20 years. It has subsidized. It has fast tracked. It has offered cheap land. It has put out RFP after RFP. Is it really the city's fault? You might try to blame the state. However, SF, LA and SD are in California, and they have done pretty well on the skyscraper front over the years. So is it really the state's fault? And I don't see how the Feds could be holding little old Sacramento down. Is it possible that Sacramento just can't support the kind of growth we all go gaga over? I know it may be hard to admit, but consider the possibility.

People have been saying for decades that Sacramento should have 40, 50, 60+ story buildings. Well, if our market could support that kind of height, don't you think we'd have it by now?

Whatever happens on K Street, it needs to happen quick. Those two blocks are looking real bad. I would rather see a proposal guaranteed to be built within the next few years get approved, than something that may never get built. If you disagree, take a good long look at the holes in the ground on the 800 block of K Street and on the 300 block of Crapitol Mall and get back to me.

Thanks for the answer, yet you seem argumentative? I just asked for your reasoning behind your post. And DUH! The Market will dictate most developments here (brilliant!), but you leave the market when you enter Enviro Laws, Most regulations and subsidies (but that was another discussion). But I wasn't asking that, just the number 150 units. I never brought up the city or state or anything else for that matter regarding my question to you. I disagree with your point that we would already have tall buildings if the demand was there, but you brought that up. I just wanted to know the reasoning of your original post. Again, thanks. I do enjoy your sense of humor in your posts.

[snfenoc]

Thanks for the answer, yet you seem argumentative? I just asked for your reasoning behind your post. And DUH! The Market will dictate most developments here (brilliant!), but you leave the market when you enter Enviro Laws, Most regulations and subsidies (but that was another discussion). But I wasn't asking that, just the number 150 units. I never brought up the city or state or anything else for that matter regarding my question to you. I disagree with your point that we would already have tall buildings if the demand was there, but you brought that up. I just wanted to know the reasoning of your original post. Again, thanks. I do enjoy your sense of humor in your posts.

Well, I apologize for being argumentative. Your simple question did not seem like such a simple question at the time.

I brought up the city and the state because I know I've read statements from you that seem to blame government for Sacramento's lack of height. I figured I would dismiss it before you had a chance to bring it up. I assumed. (I know, I know.....ass out of u and me......mostly me)

I do agree that California's business climate is not very good. Taxes and other fees seem too high. Many argue they are no higher than many other states, but I don't know what they are including in their statistics. Besides, having lower taxes than New York is nothing to write home about. I don't like the regulations (exorbitant hospital earthquake standards - to name one). Plus, it is just an expensive place to buy, build and live. However, SF, SD and LA have managed to put up tall buildings in that hostile climate. Plus, the City of Sacramento has worked very hard over the last 20 years or so to bring major developments to down town. So, I just can't blame government. I think if one considers Sacramento's history, size, location, income level, major employers, and culture, he shouldn't be surprised by our skyline and other things.

[innov8]

snfenoc, both your above posts are on the mark. You said allot of things that
ring true and piss me off when they are said out loud… but that’s the way it is.

Our city has so much potential and charm :cheers:

[Web]

While I don't entirely disagree, the article is talking about the organizational culture of the department as a whole, from the top down (city manager Ray Kerridge and development department head Bill Thomas) rather than just one crooked employee.

true....but wasn't the whole idea was streamline the process....NOT graft and excusing certain people from even paying fees......:)

[wburg]

true....but wasn't the whole idea was streamline the process....NOT graft and excusing certain people from even paying fees......:)

Apparently, that's pretty much exactly what they meant by "streamline the process": graft and excusing certain people from paying fees. Otherwise known as "getting the customer to success."

[Web]

I wonder if this is still happening behind the scenes on the few projects happening these days.......PS the new Filco seems to be almost ready on Fulton

[Phillip]

In Your Opinion........ Well, your opinion doesn't count. (Before you say anything, neither does mine.) At the end of the day, the market will decide...

Excellent post, snfenoc. You summed up the situation well.

[Phillip]

Whatever happens on K Street, it needs to happen quick. Those two blocks are looking real bad. I would rather see a proposal guaranteed to be built within the next few years get approved, than something that may never get built.

What fights against anything happening quickly on K Street is that noone really knows what's happening with Downtown Plaza.

If DTP's is going to continue as a mall that invites certain compatible usages for 700 and 800 K. But if DTP's going to be torn down, for a stadium or for something else, then 700 and 800 might best be developed in other ways.

There's no point in building new retail on K Street now if Downtown's retail district is about to move from DTP to the Railyards (or maybe just disappear without moving anywhere).

As desperate as 700 & 800 K look now I don't see banks committing money to K Street before Downtown Plaza's fate becomes clearer, however long it takes for that story to unfold.

Btw, I think those 8 or 10-story Rubicon buildings would look great on K Street. A lot better than what's there now.

[CAGeoNerd]

These forums are about as dead as Sacramento's economy or desire to build upwards!

What's going on everyone? Anyone have any updates, rumors, etc.? I don't work in the engineering/planning field so I'm pretty much out of the loop on city building stuff...

Man, I wish there would be some ambitious plans for a real high rise in our city.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

These forums are about as dead as Sacramento's economy or desire to build upwards!

What's going on everyone? Anyone have any updates, rumors, etc.? I don't work in the engineering/planning field so I'm pretty much out of the loop on city building stuff...

Man, I wish there would be some ambitious plans for a real high rise in our city.

The Conversation: Quality of life is key to civic pride
By Foon Rhee, Associate editor
frhee@sacbee.com
Published: Sunday, Apr. 4, 2010 - 12:00 am | Page 1E

Should Sacramento aspire to become a "world-class" city? If so, what would it take? Comment on this issue in our forum

There's a familiar and fraught phrase being bandied about yet again – "world-class city."

This time, it's on the lips of those who say Sacramento needs a new sports and entertainment arena, preferably downtown, to join that special club.

But what does "world-class city" mean, really? And if that's the right goal, what's the best path?

Sure, one way to get on the map is to build sparkling edifices: an arena, the Crocker Art Museum expansion, maybe even a new performing arts center. A building binge would fit into the official view of a "world-class" city: a place that has global impact through finances, culture or politics; that is known internationally by its first name; that is home to a major international airport, important financial institutions and corporate headquarters; and that boasts world-renowned cultural institutions.

But no matter how hard it tries – or how much it spends – that's not in Sacramento's future anytime soon, if ever. It is a mirage, a siren's song that has lured other mid-sized cities, to their regret.

That definition of "world-class" is also limiting and outdated. In the 21st-century competition among cities, a broader measure of a community's strength and greatness is just as important, if not more so: quality of life.

The cities that will thrive are those that offer arts, nature and other amenities for families and singles alike, yet are still affordable places where the middle class can buy homes; and that have distinctive neighborhoods but are still united by an active civic culture.

And it just so happens that it's on those counts where Sacramento is best positioned to compete.

Cultivating an identity

The identity a city chooses for itself is no mere academic exercise. It can be crucial in deciding its future and determining its success.

Many experts say that cities are becoming more and more important as generators of jobs and economic output. While the late 20th century was the age of globalization, the first part of the 21st will be "the age of the city," says Bruce Katz, director of the metropolitan policy program at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

He is among the host of policy wonks, social scientists and others who have spent a lot of time thinking about what makes a city healthy and vibrant in the new century. Katz has said that to compete, cities require "strong, resilient, adaptive" job bases and robust transit systems, and need to figure out ways to retain the middle class and integrate residents across lines of race and class.

Richard Florida, the best-selling author and guru of the "creative class," asserts that while some believe that globalization and the wired world mean it doesn't matter where you live, place is more important than ever before – both to the global economy and to an individual's job prospects and life options.

Since "talented and productive people" – the creative class – tend to cluster in specific places, the cities that will do best are the ones that can draw those people, he says.

"New ideas are generated and our productivity increases when we locate close to one another in cities and regions. The clustering force makes each of us more productive, which in turn makes the places we inhabit much more productive, generating great increases in output and wealth," he writes in his most recent book, "Who's Your City? How the creative economy is making where to live the most important decision of your life."

Florida notes that the places that invariably show up on lists of "world-class" cities – New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Toronto – have become extraordinarily expensive, so people might choose somewhere with a good quality of life that is far less costly.

To draw them, some experts stress a strong education system, from kindergarten through postgraduate, to nurture future entrepreneurs and leaders. Sacramento's challenge to establish high-quality public schools – essential for keeping the middle class – is daunting, particularly with the budget crunch leading to teacher layoffs and classroom cutbacks. All of Sacramento County's major school districts are on the latest state financial early warning list, and two schools are on the roster of the state's lowest performing. But at least the framework is in place with institutions such as California State University, Sacramento, and some new, visionary leaders like Sacramento City Unified School District Superintendent Jonathan Raymond.

Other analysts emphasize a strong urban core where people live, work and play that draws visitors from the surrounding region and that gives a city its identity. In Sacramento, Westfield Downtown Plaza is struggling, and a $120 million face-lift of the K Street Mall is on hold. But there is hope: The city is trying to find a buyer to pump up the plaza, and it recently received four proposals to redevelop the properties it acquired along K Street. Progress downtown could piggyback on the grass-roots evolution of midtown into a much more vibrant, happening place.

And some experts say that, as society becomes more diverse, what will set cities apart is how well they encourage tolerance for ethnic and other differences. Sacramento can be justifiably proud for helping lead the way. Harvard University's Civil Rights Project concluded that it is the most integrated city in the country, thanks to affordable housing, government jobs that prevent discrimination and innovative programs for the poor. But as elsewhere, racial tensions linger. Harmony can never be taken for granted; it must be continually promoted.

So while Sacramento has work to do on all those fronts, there's no reason why progress can't be made. And those advances will accentuate the city's advantages. It is blessed with the American River Parkway and inviting parks, emerging food and music scenes, real neighborhoods with history and character, and active neighborhood associations and grass-roots nonprofit groups.

Civic involvement, compassion

Mayor Kevin Johnson is one of those who makes a mantra of urging Sacramento to be "world-class." He is also among the most ardent champions of a new arena.

But for my money, his audacious initiatives to help the homeless and encourage volunteerism are far more interesting and promising because of what they share in common: public compassion and civic involvement.

Lots of cities have built new arenas, arts complexes and the like. How many have truly embraced community-wide activism or realistically dealt with homelessness? Just take a look at that city by the bay, which is now considering a remarkable ordinance to make it illegal to sit or lie down on the sidewalk. San Francisco may be world-class, but it's also on another list: the No. 11 "meanest city," according to the National Coalition for the Homeless.

