Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Majin]

Wow that building looks ugly, oh well at least it will add density to the 16th street corridor.

[urbanadvocate]

Eek! that is frightful. Who designed it?

[Mr. Ozo]

1. The Warren was a waaay better name.

2. It's an ok design, completely unremarkable, nice urban form and decent density. Would be fine at a number of spots, say 20th and Capitol.

The issue is that this a waist of a prime corner so close to Capitol Park. The original design scaled higher as it went towards 16th.

Whatever....

3. I'm not sure it's actually possible to be as ugly as that rendering, I'm hoping it will end up looking better.

[Surefiresacto]

15-20 story hotel and/or residential along the river would be awesome. Umm, yes please.

Best Western sells to investors who see high-rise hotel in the future
Mark Anderson
Staff Writer - Sacramento Business Journal
Sep 8, 2014
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/08/best-western-sells-to-investors-who-see-high-rise.html

Local investors bought a small hotel next to the Sacramento River with the idea that it could become a high-rise property in the next decade.
The hotel is a modest economy property now, but it is in the midst of where development is expected to be in the next few years.
The partnership paid $6.1 million for the Best Western Sandman hotel, a 110-room hotel at 236 Jibboom St.

[enigma99a]

15-20 story hotel and/or residential along the river would be awesome. Umm, yes please.

Best Western sells to investors who see high-rise hotel in the future
Mark Anderson
Staff Writer - Sacramento Business Journal
Sep 8, 2014
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/08/best-western-sells-to-investors-who-see-high-rise.html

Local investors bought a small hotel next to the Sacramento River with the idea that it could become a high-rise property in the next decade.
The hotel is a modest economy property now, but it is in the midst of where development is expected to be in the next few years.
The partnership paid $6.1 million for the Best Western Sandman hotel, a 110-room hotel at 236 Jibboom St.

Not going to happen.

[UnclearColt]

Not going to happen.

Sadly, you're probably right.

[enigma99a]

Sadly, you're probably right.

Read the article and basically it is like... well in 5-10 years we will reevaluate after we try to get some funds. Then depending on what we are able to secure, we will see what the market is like and determine what the square footage will be. Basically it's a pipe dream at this point.

It is hard enough for legit proposals with strong ownership, funding and approvals in place to get off the ground.

[UnclearColt]

I do think that since the property is right next door to the Powerhouse site, the motel will be redeveloped within the next several years. I doubt it will be anything near 15-20 stories. Hell, I'd be surprised to see it approach even any of the midtown mid-rises underway.

[sacamenna kid]

If the Powerhouse ever gets built. Does anybody know when they really plan to break ground on that thing? Been stalling it seems forever.

[sacamenna kid]

Whatever happened to the Thiebault building they were going to put up on 19th and Capitol?

[UnclearColt]

If the Powerhouse ever gets built. Does anybody know when they really plan to break ground on that thing? Been stalling it seems forever.

Last year, the plan was to start in early 2014:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2013/09/03/powerhouse-science-center-construction.html

This is the last I've heard about it though:
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/05/28/powerhouse-science-center-gets-financial-support.html?page=all

[ozone]

Whatever happened to the Thiebault building they were going to put up on 19th and Capitol?

Do you mean the so-called Tribute building at the SW corner of 20th and Capitol Ave., the one with the huge Wayne Thiebaud on the side?

[wburg]

The Tribute Building site is still a parking lot. Considering that it (hopefully) is going to get a lot harder to create new parking lots in the central city, due to the elimination of a provision in city code for creating "temporary" lots, that lot may remain parking for a while longer, especially if parking structures like the one on 20th/21st get turned into new buildings.

[enigma99a]

JMA principal lays out plan for development outside arena

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/18/jma-principal-lays-out-plan-for-development.html

project will include a 16-story hotel, redevelopment of the western half of Downtown Plaza, and about a million square feet of commercial space.




Only 16 story hotel? :(

[fouroheight68]

JMA principal lays out plan for development outside arena

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/18/jma-principal-lays-out-plan-for-development.html

project will include a 16-story hotel, redevelopment of the western half of Downtown Plaza, and about a million square feet of commercial space.




