Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[wburg]

Sounds like they're restarting the plan they had in 2007 or so, now that the new SRO-replacement housing at 7th and H is open. Not sure if closing the Marshall will make all that much difference--closing the Greyhound depot was to make that corner yuppie friendly a couple years ago, and it doesn't seem to have helped much.

[ltsmotorsport]

L Street is just bleak in general. Too many gaps in active storefronts/street-level activities. Looking forward to see how the arena will help to correct this issue.

[LandofFrost]

New hotel, 17 floors on the nastiest corner in downtown?

Wow!!!

This is the first news that made me jump out of my chair. It's also early enough in the economic recovery that this might actually get done before the next big bubble.

[jbradway]

The concept drawings from a few years ago showed that they planned to take down the adjacent Jade Apartment building and sort of merge over the top of the Marshall.

Not sure how I like the hop-on-top approach.

http://www.hrgarchitects.com/images/HRGA_Marshall%20hotel-2.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a7jnNn-bmW4/Rv8bVuGEwmI/AAAAAAAAAHw/SaS-USnXM8A/s1600/Marshall.bmp

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_a7jnNn-bmW4/Rv8azuGEwkI/AAAAAAAAAHg/Jxg43K0GOug/s400/Marshall3.bmp

[ltsmotorsport]

I don't mind it at all if the architecture is done right, i.e. the second rendering over the first. I'm sure it's also the only way the project would pencil out too.

[urban_encounter]

I don't mind it at all if the architecture is done right, i.e. the second rendering over the first. I'm sure it's also the only way the project would pencil out too.


I'm not a fan of the first design. That Tower doesn't look good with the building.

[urban_encounter]

Sounds like they're restarting the plan they had in 2007 or so, now that the new SRO-replacement housing at 7th and H is open. Not sure if closing the Marshall will make all that much difference--closing the Greyhound depot was to make that corner yuppie friendly a couple years ago, and it doesn't seem to have helped much.


I live up the street and I see a huge difference around the GH Depot; the drug dealers are gone (or have relocated). I wish they would have opened up that depot though for a Farmers Market.

[wburg]

I live up the street and I see a huge difference around the GH Depot; the drug dealers are gone (or have relocated). I wish they would have opened up that depot though for a Farmers Market.

Yes indeed--that's a fantastic spot for a mid-sized market. Put the more grocery-store type items inside the depot, and use the parking area for market stalls during the weekend (or full-time, if it brings more revenue than its current use as a parking lot.) And build a residential tower on the gravel lot on the alley side that used to be the Royal Hotel (a place so rough it made the Marshall look fancy.)

[ozone]

Most certainly those renderings would not be official. They were drawn up by an architectural firm several years ago only as an investment marketing tool.

[Mr. Ozo]

It's one of the great looking buildings in the area, demolition would be a huge mistake. I think it would a cool contrast to the arena.

Most certainly those renderings would not be official. They were drawn up by an architectural firm several years ago only as an investment marketing tool.

[creamcityleo79]

I happen to like both renderings. They both maintain the architectural history at ground level and complement it on the higher floors...albeit, in different ways. I think it's a matter of preference and opinion. Not everyone is always going to see these things the same.

[jbradway]

It's one of the great looking buildings in the area, demolition would be a huge mistake. I think it would a cool contrast to the arena.

They cannot tear it down. The Marshall is listed as a landmark in the Sacramento Historical Register.

[CAGeoNerd]

Has anyone else heard about Whole Foods looking to put a store in Midtown? Not that it's big news in terms of a building going up (though maybe it would be coincide with a modest 4-5 story building), but it is good in terms of a much needed amenity for residents on the grid. There aren't many options when it comes to grocery downtown, so this would be just another amenity that could promote/attract more residents/businesses.

[wburg]

There have been a few rumors about locations but nothing concrete. More interested in the relocation of the Co-Op to a new facility on R and 28th. Midtown is actually pretty well set for grocery stores, given its population--what we really need is a downtown supermarket, something west of 15th Street.

[BrianSac]

Has anyone else heard about Whole Foods looking to put a store in Midtown? Not that it's big news in terms of a building going up (though maybe it would be coincide with a modest 4-5 story building), but it is good in terms of a much needed amenity for residents on the grid. There aren't many options when it comes to grocery downtown, so this would be just another amenity that could promote/attract more residents/businesses.

I'd rather have a Nugget Market, locally owned, and better quality.

Last I heard re: Whole Foods, texas corporate giant, wants to build on the lot where the 2-story garage is located across from the deco-inspired 2020 L Street building. The garage shares the alley with Faces nightclub.

[NME22]

"A real estate investment firm from Beverly Hills said Wednesday it will build two, 25-story apartment towers, the tallest residential buildings in the region, as well as mid-rise apartments, condominiums and perhaps a boutique hotel in a quiet residential area off Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271504/25-story-apartment-towers-proposed.html#storylink=cpy

[creamcityleo79]

Ah-mazing!!! I mean, it's not 106 net stories. But, it IS 50 net stories and it is NOT a hole in the ground! So happy for Sacramento (if this comes to fruition)! Edit: I think I read this incorrectly as being at the Towers site. Even still, excellent news!!!

[Majin]

"A real estate investment firm from Beverly Hills said Wednesday it will build two, 25-story apartment towers, the tallest residential buildings in the region, as well as mid-rise apartments, condominiums and perhaps a boutique hotel in a quiet residential area off Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271504/25-story-apartment-towers-proposed.html#storylink=cpy

With the Arena starting construction this year, I'm surprised developers aren't running for the hills since the Arena will attract drug dealers, bums, and minorities.

[enigma99a]

I'm guessing 285ft? Not too bad.

[CAGeoNerd]

Sounds like some NIMBY complaints on their way, specifically from the residents adjacent.

[urban_encounter]

25-story apartment towers proposed for downtown Sacramento would be the region’s tallest
By Tony Bizjak
tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2014 - 7:00 pm
Last Modified: Thursday, Mar. 27, 2014 - 12:09 am


A real estate investment firm from Beverly Hills said Wednesday it will build two 25-story apartment towers, the tallest residential buildings in the region, as well as midrise apartments, condominiums and perhaps a boutique hotel in a quiet residential area off Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento.

The ambitious proposal, called Sacramento Commons, could add 1,200 apartments to the downtown’s housing stock, more than has been built in the central city in the last dozen years combined. City officials said it is a sign that the downtown Sacramento housing market could be stirring to life after years of minimal development.

The developer, Kennedy Wilson, an international real estate investor, purchased most of the site bounded by Fifth and Seventh streets and N and P streets several years ago, after it conducted an analysis that showed there is a market for housing in Sacramento’s central business district.

“We feel confident and encouraged by what we see happening downtown and want to be involved,” Kennedy Wilson vice president Dave Eadie said.

The project is being challenged, however, by some current residents of the site who say the high-density development plan will ruin the area’s bucolic, garden-like setting. The plan calls for eventually knocking down as many as 200 two-story garden apartments known as Capital Villas, but leaving three existing housing towers in place. Two of those towers, Bridgeway and Pioneer, are on the project blocks but are not owned by Kennedy Wilson.

Jim Pachl, an environmentalist and retired attorney who lives in the Bridgeway Towers building adjacent to the development site, said the city and developers are trying to squeeze too much onto the property. He said the city should focus on other empty or blighted sites around downtown in need of redevelopment.

“This neighborhood is working,” Pachl said. “It’s been livable housing for decades. Why cannibalize it?”

The project also has drawn opposition from SacMod, a group that promotes preservation of midcentury architecture in Sacramento.

“The open space planning (at the site) was intentional … for the mental health and well-being of people who live there,” SacMod’s Gretchen Steinberg said. “Sacramento Commons is trying to fill that space with buildings and mass.”

Project developers counter that their plan meets city and regional “smart growth” goals by providing more urban-style housing close to jobs, stores and entertainment areas. The project site is literally in the shadows of Capitol Mall offices and five blocks from the Capitol.

The site also is just two blocks from the planned Sacramento Kings arena at Downtown Plaza, although Kennedy Wilson’s Eadie said his company chose to invest in downtown Sacramento prior to the emergence of the arena plan. Notably, though, Eadie’s company has hired site planner AECOM, the company the Kings are using to design their arena.

Eadie said his company will submit its plans to the city on Friday. City officials have been pushing for years to get more people living downtown. City Planning Director David Kwong said the project would be one of the first major housing applications in the post-recession era.