Johnson took on the homeless issue after "The Oprah Winfrey Show" came to town in February 2009 and trained a less-than-flattering national spotlight on its tent city. Through Sacramento Steps Forward, the mayor is trying to bring together businesses, nonprofits and government agencies to help the estimated 2,800 homeless people in the Sacramento area.

He wants to build 2,400 permanent housing units for the homeless in the next three years. In a campaign where donors were urged to give the equivalent of one day's rent or mortgage payment, houses of worship and a telethon have raised $290,000 in pledges and commitments toward a $400,000 goal to win $1.6 million in matching federal money.

Through Volunteer Sacramento, Johnson is encouraging everyone to donate at least 10 hours of their time toward a total of 3 million hours this year. The 1.7 million hours Sacramentans gave last year when Johnson launched the effort more than tripled his goal of 500,000.

If Johnson is able to reach his goals on homelessness and volunteerism, they would be an achievement more profound than building the Kings a new home.

The two initiatives are a reminder of a newer catch phrase making the rounds nowadays: that Sacramento is, or can be, a "big city with small-town values."

That's shorthand for an affordable, livable place that is a good environment to raise a family and make a mark in the world; that offers arts and sports and the outdoors; and that boasts a strong sense of community, even if it is a little slower-paced and less cosmopolitan than other cities.

As Matthew Mahood, president and CEO of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce, puts it: "Sacramento is never going to be a San Francisco or a New York or a Boston. … We should be very proud of who we are and where we are. … It's a big city with a little bit of small town, mid-America charm."

Being a "big city with small-town values" is not provincial or parochial; it's a goal within reach that plays to the city's strengths.

And to my ear, it sounds a lot better than "world-class city" anyway.

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/04/2652449/the-conversation-quality-of-life.html#ixzz0kMSg1WlA








:yuck: I find this article as making excuses for continued mediocrity in Sacramento...

[Majin]

No matter how hard Sacramento tries (as if we should even be trying), it will never have a "small town" feel too it. Too many people, too much traffic, forever sprawled out suburbs, etc. Yes idiots/elitist will come in say Sacramento feels like a small town just to throw out insults but it's not reality. Places like Yuba City are the authentic, real small town (nothing wrong with that, just not for me).

We should be trying to place the big city role instead of trying to play a role we will never be.

[wburg]

That "small-town feel" thing is nonsense. What people from the suburbs think is a "small-town feel" (lots of community connections, comfortable for the non-bourgeois) is actually what real cities feel like. I tend to bring up what I call the "Seinfeld" analogy: "Seinfeld" was set in the biggest city in the United States, but characters are constantly running into people that they know, from all walks of life (from one's kleptomaniac uncle to Jon Voight.) Why? Because walkable, urban cities promote just that sort of connection between people! They promote neighborhood pride, large social networks, interaction between different occupations and social classes, and have their own unique character. That isn't always comfortable to those used to a more monocultural community, but it's a feeling that American cities like Sacramento used to be famous for--and it's starting to come back.

[snfenoc]

This opinion piece makes excuses for Sacramento's continued mediocrity. Really? First, how is Sacramento mediocre? (I guess it all depends on your definition of mediocre. If you define it as not having 40 story buildings, then I suppose Sacramento is mediocre. However, I'm not sure that's a good definition.) Second, how is it "making excuses" to suggest the city focus on improving its attractiveness as a place to live, work, study, and play?

[Ghost of Econgrad]

This opinion piece makes excuses for Sacramento's continued mediocrity. Really? First, how is Sacramento mediocre? (I guess it all depends on your definition of mediocre. If you define it as not having 40 story buildings, then I suppose Sacramento is mediocre. However, I'm not sure that's a good definition.) Second, how is it "making excuses" to suggest the city focus on improving its attractiveness as a place to live, work, study, and play?

I do define it as not having 40+ story buildings. It is a great definition, why? What does it take to sustain a city with tall buildings? High Employment, High paying jobs, huge and stable industries, an educated workforce, Colleges and Universities to create that educated workforce, lots of people living in the urban core, so many that it sustains an economy of large buildings and high-rise living 40+ stories. So yes, not having tall skyscrapers is a great indicator of mediocrity. Especially if you want a "World Class City", or since the author above does not like that description, lets just say "A City".

[snfenoc]

Not having 40+ story buildings is an indicator of being mediocre (MAYBE), but it's not the only indicator, and it is certainly not the definition. There are world class cities that don't have a lot of height. There are "regular" cities that do have a lot of height.

You said high employment, high paying jobs, huge and stable industries, an educated workforce, colleges and universities to create that educated workforce, and lots of people living in the urban core are what makes a city world class (or at least, not mediocre). Although, I would add that culture, transportation and (I hate to say it) diversity are also strong contributors. The problem is all of these are difficult to obtain. It seems they require years and years of evolution and luck (though, Sacramento does have parts of each).

My concern is the city handing out subsidies, free land and tax increment financing to large-scale developments in an effort to become world renown. Don't get me wrong, I love big projects, and I want to see them in Sacramento. However, I want to see them because they are demanded and supported by the market - not because politicians thought they would look good on the skyline, indulge my civic pride and drive our town out of the realm of mediocrity and into the province of "World Classness". I think that could have some negative consequences.

Let's look at the arena/fairgrounds proposal, for example. As I understand it: The new arena would be paid for by taxes produced from a 350-acre mixed use development on the old Cal Expo land. And the new Cal Expo would be paid for by a portion of the profits from that 350-acre mixed use development. (Do I have it in a nutshell?) Well, I have a hunch the unions are poised to demand prevailing wage to construct both the arena and the new Cal Expo. Factor in cost overruns and infrastructure improvements, and we could have two very expensive projects. What happens if the taxes and profit produced from the 350-acre mixed use development are not enough? Who gets left holding the bag? Heck, we have three other significant mixed use developments happening in the city, and none of them are off the ground yet (and it's been years and even decades). I'm not sure another mixed use development is even needed. By the way, taxes are not something the government charges to be mean. The government requires we pay taxes because we demand services from it (police, fire, ambulance, health care, sanitation, education, libraries, parks, roads, sewers, etc.). Well, if the taxes from the 350-acre mixed use development are going to pay for a new arena, how will the city pay for the increased services demanded by something nearly the size of downtown and midtown? Again, who gets left holding the bag?

Being one who actually lives in the city, I can honestly say I really like Sacramento. I like its character and its charm. I do NOT think it's mediocre. And I don't want to see change forced upon it only to find the bid to become world class has failed. We are located in a state containing two, arguably three, world class cities. One of which is less than 90 miles away. Can Sacramento really achieve that title when it has that much competition? Is it worth the cost? It's not all sunshine and roses for world class cities, you know. There's horrible traffic. There's pollution. There's high prices. There's a lack of space (I don't know about you, but I'm not a sardine). There are terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for.

I don't agree with everything in that opinion piece. It sounds a lot like a political progressive's wet dream. And if there is one thing I'm not, it's a political progressive (though I do have wet dreams). However, I do think the author makes some good points. Maybe we should accentuate Sacramento's positives instead of focusing on its negatives. Maybe we should look for developments that are within Sacramento's market parameters, instead of developments that are way beyond them. Maybe we should focus on making Sacramento more "liveable", instead of vying for a status symbol only a small percentage of the world's cities can claim.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Not having 40+ story buildings is an indicator of being mediocre (MAYBE), but it's not the only indicator, and it is certainly not the definition. There are world class cities that don't have a lot of height. There are "regular" cities that do have a lot of height.

I agree that we should change the word from definition to Indicator. I will restate my previous as "40 Story Buildings are EVIDENCE (thought of that as I was typing) of a successful city". As far as many world class cities that do not have a lot of height: Name 3!

You said high employment, high paying jobs, huge and stable industries, an educated workforce, colleges and universities to create that educated workforce, and lots of people living in the urban core are what makes a city world class (or at least, not mediocre). Although, I would add that culture, transportation and (I hate to say it) diversity are also strong contributors. The problem is all of these are difficult to obtain. It seems they require years and years of evolution and luck (though, Sacramento does have parts of each).
I disagree with your opinion that it takes years of evolution and luck. It takes free-markets and free-enterprise so the creative class and entrepreneur class are free to do what they can do, what any government cannot do: Create Jobs, Produce Products, Create Culture, Create Arts, Create Ideas, and Create Life. This can happen quickly as history shows. One example, read about the Gold Rush.


My concern is the city handing out subsidies, free land and tax increment financing to large-scale developments in an effort to become world renown. Don't get me wrong, I love big projects, and I want to see them in Sacramento. However, I want to see them because they are demanded and supported by the market - not because politicians thought they would look good on the skyline, indulge my civic pride and drive our town out of the realm of mediocrity and into the province of "World Classness". I think that could have some negative consequences.
I agree with you 100%!!! :cheers:


Let's look at the arena/fairgrounds proposal, for example. As I understand it: The new arena would be paid for by taxes produced from a 350-acre mixed use development on the old Cal Expo land. And the new Cal Expo would be paid for by a portion of the profits from that 350-acre mixed use development. (Do I have it in a nutshell?) Well, I have a hunch the unions are poised to demand prevailing wage to construct both the arena and the new Cal Expo. Factor in cost overruns and infrastructure improvements, and we could have two very expensive projects. What happens if the taxes and profit produced from the 350-acre mixed use development are not enough? Who gets left holding the bag? Heck, we have three other significant mixed use developments happening in the city, and none of them are off the ground yet (and it's been years and even decades). I'm not sure another mixed use development is even needed. By the way, taxes are not something the government charges to be mean. The government requires we pay taxes because we demand services from it (police, fire, ambulance, health care, sanitation, education, libraries, parks, roads, sewers, etc.). Well, if the taxes from the 350-acre mixed use development are going to pay for a new arena, how will the city pay for the increased services demanded by something nearly the size of downtown and midtown? Again, who gets left holding the bag?
Too many assumptions here for me to respond adequately. I apologize. I will ponder this and may get back to you...

Being one who actually lives in the city, I can honestly say I really like Sacramento. I like its character and its charm. I do NOT think it's mediocre. And I don't want to see change forced upon it only to find the bid to become world class has failed. We are located in a state containing two, arguably three, world class cities. One of which is less than 90 miles away. Can Sacramento really achieve that title when it has that much competition? Is it worth the cost? It's not all sunshine and roses for world class cities, you know. There's horrible traffic. There's pollution. There's high prices. There's a lack of space (I don't know about you, but I'm not a sardine). There are terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for.