Only 16 story hotel? :(

I was recently recruited by a large general contractor to work on a 16 story hotel at the arena site. According to the contractor, they are shovel ready and are hiring immediately.

[fouroheight68]

The Tribute Building site is still a parking lot. Considering that it (hopefully) is going to get a lot harder to create new parking lots in the central city, due to the elimination of a provision in city code for creating "temporary" lots, that lot may remain parking for a while longer, especially if parking structures like the one on 20th/21st get turned into new buildings.

I recently met with the developer directly (Mike Heller), and according to him it is shovel ready, with tenants lines up, and financing is just being wrapped up.

[Majin]

16 stories, that is really garbage. Hopefully the other developments will some real height, specially the residential.

[wburg]

16 stories, that is really garbage. Hopefully the other developments will some real height, specially the residential.

Only 80 units of residential--how tall could it be? Assuming that those 80 units aren't included in the 16 story hotel building.

[Mr. Ozo]

The plans for the buildings that some on this forum called for tearing down.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/09/19/heller-reveals-vision-for-redeveloping-crystal-ice.html

“I’m very determined to preserve each and every aspect of these old buildings that I can”

"MARRS on Steriods"

[enigma99a]

Only 80 units of residential--how tall could it be? Assuming that those 80 units aren't included in the 16 story hotel building.

It couldn't be mixed use? Condos on top?

[Mr. Ozo]

Only 80 units of residential--how tall could it be? Assuming that those 80 units aren't included in the 16 story hotel building.

Not saying it would ever happen here but they are building some crazy stuff in New York now.

How about 31 units total in a 54 story tower?

http://www.520parkavenue.com/

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/18/selfproclaimed_next_15_central_park_west_is_poised_to_launch.php

-
Some of these are really tall towers without a lot of units. Some on 40 foot lots. Again, not excepting this to happen in Sac.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2014/09/11/the_44_new_developments_hitting_the_market_this_fall.php

[wburg]

It couldn't be mixed use? Condos on top?

Sure it could, that's what I meant about them being included in the hotel building, like the Marriott at 15th and L, which has condos on its upper floors. 15 stories does seem a little unambitious to me too, maybe they're playing it safe for the first phase of development.

[fouroheight68]

16 stories, that is really garbage. Hopefully the other developments will some real height, specially the residential.

We're lucky we're getting that height. Anything over 6 stories is the limit of wood framing (aka cheaper construction). Once we get into 6+ stories, were talking structural steel frame and metal stud framing which drives the prices up big time. Thats why we usually see 5 story condo projects downtown, because residential RE prices only support wood framed structures.

[What is a Rivercat?]

We're lucky we're getting that height. Anything over 6 stories is the limit of wood framing (aka cheaper construction). Once we get into 6+ stories, were talking structural steel frame and metal stud framing which drives the prices up big time. Thats why we usually see 5 story condo projects downtown, because residential RE prices only support wood framed structures.

Not if they use CLT - 30 stories+
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/world%E2%80%99s-most-advanced-building-material-wood

[fouroheight68]

Not if they use CLT - 30 stories+
http://www.popsci.com/article/technology/world%E2%80%99s-most-advanced-building-material-wood

Yeah, no one is using that. I've never even heard of it, I highly doubt it would meet the seismic criteria in California for a high rise.

[What is a Rivercat?]

Yeah, no one is using that. I've never even heard of it, I highly doubt it would meet the seismic criteria in California for a high rise.

It meets Japan's
http://www.xlam.co.nz/engineeringseismic

[LandofFrost]

K street project takes off again...

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/10/08/city-council-gives-final-ok-to-700-k-project.html

137 more apartments. That's cool that more people will be living downtown, ... but there are literally 3 condos for sale downtown and what seems like more then enough $2,000+ apartments. For that same rent, you could buy a 1,000 square foot $400,000 condo which would pay the builder their $400 per square foot they need to build them.

[wburg]

The lack of ownership housing is a huge problem in downtown and midtown (90% of the housing is rental) but it's tough to manage with new construction. But a lot of those new luxury apartments are built to condo standards, so expect them to go condo after they reach 10 years old. And regarding the 700 block, keep in mind it's not just the apartments, but also a half-block of local businesses in the rehabbed commercial spaces along K Street, including a new cabaret/nightclub venue operated by the owners of the Shady Lady.