“It’s a good sign that they are taking the risk to move forward with this kind of project,” he said. “It (indicates) a confidence level on their end.”

Councilman Steve Hansen, who represents the area, declined comment on the project until he sees the developer’s plans, an aide said.

Michael Ault, head of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, said downtown needs housing projects, along with the arena, if it is going to see a resurgence and become a 24-hour community.

“That is what we are looking for, people with discretionary income, the creative class, people with resources to be part of this downtown momentum,” he said. “The arena itself is a great project, but we’ve got to be about more complementary use. We have to do a better job of building more residential, and more variety of retail, something more than just restaurants.”

The Sacramento Commons development calls for removing the two-story Capital Villas apartments in phases over years to make room for new high- and midrise buildings. Those new buildings would be built adjacent to the three existing housing towers on the four-block site – Bridgeway Towers on N Street, Pioneer Tower on P Street and Capitol Tower near Seventh and O streets.

The plans call for two 25-story residential towers, located near the northwest corner of Seventh and P streets. Eadie said his company intends to rent at market levels, but declined to guess what those rents would be. He said he expects some of the 1,100-square-foot high-rise apartments will be marketed to affluent renters.

The company remains uncertain whether it will propose condominiums or a boutique hotel, or a combination of the two, for the corner of the site at Seventh and N streets.

Kennedy Wilson officials say they expect the city planning and approval process will take two years. The first construction would likely start no sooner than 2016, Eadie said.

Call The Bee’s Tony Bizjak, (916) 321-1059.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271504/25-story-apartment-towers-proposed.html#storylink=cpy

[creamcityleo79]

Sounds like some NIMBY complaints on their way, specifically from the residents adjacent.

Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?

[ozone]

Of course, some of current residents are against it. They will have move because their two-story suburban-like apartments are going to be demolished in the process. They successfully fought a previous proposal. Let's hope they do not win again. If want to live in a "bucolic" garden-like environment move to the burbs already.

[goldcntry]

Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?

You've obviously haven't lived in California lately... though to be fair, every neighborhood has its NIMBYs... In Cali they just seem to have more clout for some reason or another. Or more money; which ever is easier.

Though I do miss Sactown from time to time, I am so glad I'm not in Cali anymore. Now I keep up on Sactown-area news to keep my family still there informed. "Son! Do you know what's being built over on R Street?" "Dad... you do still remember that I live in Utah now? Oh and it's x-project..."

:tomato:

[creamcityleo79]

Of course, some of current residents are against it. They will have move because their two-story suburban-like apartments are going to be demolished in the process. They successfully fought a previous proposal. Let's hope they do not win again. If want to live in a "bucolic" garden-like environment move to the burbs already.

....or go set up a tent on the river! IJS

[creamcityleo79]

You've obviously haven't lived in California lately... though to be fair, every neighborhood has its NIMBYs... In Cali they just seem to have more clout for some reason or another. Or more money; which ever is easier.

Though I do miss Sactown from time to time, I am so glad I'm not in Cali anymore. Now I keep up on Sactown-area news to keep my family still there informed. "Son! Do you know what's being built over on R Street?" "Dad... you do still remember that I live in Utah now? Oh and it's x-project..."

:tomato:

You're right! I moved in 2009 to Colorado Springs because the company I was working for(USAA) closed their office in Sacramento (my hometown) and they moved me there (which I hated). While it is true that I haven't lived there for 5 years, I follow developments there very closely (news, blogs, etc.). I probably know more about the city than most people living there (those on this forum not included). That being said, the development previously proposed went stale because of the economy, IIRC. If I were a developer, I wouldn't want to deal with NIMBYs in the economy we just came out of...it was bad enough. So, they pulled the plug. It didn't seem like a very concrete proposal, anyway. This one seems different...with renderings and the possibility of a new revenue stream (the arena and the developments and activity surrounding it), this seems like a better proposal. Also, with a City Council/Mayor probably BEGGING to let this arena be the impetus for great things downtown, I think it should be an easy process. That said, I'm no mind reader...so, one can't say for sure what they're actually thinking! But, I have high hopes for this one!

[urban_encounter]

Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?

Every project can be negotiated and scaled. In this case I would say the villas probably won't stay if the project is truly viable. But it is important to protect some open space there in a semi like park setting. That's what makes Sacramento unique.

It would send a bad signal to shoot down the first project proposal (post recession) from out of town developers because we want to save suburban looking apartments at the cost of higher densities.

[creamcityleo79]

Every project can be negotiated and scaled. In this case I would say the villas probably won't stay if the project is truly viable. But it is important to protect some open space there in a semi like park setting. That's what makes Sacramento unique.

It would send a bad signal to shoot down the first project proposal (post recession) from out of town developers because we want to save suburban looking apartments at the cost of higher densities.

Yes! As I said, I think they'll be drooling at the feet of the first (few?) developer(s)!...at least, one would hope they would!

[Majin]

If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.

[ozone]

If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.

I agree with you. It takes a good leader to push a city like Sacramento forward. Too many people here would do nothing. Maybe it's a curse of having so many state employees? The reason they (NIMBYs) are so brazen is that they've had success here in the past. I like an engaged public and sometimes the NIMBYs make a project even better or stop a project that is all wrong. Think about the NIMBYs who wanted to stop the destruction of the Alhambra Theater or stop the construction of Interstate 5 through downtown. In hindsight they were right. However, in a lot of cases (like this one) it's a case of opposing something due to self-interest and not because it is best thing for the community.

BTW I don't think it's a particularly California thing. But exes, like NIMBYs, always seem to need something to gripe about - ;-)

[creamcityleo79]

If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.

As a person, I liked Fargo better. As a mayor, KJ has, I believe, saved the city from so much embarrassment and future issues, he was most certainly the right man for the job! :tup:

[Majin]

As a person, I liked Fargo better. As a mayor, KJ has, I believe, saved the city from so much embarrassment and future issues, he was most certainly the right man for the job! :tup:

In what way is Fargo likable as a person?

[creamcityleo79]

In what way is Fargo likable as a person?

I had met her a couple times years ago and she was very nice.

[snfenoc]

Did NIMBYs really have a lot of sway 10 years ago? Many big projects were approved under Mayor Fargo. Granted, few were built; but that had more to do with economic factors than NIMBY influence.

I will agree that Mayor Johnson is a better cheerleader for the city than Mayor Fargo was.

I'm not going to defend NIMBYs, as I strongly believe in the right of property owners to do as they please. However, it's silly to blame a tiny group of gadflies and self-interested residents for Sacramento's perceived failure to develop.



I have to say, the size of the Sacramento Commons project makes me a little incredulous. 1000+ housing units! That's a lot, more than the Towers on Crapitol Mall, and we all know what became of that grand scheme. Still, the developer has owned the properties for a number of years, and I can only assume that's a good amount of time for due diligence, right?

The article mentions removing the two-story apartments in phases. Does that mean the developer plans to build in phases too? I hope so. We wouldn't want everything to be demolished at once and the site left to rot when the bubble inevitably bursts again. I'd rather have something than nothing; Sacramento doesn't need another hole in the ground. Also, if I were a resident of Bridgeway towers, I wouldn't be pleased about having my view changed from "bucolic" to wasteland for a decade.

[creamcityleo79]

Did NIMBYs really have a lot of sway 10 years ago? Many big projects were approved under Mayor Fargo. Granted, few were built; but that had more to do with economic factors than NIMBY influence.

I will agree that Mayor Johnson is a better cheerleader for the city than Mayor Fargo was.

I'm not going to defend NIMBYs, as I strongly believe in the right of property owners to do as they please. However, it's silly to blame a tiny group of gadflies and self-interested residents for Sacramento's perceived failure to develop.



I have to say, the size of the Sacramento Commons project makes me a little incredulous. 1000+ housing units! That's a lot, more than the Towers on Crapitol Mall, and we all know what became of that grand scheme. Still, the developer has owned the properties for a number of years, and I can only assume that's a good amount of time for due diligence, right?

The article mentions removing the two-story apartments in phases. Does that mean the developer plans to build in phases too? I hope so. We wouldn't want everything to be demolished at once and the site left to rot when the bubble inevitably bursts again. I'd rather have something than nothing; Sacramento doesn't need another hole in the ground. Also, if I were a resident of Bridgeway towers, I wouldn't be pleased about having my view changed from "bucolic" to wasteland for a decade.