I lived in Tokyo for a brief period, the largest city in the world (I think? 95% sure) and it was proof to me that: If developed right, a World Class City is simply...Awesome! The problems you stated above are moot in a city developed correctly.

I don't agree with everything in that opinion piece. It sounds a lot like a political progressive's wet dream. And if there is one thing I'm not, it's a political progressive (though I do have wet dreams). However, I do think the author makes some good points. Maybe we should accentuate Sacramento's positives instead of focusing on its negatives. Maybe we should look for developments that are within Sacramento's market parameters, instead of developments that are way beyond them. Maybe we should focus on making Sacramento more "liveable", instead of vying for a status symbol only a small percentage of the world's cities can claim.

I do not think maximizing area resources use by developing high-rise living that keeps and maintains a higher standard of living, and saves wild-life land from sprawl should be called a "status symbol".





I wasn't sure how to respond to all of this, but I tried my best. I responded to each of your questions and statements above in Blue.

[innov8]

Not having 40+ story buildings is an indicator of being mediocre (MAYBE), but it's not the only indicator, and it is certainly not the definition. There are world class cities that don't have a lot of height. There are "regular" cities that do have a lot of height.

You said high employment, high paying jobs, huge and stable industries, an educated workforce, colleges and universities to create that educated workforce, and lots of people living in the urban core are what makes a city world class (or at least, not mediocre). Although, I would add that culture, transportation and (I hate to say it) diversity are also strong contributors. The problem is all of these are difficult to obtain. It seems they require years and years of evolution and luck (though, Sacramento does have parts of each).

My concern is the city handing out subsidies, free land and tax increment financing to large-scale developments in an effort to become world renown. Don't get me wrong, I love big projects, and I want to see them in Sacramento. However, I want to see them because they are demanded and supported by the market - not because politicians thought they would look good on the skyline, indulge my civic pride and drive our town out of the realm of mediocrity and into the province of "World Classness". I think that could have some negative consequences.

Let's look at the arena/fairgrounds proposal, for example. As I understand it: The new arena would be paid for by taxes produced from a 350-acre mixed use development on the old Cal Expo land. And the new Cal Expo would be paid for by a portion of the profits from that 350-acre mixed use development. (Do I have it in a nutshell?) Well, I have a hunch the unions are poised to demand prevailing wage to construct both the arena and the new Cal Expo. Factor in cost overruns and infrastructure improvements, and we could have two very expensive projects. What happens if the taxes and profit produced from the 350-acre mixed use development are not enough? Who gets left holding the bag? Heck, we have three other significant mixed use developments happening in the city, and none of them are off the ground yet (and it's been years and even decades). I'm not sure another mixed use development is even needed. By the way, taxes are not something the government charges to be mean. The government requires we pay taxes because we demand services from it (police, fire, ambulance, health care, sanitation, education, libraries, parks, roads, sewers, etc.). Well, if the taxes from the 350-acre mixed use development are going to pay for a new arena, how will the city pay for the increased services demanded by something nearly the size of downtown and midtown? Again, who gets left holding the bag?

Being one who actually lives in the city, I can honestly say I really like Sacramento. I like its character and its charm. I do NOT think it's mediocre. And I don't want to see change forced upon it only to find the bid to become world class has failed. We are located in a state containing two, arguably three, world class cities. One of which is less than 90 miles away. Can Sacramento really achieve that title when it has that much competition? Is it worth the cost? It's not all sunshine and roses for world class cities, you know. There's horrible traffic. There's pollution. There's high prices. There's a lack of space (I don't know about you, but I'm not a sardine). There are terrorist attacks. Be careful what you wish for.

I don't agree with everything in that opinion piece. It sounds a lot like a political progressive's wet dream. And if there is one thing I'm not, it's a political progressive (though I do have wet dreams). However, I do think the author makes some good points. Maybe we should accentuate Sacramento's positives instead of focusing on its negatives. Maybe we should look for developments that are within Sacramento's market parameters, instead of developments that are way beyond them. Maybe we should focus on making Sacramento more "liveable", instead of vying for a status symbol only a small percentage of the world's cities can claim.

Well snfenoc, I totally agree with your assessment here, and the addition of a
40 story building would not bring activity to the street like downtown so
desperately needs. The success and charm of midtown comes from lots
of residents and great places to spend time and money… will this ever
be duplicated in downtown in the next 20 years?

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Well snfenoc, I totally agree with your assessment here, and the addition of a
40 story building would not bring activity to the street like downtown so
desperately needs. The success and charm of midtown comes from lots
of residents and great places to spend time and money… will this ever
be duplicated in downtown in the next 20 years?

40+ Story residential buildings = more residents = Lots of people living in area and maximizing area space.

More People in area space = more people living downtown.

More people living downtown = more street activity (that downtown desperately needs).

More activity = more opportunity for places to spend time and money.

[innov8]

Sacramento can't support 40 story residential Ghost of Econgrad, we can't
support a 20 story condo (Cathedral Square), we can't support a 8 story
condo (L Street Lofts). I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from
to say this is feasible here in Sacramento. Like snfenoc said, the top
3 floors of The Penthouse at Capitol Park are still looking for buyers
three years after it was completed and as I understand it they have sold 12 of
the 30 condos. The L Street Lofts have sold 30 of the 92 condos for sale.
How do you expect Sacramento to support a 40 story condo tower?

Do you have another solution to get people downtown that's more realistic?

[ctuckercva]

Paris
Washington, DC
Amsterdam

[CAGeoNerd]

Sacramento can't support 40 story residential Ghost of Econgrad, we can't
support a 20 story condo (Cathedral Square), we can't support a 8 story
condo (L Street Lofts). I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from
to say this is feasible here in Sacramento. Like snfenoc said, the top
3 floors of The Penthouse at Capitol Park are still looking for buyers
three years after it was completed and as I understand it they have sold 12 of
the 30 condos. The L Street Lofts have sold 30 of the 92 condos for sale.
How do you expect Sacramento to support a 40 story condo tower?

Do you have another solution to get people downtown that's more realistic?

The problem I see isn't the demand for urban/loft residential, it's that it's too expensive for most people to do so. Have you seen what it costs to buy/rent at the L Street Lofts? It's ridiculously expensive.

If we had high rises that were reasonably priced, people would move in. There's no problem filling the 9-story apartment structures dotted around Midtown because they're relatively cheap. The problem with all of these new lofts they put up around town is that they're "high-end" and pricey - filled with expensive interiors and top of the line appliances and inflated by developer profits. In that regard, you're right, Sacramento doesn't have the support for them. Make some moderately-priced lofts and apartments in highrise residential, and they will fill up.

[innov8]

Right, but this high cost to build could be said for any city in California... the
cost to build a highrise is always more expensive than a midrise. Which 9 story
apartment complex are you talking about in midtown? I know of 800J
and 1801 L Street, but they aren’t 9 stories.

How do you make a highrise residential reasonably priced? If it was so easy
to build and penciled out, developers would have done it by now. Right now
there is a proposal for the 600 block of H street to build a 8 story 102 foot tall
building with 150 studio and one bedroom units. Sacramento can support
midrises like this but highrise residential is beyond our means now and in the
near future.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Paris
Washington, DC
Amsterdam

PARIS
Eiffel Tower: The total height of the tower including antenna of 24 metres is 324 metres. It is being used for radio transmissions from beginning of 20th century.

LINK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_Paris_region

Paris has 75 High-Rises and Skyscrapers above 100 Metres.

So, wrong about Paris.

Next is: Washington DC.
Washington has height restrictions, everybody knows that. Still, it is developed with extremely large are beautiful architecture that dwarfs Sacramento's. Also, Snfnoc did not want Sacramento to spend money on "Status Symbols", which is basically the majority of DC's architecture. Sorry, I won't give you that one either.

and.... AMSTERDAM
Still way more developed than Sacramento...fine, I will give you this one. Let's build up Sacramento like Amsterdam, I am with you on this! I have been there twice, would not complain at all.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Sacramento can't support 40 story residential Ghost of Econgrad, we can't
support a 20 story condo (Cathedral Square), we can't support a 8 story
condo (L Street Lofts). I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from
to say this is feasible here in Sacramento. Like snfenoc said, the top
3 floors of The Penthouse at Capitol Park are still looking for buyers
three years after it was completed and as I understand it they have sold 12 of
the 30 condos. The L Street Lofts have sold 30 of the 92 condos for sale.
How do you expect Sacramento to support a 40 story condo tower?

Do you have another solution to get people downtown that's more realistic?

What numbers did I use? I just used logic.
And back to my original point. The only reasons it costs so much to build these buildings are: Corruption in Government, Environmental laws that increase costs of materials and labor, Unions that increase costs of labor, Government regulation which creates corruption, and taxes that inhibit growth.
Get rid of these problems and regulations, and you will see more Manhattan's being made, and less Elk Groves.
If the market was at equilibrium, meaning a true free market, it would be cheaper to live in a high-rise condo on the 40th floor, than it would be to live in a house with a swimming pool in El Dorado hills. History has proven this, I have posted proof on this, yet obviously many of you are too lazy to read it, but I will never give up my quest to bring back common sense and truth.

:yes:

PS: Unless my account gets deleted, then of course my quest will come to an end. Maybe the Zombie of the corpse Econgrad? :notacrook:

[innov8]

Your argument that government has stopped highrise living in Sacramento is
old and tired Econgrad. Like has been said before, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Orange County, San Jose, Oakland, and San Diego have all built multiple
highrise condos under the same Government, Environmental laws and
regulations while Sacramento can not. Explain your reasoning behind this?

[Korey]

We need jobs. Actual companies hiring large amounts of our citizens. Having a ton of state workers keeps the local economy stable but it's not nearly enough.

Also, get some large apartment complexes in the cheaper areas of the grid. Something large to get economies of scale working, the units themselves don't have to be huge. Washer/Dryer in unit, parking included or for a fee. Newer building so noise/heating&cooling etc are less of an issue. I know plenty of people that would move into the central city in a heartbeat if they could find something along those lines.

200 apartments*$12,000/year= 48 million over 20 years. We can't build a 200 unit building for 50 mil?

[Schmoe]

Paris
Washington, DC
Amsterdam

I agree with Ghost about Paris. It has plenty of height.