[urbanadvocate]

The lack of ownership housing is a huge problem in downtown and midtown (90% of the housing is rental) but it's tough to manage with new construction. But a lot of those new luxury apartments are built to condo standards, so expect them to go condo after they reach 10 years old. And regarding the 700 block, keep in mind it's not just the apartments, but also a half-block of local businesses in the rehabbed commercial spaces along K Street, including a new cabaret/nightclub venue operated by the owners of the Shady Lady.

Please tell me it will not be another Whitney J. design! Can we please get some new creative designers that also have technical understanding--enough with the semi talented cheap DIY.

[wburg]

I have no idea if Whtiney Johnson is involved or not. I imagine that because the half-block includes multiple storefronts, each may well utilize a different designer.

[ozone]

So Youssefi was able to shake down the city afterall. A more reputable developer would have been able to get financing. But whatever, at least it's moving forward...finally!

I have to ask wburg why he thinks that lack of home ownership is such a huge problem for the central city? Since the current economics does not favor home ownership in the central city I don't see things changing for at least 20 years. Instead we would be wise to treat renters with the same respect we give the property owners. I don't think the high % of renters is such a huge problem. But I think not providing the long-term renting residents the mechanisms in which to improve their community is troubling. Renter's contribution to the economy and social life of the central city is enormous, but largely ignored. We are still rather small-minded in this way. Do I want more home ownership in the central city/midtown? Yes. But we can't expect that to happen if the city kowtows to the out-of-area property owners and absentee landlords and does nothing to encourage residents (renters and owner-occupied alike) to take a vested interest in improving their surroundings. End of rant, thank you and goodnight.

[ozone]

According to the SBJ the Whole Foods project "will feature additional parking at the corner of 21st and Capitol to replace a garage now on the project site. The parking structure will serve the Pappas-owned office building at 2020 L St."

If it's just a temporary replacement lot until the new garage is finished that's fine but no way should it remain a surface parking lot for years to come. Like deserted buildings, surface parking lots create opportunities for mischief in an urban neighborhood.

[Majin]

Additional parking meaning surface parking? I thought surface parking was illegal in the grid?

[Mr. Ozo]

I thought surface parking was illegal in the grid?

What would give you that idea? There is surface parking everywhere in the grid.

[Majin]

What would give you that idea? There is surface parking everywhere in the grid.

I'm talking about illegal now, of course there is legacy lots.

[Mr. Ozo]

According to the SBJ the Whole Foods project "will feature additional parking at the corner of 21st and Capitol to replace a garage now on the project site. The parking structure will serve the Pappas-owned office building at 2020 L St."
.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/10/16/whats-new-with-midtown-whole-foods-plans.html

"The parking structure that will accompany a new Whole Foods Market in midtown will include ground-floor retail space, project developer Pappas Investments confirmed Wednesday."

I'm reading that to say that there will be retail with parking above on 21st and Capitol, not a surface lot.

Now that we are on the subject, what about the huge lot on 21st and Capitol next to the funeral parlour? I always assumed it was part of the office building, but it sounds like it is separate ownership.

[wburg]

I think Majin is referring to the new city zoning code and the central city urban design guidelines, both of which strongly discourage new stand-alone surface parking lots in the central city. The previous zoning code allowed them as a "temporary" use but the current zoning code removed that, because "temporary" lots tend to become permanent (there are "temporary" lots downtown that were cleared 50 years ago!)

And yes, Pappas submitted an application to turn the recently cleared corner of 21st and Capitol into a surface parking lot, and are asking for exemptions to the city requirements for surface parking lots (regarding shade, planters, and other means to make it look less horrid than a parking lot usually does.) This lot is not intended as part of the Whole Foods project, but as replacement parking for tenants of 2020 L Street (also owned by Pappas) who park in the parking structure that will be replaced by the Whole Foods.

If they have changed plans, from a parking lot only to a parking structure wrapped with retail, that's something of an improvement--although not quite as nice as a parking structure with retail in front that has residential units above it. I assume they were told by the city that a surface parking lot was a no-no?

[wburg]

So Youssefi was able to shake down the city afterall. A more reputable developer would have been able to get financing. But whatever, at least it's moving forward...finally!