Good points! BUT, it's not like there doesn't need to be any new housing units built. The area is growing (regardless of the economy) and will continue to need new housing. Many people want to live downtown and this will give those people that option. ALSO, remember it was the lack of will by the city and the developer that brought down the Towers NOT lack of interest. IIRC, they had deposits on 50% of the units before one pile was even driven. The demand is there. The time is right. Sacramento missed out on the first part of the last economic/housing boom! This time has to be different...and it appears to be shaping up that way!

[snfenoc]

Good points! BUT, it's not like there doesn't need to be any new housing units built. The area is growing (regardless of the economy) and will continue to need new housing. Many people want to live downtown and this will give those people that option. ALSO, remember it was the lack of will by the city and the developer that brought down the Towers NOT lack of interest. IIRC, they had deposits on 50% of the units before one pile was even driven. The demand is there. The time is right. Sacramento missed out on the first part of the last economic/housing boom! This time has to be different...and it appears to be shaping up that way!


I just want to be clear, I am not saying Sacramento can't support, or doesn't need, new housing units. I just think 1000+ housing units is a bit optimistic for one development. I hope it is built in phases. It looks like the proposal is for mostly rental units, which may be a good thing.

What causes you to say the Towers on Crapitol Mall failed due a lack of will from the city? I sure don't think so. I recall the city was prepared to sink millions into the development, as long as it met certain reasonable standards. Unfortunately, the project was unable to unlock financing in a tough real estate and and lending market. Blame the economy. Blame the unrealistic developer. Don't blame the city. Sure, the project generated a lot of interest, but it needed more than that. It was proposed too late game, and it was too big.

[ltsmotorsport]

Yeah, from my memory, the target to unlock the main financing package was something around 50% pre-sales, which just wasn't possible given the time constraints/economy collapsing. CalPers came in to provide something of a stop-gap, but it was too little, too late. If they had started 6 months earlier, the towers would be there today, IMO.


And back to the Sacramento Commons project, the opinion of some of the residents is important, but they would have a stronger argument without offhandedly dismissing the plan from the outset. This is classic NIMBYism; saying no from the beginning and threatening strong action instead of trying to work with the developer (essentially their landlord). Those "villas" are nothing special anyway. The only reason they look decent is because of a paint job ~5 years ago and some appliance upgrades. Other than that, they really aren't a product that is worth keeping in downtown with the demand for new housing, and better design sure to come from this proposal.

[creamcityleo79]

I just want to be clear, I am not saying Sacramento can't support, or doesn't need, new housing units. I just think 1000+ housing units is a bit optimistic for one development. I hope it is built in phases. It looks like the proposal is for mostly rental units, which may be a good thing.

What causes you to say the Towers on Crapitol Mall failed due a lack of will from the city? I sure don't think so. I recall the city was prepared to sink millions into the development, as long as it met certain reasonable standards. Unfortunately, the project was unable to unlock financing in a tough real estate and and lending market. Blame the economy. Blame the unrealistic developer. Don't blame the city. Sure, the project generated a lot of interest, but it needed more than that. It was proposed too late game, and it was too big.

Certainly the city and the developer were not equally to blame. But, I think some on the city council did a little more foot dragging than was acceptable to the financiers (who were, maybe rightfully, a little skeptical about something of such a grand scale). As for the 50% number, I do think it was very close to that number who had deposits down. Either way, I completely agree had this project been proposed 6 months earlier (maybe only a few months earlier), it would be done, in the ground, and we may be talking about a different Sacramento now.

[creamcityleo79]

Just checked the 301 thread. 500/833 units had soft deposits.

[Pistola916]

^
The Towers was an overly ambitious project but having that many soft deposits, why didn't they gone with building one tower?

[creamcityleo79]

^
The Towers was an overly ambitious project but having that many soft deposits, why didn't they gone with building one tower?

Because many involved were not willing to accept defeat...and defeat meant anything but the full project...once the economy started fumbling, CALPERS pulled back and that was, basically, the death knell.

[v.o.r.t.e.x]

Because many involved were not willing to accept defeat...and defeat meant anything but the full project...once the economy started fumbling, CALPERS pulled back and that was, basically, the death knell.

Im glad they didnt built those 90s looking boxy towers

[NME22]

Im glad they didnt built those 90s looking boxy towers

"90s looking boxy towers > a hole in the ground. My feeling when the project was still and play and now is that nothing great gets built without ambition. That usually comes in the face of people telling you you shouldn't do it. So, I find nothing wrong with the project, except it would have been better if he got one tower built and waited out the economy for the second.

I hope that in the future someone has the ambition to build something higher than 25 stories. For whatever reason, everyone loses their minds when something higher than that is proposed. This is why Sacramento can't have nice things. Too many folks saying we "can't" do it.

[urban_encounter]

"90s looking boxy towers > a hole in the ground. My feeling when the project was still and play and now is that nothing great gets built without ambition. That usually comes in the face of people telling you you shouldn't do it. So, I find nothing wrong with the project, except it would have been better if he got one tower built and waited out the economy for the second.

I hope that in the future someone has the ambition to build something higher than 25 stories. For whatever reason, everyone loses their minds when something higher than that is proposed. This is why Sacramento can't have nice things. Too many folks saying we "can't" do it.


Yes we do have the naysayers or the 'cant do crowd'. But we also have a lot of people who want a vibrant city who may differ on some aspects on how we get there. Some of the most vibrant modern cities on the planet though aren't necessarily defined by the height of their skylines alone but by their transportation, academics, architecture, waterfronts, history, cuisine, and even sports and sporting venues. We have one of the busiest rail stations in the nation; we finally have a beautiful airport that we can be proud of that is both functional and recognized nationally; our region is finally embracing both our Gold Rush history and our agricultural surroundings have helped turn our "Farm to Fork" campaign into a source of pride in how we look at ourselves imo. There will be taller buildings in our future most likely, but there's nothing wrong with 25 story residential towers downtown. Heck, any residential adds to the vibrancy on the streets and that's what will continue the domino effect of getting more housing built.

[urban_encounter]

Im glad they didnt built those 90s looking boxy towers

Had those towers been built, Westfield would never have sold the mall to JMA and we wouldn't be getting a new arena at the Downtown Plaza location. It could have worked in the rail yards but not as well as DTP. More empty parcels have the chance to be developed with the arena being constructed at 600k street plus it leaves more room for the intermodal facility.

[snfenoc]

Interesting point, Urban.


A few things I've been thinking about...

Soft (Refundable) deposits are not the same as Non-Refundable deposits. I'm not sure Saca had over 50% COMMITMENT from potential condo buyers.

I don't think that skepticism on the part of a council member or two (I don't remember any) had significant effect on the bank's and CalPERS's decision to withhold financing on the Towers.

Also, one should remember that just because a project gets off the ground, doesn't mean it will be a success. The L Street Lofts property was foreclosed on, and it had to be converted to rental units. I'm not sure if those units are even 100% occupied at this point. The L Street Lofts had about 1/10 the condo units as the Towers On Crapitol Mall did, by the way.

Additionally, I remember reading about a number of condo projects that were left unfinished due to the economic downturn. I'm not sure a half-built development is any more a success than a hole in the ground. Besides, the City agreed to subsidize the hotel portion of the development. It would have been horrible if the city ended up losing those millions of dollars. Consequently, it may not have the gravitas it has currently to subsidize the new ESC. I'm glad (for the City's sake) the Towers didn't get far enough to unlock the city subsidy. (Speculation on my part, but something to think about.)

I imagine those who were depending on the equity in their "current" homes to help pay for their condos are counting their blessings that their soft and non-refundable deposits were returned after the project was canceled. Had the project been just 6 months ahead and actually completed (as some are suggesting) and the residents were obligated to eat those deposits, that could have really hurt a lot of people financially. (Again, speculation on my part.)

When things don't work out, we tend to blame evil forces (NIMBYs and Mayor Fargo) instead of considering reality. "If Sacramento just had a "can do" attitude, we would be a world class city." I'm sorry, but Sacramento is (or was) not the kind of market to support 850 high-end condos and a 5-star hotel. There is nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and trying to grow bigger, but you need a solid foundation from which to make that push. Those smaller towers (Bridgeway, etc.) on the "super block" were built 30+ years ago and represent tallest housing in Sacramento. That's not saying much. Additionally, I think they were built as rental units (one may have been converted to condos a few years back, however). Maybe this current proposal is a good springboard for taller high rise housing. It appears to be a phased development with a high proportion of rental housing. We'll see.