Replace it with another European city like Helsinki, Stockholm, Rome, Copenhagen, Munich, Vienna, Prague, etc. There are many examples.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Your argument that government has stopped highrise living in Sacramento is
old and tired Econgrad. Like has been said before, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Orange County, San Jose, Oakland, and San Diego have all built multiple
highrise condos under the same Government, Environmental laws and
regulations while Sacramento can not. Explain your reasoning behind this?

I am not just talking about Sacramento, growth is being hindered throughout the USA. The cities you stated developed before most nonsense regulations. Sacramento is being directly affected because the units downtown end up costing more than a house in Roseville, which is why more people live in Roseville than "Downtown". Therefore, all the city can do is throw up their hands and say "We can't develop large residences in Sacramento", and make false excuses for it. I already posted proof on all of this. Also, Innovate, I was asked by another post to re-state my opinion, I didn't just start re-stating my thesis randomly. Not seeing anything decent being developed in Sacramento (after years and years and years), A city with a tiny urban core that is mediocre, is getting old and tired.

Korey: you are right, more large companies would change things here.

[snfenoc]

To CAGeoNerd: In economics demand is the desire to own something AND the ability and willingness to pay for it. We don't have that in Sacramento for high rise housing right now.

[snfenoc]

Also, get some large apartment complexes in the cheaper areas of the grid. Something large to get economies of scale working, the units themselves don't have to be huge. Washer/Dryer in unit, parking included or for a fee. Newer building so noise/heating&cooling etc are less of an issue. I know plenty of people that would move into the central city in a heartbeat if they could find something along those lines.

200 apartments*$12,000/year= 48 million over 20 years. We can't build a 200 unit building for 50 mil?

The Alexan Midtown just opened in a cheaper part of the grid. I'm not sure what the final cost to build was, but I do know it has over 200 units. However, one of the problems with the Alexan's cheaper location (not in down town) is that it is waaay out of scale with its neighborhood. If you lived in that nice little working class, bungalow filled area, you may not be too happy with the size of that complex either. According to Forrent.com, the price for a one bedroom at the Alexan is $1,299 per month (and that's the special price). A studio is almost $1,400 a month (that must not be a "special" price). Uh, no thank you. Also, if I borrow 50 million to build a 200 unit apartment complex, I better collect more than 48 million over 20 years. Investors want more than what they put into a project, so loans usually charge interest. Include the cost of upkeep, and I better collect closer to $1,500 (in today's dollars) a month per apartment over 20 years.

[rampant_jwalker]

I think Ghost of Econgrad is making some really good points. Developers are focusing on the high-end market when Sacramento has more demand for middle-class housing. Economy condos with very basic interior finishes and fixtures (laminate counter tops, cheap appliances), that owners can upgrade over time, might get sold faster here.

Also what about smaller 5-7 story flats with maybe 2-4 units per floor? There are lots of small 2 and 3 story apartment buildings in midtown currently. Slowly replacing them with taller buildings on the same lot size could make an impact on population density. And it might be relatively low-cost and low risk to developers, compared to building a 200 unit high-rise. Any thoughts?

Something I've noticed in this city is that developers assume Sacramento's market is too conservative for innovation, so new projects are looking like things that were built ten years ago in other cities. I think plenty of people here are starving for housing that's truly new and different from anything that's been seen before, or maybe that's just me. But it doesn't seem like the formulaic housing projects are creating much of a draw right now. To illustrate, here's an example of the type of creativity I think we could use here: http://www.dezeen.com/2008/04/03/ne-apartments-by-yuji-nakae-akiyoshi-takagi-and-hirofumi-ohno/

[snfenoc]

I had the same question. A few years back, I think I remember reading the reason for developers building luxury units was that new construction was (and still is) so darn expensive. Adding a few luxury features for not much extra would induce people to pay a lot more and make building new actually profitable. In other words, the luxury features are not really the expensive part; it's really the building itself. I may be wrong on this.

I'd like to think that unsubsidized new construction can be done for lower-middle class units. But what I'd like to think and what is reality are two different things.

The issue on this forum is that certain people don't want smaller buildings. They want 40+ story high rises and skyscrapers. And I think those buildings have to be "luxury" so the developer can pay for the extra cost of going up.

[snfenoc]

I am not just talking about Sacramento, growth is being hindered throughout the USA. The cities you stated developed before most nonsense regulations. Sacramento is being directly affected because the units downtown end up costing more than a house in Roseville, which is why more people live in Roseville than "Downtown". Therefore, all the city can do is throw up their hands and say "We can't develop large residences in Sacramento", and make false excuses for it. I already posted proof on all of this. Also, Innovate, I was asked by another post to re-state my opinion, I didn't just start re-stating my thesis randomly. Not seeing anything decent being developed in Sacramento (after years and years and years), A city with a tiny urban core that is mediocre, is getting old and tired.

But that's the problem. You've offered very little in the way of proof. You have pretty much only offered your opinions and theories. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - I've certainly shared mine on numerous occasions, and I will be sharing more in a minute. However, I don't think your opinions and theories are very convincing.

Your response to me a few posts back hasn't changed my mind in the least. I stand by everything I said:

Yes, it takes years of evolution - San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York, LA, Chicago, San Diego, Paris, Tokyo, etc. are not the same cities they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago or 200 years ago. It takes time to develop. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, Sacramento has taken longer to develop than the major boom towns and world class cities. Despite what you think, Sacramento wasn't born yesterday; that is, after the onset of onerous regulations brought forth by the progressive era. Its history stretches back nearly as far as San Francisco's. I'm aware of the Gold Rush (a very extraordinary occurrence btw), and both Sacramento and San Francisco benefited from it. In terms of population and economic activity, SF seems to have benefited more. Why? This brings me to my next point....

Yes, it takes a little luck - San Francisco, for example, had and has the benefit of being near the ocean - it was and is a major port city. Sacramento is not. Yes, it has a port, but let's not even waste time comparing the two. Interesting that a major port city, no more than 90 miles away, has out-competed and out-grown us, is it not? I don't see any evidence that your small government ideal will do anything to change that competitive advantage. San Francisco will still probably be "luckier" than Sacramento and out-compete us for the extra resources brought about by smaller government (if there are any). Certainly, a 9.0 earthquake might help to level the playing field, but as someone who loves San Francisco and loves people, I'm not going to wish for that. I agree that fewer regulations could be helpful for construction, but it's quite a leap to say that situation will spur multiple 40+ story developments in down town Sacramento.

Also, I would add a decrease in the size of government in a government town may not carry immediate benefits with it. It may take time for Sacramento to recover from that. Heck, just look at the "benefits" Sacramento has received from furloughs. In addition, many of the things that make cities around the world what they are were brought forth by big government. Sacramento, for example, benefited majorly by the Transcontinental Railroad, which was subsidized by the US government. Somebody mentioned Paris. Well, I remember reading somewhere (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a lot of what makes Paris Paris is the result of Napoleon's regime.

Yes, world class cities have issues. Your Tokyo example does not make this point moot. Tokyo does have traffic problems. Tokyo does have pollution issues. Tokyo does have high prices. (According to Forbes Magazine, Tokyo is the most expensive city in the world in which to live.) Tokyo does have problems created by its dense population. Finally, Tokyo is a target for terrorism - google "Sarin gas" if you don't believe me.

Yes, I think you and people like you are more interested in the status symbol of having an impressive skyline and being considered "world class" than whether it is a true benefit to the city. You don't seem to consider Sacramento's history, its character or its market.

At the end of the day, I really don't care what you think as long as you agree it is unwise for the city, in an effort to become world class, to engage in subsidies and risk further debt. It seems you DO agree. So, go on thinking the sky is red with with neon green polka dots for all I care. You are more than welcome to your opinions. I will only say I think it is too bad that many Sacramentans have such little respect for their city. It really does have a lot to offer - if they would just open their minds a bit.

[Web]

What numbers did I use? I just used logic.
And back to my original point. The only reasons it costs so much to build these buildings are: Corruption in Government, Environmental laws that increase costs of materials and labor, Unions that increase costs of labor, Government regulation which creates corruption, and taxes that inhibit growth. Get rid of these problems and regulations, and you will see more Manhattan's being made, and less Elk Groves.
If the market was at equilibrium, meaning a true free market, it would be cheaper to live in a high-rise condo on the 40th floor, than it would be to live in a house with a swimming pool in El Dorado hills. History has proven this, I have posted proof on this, yet obviously many of you are too lazy to read it, but I will never give up my quest to bring back common sense and truth.

:yes:

PS: Unless my account gets deleted, then of course my quest will come to an end. Maybe the Zombie of the corpse Econgrad? :notacrook:

so only government creates corruption.....Enron,Aig, etc etc etc are all CROOKS,,,,better regulation and this wouldnt have happened

[wburg]

It's kind of unnerving how much I agree with Steve lately.

Sacramento, as a city, is as old as any other city on the west coast--San Francisco was a military outpost and village of less than 1000 until the Gold Rush, Los Angeles was smaller than Sacramento until the 1880s real estate bubble, San Diego was a sleepy mission town until nearly 1900, and of course Sacramento was just a little Mexican fort with a few settlers around it, but all that changed with the Gold Rush.

San Francisco benefited greatly by being the most convenient harbor for gold-seekers, and remained the primary way for goods to reach California until 1869. Sacramento was the gateway to the central gold fields, while Marysville and Stockton played similar roles for the northern and southern gold fields. Sacramento and San Francisco became cities practically overnight due to their important locations, but San Francisco was generally the first port of call. As time went on, Sacramento won some important coups, like becoming the location of the state capital, the home of California's first railroad and later the starting point of the first transcontinental railroad, but our role as a transportation hub was always contingent on our connection to San Francisco.

In addition to location, weather is an important factor. Plenty of people who got rich in Sacramento moved to San Francisco once they made their money. In part this was because the financial institutions were setting up near the trade port, but mostly it was because it got dang hot here, and there was no air conditioning! Thus, when Leland Stanford decided to build a college, he did it in the Bay Area, not in Sacramento. Similarly, Sacramento didn't grow the massive suburbs that Los Angeles and San Francisco did in the late 19th and early 20th century, in part because of our hot climate. Prices at the time were as cheap (or cheaper, due to various real estate bubbles) in Los Angeles or the Bay Area, where it was cooler. Sacramento's suburbs didn't really explode until the postwar era, when air conditioning became commonplace. We're just as old as other West Coast cities--we didn't grow as large as some because of our location, climate, and where things were economically, politically and technologically. Although, obviously, we grew larger than others (like Marysville and Stockton, who had their own ambitions to be great metropolitan centers, as we did.)