Wow, where does that hostility come from? This was a redevelopment project, no "shakedown" (the shakedown was one of the other proposals for the 700/800 block that asked for a lot more money.) and the city funds authorized were the public bonds associated with the release of state redevelopment funds. But those funds were less than expected, and the developer was able to get private equity to cover the funding gap.


I have to ask wburg why he thinks that lack of home ownership is such a huge problem for the central city? Since the current economics does not favor home ownership in the central city I don't see things changing for at least 20 years. Instead we would be wise to treat renters with the same respect we give the property owners. I don't think the high % of renters is such a huge problem. But I think not providing the long-term renting residents the mechanisms in which to improve their community is troubling. Renter's contribution to the economy and social life of the central city is enormous, but largely ignored. We are still rather small-minded in this way. Do I want more home ownership in the central city/midtown? Yes. But we can't expect that to happen if the city kowtows to the out-of-area property owners and absentee landlords and does nothing to encourage residents (renters and owner-occupied alike) to take a vested interest in improving their surroundings. End of rant, thank you and goodnight.

The lack of home ownership is a huge problem because of the reasons you just mentioned: out-of-area property owners and absentee landlords who do nothing to encourage residents to take a vested interest in improving their surroundings. I'm not exaggerating when I say 90% of central city housing is rental--9 out of 10 housing units are rentals, 1 out of 10 are owners. Compare that to the city as a whole, where 60% of the housing is ownership, or nearby neighborhoods like Land Park and East Sacramento, where 80-90% of the housing is ownership. Some parts of the "grid" have higher percentages than others (Marshall School/New Era is the highest at 25%, the Southside at 20%, Newton Booth around 10%, Midtown proper more like 7%, and Downtown in the central business district and Old Sacramento are less than 1% ownership) but even the highest are still ridiculously low compared to the rest of the city.

Current economics favors home ownership in the central city, which is why the market for central city housing is so red-hot. It's tough to find a "fixer" home in Midtown for less than $300K (most of them have already been "fixed" and command higher prices), the handful of condos start at $200K and run up to a million, and infill homes like Tapestri Square, 2500 R and other small projects are being sold as fast as they can be built with prices ranging from $350K-800K. The problem is there isn't enough housing for sale to meet the demand. That's due to a lack of supply, not a market that doesn't favor home ownership.

It's a big problem because one of the indicators of the health of a neighborhood is ownership housing. Owners tend to stay longer and, because they are tied to the neighborhood via a significant financial investment, are more personally interested in the fate of the neighborhood. Certainly renters can become interested in civic engagement, if they are policy wonks or just very civic-minded, but it's a lot harder to reach renters and many tend to see their tenancy as temporary. If the neighborhood becomes less livable, they can just move out. Now, a lot of the apartments under construction or recently built were built to condo standards, so some of them could "go condo" in a decade and change the balance somewhat. But it's still a systemic problem primarily driven by the lack of sufficient ownership housing quantity. That means that a Midtown resident in an apartment who wants to buy is less likely to be able to find ownership housing in their own neighborhood--so they move to Curtis Park, East Sacramento, Tahoe Park or Oak Park instead. As a result, those who do want to become more established, those with higher disposable incomes who want to invest in their neighborhood, are likely to do it outside the central city.

[LandofFrost]

So Youssefi was able to shake down the city afterall. A more reputable developer would have been able to get financing. But whatever, at least it's moving forward...finally!

I have to ask wburg why he thinks that lack of home ownership is such a huge problem for the central city? Since the current economics does not favor home ownership in the central city I don't see things changing for at least 20 years. Instead we would be wise to treat renters with the same respect we give the property owners. I don't think the high % of renters is such a huge problem. But I think not providing the long-term renting residents the mechanisms in which to improve their community is troubling. Renter's contribution to the economy and social life of the central city is enormous, but largely ignored. We are still rather small-minded in this way. Do I want more home ownership in the central city/midtown? Yes. But we can't expect that to happen if the city kowtows to the out-of-area property owners and absentee landlords and does nothing to encourage residents (renters and owner-occupied alike) to take a vested interest in improving their surroundings. End of rant, thank you and goodnight.