[creamcityleo79]

Excellent news!

City Planning Commission gives McKinley Village a green light

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/03/28/city-planning-commission-gives-mckinley-village-a.html?ana=e_vert

[creamcityleo79]

On a side note, did anyone else see Rob Turner's (Sactown editor and former Skyscraperpage Forumer, SactownRob) "vision" article about "plussing" (Disney term) Old Sacramento? LOVED IT!!!

Turner: With arena to rise, Old Sacramento has chance to shine like never before

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/30/6275261/turner-with-arena-to-rise-old.html#

[ozone]

On a side note, did anyone else see Rob Turner's (Sactown editor and former Skyscraperpage Forumer, SactownRob) "vision" article about "plussing" (Disney term) Old Sacramento? LOVED IT!!!

Turner: With arena to rise, Old Sacramento has chance to shine like never before

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/30/6275261/turner-with-arena-to-rise-old.html#

With all due respect, I find most of Rob Turner's "cut and paste" ideas, uninspired rip-offs. His ideas about what to do with Old Sacramento are no different and is IMO completely in the wrong direction. He rightly see the district in it's current state as sort of poor-man's Disneyland, however, his solution is not to re-integrate the district into the fabric of the central city, rather it is to make it more Disneyesque, more touristy and more disconnected. Frankly it's a silly and horrible idea. Unfortunately, too many in Sacramento lack the understanding of what makes good urban places and will listen to this guy. I think we should go in the opposite direction. We need to make Old Sacramento more appealing and accessible to the residents of the central city rather than making more appealing to people from Roseville and Yuba City.

We (City/Council district and Old Sacramento BID) need to make some basic infrastructure improvements first! Start with a sound wall and screen alongside the freeway; create more attractive and safer walkways and bikeways connecting OS with the Capitol Mall and the Downtown Plaza; replace the badly deteriorated and unsafe wooden riverfront boardwalk with a permanent concrete one; allow restaurants to build wood decks out from the sidewalks so they can have comfortable sidewalk dining (ala the MARRS Building in Midtown); and finally, but not least, we need to add street trees -irregularly spaced, planted in wells directly into the sides of the streets between the cars (as was done in Dwtn Lodi). Not into the wooden sidewalks which would run into the basements.

We are the City of Trees and there's no reason Old Sac should be exempt from the benefits of trees just because it wouldn't be "authentic" in some people's eyes. Street trees would be the single greatest improvement to Old Sacramento. Trees would provide more shade, add beauty, reduce noise and dust, slow traffic, and make Old Sacramento feel both more intimate and at the same time more expansive because it's boundaries would be less visible.

As for the types of businesses and entertainment. Unlike Disneyland, which is owned and operated by a single entity, Old Sacramento is made up of many independent businesses. The market should determine the businesses. That's not something the public can dictate. But I would loosen the signage regulations to allow different sizes and even neon. We just need to worry about the things we can do and let the market work out the rest.

[Mr. Ozo]

Not sure trees are possible in Old Sac, as the street is raised about 15 feet off the ground.

Agreed that the Disneylandification of Old Sac is a horrible idea that needs to go in a different direction. More housing in actual Old Sac would help.

Not a mystery why Old Sac seems buried. It starts with I and ends with 5.

[BillSimmons]

I would like to see Old Sac turned into a nightlife/entertainment district, with the focus being on businesses that nearby residents would frequent and not catered to out-of-town tourists like Old Sac is currently. Using Downtown/River as a backdrop would be a great setting for cafe's/restaurants with outdoor seating. Bars and nightclubs would ensure that there's a late night crowd as well. Something along the model of like Old Town Scottsdale or, my favorite, the French Quarter/Bourbon Street in New Orleans. I think most residents are tired of Old Sac in its current state. The only time I'm ever there is if I'm passing through to a River Cats game.

[ozone]

Not sure trees are possible in Old Sac, as the street is raised about 15 feet off the ground.

Agreed that the Disneylandification of Old Sac is a horrible idea that needs to go in a different direction. More housing in actual Old Sac would help.

Trees are totally possible! After all we dig down way deeper than 15 ft for buildings. OK yes, we couldn't plant trees in the conventional way, but where there is a will, there's a way. We would have to create tree wells specific for conditions -maybe pored-in-place concrete wells or possibly use large pre-made utility culverts up-ended and the trees planted inside them?

I agree that more housing is needed and maybe hotel rooms as well. One way to make this happen is to no longer require the Firehouse parking lot at L/Front be a reproduction (of late 19th C.) buildings. Because it was originally a group of rather nondescript one-story buildings it's not going to be very profitable for a developer. But if we allowed a non-historical building on the site it would get developed. It would still be required to 'fit in.'

We really need to move beyond the out-of-date original concept for Old Sacramento because it was never properly implemented and with the freeway, traffic, parking meters and nearby modern office towers it's now impossible to maintain the illusion.

[creamcityleo79]

Ok...First of all, we are going to have to agree to disagree about Rob. I think he is an amazing visionary who puts these ideas out there for Sacramento on a grand scale when very few others are. 2) He did not call for the "Disneylandification" of Old Sac. He proposed a few ideas that would make it better. What's wrong with people in period clothing walking around (for general info or historic education)? The piped in smells? Ok...that's not all that necessary. But, the lighting and the music...ABSOLUTELY that would be amazing in that area! What an (even more) amazing place Old Sac would be if it were a cohesive district tied together by period-specific music and historic significance!!! I don't get what's wrong with his ideas. He's not wanting parades/shows or Disney characters walking around...he's proposing things that "plus" Old Sac and add to it's charm.

[wburg]

Rob is a preservationist, I just don't think he realizes what a preservationist is (hint: it's not all about keeping things exactly the way they are. It's about finding new uses for old buildings.)

Old Sacramento has been positioned as a nightlife/entertainment district for decades, it just has ebbs and flows alternating between lots of new nightlife events going on, and occasional rashes of shootings and violence which slows down the nightlife and scares away customers not interested in shooting each other. It's difficult to make Old Sacramento a nightlife destination that focuses mostly on nearby residents, because there aren't many nearby residents. Midtown's population is going up, and given some time we'll have more folks nearby in West Sacramento, but people tend to want to be entertained in their own neighborhood, which means more residential in Old Sacramento and the central business district (roughly H to N, from the river to 21st), where it is now sorely lacking (fewer people per capita than Land Park or East Sacramento, if you don't include the main jail) while most of the impetus to put new housing is outside that perimeter, because the land is cheaper (in part because it's not zoned for unlimited height.)

One thing about music, though...ragtime jazz is not period-appropriate for a district with a late Gold Rush/mid 19th century theme. Ragtime is from the 1890s and early 20th century. If ragtime jazz was such a sure-fire crowd pleaser, the Sacramento Music Festival wouldn't be trying so hard to rebrand itself. And I can't imagine young people wanting a contemporary nightlife/nightclub experience being all that happy to hear "When The Saints Come Marching In" played on a million banjos. But there isn't much music you wouldn't have heard in the West End over a century or so--big band jazz and Western swing, bebop and Latin jazz, Japanese samisen and Mexican coridos, Portuguese, Italian and German folk songs, rockabilly and rock & roll, disco, funk, basement techno and garage punk.

Considering that there are arcades and porches covering most of the sidewalks in Old Sacramento, and the sidewalks underneath are hollow (and in many cases, used as commercial space in basement-level restaurants and nightclubs) I don't see the tree idea getting much traction. Those hollow sidewalks are also a tourist attraction in their own right!

[Deno]

I agree it should be a place to go to for locals and tourists.

[ozone]

Considering that there are arcades and porches covering most of the sidewalks in Old Sacramento, and the sidewalks underneath are hollow (and in many cases, used as commercial space in basement-level restaurants and nightclubs) I don't see the tree idea getting much traction. Those hollow sidewalks are also a tourist attraction in their own right!

Do you even bother reading other people's post before responding? FYI the covered sidewalks are poor substitute for street trees. They do not provide half of the benefits. But you can't seem to understand that. Also if you had bothered reading my post you would understand that I'm not talking about planting trees in the wood sidewalks. You can always come up with a hundred reasons why something can't be done but come up short on solutions.

BTW what good has the Old City Assoc. really done for this city? Now you guys are trying to save the suburban-style housing projects in West Broadway because they're "historic." Really? Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt. Sorry to be so harsh but I've about had it with your Mr Know-it-all attitude.