That brings me to the second thing Steve is right about: supply and demand. The supply of land in the central city is sharply limited: they aren't making any more of it. Some people are willing to pay more for central city land than others: in Sacramento's case, many businesses benefit from proximity to government buildings and the central city. The price they (and others interested in central city property) are willing to pay for central city property drives demand.

Meanwhile, residential supply in the central city is limited, but it is available in nearby neighborhoods, albeit at a premium (again due to demand), and in great abundance in the outer suburbs. Because the suburbs are subsidized by various means, it is far less expensive (for those of low or moderate income) or far more abundant and expansive (for those of high income) than central city housing. Because we have lovely public-funded highways to ride to the suburbs, and commuter parking is relatively accessible and inexpensive, there is no great need for those who work in the central city to live there. This lowers demand for central city housing--and thus the price people are willing to pay for it.

[snfenoc]

It's kind of unnerving how much I agree with Steve lately.

I think this is one of the signs of the Apocalypse, right? I'll go check my Bible.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

But that's the problem. You've offered very little in the way of proof. You have pretty much only offered your opinions and theories. Now, there's nothing wrong with that - I've certainly shared mine on numerous occasions, and I will be sharing more in a minute. However, I don't think your opinions and theories are very convincing.


Your response to me a few posts back hasn't changed my mind in the least. I stand by everything I said:

Yes, it takes years of evolution - San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, New York, LA, Chicago, San Diego, Paris, Tokyo, etc. are not the same cities they were 50 years ago or 100 years ago or 150 years ago or 200 years ago. It takes time to develop. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, Sacramento has taken longer to develop than the major boom towns and world class cities. Despite what you think, Sacramento wasn't born yesterday; that is, after the onset of onerous regulations brought forth by the progressive era. Its history stretches back nearly as far as San Francisco's. I'm aware of the Gold Rush (a very extraordinary occurrence btw), and both Sacramento and San Francisco benefited from it. In terms of population and economic activity, SF seems to have benefited more. Why? This brings me to my next point....

1. When did I say Sacramento was born yesterday? If you would read my posts, I was the one who pointed out Sacramento was a very prosperous city in since the 1850's. Also, where did you get this opinion of me and how I think? Are you trying to get personal in this debate?


Yes, it takes a little luck - San Francisco, for example, had and has the benefit of being near the ocean - it was and is a major port city. Sacramento is not. Yes, it has a port, but let's not even waste time comparing the two. Interesting that a major port city, no more than 90 miles away, has out-competed and out-grown us, is it not? I don't see any evidence that your small government ideal will do anything to change that competitive advantage. San Francisco will still probably be "luckier" than Sacramento and out-compete us for the extra resources brought about by smaller government (if there are any). Certainly, a 9.0 earthquake might help to level the playing field, but as someone who loves San Francisco and loves people, I'm not going to wish for that. I agree that fewer regulations could be helpful for construction, but it's quite a leap to say that situation will spur multiple 40+ story developments in down town Sacramento.

Luck has nothing to do with location. SF, like NYC, Boston, Seattle, are port cities, yes, we all know that. That is not luck, that is just a location factor. You just agreed with me that fewer regulations could be helpful for construction, but you do not agree that it would be allowing for 40+ buildings. OK, That is where we disagree and I will post more info links at the bottom of this response. Speaking of Luck, SF is not "lucky" in terms of the ocean, the Bay is the factor on why SF was settled in the first place. Sacramento is "Lucky" that it was decided to be the State Capitol, and have the State Employment here.

Also, I would add a decrease in the size of government in a government town may not carry immediate benefits with it. It may take time for Sacramento to recover from that. Heck, just look at the "benefits" Sacramento has received from furloughs. In addition, many of the things that make cities around the world what they are were brought forth by big government. Sacramento, for example, benefited majorly by the Transcontinental Railroad, which was subsidized by the US government. Somebody mentioned Paris. Well, I remember reading somewhere (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a lot of what makes Paris Paris is the result of Napoleon's regime.

That is not the decreasing Gov. I am talking about. I am talking about development costs, because my thesis is (as stated 9 times now):

The Cost of Downtown Condo's, Apt.s , Units, etc, in a high-rise or Skyscraper building would be at a lower purchasing price than a house in El Dorado hills, if there was less regulation and Gov. corruption. Therefore, the demand for urban living in Sacramento would greatly increase, and the demand for suburban living would decrease.


Yes, world class cities have issues. Your Tokyo example does not make this point moot. (Yes it does, you just haven't been there). Tokyo does have traffic problems (no, it really does not, it is very easy to get around the city at all times). . Tokyo does have pollution issues. Tokyo does have high prices. (According to Forbes Magazine, Tokyo is the most expensive city in the world in which to live.) Tokyo does have problems created by its dense population. Finally, Tokyo is a target for terrorism - google "Sarin gas" if you don't believe me.

So you have one google term out of 5 points? I lived there, and the problems you speak of are actually worse in Sacramento than Tokyo. Your simply, incorrect.

Yes, I think you and people like you are more interested in the status symbol of having an impressive skyline and being considered "world class" than whether it is a true benefit to the city. You don't seem to consider Sacramento's history, its character or its market.

I do consider all those things, now once again you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. I never said anything about status symbols, until you did (and only in defense against your accusation). I am talking height and density. It seems your trying to demean my argument by falsely demeaning my character, which speaks more about you than it does me.

At the end of the day, I really don't care what you think as long as you agree it is unwise for the city, in an effort to become world class, to engage in subsidies and risk further debt. It seems you DO agree. So, go on thinking the sky is red with with neon green polka dots for all I care. You are more than welcome to your opinions. I will only say I think it is too bad that many Sacramentans have such little respect for their city. It really does have a lot to offer - if they would just open their minds a bit.

Interesting that you say you do not care about my opinion, when you started this entire debate by writing 6 paragraphs in response to my one sentence about an article I posted. I would also argue that I have more pride in this city than you, because I believe it can, should and deserves to have high-rise and high-dense high quality urban core, and that the demand and sophistication is already here. I do not demean the city by saying, "Sacramento is not ready for high-rise living yet, like San Jose", I do not think other cities of similar size that have high-rise living are better than us (IE Portland, Nashville, ETC). Your respect comment along with the green polka dots is just another attempt to make this debate personal, which I find strange, since I am arguing about economic growth in relations with Government regulations.


Here are some links for you and others to read about how G regulations hinder Urban development and simply make a mess of things. Evidences backing my thesis, as well as very informational articles and reports regarding Urban vs Sprawl Economic issues and scenarios.

http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/InfraPlan/sprawl_infra_costs_report.pdf

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~raphael/QR%20Regulation%20110804.pdf
-- This is a study of Regulation Vs Costs.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8831

http://ti.org/vaupdate31.html
-- this is a quick read, might make you angry about subsidies.

I have to go, I will post more articles later. :)

[leftopolis]

Doesn't it seem a little silly for a city the size of Sacramento--to aspire to be a "world class city"? It's a central city of around a half million people, with maybe 2.5 million total metro. Typically, that's not the size range of a world-class city. It's a mid-sized city, that's destined to remain that way. Sure, it could stand some improvements...but what city in the world could claim otherwise? If you're talking expanding it's sphere of influence, that will happen with the improvements, and as cities grow around it. The reality, though, is that it will never be the center of gravity for Northern CA/NV--not with the 8 million Bay Area at it's fringes.

Furthermore, this idea of using 40 story buildings as a barometer, also seems a bit silly. Sao Paulo, Brazil is certainly world-class. They're amongst only a handful of 20 million+ cities. By some estimates, they have as many as 30,000 high-rises--yes, you read that right. While they do have a few over 40 stories, it really is just a few--and if memory serves me, only one in the 50ish range which was built about 50 years ago. Nobody in SP is saying "if we only had some more 40 story buildings, we'd be a world-class city".

The concerning regulations and subsidies are the one's which tend to create sprawl. When you can buy a couple thousand acres out in farm country for a couiple thousand an acre, and the government builds roads for you to the development--yeah, those houses are going to be cheap. Sacramento would be far better served by dozens of examples of dense, low to mid-rise housing--before considering 40 stories. It's just not pragmatic before that. Not to worry...when gas hits $5 /gal. again, then having a cheap ex-urban home with a lengthy commute to everything-stops panning out financially.

The San Jose example, btw is dated and currently the vast majority of new housing is high-density(not skycrapers, just multi-story high-density). Also, the high cost of housing there, is more related to the high concentration of high-paying jobs that are attractive even to long distance commuters.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

^ LeftOpolis,

The 40 Story "barometer" isn't really the issue, my issue is high-rises/density. I don't even recall thinking of this number 40, I actually think Srfnoc may have offered up that number, but I will review the posts if I have time. Once again, my thesis is:

The Cost of Downtown Condo's, Apt.s , Units, etc, in a high-rise or Skyscraper building would be at a lower purchasing price than a house in El Dorado hills, if there was less regulation and Gov. corruption. Therefore, the demand for urban living in Sacramento would greatly increase, and the demand for suburban living would decrease.

So all the terms like 40 Stories, World Class City, and whatever else everyone can pick apart, do not apply to my thesis. Although, I am guilty of using those said terms...

[leftopolis]

^ LeftOpolis,

The 40 Story "barometer" isn't really the issue, my issue is high-rises/density. I don't even recall thinking of this number 40, I actually think Srfnoc may have offered up that number, but I will review the posts if I have time. Once again, my thesis is:

The Cost of Downtown Condo's, Apt.s , Units, etc, in a high-rise or Skyscraper building would be at a lower purchasing price than a house in El Dorado hills, if there was less regulation and Gov. corruption. Therefore, the demand for urban living in Sacramento would greatly increase, and the demand for suburban living would decrease.

So all the terms like 40 Stories, World Class City, and whatever else everyone can pick apart, do not apply to my thesis. Although, I am guilty of using those said terms...

OK, fair enough. As for your thesis, I agree that there's a goverment regulation problem--but I think you're looking at it from the wrong end. Housing in EDH, to use your example, is relatively cheap and thus attractive...due to the system, the subsidies, the regulations, and lack of other regulations...which end up making ex-urban housing artificially cheap. That's where the problem lies with the price imbalance--the deck is stacked to make exurbs the cheap alternative due to regulations, unfairly favoring that outcome.