I agree with some of what you are saying, unfortunately this is not how tax incentives for the federal government work. As a persons income goes up, it becomes a better and better deal for someone to purchase a home. You only get $70 off a year for being a renter, while you can write off many thousands and thousands for purchasing a home.

Second, because of the lack of housing for sale downtown, people do not realize that some of the rental prices are a huge rip off, that would actually exceed the cost of a mortgage at todays interest rates.

I want to live downtown. It was a better deal for me to buy a home in East sac then to keep renting in midtown and that makes me sad because I know this is a problem being played out over and over again with other people too.

[CAGeoNerd]

I agree with some of what you are saying, unfortunately this is not how tax incentives for the federal government work. As a persons income goes up, it becomes a better and better deal for someone to purchase a home. You only get $70 off a year for being a renter, while you can write off many thousands and thousands for purchasing a home.

Second, because of the lack of housing for sale downtown, people do not realize that some of the rental prices are a huge rip off, that would actually exceed the cost of a mortgage at todays interest rates.

I want to live downtown. It was a better deal for me to buy a home in East sac then to keep renting in midtown and that makes me sad because I know this is a problem being played out over and over again with other people too.
Yup, this is a huge problem. Developers and land lords keep thinking downtown/midtown warrants huge rent and high-end lofts, etc. But they're really doing a disservice to the big picture. The problem is there's not enough mid-income housing in the urban core. Why pay $1600 a month for a small one-bedroom apartment in midtown when the same could rent you a 2 or 3 bedroom house in East Sac or Land Park? Especially for couples/families? Developers and the city tend to think the only people who want to live downtown are single, young professionals with lots of money. That's a draw, but that's not all we should build for.

[wburg]

Yup, this is a huge problem. Developers and land lords keep thinking downtown/midtown warrants huge rent and high-end lofts, etc. But they're really doing a disservice to the big picture. The problem is there's not enough mid-income housing in the urban core. Why pay $1600 a month for a small one-bedroom apartment in midtown when the same could rent you a 2 or 3 bedroom house in East Sac or Land Park? Especially for couples/families? Developers and the city tend to think the only people who want to live downtown are single, young professionals with lots of money. That's a draw, but that's not all we should build for.

Actually, at least so far, the developers building higher-end housing have had no problem filling them. Legado de Ravel, with units starting at $1600 and going above $2000 per month, filled within a couple months of opening. 16 Powerhouse, with rents ranging from about $2000 to $3200, already has a waiting list and it isn't even finished yet. So there is an existing, not yet exhausted market for high-end rental housing. Typically these higher-end units are very well appointed, and the more expensive ones are as big as 1000-1500 square feet--which is as big as many homes in Midtown or East Sacramento! They're also about the same size as the limited number of for-sale infill homes that are cropping up, which sell for $300-500K. It's all about location, proximity, and a neighborhood of choice.

They pay that price for an apartment in Midtown because East Sacramento or Land Park don't offer what Midtown does, in terms of access and proximity to the lifestyle they want. They don't want a house in a bucolic neighborhood that is a 10 minute drive from an urban environment with late-night activities and downtown jobs--they want to walk downstairs and be in it RIGHT NOW. And the population we're talking about chooses their city based on access to those amenities. If they can't find a place with the lifestyle they want, they do not just shrug their shoulders and get a place in the suburbs, they pick another city that offers them. That's also part of why ownership housing is so important--as mentioned elsewhere, a lot of renting Midtowners who want to own end up buying in East Sacramento or Curtis Park because there simply isn't enough housing for sale in the grid, due to lack of supply.

The question is, how big is that market? And the problem is, when existing landlords see their new neighbors renting for $1600+ and decide their property is now worth more, even if it's a 400 sf 1950s crackerbox with semi-functional wall heat and A/C, and jack up their rent by several hundred dollars a month--perhaps adding a coat of paint or a new wall A/C unit. Will people in the middle income bracket be forced out, take on additional roommates, or vacate the scene? That's a longer term problem. Possible solutions include affordable-housing legislation, which produces screams from the development community over its cost and mandates, and screams from everyone else about "Section 8 slum housing" even when the affordable housing is intended primarily for incomes commensurate with working-class incomes, service workers, or entry-level professionals. We're already hearing those cries in conjunction with the low/moderate/mixed income projects under construction and in the planning stages, like the WAL (whose rents vary from $350 for low-income studios to $2000 for 3-bedroom lofts), 700 K (which is a mix of low, moderate and market rate housing.) I think in the long run we'll need a lot more like that, but it's politically unpalatable, and with the end of redevelopment agencies and tax increment financing, very very hard to build unless you got in under the wire.