[NME22]

Sounds like Rob wants a Gold Rush Amusement Park. Which actually sounds like a great idea for the area. Just not in Old Sac.

A city can't manufacture culture. They can only help to provide the impetus behind it. Old sac already has musicians on the corner, sparingly. If there is to be more, then there has to be more foot traffic and profit to be made by the artist. You can not place city paid street performers out there. Same with actors in period piece costumes. If the city would like to do period re-enactments once a week for an hour, that is fine. But it can't be a constant thing without it feeling contrived and forced.

The only way this gets off the ground is with more housing in old sac and around it. More foot traffic. Loosening of some restrictions, such as hours of operation and noise restrictions. The citizens and supply and demand will take care of the rest.

[creamcityleo79]

Do you even bother reading other people's post before responding? FYI the covered sidewalks are poor substitute for street trees. They do not provide half of the benefits. But you can't seem to understand that. Also if you had bothered reading my post you would understand that I'm not talking about planting trees in the wood sidewalks. You can always come up with a hundred reasons why something can't be done but come up short on solutions.

BTW what good has the Old City Assoc. really done for this city? Now you guys are trying to save the suburban-style housing projects in West Broadway because they're "historic." Really? Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt. Sorry to be so harsh but I've about had it with your Mr Know-it-all attitude.

We can have a civil debate without getting rude. Respect for other forumers is appreciated.

[wburg]

Sounds like Rob wants a Gold Rush Amusement Park. Which actually sounds like a great idea for the area. Just not in Old Sac.

A city can't manufacture culture. They can only help to provide the impetus behind it. Old sac already has musicians on the corner, sparingly. If there is to be more, then there has to be more foot traffic and profit to be made by the artist. You can not place city paid street performers out there. Same with actors in period piece costumes. If the city would like to do period re-enactments once a week for an hour, that is fine. But it can't be a constant thing without it feeling contrived and forced.

The only way this gets off the ground is with more housing in old sac and around it. More foot traffic. Loosening of some restrictions, such as hours of operation and noise restrictions. The citizens and supply and demand will take care of the rest.

Indeed. Let street buskers operate independently, it seems silly to suggest that they be required to stick to a particular genre, or have to jump through all sorts of hoops just to play music on the street. Or set up a very simple system like that used on the 3rd Street promenade in Santa Monica--they pay a small fee ($20-30) and read a little booklet with the basic rules for street musicians (where you can and can't play, etc.) and here's your permit.

In terms of loosening restrictions, some new rules introduced in the zoning code last year make it easier to put residential units into historic buildings (including ignoring maximum density limits as long as it's within the old building envelope) mean it's theoretically easier to put housing into Old Sacramento and other old, vacant or underutilized buildings nearby (legislation that SOCA advocated for, along with reduced or eliminated parking minimums for projects in old buildings). Residents create foot traffic and become the core customers for neighborhood businesses--visitors add to that number, and tourists add even more. Of course, not everyone wants to live in that amusement-park atmosphere, but you don't need an enormous population in that six-block area. Restrictions on hours have more to do with the local business community than city regulation--heck, a couple years ago I went to a Planning Commission meeting to advocate in favor of having a proposed downtown 7-11 remain open 24 hours, while representatives of the Convention & Visitors Bureau and the local hotel association spoke in opposition to allowing it, because having a late-night business next to the Convention Center and a downtown hotel would give the "wrong impression." Their actions, and their discomfort with late-night businesses, residential and 24 hour uses, are a major reason why downtown Sacramento has so few late night uses--such as the Perko's on 3rd and J which has to close down between 2 and 5 AM, unlike pretty much every other Perko's.

There's also plenty of room for organized public programming--from reenactors and interpretive events to public-funded music events and concerts. Why not? It's part of the appeal and people like it. A lot of those folks are volunteers, like the volunteers who operate the Railroad Museum's passenger trains, while others are paid staff, like the tour guides who run the Underground Sidewalks tours. But there is no inherent contradiction between interpretive/historic functions and more contemporary entertainment, or street buskers playing music that isn't 100% authentic Gold Rush era music (which dixieland jazz, as I mentioned, absolutely is not.)

[urban_encounter]

Interesting point, Urban.


A few things I've been thinking about...

Soft (Refundable) deposits are not the same as Non-Refundable deposits. I'm not sure Saca had over 50% COMMITMENT from potential condo buyers.

I don't think that skepticism on the part of a council member or two (I don't remember any) had significant effect on the bank's and CalPERS's decision to withhold financing on the Towers.

Also, one should remember that just because a project gets off the ground, doesn't mean it will be a success. The L Street Lofts property was foreclosed on, and it had to be converted to rental units. I'm not sure if those units are even 100% occupied at this point. The L Street Lofts had about 1/10 the condo units as the Towers On Crapitol Mall did, by the way.

Additionally, I remember reading about a number of condo projects that were left unfinished due to the economic downturn. I'm not sure a half-built development is any more a success than a hole in the ground. Besides, the City agreed to subsidize the hotel portion of the development. It would have been horrible if the city ended up losing those millions of dollars. Consequently, it may not have the gravitas it has currently to subsidize the new ESC. I'm glad (for the City's sake) the Towers didn't get far enough to unlock the city subsidy. (Speculation on my part, but something to think about.)

I imagine those who were depending on the equity in their "current" homes to help pay for their condos are counting their blessings that their soft and non-refundable deposits were returned after the project was canceled. Had the project been just 6 months ahead and actually completed (as some are suggesting) and the residents were obligated to eat those deposits, that could have really hurt a lot of people financially. (Again, speculation on my part.)

When things don't work out, we tend to blame evil forces (NIMBYs and Mayor Fargo) instead of considering reality. "If Sacramento just had a "can do" attitude, we would be a world class city." I'm sorry, but Sacramento is (or was) not the kind of market to support 850 high-end condos and a 5-star hotel. There is nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and trying to grow bigger, but you need a solid foundation from which to make that push. Those smaller towers (Bridgeway, etc.) on the "super block" were built 30+ years ago and represent tallest housing in Sacramento. That's not saying much. Additionally, I think they were built as rental units (one may have been converted to condos a few years back, however). Maybe this current proposal is a good springboard for taller high rise housing. It appears to be a phased development with a high proportion of rental housing. We'll see.


Well said

[urban_encounter]

Ok...First of all, we are going to have to agree to disagree about Rob. I think he is an amazing visionary who puts these ideas out there for Sacramento on a grand scale when very few others are. 2) He did not call for the "Disneylandification" of Old Sac. He proposed a few ideas that would make it better. What's wrong with people in period clothing walking around (for general info or historic education)? The piped in smells? Ok...that's not all that necessary. But, the lighting and the music...ABSOLUTELY that would be amazing in that area! What an (even more) amazing place Old Sac would be if it were a cohesive district tied together by period-specific music and historic significance!!! I don't get what's wrong with his ideas. He's not wanting parades/shows or Disney characters walking around...he's proposing things that "plus" Old Sac and add to it's charm.

I agree about Rob Turner. I enjoy reading his quarterly ideas.

[LandofFrost]

I recently had some friends, who have lived in San Francisco for many years, come to stay with me for a weekend. Sunday morning, we rode our bikes down T street, had breakfast at Fox and Goose, took a peek in the Crocker art museum and then headed over to Old Sac. Even though they have lived only 90 miles away for two decades they had no idea why anyone would ever come to our town. It had been “common knowledge” how terrible Sacramento was, and they were shocked by how much they liked it after actually bothering to visit.
I bring this up since everyone is talking about Old Town. People who live in Sacramento tend to forget about it, but to people who are not from here, it is an unexpected treat to visit.

[Pistola916]

Developer revises plan for 7-story mixed use building on I Street

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/04/01/developer-revises-plan-for-7-story-mixed-use.html

Bay Miry’s D&S Development has revised a plan with the city for i15, a mixed-use project of seven stories at 1431 I St., at what's now a shuttered car repair shop.

According to a revised proposal recently submitted to the city of Sacramento, the building would have 91 residential units and 2,000 square feet of first-floor retail space, kitty-corner to the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium.

The item does not indicate what was previously proposed for the site or what revisions are being proposed. Miry did not immediately return a call for comment.

Details in the proposal show residence units on every floor, with four behind the first-floor retail and, in an apparent nod to sensibilities of modern urban living, a bike storage room.