[innov8]

I asked you the question econgrad “How do you make a high-rise residential
reasonably priced?” and you said remove that “Corruption in Government,
Environmental laws that increase costs of materials and labor” are the
cause. I then asked “Why is it that San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange
County, San Jose, Oakland, and San Diego have all built multiple high-rise
condos under the same Government, Environmental laws and regulations
while Sacramento can not. Explain your reasoning behind this?"
You said all these cities were “developed before most nonsense
regulations”. Econgrad, that is a ridiculous statement since all these cities
are about the same age or younger than Sacramento, so your misleading
statement that government regulations are hindering Sacramento but not
the other cities is historically false and a misleading thing to say.

Econgrad, you also said “growth is being hindered throughout the USA”.
Really Econgrad? Where were you between 2002 and 2006 when hundreds
of high-rise condos and office were built all across the nation?

You blame Corruption in Government and Environmental laws for all of
Sacramento’s urban building problems which to anybody who has been
to the cities I listed above can see that these same Government and
Environmental laws have not stopped them from growing taller in the
last 40 years.

All these quotes from you are on page 218 of this thread.

[wburg]

The Cost of Downtown Condo's, Apt.s , Units, etc, in a high-rise or Skyscraper building would be at a lower purchasing price than a house in El Dorado hills, if there was less regulation and Gov. corruption. Therefore, the demand for urban living in Sacramento would greatly increase, and the demand for suburban living would decrease.

Well, sort of...if it was not for highway subsidies and other government subsidies and programs that make it easier to build new suburbs than reinvest in cities, it would be impractical to build commuter suburbs in El Dorado Hills. Thus, there would be less competition for housing in the central city, and more of a market for high-rises downtown. The great supply of cheap farmland and greenfield to build upon wouldn't be very useful if there was no practical way for people to get from their house in EDH to their job downtown--the automobile, and the taxpayer-subsidized highway, makes it possible.

[CAGeoNerd]

..and arguably, San Francisco and other cities have (and have had) stricter environmental and other regulations, yet they continue to put up new high rises on a regular basis.

It has to do more with geography than any regulations, as well as the "culture" or the area. More people around here would rather have a single-family home with a yard and space rather than live sharing walls with people, no yard, stairs/elevators, noise, and little options for parking. Yes it's also cheaper to live in Roseville, but at what real cost? If you work downtown and commute, how much is your time worth to you? What about transportation costs? So many people don't think about these things before they buy a house on the edge of the sprawl.

[Web]

..and arguably, San Francisco and other cities have (and have had) stricter environmental and other regulations, yet they continue to put up new high rises on a regular basis.

It has to do more with geography than any regulations, as well as the "culture" or the area. More people around here would rather have a single-family home with a yard and space rather than live sharing walls with people, no yard, stairs/elevators, noise, and little options for parking. Yes it's also cheaper to live in Roseville, but at what real cost? If you work downtown and commute, how much is your time worth to you? What about transportation costs? So many people don't think about these things before they buy a house on the edge of the sprawl.

san francisco is hilly
sacramento is a pancake

[innov8]

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/3174/7thh3.jpg (http://img695.imageshack.us/i/7thh3.jpg/)

7th & H Street SRO Proposal

Mercy Housing California of West Sacramento proposing affordable housing at
the corner of 7th & H Street that will include 122 studios (325sf) and 28 one
bed room (500sf) units as well as sixteen parking spaces, retail and health
clinic on the ground floor. This eight story 102 foot tall building’s designed to
replace other single room occupancy (SRO) units in downtown that are going
to be replaced with other developments in the future.

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/1479/7thh2.jpg (http://img208.imageshack.us/i/7thh2.jpg/)

There will be 3,900sf of retail space as well as 3,750sf health clinic,
residential lobby, and a structured parking garage. 7th & H will also be
designed to have a LEED-Silver standard and registered with the US Green
Building Council. This project is the first mid-rise residential tower in the
newly redefined Central Core District, and the first project to use the new
Urban Design Guidelines. It located across the street from the County Jail
and on an existing RT light rail line located along the north side of H Street,
and a future RT line proposed on the east side of the 7th Street.

http://img541.imageshack.us/img541/4600/7thh1.jpg (http://img541.imageshack.us/i/7thh1.jpg/)

The project will require the Planning Commission approval of entitlements and
to combine 5 existing parcels into one lot for the commercial condominium
purposed. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this project on
April 21st and then again on May 6, 2010 for Final action.

[Surefiresacto]

It's refreshing to see something new on here. The offset windows are interesting. Not sure if I like that part, but I think the size of the building is appropriate for the market rather than something goddy that will never get built.

[CAGeoNerd]

Neat looking building, right up next to the rail yards. Hopefully it gets put up asap and isn't filled with bums but rather people who want to live/work in downtown. If the railyards do get developed, cost of living in this building will rise dramatically too.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

I asked you the question econgrad “How do you make a high-rise residential
reasonably priced?” and you said remove that “Corruption in Government,
Environmental laws that increase costs of materials and labor” are the
cause. I then asked “Why is it that San Francisco, Los Angeles, Orange
County, San Jose, Oakland, and San Diego have all built multiple high-rise
condos under the same Government, Environmental laws and regulations
while Sacramento can not. Explain your reasoning behind this?"
You said all these cities were “developed before most nonsense
regulations”. Econgrad, that is a ridiculous statement since all these cities
are about the same age or younger than Sacramento, so your misleading
statement that government regulations are hindering Sacramento but not
the other cities is historically false and a misleading thing to say.

Econgrad, you also said “growth is being hindered throughout the USA”.
Really Econgrad? Where were you between 2002 and 2006 when hundreds
of high-rise condos and office were built all across the nation?

You blame Corruption in Government and Environmental laws for all of
Sacramento’s urban building problems which to anybody who has been
to the cities I listed above can see that these same Government and
Environmental laws have not stopped them from growing taller in the
last 40 years.

All these quotes from you are on page 218 of this thread.

How did I miss this post? Oh well, here you go:

San Francisco, Los Angeles, Son Jose and Oakland, built up their skylines in the 50's 60's 70's and 80's while we had Benvenuti and that's pretty much it. Most skyline buildings in these cities were built before most Enviro-regulations and Union interests plagued our State. Therefore, your "younger city" statement is ridiculous. Between 2002 to 2006 there were not "hundreds" of high-rise condos build in these cities, and the demand was there for these condos, and more and we would have seen many more developed. funny how you pose questions to me but you never post articles or actual numbers, when I just did.
Ask yourself this question then, why can you get a 2 bedroom high-rise central city condo in Nashville Tennessee for one-third of the price of the proposed condo's here? Because without the Enviro-laws and Union interests the costs of developing the high-rise condos in Nashville cost one-third the price. Therefore, the cities you suggested would have developed much much more in their skylines, including Sacramento. So pointing out that they developed a few (calling it hundreds..just silly) does not prove me wrong in any way.
Another form of Gov. corruption are all the subsidies. This distorts the market tremendously, and more money, planning and time is spent on getting a subsidy instead of creating a project that is in demand. If developers could instead focus on creating products for just demand, and not approval from Gov agencies for permits or subsidies,you would see market friendly projects moving forward.
If this is difficult for you to understand Innovate, I will be happy to answer further questions for you and post more articles regarding this. I will also be continuing to point out these market flaws caused by the Gov. In future examples and articles posted here.

Oh, and where did that $11 Million go for the towers? And all the other subsidies given out and nothing built? That's corruption staring at you right in the face..our tax dollars wasted.

[innov8]

Let’s go point by point oaky.

Sacramento had the same opportunity to build in 50's 60's 70's and 80's as all
the other California cities, they are all about the same age give or take 20
or 30 years. Sacramento could have grown up during those times but it did
not… and weather or not we had Benvenuti is besides the point. Your claim
is still unfounded and ridiculous because it ignores that all these cities above
all had the same rules apply to all from the time they started to build their
urban cores 100 years ago.

Let’s remember what YOU said Econgrad. “growth is being hindered
throughout the USA” and I said to look back between the 2002 & 2006 and
you would see hundreds of condos and high-rises were built throughout the
USA. NOT only in California. Who said only in California? Not I till you
changed the argument. If you actually went to other sub-forums on this
website you see the numbers of high-rise built of all kinds for your self.

And last, the $10 million subsidy that John Saca was going get to help pay
for the hotel that was ONLY going to be paid if the towers were built, not
until the project was completed… so the money was never paid because the
project was cancelled. All you have to do is go back several pages on the
Towers thread to see this.

Subsidies are nothing new here in Sac or any other city in the nation, so
what’s your point?

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Let’s go point by point oaky.

Sacramento had the same opportunity to build in 50's 60's 70's and 80's as all
the other California cities, they are all about the same age give or take 20
or 30 years. Sacramento could have grown up during those times but it did
not… and weather or not we had Benvenuti is besides the point. Your claim
is still unfounded and ridiculous because it ignores that all these cities above
all had the same rules apply to all from the time they started to build their
urban cores 100 years ago.

Let’s remember what YOU said Econgrad. “growth is being hindered
throughout the USA” and I said to look back between the 2002 & 2006 and
you would see hundreds of condos and high-rises were built throughout the
USA. NOT only in California. Who said only in California? Not I till you
changed the argument. If you actually went to other sub-forums on this
website you see the numbers of high-rise built of all kinds for your self.

And last, the $10 million subsidy that John Saca was going get to help pay
for the hotel that was ONLY going to be paid if the towers were built, not
until the project was completed… so the money was never paid because the
project was cancelled. All you have to do is go back several pages on the
Towers thread to see this.

Subsidies are nothing new here in Sac or any other city in the nation, so
what’s your point?

My Point is what I stated, which you seem to have trouble debating, and reading the articles I posted.
I will state it one more time, and then I suggest we start a new thread on this issue, so if anyone wants to look at the Sac Contruction approval thread they wont have to sift through this discussion if they do not care about it.

Here is, once again my answer to why subsidies are part of the Gov. corruption.
"Another form of Gov. corruption are all the subsidies. This distorts the market tremendously, and more money, planning and time is spent on getting a subsidy instead of creating a project that is in demand. If developers could instead focus on creating products for just demand, and not approval from Gov agencies for permits or subsidies,you would see market friendly projects moving forward."

I will go ahead and start a new thread on this, we can continue there as well as anyone else of course.