Another, longer-term solution comes with subsequent build-out. Eventually the new development will sufficiently meet the demand for high-end housing, and we'll find out when we have met that demand when the latest high-end housing doesn't rent out, or its opening results in people moving from slightly older high-rent housing to the new units. At that point, the owners of the now-surplus housing will have to choose between lowering rents to a point where the market can fill it, or leaving the units vacant. Over time, the oldest of the "high-end" housing will become less appealing, due to wear, newer products, or just the dictates of fashion, and former "high-end" becomes "middle-end" housing. Will there be enough? Maybe, but that's a big challenge. As we start to recover the urbanity that our urban core had prior to 1950, the larger number of residents may buoy the economy to the point where the market can afford building inexpensive housing above ground-floor retail again, and we can keep moving back towards #58000 and potentially above. If not, we'll have to find other ways to ensure that the people who work downtown can afford to live nearby.

[LandofFrost]

They have started taking applications for the $350 artist lofts? Anyone know a person who is applying? I'm excited, this idea worked so well in Brooklyn, hope it brings R street to life.

[DenseCityPlease]

Yikes, things seem to be a little slow lately.

Does anyone have any up-to-date information regarding the buildout of Township 9? Specifically, is it likely that a second (or third?) building will break ground out there within the next 6 months or so? I've been unable to find out much through repeated internet searches...

One of the things I'm actually most excited about is just watching the new street grid take shape in both Township 9 and, more importantly, the Railyards. Since full build-out is probably 20 years off, at least seeing the grid expand as a blank slate for development is rather cool in a conciliatory way.

[Web]

Has the first move ins at township been scheduled???

A lot of the dirt from the kings big dig is being hauled out there

[wburg]

Traffic on this site is a little slow, but city-wise, maybe everyone is too busy to post! Seems like things are happening right and left. WAL just started accepting applications, with a line of young creative folks down the block that looked like they were waiting for the new iPhone. B Street Theatre got a city loan to start construction of their new facility at 27th and N, the Powerhouse Science Center is on the next City Council agenda to get interim funding via TEFRA bonds, and the proposal for the new Raley Center for the Performing Arts in the old Fremont School is on the same Council agenda. Work is starting on the R Street streetscape improvement project between 16th and 18th just as Heller is submitting a new proposal for the Crystal Ice building and adjacent half-blocks, including the old Orchard Supply building.

And yeah, watching the street grid and bridge completion in the railyards is a hint that the site has certainly not been inactive--tons of behind the scenes infrastructure work going on, even though the property hasn't even been formally transferred to the new owner yet.

[snfenoc]

From the Business Journal:
Modular midtown housing project Eviva delayed over design process (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/11/18/modular-midtown-housing-project-eviva-delayed-over.html)

Looks like there were some issues tying the modular units into the podium. Hopefully, there will be some action soon.

Never easy.

[Mr. Ozo]

Here is the Whole Foods and associated parking structure proposal. (https://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/24714167/722051551/name/2025%20L%20Street%202101%20Capitol%20Ave%20NOP.pdf)

[wburg]

I assume you're on the Midtown Neighborhood Association email list, Mr. Ozo?

The plans are interesting...apparently they were sufficiently discouraged from building a short-term surface parking lot at 21st and Capitol, and are instead building a six-story parking garage with 13,000 square feet of retail along the ground floor. I guess they consider parking a good investment.

[LandofFrost]

Well, every year it does become harder and harder for the average person to find parking around that area. Unless you are/were a midtown resident and know all the secret free parking spaces or just obstinately refuse to pay for parking because "damn it, this is my neighborhood"

[CAGeoNerd]

I assume you're on the Midtown Neighborhood Association email list, Mr. Ozo?

The plans are interesting...apparently they were sufficiently discouraged from building a short-term surface parking lot at 21st and Capitol, and are instead building a six-story parking garage with 13,000 square feet of retail along the ground floor. I guess they consider parking a good investment.