The second through fifth floors would have units of a square footage not described in the proposal, while the top two floors would be composed of lofts, apparently slightly larger in size than the units below. There also would be an outdoor terrace on one floor, apparently facing west.

The project will be a bit of a squeeze into a lot directly east of a Quality Inn motel, which has a pool just north of the i15 project site.

There also is no described parking for the project, though changes in city planning codes last year included an easier path to approval for projects without identified parking. There’s also a handful of parking garages nearby.

Another Miry mixed-use project now under construction, 16 Powerhouse in midtown Sacramento, has a floor designated for an automated parking system unique to the region but found in other cities.

[Mr. Ozo]

This is the first true test if the planning commission will approve a project of this size with zero parking places, allowed under the new zoning rules they just approved.

Let's let the free market decide how much parking is needed.

I think it's great, let put in 10 more of these down I and J.

[CAGeoNerd]

Excellent proposal! Very encouraging seeing things pick back up.

[Majin]

I suppose 7 stories is decent for that area.

And I love the complete lack of parking. I really hope this becomes the new trend. I also hope the vast majority of the surface parking in the grid goes away this decade.

[creamcityleo79]

How does one get on the Majin Crew?

[wburg]

It's a very old joke, I'm more interested in how to leave the Majin Crew. Although on this, he and I agree--I'd like to see more buildings like this in place of surface parking lots downtown. It's also just the sort of building that developers were knocking down until the 1990s or so because housing downtown was "obsolete," and nobody would rent in a building without a parking structure. I didn't pay much attention to that sort of thing back then, but reading a lot of old articles from the 1980s and 1990s, what strikes me is how much a building like this reminds me of places like the Merrium and Francesca, in function if not explicitly in form.

Plenty of people visit Old Sacramento and really like it, they do not share the bias against their hometown's tourist attraction/amenity. It's not uncommon at all for people to downplay the local tourist trap--not a lot of San Franciscans go to Fisherman's Wharf a lot, nor Chicagoans to Navy Pier, except when family is in town and they want to go someplace touristy and family-appropriate--just like Old Sacramento. The same Capitol Mall that people talk about as being boring and uninspired makes visiting photographers whip out their cameras, from cellphone shots to folks with tripods and gigantic lenses. The problem is, Interstate 5 and a lack of reasons to cross it means that many visitors to Old Sacramento don't realize that there is a whole city on the other side of the bridge.

[urban_encounter]

Just checked the 301 thread. 500/833 units had soft deposits.

Ironically it was close.

[urban_encounter]

I had met her a couple times years ago and she was very nice.

I've met he twice and she was quite curt both times. I supported her up until Johnson ran against her.

[urban_encounter]

It's a very old joke, I'm more interested in how to leave the Majin Crew. Although on this, he and I agree--I'd like to see more buildings like this in place of surface parking lots downtown. It's also just the sort of building that developers were knocking down until the 1990s or so because housing downtown was "obsolete," and nobody would rent in a building without a parking structure. I didn't pay much attention to that sort of thing back then, but reading a lot of old articles from the 1980s and 1990s, what strikes me is how much a building like this reminds me of places like the Merrium and Francesca, in function if not explicitly in form.

Plenty of people visit Old Sacramento and really like it, they do not share the bias against their hometown's tourist attraction/amenity. It's not uncommon at all for people to downplay the local tourist trap--not a lot of San Franciscans go to Fisherman's Wharf a lot, nor Chicagoans to Navy Pier, except when family is in town and they want to go someplace touristy and family-appropriate--just like Old Sacramento. The same Capitol Mall that people talk about as being boring and uninspired makes visiting photographers whip out their cameras, from cellphone shots to folks with tripods and gigantic lenses. The problem is, Interstate 5 and a lack of reasons to cross it means that many visitors to Old Sacramento don't realize that there is a whole city on the other side of the bridge.


Very true... Also not everybody who lives in the central city will own a car.

[BillSimmons]

BTW what good has the Old City Assoc. really done for this city? Now you guys are trying to save the suburban-style housing projects in West Broadway because they're "historic." Really? Forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt. Sorry to be so harsh but I've about had it with your Mr Know-it-all attitude.

Yeah, the New Helvetia Housing Projects are historic! That used to be the murder capital of Sacramento! I mean sure it went quiet for a decade or so, but recently has started to show signs of life again with a handful of recent murders! That's totally worth protecting!

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

I think what truly needs to be said is that there is an entire generation of Sacramentans, of which I'm a part of, that came of age everywhere from Elk Grove to East Sac and all over the city. We remember being passengers in our parents' cars driving around downtown and seeing, well, nothing. Now we've gone off to school, to cities like Portland, San Diego, and Seattle, right as all the other cities are booming. What we want (and I use we loosely since I know I can't wait to return home) is Sacramento to be just as good, if not better, than all those cities. The whole point of going to architecture school is so that I can return home to be a part of that change to my city. At the very least, I'm sick of a lot of the "no we can't," Boomer-era Sacramento thinking, and at the worst, it's sickening. We have the opportunity to be a better city than Portland; we already have a better climate, better access to our (much cleaner) rivers, and more great local food options. Sacramento needs to grow up, and now's the best opportunity we have, burning bright like a phoenix coming out of the recession, because I don't know about everyone else, but I remember driving through Tent City every other weekend and I refuse to let that happen to my city again.

Bring on the wrecking balls; there isn't a single two-story condo downtown that doesn't need demolishing.

[creamcityleo79]

I think what truly needs to be said is that there is an entire generation of Sacramentans, of which I'm a part of, that came of age everywhere from Elk Grove to East Sac and all over the city. We remember being passengers in our parents' cars driving around downtown and seeing, well, nothing. Now we've gone off to school, to cities like Portland, San Diego, and Seattle, right as all the other cities are booming. What we want (and I use we loosely since I know I can't wait to return home) is Sacramento to be just as good, if not better, than all those cities. The whole point of going to architecture school is so that I can return home to be a part of that change to my city. At the very least, I'm sick of a lot of the "no we can't," Boomer-era Sacramento thinking, and at the worst, it's sickening. We have the opportunity to be a better city than Portland; we already have a better climate, better access to our (much cleaner) rivers, and more great local food options. Sacramento needs to grow up, and now's the best opportunity we have, burning bright like a phoenix coming out of the recession, because I don't know about everyone else, but I remember driving through Tent City every other weekend and I refuse to let that happen to my city again.

Bring on the wrecking balls; there isn't a single two-story condo downtown that doesn't need demolishing.

I don't think I'm of that generation (maybe a few years older). But, I agree wholeheartedly!...and I can't wait to come back either! :)

[jbradway]

I've met he twice and she was quite curt both times. I supported her up until Johnson ran against her.

This was my experience the one time I met her. All on her as she was unprovoked.

[creamcityleo79]

This was my experience the one time I met her. All on her as she was unprovoked.

I did meet her through a mutual friend. So, that may have been the reason (or just my normal charms! ;) ).

[wburg]

I think what truly needs to be said is that there is an entire generation of Sacramentans, of which I'm a part of, that came of age everywhere from Elk Grove to East Sac and all over the city.
There are several generations of Sacramentans who grew up in the slurbs. I'm one of them too, but of the previous generation--the so-called "Generation X" in between the Millennials and the Boomers (mid-30s to about 50.) You don't hear about us much, but some of us moved downtown 20-30 years ago, and plenty of us never left, despite reports that we all moved to the slurbs to raise kids.
We remember being passengers in our parents' cars driving around downtown and seeing, well, nothing.
You should have gotten out of the car, because you missed a rather nice city. I took the bus downtown, walked around, and saw all sorts of things: beautiful buildings, sidewalks where people actually walked, grown adults riding bikes. Record stores and bookstores that sold totally different stuff than you found at the mall, restaurants that served food that wasn't anything like the fast food in a suburban strip mall, coffee shops that stayed open until midnight where crazy-looking people hung out until well after midnight, and flyers everywhere for punk shows, poetry readings, dance clubs and plays, midnight movies and street festivals. I didn't get to much of the late-night stuff because I had to take the bus back home and the bus line in my slurb stopped running by like 8 PM (unless I didn't mind getting stranded and walking around all night.) I decided that I wanted to live in a place like that when I grew up.

Now we've gone off to school, to cities like Portland, San Diego, and Seattle, right as all the other cities are booming. What we want (and I use we loosely since I know I can't wait to return home) is Sacramento to be just as good, if not better, than all those cities. The whole point of going to architecture school is so that I can return home to be a part of that change to my city.