[innov8]

Well, I made my point :frog:

Please try to remember what you wrote; it makes a debate easer to follow. :gaah:

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Well, I made my point :frog:

Please try to remember what you wrote; it makes a debate easer to follow. :gaah:

You haven't made any points, only asked questions that I have already posted articles on and answered. Your not reading what I have posted. You keep asking the same questions over and over which I have answered. No big deal, please do not get frustrated, even if you keep asking the same question again and again after I have answered it, is not a reason for you to get frustrated. Why don't read the articles I posted, get some understanding on the issue, and then try and respond after what you see on the new thread I will create (when I have time).

[innov8]

You haven't made any points, only asked questions that I have already posted articles on and answered. Your not reading what I have posted. You keep asking the same questions over and over which I have answered. No big deal, please do not get frustrated, even if you keep asking the same question again and again after I have answered it, is not a reason for you to get frustrated. Why don't read the articles I posted, get some understanding on the issue, and then try and respond after what you see on the new thread I will create (when I have time).

They aren’t articles, their 40 pages of opinion pieces by right-wing think tanks.
You might as will tell me what Rush and Sean have to say about this too :haha:

I also see that you had nothing else to say about the other statements I corrected of yours :tup:

[Ghost of Econgrad]

They aren’t articles, their 40 pages of opinion pieces by right-wing think tanks.
You might as will tell me what Rush and Sean have to say about this too :haha:

I also see that you had nothing else to say about the other statements I corrected of yours :tup:

You never corrected anything I stated. I am guessing your posting this to make a show for others who read our dribble? To somehow disregard articles that prove you incorrect, or "GASP" to cause you to think of a different point of view? Also, Since when did UC BERKLEY become a Right Wing Think Tank, and who is Rush and Sean?
Also, If you are correct, and we are at our equilibrium point for Sacramento, why would the Towers, Aura and others ever be proposed? They did market studies, people here can afford them. If your "assumptions" (for lack of a better term) are correct, then there is no need to even discuss a Downtown Sacramento, because there will never be one, Mid-Town will continue to be a suburb, and Downtown will continue to be mediocre, because most (except a small few) will buy there homes in the outer areas, for a market price instead of buying in the urban core, because it will always be too expensive for what you get.
But since, I know your incorrect, I still have hopes that we can have a downtown and a skyline some day.

[SantaTeresaHills]

1st High Rise condo buildings in San Jose

2007 - 52 meters tall - City Heights - Currently about 75% sold
2008 - 69 meters tall - Axis - Currently about 30% sold
2008 - 87 meters tall - The 88 - Currently about 30% sold
2009 - 82 meters tall - Three Sixty Residences - 475 sales contracts have been executed but no escrow closings. They should start closing escrow in the next couple of months.

All of these condos are relatively short due to the airport nearby that restricts the height of buildings in downtown San Jose. City Heights was developed by a local developer and so their financing is unknown. The latter 3 were developed by developers outside of the Bay Area. The 88 was co-developed by CMI. All of these buildings were opened for sales as the housing market was starting to collapse or after it collapsed.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

1st High Rise condo buildings in San Jose

2007 - 52 meters tall - City Heights - Currently about 75% sold
2008 - 69 meters tall - Axis - Currently about 30% sold
2008 - 87 meters tall - The 88 - Currently about 30% sold
2009 - 82 meters tall - Three Sixty Residences - 475 sales contracts have been executed but no escrow closings. They should start closing escrow in the next couple of months.

All of these condos are relatively short due to the airport nearby that restricts the height of buildings in downtown San Jose. City Heights was developed by a local developer and so their financing is unknown. The latter 3 were developed by developers outside of the Bay Area. The 88 was co-developed by CMI. All of these buildings were opened for sales as the housing market was starting to collapse or after it collapsed.

Good for San Jose! :yes: Unfortunately for Sacramento, the housing in the outer core is at a lower market price than the housing in San Jose. Therefore, there is little reason to build DT residences like these because they will be unfordable.... unless we do away with what is making the costs so extremely unbalanced. I will write more about this on another thread, in the meantime ask yourselves this: Why would a Downtown development in Sacramento need a full EIR report that delays construction and raises costs? DT is already developed, and impact studies regarding traffic, parking, waste and city usage are quick and easy to do without an EIR report. This is another example of Gov. Gone wild! (GGW)

[Web]

Good for San Jose! :yes: Unfortunately for Sacramento, the housing in the outer core is at a lower market price than the housing in San Jose. Therefore, there is little reason to build DT residences like these because they will be unfordable.... unless we do away with what is making the costs so extremely unbalanced. I will write more about this on another thread, in the meantime ask yourselves this: Why would a Downtown development in Sacramento need a full EIR report that delays construction and raises costs? DT is already developed, and impact studies regarding traffic, parking, waste and city usage are quick and easy to do without an EIR report. This is another example of Gov. Gone wild! (GGW)

flood zone.......indian burial grounds.......do you want to become the next houston with an apartment building next to a morturary next to a concrete recycling plant next to a single family home next to a mcdonalds next to a beef rendering plant??? this is what happens with no zoning etc

[rampant_jwalker]

Labor is costing more than materials for construction these days. The construction workers are being payed a lot considering most of them got all C's in high school. This is just a guess, but wouldn't it be easier to build residential high rises here if construction wages were a bit lower? Just food for thought. Also if this country had true social health care, like Canada and Mexico have, then developers wouldn't have to directly pay for the expensive health benefits that most construction workers get. I guess this is about unionized labor too...right? Not just "government corruption" or lack of demand.

[wburg]

I will write more about this on another thread, in the meantime ask yourselves this: Why would a Downtown development in Sacramento need a full EIR report that delays construction and raises costs? DT is already developed, and impact studies regarding traffic, parking, waste and city usage are quick and easy to do without an EIR report. This is another example of Gov. Gone wild! (GGW)

It sounds like you don't really understand what an environmental impact report is. You seem to assume that it only refers to a project's effect on wildlife or open land--this is not the case. An EIR is a compilation of impact studies regarding traffic, parking, waste, city usage, as well as things like groundwater, sewers, effects on historic and cultural resources, etcetera. And being located in the middle of the city certainly doesn't eliminate issues with the natural world: floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters can certainly affect cities!

It's basically a disclosure document that explains what the predictable effects of the project on the community will be, and it certainly applies to "already developed" areas just as much as to undeveloped land.

Projects don't always need an EIR, either--for example, the Alexan Midtown apartments didn't do one, they did a Mitigated Negative Declaration (or MND) instead. That's a much shorter document, used when a project doesn't go beyond certain defined thresholds. Projects below a certain size and type don't even need to do an MND--but part of the planning process includes an explanation of why a project is exempt from CEQA review.

And now that you mention it, suburban developments (especially large PUDs) have to do EIRs (or MNDs, if they are small) too--it isn't just for skyscrapers or cities, it is California state law.

[Web]

Labor is costing more than materials for construction these days. The construction workers are being payed a lot considering most of them got all C's in high school. This is just a guess, but wouldn't it be easier to build residential high rises here if construction wages were a bit lower? Just food for thought. Also if this country had true social health care, like Canada and Mexico have, then developers wouldn't have to directly pay for the expensive health benefits that most construction workers get. I guess this is about unionized labor too...right? Not just "government corruption" or lack of demand.

I dont want to live in a place that was built under the table without specs and plans or even skilled labor.......
look at buildings in some 3rd world nations which have completely fallen over due to lack of oversight or skill.....take your chances

[wburg]

I dont want to live in a place that was built under the table without specs and plans or even skilled labor.......
look at buildings in some 3rd world nations which have completely fallen over due to lack of oversight or skill.....take your chances

True enough. There's a reason why earthquakes in other parts of the world kill hundreds or thousands, while earthquakes here of similar magnitude result in few if any deaths--our buildings (at least on the west coast) are built to withstand earthquakes! This makes them cost more, but avoids the whole "thousands of fatalities" thing.

[leftopolis]

Therefore, there is little reason to build DT residences like these because they will be unfordable.... unless we do away with what is making the costs so extremely unbalanced.

Yep...kill the unfair laws which give ex-urban sprawl the advantage--unless you don't believe in letting the market follow a course based on equal advantage, and you prefer subsidizing exurban development and the protectionism currently endemic to it.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Yep...kill the unfair laws which give ex-urban sprawl the advantage--unless you don't believe in letting the market follow a course based on equal advantage, and you prefer subsidizing exurban development and the protectionism currently endemic to it.

I am not sure what you mean by "ex-urban" sprawl, and it seems we agree that Laws (which I call part of Gov. corruption) have put the free market in a very unbalanced state. This is good, I am making progress. Please forgive me for not creating a new thread yet on this subject manner, I have been very busy with work these days.
Leftopolis, I do not want subsidies of any kind (anyone who knows anything more than Keynesian Economics knows that subsidies are completely unfair), for Urban and Suburban alike. Nor subsidies for farmlands either, no subsidies in any way shape or form. Subsidies themselves are another form of Gov. corruption. Why? There is a limit of subsidies, and the Gov. decides (with our tax dollars) who the winners and losers are. History has proven that the free market is better at deciding who wins or loses, and in the free-market, the losers get a fair chance to try and try again because there is unlimited opportunity.

[Web]

I am not sure what you mean by "ex-urban" sprawl, and it seems we agree that Laws (which I call part of Gov. corruption) have put the free market in a very unbalanced state. This is good, I am making progress. Please forgive me for not creating a new thread yet on this subject manner, I have been very busy with work these days.
Leftopolis, I do not want subsidies of any kind (anyone who knows anything more that Keynesian Economics knows that subsidies are completely unfair), for Urban and Suburban alike. Nor subsidies for farmlands either, no subsidies in any way shape or form. Subsidies themselves are another form of Gov. corruption. Why? There is a limit of subsidies, and the Gov. decides (with our tax dollars) who the winners and losers are. History has proven that the free market is better at deciding who wins or loses, and in the free-market, the losers get a fair chance to try and try again because there is unlimited opportunity.

Free Market = The Rich.....look at Arnold

[Ghost of Econgrad]

Free Market = The Rich.....look at Arnold

Your correct Web! In a Free Market we can all be as rich as Arnold! Everyone of us no matter what! Glad to see someone understands this!

:cheers:

[wburg]

I am not sure what you mean by "ex-urban" sprawl, and it seems we agree that Laws (which I call part of Gov. corruption) have put the free market in a very unbalanced state. This is good, I am making progress. Please forgive me for not creating a new thread yet on this subject manner, I have been very busy with work these days.