I went off to school in a small college town, which had its own charms but by the end of the school year I couldn't wait to get back to Sacramento, which had big-city charms I liked. At least once I seriously considered missing the first week of school because there was some great show happening in downtown Sacramento that would never come to my little college town. After school I came back to the slurbs, but moved to Midtown once I got a chance. I still didn't have a car, and I wanted to be part of the vibrant music and art scene that I saw in the neighborhood--and be part of the change I saw going on. That was when people were moving from cities like Portland to Sacramento to be part of the music scene, and San Francisco was still recovering from the big quake--the dot-com boom hadn't kicked in yet. I spent a lot of time in other cities too, and tried to bring back ideas that I saw there if I liked them. Some stuck, some haven't.

At the very least, I'm sick of a lot of the "no we can't," Boomer-era Sacramento thinking, and at the worst, it's sickening. We have the opportunity to be a better city than Portland; we already have a better climate, better access to our (much cleaner) rivers, and more great local food options.

I used to be down on Boomers too, until I got to know a few of them, and discovered that many of them moved to Midtown (before anyone called it Midtown) in order to live a more urban life in a more walkable place. They were the ones calling for transit, bike lanes, and increased residential/mixed use of downtown, legalized street life, opening art galleries and stores, all that Jane Jacobs stuff, back in the 1970s when the Metro Chamber and downtown developers were still pushing the line that nobody should ever live downtown, they should just drive from the suburbs to enjoy their fancy new K Street Mall and Downtown Plaza (instead of visiting the mall in their suburb that sold the same stuff.) Some of the first experiments in what we now call "new urbanism" took place in Sacramento, in the wake of a redevelopment era where the Boomers' parents (and grandparents) had the bright idea that if they kicked out everyone who lived downtown and destroyed all the buildings, they could solve the problems of the city (by leaving the city.) The Boomers who moved downtown were the ones who turned the tide and the mass demolitions that cut the central city's population in half. And, like GenXers like me, a lot of them never bothered moving to the slurbs either.


Sacramento needs to grow up, and now's the best opportunity we have, burning bright like a phoenix coming out of the recession, because I don't know about everyone else, but I remember driving through Tent City every other weekend and I refuse to let that happen to my city again.

We are in an interesting time with a lot of opportunity. What is your plan to resolve the Tent City issue, which, so far as I know, hasn't actually been solved, just shifted to other areas of town and mostly out of public view?

Bring on the wrecking balls; there isn't a single two-story condo downtown that doesn't need demolishing.
The only two-story condos I'm familiar with in the central city are the profusion of 2-3 story "skinny house" condos and row houses, like Tapestri Square, 2500 R, 5th & V, Washington Square, Metro Square etcetera, all built within the past 10-20 years with a lot more on the way on infill sites throughout the central city, along with the many midsize apartment buildings recently completed, under construction or on the drawing board. Much of this represents the culmination of those Boomers that received so much flak from the city back in the 1970s.

Those 2-3 story condos also represent ownership housing, which is seriously lacking in the central city (90% of the Grid is rental.) Do you seriously want to destroy these brand-new and recently built buildings? Why?

[ltsmotorsport]

Keeping it short, I agree with a lot of what ThatDarnSacramentan said. I did get a chance as a kid to get around downtown a bit, and always enjoyed it, especially coming down from the foothills. It was just so different and on such a larger scale. I only made more trips when I had the means to come down on my own time.

I (begrudgingly) am identified as a Millennial, but have seen many good things from those of us in the upper age range of the generation. There's a feeling, and perhaps a solid percentage more of "us" interested in urban living than earlier generations, but "we" certainly can't think we're pioneers. I also think we'll see a larger push though from retiring/aging Boomers who either want something different or maybe even have no choice better than to live in an urban setting. I do know for a fact that I'm glad to call midtown home, and only see the area improving over time over what is already the best neighborhood in the region, IMO.

Now we just need to get many of the visiting suburbanites to realize where they are when they drive in the grid and quit trying to blow through every light they come across.

As for the 2 (or 3) story buildings that need demolishing, we can start with those awful "Villas" for the Sacramento Commons project. ;) :cheers:

[ltsmotorsport]

Developer revises plan for 7-story mixed use building on I Street

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/04/01/developer-revises-plan-for-7-story-mixed-use.html

Bay Miry’s D&S Development has revised a plan with the city for i15, a mixed-use project of seven stories at 1431 I St., at what's now a shuttered car repair shop.

According to a revised proposal recently submitted to the city of Sacramento, the building would have 91 residential units and 2,000 square feet of first-floor retail space, kitty-corner to the Sacramento Memorial Auditorium.

The item does not indicate what was previously proposed for the site or what revisions are being proposed. Miry did not immediately return a call for comment.

Details in the proposal show residence units on every floor, with four behind the first-floor retail and, in an apparent nod to sensibilities of modern urban living, a bike storage room.

The second through fifth floors would have units of a square footage not described in the proposal, while the top two floors would be composed of lofts, apparently slightly larger in size than the units below. There also would be an outdoor terrace on one floor, apparently facing west.

The project will be a bit of a squeeze into a lot directly east of a Quality Inn motel, which has a pool just north of the i15 project site.

There also is no described parking for the project, though changes in city planning codes last year included an easier path to approval for projects without identified parking. There’s also a handful of parking garages nearby.

Another Miry mixed-use project now under construction, 16 Powerhouse in midtown Sacramento, has a floor designated for an automated parking system unique to the region but found in other cities.


What's a project announcement without a rendering!

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2014/04/01/18/17/ZBvv2.Xl.4.jpeg

Seeing what I have of the Planning/Design commission, I think there's plenty of smarts to see what a good project/concept this is, especially for this site. The north side of I Street at that corner is a bit depressing currently.

[Web]

What's a project announcement without a rendering!

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2014/04/01/18/17/ZBvv2.Xl.4.jpeg

Seeing what I have of the Planning/Design commission, I think there's plenty of smarts to see what a good project/concept this is, especially for this site. The north side of I Street at that corner is a bit depressing currently.

um this render is a little larger than 7 stories.........:shrug:

[Pistola916]

um this render is a little larger than 7 stories.........:shrug:

The Biz Journal listed it as 7 stories; The Bee has it at 8 stories; It appears to be 9 stories.

[LandofFrost]

The Biz Journal listed it as 7 stories; The Bee has it at 8 stories; It appears to be 9 stories.

The top two floors look like lofts, maybe they consider that one floor even though it looks like two.

[ltsmotorsport]

That's what I think is going on here. Since the top two floors will be lofts, they'll have the profile of two stories, but only technically be one. So, with that scenario, I get 7 stories.

[innov8]

Just checked the 301 thread. 500/833 units had soft deposits.\\

neuhickman79,

I see you changed your name to creamcity? :uhh:

Actually, only 383 condominiums had deposits down for the Towers and the
bank required 400 units before money from CalPERS and Deutsche Bank
would have continued to invest in the project.

[innov8]

25-story apartment towers proposed for downtown Sacramento would be the region’s tallest
By Tony Bizjak
tbizjak@sacbee.com
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2014 - 7:00 pm
Last Modified: Thursday, Mar. 27, 2014 - 12:09 am


A real estate investment firm from Beverly Hills said Wednesday it will build two 25-story apartment towers, the tallest residential buildings in the region, as well as midrise apartments, condominiums and perhaps a boutique hotel in a quiet residential area off Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento.Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271504/25-story-apartment-towers-proposed.html#storylink=cpy


Let's hope the third times a charm :cheers:


http://s0.uploads.im/5LI2E.jpg

Capitol Towers
September 1988
$300 million development
Four 26-story Office/Residential/Retail/Hotel towers
7th & O Street
1.4 million square feet
200,000 sf office tower
70,000 sf retail
3,000 parking spaces
250 room hotel tower
200 unite apartment
Proposed by an east coast family: The Scheuer Family Trust
Construction was expected to start in 1990 with a new tower built every two years.

As part of the project, the trust would have given $100,000 to community
housing groups to spend as needed on city housing projects. The project
got the typical objections by current residents in the Capitol Towers as well
as City planners concerned with traffic problems with other developments
planned near by. The Proposed California Capitol Center on R Street was also
in the planning stages and also had plans for both office and hotel at a cost
of $250 million. The Capitol Towers proposal failed due to not landing a big
state office tenant which would have qualify the project for a loan to start construction.

As recent as March 2008, a Los Angeles based developer proposed five
residential towers ranging from 15 to 33 stories and 1,646 housing units.
Financing for the newest proposal was to come from the financial giant AIG Inc.

The complex is now 93 percent leased with rents from $875 for a studio to
$2,165 three bedroom unit.

[CAGeoNerd]

Does anyone have a running list of current/proposed projects going? I know there are a few new mid/highrises being proposed, but there are several mid rise projects that are going up/wrapping up right now. Off the top of my head, these include:

Legado de Ravel apartments/East End Gateway 2 & 3 (16th and O)
http://medialibrarycdn.propertysolutions.com/websites_media/legadoderavel.com/cached_thumbs/640x480/51f6c91466894549.jpg

16 Powerhouse/East End Gateway 4 (16th and P)
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_iflb32pX7Dw/TTn8JsURjZI/AAAAAAAACvU/UvJrTST7-HM/s1600/CADA+Gateway-Fremont+Site+4+2011.jpg

Tapestri Square (21st and T) (not really a midrise but I'll include it because it's a neat little infill high density project)
http://tapestrisquare.com/sites/default/files/images/sitemap.jpg

Then there are the things going up in West Sac in the Bridge District:
The Rivermark
http://www.bridgehousing.com/sites/default/files/prop_rivermark.jpg

The Park Moderns:
http://www.theparkmoderns.com/docs/images/photo/photo_127.jpg

The Capitol Yards:
http://assets.bizjournals.com/sacramento/print-edition/TowerBridgeCommons_Rendering_112312.jpg?v=1

Anything else worth noting? Please post/update!

[wburg]

2500 R Street is mostly built out, the "WAL" on R Street is under construction, a project called the "Creamery" with 100 or so skinny-house infill row homes (like 2500 R, but on 3 city blocks) is going up along 11th and D Street in Alkali Flat, the Ridgeway Hotel is being rehabbed (still low-income units, but studio apartments instead of SRO units with no bathroom or kitchen). 15 Powerhouse is adding another story every week or so and will top out soon. I think people have posted about i15, the 8-story, 80 unit building at I and 15th that is just coming up, but that is a ways out. The first residential building in Township 9 is still under construction but seems like it has topped out--has anyone heard if T9's other units will begin construction anytime soon?

There are also a lot of more modest infill projects filling in cracks here and there, on vacant 40x80 and 40x160 lots, and alley units behind existing buildings here and there, providing a lot of "hidden density" to the neighborhood and closing decades-old gaps in the neighborhoods.

Sutter Park is an infill neighborhood that will replace Sutter General in East Sacramento, a small infill unit is replacing an old motorcycle repair shop and vacant lot on Alhambra and I with a dozen or so townhouse condo units, and of course there's McKinley Village.

[creamcityleo79]

\\

neuhickman79,

I see you changed your name to creamcity? :uhh:

Actually, only 383 condominiums had deposits down for the Towers and the
bank required 400 units before money from CalPERS and Deutsche Bank
would have continued to invest in the project.

That's me...neuhickman was a combination of my last name and my ex's last name. I figured since we're divorced now and I'm going to be getting remarried soon, I better change it! Plus, I wanted to be more active here again and didn't want to be known by THAT! Milwaukee = the Cream City (as in cream city brick)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_City_brick

[SacTownAndy]

Does anyone have a running list of current/proposed projects going? I know there are a few new mid/highrises being proposed, but there are several mid rise projects that are going up/wrapping up right now. Off the top of my head, these include:



The Park Moderns:
http://www.theparkmoderns.com/docs/images/photo/photo_127.jpg



I was the last one to reserve one of the houses in the Park Moderns during their pre-sales. If all goes as planned, it should be completed and ready for move in at the end of the year! So excited to get out of North Natomas and back closer to the grid. And for selfish reasons, I'm really hoping the street car line actually comes to fruition.

[wburg]

And don't forget Northwest Land Park, an urban infill project for those who don't care for suburban stucco boxes in neighborhoods with limited transit access:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/nwlandpark_zps22fb43dc.jpg

[creamcityleo79]

And don't forget Northwest Land Park, an urban infill project for those who don't care for suburban stucco boxes in neighborhoods with limited transit access:
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a244/Jetrock/nwlandpark_zps22fb43dc.jpg

More info from the Biz Journal!

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/04/04/phase-1-of-800-home-northwest-land-park-project.html

[downtownserg89]

No love for The Broadway Triangle?

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/tri381.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/tri381.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/ScreenShot2014-04-04at15925PM.png (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/ScreenShot2014-04-04at15925PM.png.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/ScreenShot2014-04-04at21703PM.png (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/ScreenShot2014-04-04at21703PM.png.html)

also, is it bad that I kinda liked the earlier rendering of i15 more? I think the random squares and color contrast made it more fun, but that's just my opinion. That blue really speaks to me.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/ScreenShot2014-04-04at20717PM.png (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/ScreenShot2014-04-04at20717PM.png.html)

[creamcityleo79]

I love the Broadway Triangle! :D

[Majin]

Need more updated pictures for Broadway Triangle. The project is much further along.

[downtownserg89]

Need more updated pictures for Broadway Triangle. The project is much further along.

Yeah I checked their facebook and website but they haven't really updated in a while. I was thinking about just biking over to the site and taking some photos myself. If I do I'll post the pics here.

[wburg]

They already sold out the condo portion of the first building, but are still trying to find commercial tenants for the site. The second portion is underway, and a bunch of the nearby buildings have been fixed up--like the old Primo's Swiss Club dive bar, reborn as Arthur Henry's, which also fixed up the 4 apartments upstairs.

I kind of liked the more playful colors of the earlier rendering of i15, but like the new rendering too. We could use more whimsical architecture in the central city, but can see why they chose to go with something more businesslike but still very modern. And we really don't need anything else that is beige.

[CAGeoNerd]

Love it, thanks for posting. Had no idea about the Broadway project, I guess I don't pass through there very much :)

[urban_encounter]

I can't predict what's going to happen Michael and really if it makes economic sense it will happen. If not, it doesn't matter. One thing I can say is that 1988 is irrelevant.

[downtownserg89]

Went on a nice bike ride all over Sac this evening. Decided to hit up some construction sites to see some progress.

The Rivermark
The Bridge District

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6348.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6348.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6353.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6353.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6355.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6355.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6357.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6357.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6356.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6356.jpg.html)

The Capitol Yards
The Bridge District

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6363.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6363.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6360.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6360.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6365.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6365.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6364.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6364.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6366.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6366.jpg.html)

Township9
River District

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6384.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6384.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6386.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6386.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6387.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6387.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6379.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6379.jpg.html)

There's this cool little mini river built in the median public space walkway thing. It's pretty cool.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6367.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6367.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6378.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6378.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6381.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6381.jpg.html)

Ridgeway Hotel
Downtown, Sac

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6389.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6389.jpg.html)

The Broadway Triangle
Oak Park

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6394.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6394.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6400.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6400.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6402.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6402.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6405.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6405.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6407.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6407.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6408.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6408.jpg.html)

Tapestry Square
Midtown

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6411.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6411.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6412.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6412.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6415.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6415.jpg.html)

16 Powerhouse
Midtown

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6430.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6430.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6421.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6421.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6424.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6424.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6420.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6420.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6416.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6416.jpg.html)

WAL
R Street District

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6434.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6434.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6431.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6431.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6435.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6435.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6436.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6436.jpg.html)

California Family Fitness
The Kay District

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6437.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6437.jpg.html)

Random infill housing
14th & G, Mansion Flats

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6440.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6440.jpg.html)

BONUS
some pics of the building fire aftermath on 13th and E

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6446.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6446.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6449.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6449.jpg.html)
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b149/dirtychimp182/IMG_6444.jpg (http://s18.photobucket.com/user/dirtychimp182/media/IMG_6444.jpg.html)

Hope you enjoyed these photos. Sorry there's so many.

[Majin]

I think Township 9 is going to suffer from the prevalent though of "the city of trees" as being critical to every project, and is going to be a pedestrian deadzone of too much open space, where it's impractical to be a true street engagement urban project. Too much open space and you might as well build it in Natomas, as no one is going to walk anywhere or engage the street.

What exactly are they trying to accomplish with Township 9? I can't be urban living, because East Sac, which is mostly single family homes, is more pedestrian friendly that what Township 9 is turning out to be.