An "exurb" is a suburb that is very distant from the original core city, in many cases physically separated by undeveloped land, which is primarily residential. Examples in our region would include Elk Grove or Granite Bay. The industrial/commercial equivalent is called an "edge city," a "city" made up of office parks where people go to work but few people live--the ultimate example is the city of Industry, CA, which has thousands of businesses but less than a thousand residents.

Exurbs and power centers are possible solely because of taxpayer-subsidized freeways and cheap gas, and other federal incentives that promote greenfield development. Without them, they would dry up and blow away like 19th century gold-rush boomtowns.

Cities are the result of pressure: geographic pressure, where expansion is not possible due to a limited supply of land, or economic pressure, where building in a particular place is desirable because of the attributes of that place, or population pressure, where there are a lot of people in a small area. The car-centric/highway-centric transportation model releases that pressure, like letting air out of a balloon. Sacramento's skyline looks the way it does because it is far easier to build "landscrapers" like office parks, malls and power centers, than skyscrapers. The level of pressure needed to create a densely populated, vertically aspected, walkable city never builds up--it just gets released into more suburbs.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

An "exurb" is a suburb that is very distant from the original core city, in many cases physically separated by undeveloped land, which is primarily residential. Examples in our region would include Elk Grove or Granite Bay. The industrial/commercial equivalent is called an "edge city," a "city" made up of office parks where people go to work but few people live--the ultimate example is the city of Industry, CA, which has thousands of businesses but less than a thousand residents.

Exurbs and power centers are possible solely because of taxpayer-subsidized freeways and cheap gas, and other federal incentives that promote greenfield development. Without them, they would dry up and blow away like 19th century gold-rush boomtowns.

Cities are the result of pressure: geographic pressure, where expansion is not possible due to a limited supply of land, or economic pressure, where building in a particular place is desirable because of the attributes of that place, or population pressure, where there are a lot of people in a small area. The car-centric/highway-centric transportation model releases that pressure, like letting air out of a balloon. Sacramento's skyline looks the way it does because it is far easier to build "landscrapers" like office parks, malls and power centers, than skyscrapers. The level of pressure needed to create a densely populated, vertically aspected, walkable city never builds up--it just gets released into more suburbs.

Instead of debating with your "statement" above right away (and believe me I want to very badly, but I will wait til I have time to start another thread), I would like to clarify your belief system by asking a few questions:

1. You call Elk Grove and Granite Bay "Exurbs", are you anti-Exurbs? Do you want Laws outlawing "exurbs"?

2. You say subsidized freeways create these "Exurbs", what is your alternative to National Transportation? Do you want cars and freeways gone in your society?

3. The city statement is...well, no debating yet... my question would be: Where did you get this aspect of how cities became to exist? What exactly do you mean by Geographic Pressure? Since walkable cities never buildup and (I assume your talking about people) therefore "overflow" into suburbs, why do these "walkable cities" not expand? If they do not expand, why and how did they grow in the first place?

[daverave]

I had the same question. A few years back, I think I remember reading the reason for developers building luxury units was that new construction was (and still is) so darn expensive. Adding a few luxury features for not much extra would induce people to pay a lot more and make building new actually profitable. In other words, the luxury features are not really the expensive part; it's really the building itself. I may be wrong on this.


I would say that you are very correct on this. The "luxury" features (upgraded countertops/cabinets/fixtures are a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the cost of construction.

[Ghost of Econgrad]

FYI: Instead of starting a new thread, I will be posting articles regarding Gov Corruption, and how enviro laws and regulations counter the "urban movement" and relate it to Sacramento in Majin's "Sacramento Politics" Thread. I will be happy to discuss/debate there instead of the "Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III".

My main Thesis Points:
--The "Green" Movement is not compatible with the Urban Movement.
-- Gov Corruption is part of both movements.
-- Both Movements are based on false premises.
-- California's economy as it is is unsustainable due to these movements.
-- Sacramento's urban core is under developed because of these movements.
-- Historical Preservationists hurt urban development, and increase costs of Urban developments helping the suburbs continue to be the best choice for living.
-- Local examples of Gov. Corruption and wasted tax dollars.

[Web]

most corrupt politician/businesswoman Meg Goldman Sachs Whitman:slob:

[wburg]

Instead of debating with your "statement" above right away (and believe me I want to very badly, but I will wait til I have time to start another thread), I would like to clarify your belief system by asking a few questions:

1. You call Elk Grove and Granite Bay "Exurbs", are you anti-Exurbs? Do you want Laws outlawing "exurbs"?

2. You say subsidized freeways create these "Exurbs", what is your alternative to National Transportation? Do you want cars and freeways gone in your society?

3. The city statement is...well, no debating yet... my question would be: Where did you get this aspect of how cities became to exist? What exactly do you mean by Geographic Pressure? Since walkable cities never buildup and (I assume your talking about people) therefore "overflow" into suburbs, why do these "walkable cities" not expand? If they do not expand, why and how did they grow in the first place?

1. Laws outlawing "exurbs" are unnecessary. To get rid of them, only two things are necessary: stop expanding the highway system, and put into place a regional development boundary. The example that generally gets trotted out is Portland--they established an urban services boundary and prohibit suburban development beyond it. Instead of leapfrogging out over empty space and city urban service boundaries into other municipalities, infill development fills up existing land, including smaller lots that might otherwise be ignored in favor of "leapfrog" development farther out. Rural farmland outside the urban boundary tends to remain farmland, instead of becoming suburbs. It's a little less convenient, because projects are limited to available land, but transportation costs and times drop because the overall region is more compact. In places like the Bay Area, no-growth restrictions in counties like Marin and Contra Costa become a "de facto" urban boundary. The resulting decrease of land supply increases the pressure, prioritizing infill development and density. Once density gets up to higher levels, public transit within the dense region becomes more efficient, and auto transit in the less dense region is cheaper to maintain because it doesn't have to go as far or serve as the only means of regional transportation.

2. No, I don't want cars and freeways gone, I just don't think they should be the only viable means of transportation, nor should we have to build cities entirely around the needs of the automobile. I like the idea of complete streets and complete transportation systems: make getting around on foot or bike practical, include public transit, and make allowance for the automobile without making it the only game in town. As to interstate transportation, I think a national rail system should be subsidized in a manner similar to the subsidies for the airlines or the public highway system--either that, or get rid of all the subsidies for all of them.

3. In your graduate study of economics, you may have come across a little term called "supply and demand." If something is in short supply or demand is high, the price goes up. If supply is high or demand is low, the price goes down. If the supply of land in a geographic area is limited, but it's a place where people want to go (like Manhattan Island or San Francisco) prices go up. If land is abundant and there aren't many overriding reasons to move there, prices stay low.

This was true even when Manhattan and San Francisco were first being settled: both provided excellent natural harbors and connection to river systems in an era when rivers were America's highways. They became very densely built because back then there was literally no way for anyone, no matter how wealthy, to commute 50 miles a day to work. Once space finally began to run out, and transportation technology improved, those who could afford it (but weren't rich enough to afford a horse and carriage) took steam ferries or horse-drawn omnibuses to the first suburbs. They moved because they could buy a bigger house in the country and still get to work. This caused an increase in price in adjacent areas--and before long, demand rose and supply dropped so much that places that started out as suburbs (Brooklyn, Oakland, etcetera) ended up as cities in their own right. This worked as long as expansion was relatively limited, and based on public-transit models. Roads and individual forms of transportation were used, but not universally so. With the automobile and the tax-funded highway, the potential maximum size of cities exploded--until things started reaching the maximum breaking point. And downtowns imploded, because that pressure to build cities dropped so dramatically.

Admittedly, I have recently been very inspired by a book called How Cities Work by Alex Marshall. It's one of those books that I can open to just about any page and find something thought-provoking--I highly recommend it. He introduced me to the idea of describing cities as the product of pressure--economic, geographic or otherwise--but it makes sense compared to what I already know about cities, and about supply and demand. He claims that cities are only produced as a result of pressure--and suburban expansion (facilitated by subsidized roads, cheap oil, and zoning policy that promotes new growth over infill and mixed use) depletes that pressure.

Since walkable cities never buildup and (I assume your talking about people) therefore "overflow" into suburbs, why do these "walkable cities" not expand?
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Walkable cities build up, since density is part of what makes them walkable. Density and mixed use are essential to creating walkable streets: you can have lovely tree-shaded sidewalks with bike lanes and landscaping, but nobody will use them if there aren't people living adjacent to those streets and there is nowhere for them to walk to (see Laguna West or North Natomas.) Many walkable cities don't expand because, like Manhattan or San Francisco, they can't--they are surrounded by water or other cities that prevent their expansion. Some don't expand because of difficult geography. And some don't expand because of policy that is designed to prevent expansion, and promote density, infill, higher land value and reduced need for long-distance infrastructure. To some extent, they do expand, and every major city in the United States has its suburbs, even those with geographic limitations. But almost invariably, suburban expansion had bad consequences for those cities--from the fifties to the eighties, cities like New York and San Francisco suffered greatly. Only a generation-long recovery as even their suburbs reached their physical limit, and a large-scale change in the way we think of cities, has made them the places they are now.

I just got back from Los Angeles, was there for a few days. Aside from the morning before I left, I didn't get in a car the whole time--I got around using the bus, the subway, and on foot. The city of Los Angeles has spent the past 20 years building back the public transit system they used to have, to the point where much of Los Angeles is accessible by public transit that runs into the night and quite often, and reinvesting in their central city. Downtown LA still has its problems--Pershing Square is as dead as Chavez Plaza on Sundays, and their second Saturday art walk is mostly people coming in for free drinks rather than people buying art or patronizing businesses. But it's turning around, because the city has realized that car-centric growth became untenable. Walkability and transit take pressure of the existing highway/road system by giving people alternatives to the car. This means the highways don't have to expand as much--and cities can be built around pedestrian activities instead of having to cater to the car in all things. If the city used as the very definition of a car-centric city can turn things around, why can't we?

[sactown_2007]

Posted some pics on the SacTown Photos Forum of shots Versus had of downtown on Sunday during the Amgen Tour; also on tonights episode of Two and a Half Men, they take a trip to SacTown:

http://www.cbs.com/primetime/two_and_a_half_men/video/?pid=12ijkOkdsjaibbBCePAwyowunpLVjyYt&vs=homepage&play=true