The parking structure at 21st and Capitol is basically what is supposed to replace the parking structure that is currently in the location where the Whole Foods building will be going. It is parking for the 2020 L Street building tenants. The developers own that building too, and considering there are probably 500+ people that work in that building, that's a lot of parking that suddenly needs to be absorbed. I like that they are incorporating retail in the bottom rather than just have a parking structure. :tup:

[wburg]

Yeah, the retail wrap takes a lot of sting out of the presence of a parking structure--and hopefully it will be easier to get them leased than the retail storefronts in the Sutter parking garage on N Street, which are used for storage!

I assume that they will attempt to monetize the parking garage by renting it at night to Midtown diners and visitors, rather than leaving it vacant after the staff at 2020L go home for the night. It would help mitigate the expense of such a large parking structure, as well as take some pressure off the neighborhood streets, which are "free" after 6 PM but get very crowded on weekend nights. I don't mind paying for parking if I drive somewhere in Midtown or Downtown, I figure it's a fair price for moving my car, but usually I'd prefer to walk--the best way to avoid paying for parking is to leave the car at home!

[Dakotasteve66]

Does anyone know if the developer would be required to finish the parking structure on 21st and Capitol before demoing the parking structure on L St., thus delaying the start of construction for Whole Foods? Or would the city grant simultaneous construction and allow the 2020 L St tenants to have their parking displaced during construction?

[snfenoc]

I was scanning through some of the latest applications with the Sacramento planning department and found a couple interesting things...

1) Application PB14-061
Record Status: In Progress

WORK LOCATION
1122 7TH ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814

APPLICATION DETAILS
Project Description:
Hyatt Place Hotel (original Marshall Hotel and Jade Hotel)
Preservation Commission Site Plan & Design Review
Preservation Commission Site Plan & Design Review of proposed new hotel complex: Demolish Jade Hotel and Demolish portions of Marshall Hotel but RETAIN & Rehabilitate HISTORIC FASCADES of Marshall Hotel, and build new structures/additions.


2) Application DR14-337

Record Status: In Progress

WORK LOCATION
601 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814

APPLICATION DETAILS
Project Description:
Vanir Tower
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement),
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement), approximately 377 foot tall commercial office building with ground floor commercial space for restaurants and a bank on a 0.9 acre site in the Central Business District (C-3 SPD) zone.

http://www.vanirdevelopment.com/doc.asp?id=46&parentID=99

[TWAK]

another 300 :cheers:

[Pistola916]

I was scanning through some of the latest applications with the Sacramento planning department and found a couple interesting things...

1) Application PB14-061
Record Status: In Progress

WORK LOCATION


2) Application DR14-337

Record Status: In Progress

WORK LOCATION
601 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814

APPLICATION DETAILS
Project Description:
Vanir Tower
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement),
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement), approximately 377 foot tall commercial office building with ground floor commercial space for restaurants and a bank on a 0.9 acre site in the Central Business District (C-3 SPD) zone.

http://www.vanirdevelopment.com/doc.asp?id=46&parentID=99


I believe this building was proposed several years ago. Being a block from the ESC must've made them realize now is a good time to bring the proposal back.

[innov8]

2) Application DR14-337

Record Status: In Progress

WORK LOCATION
601 J ST
SACRAMENTO CA 95814

APPLICATION DETAILS
Project Description:
Vanir Tower
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement),
A request to construct a 26 story (plus basement), approximately 377 foot tall commercial office building with ground floor commercial space for restaurants and a bank on a 0.9 acre site in the Central Business District (C-3 SPD) zone.

http://www.vanirdevelopment.com/doc.asp?id=46&parentID=99

Looking at how much office space is currently vacant downtown, I would be
surprised to actually see it built. According to Colliers-Sacramento (http://www.colliers-sacramento.com/MarketReports/OfficeReport.pdf), there is over
1 million sf of vacant office space in (CBD) and 2 million in downtown.
That's the size of four 25 story office buildings. The proposed design is
a thumbs down and awkward. And yeah, like Pistola916 said this site has
been under considerations for quite some time, Bank of the West's lease was
not renewed years ago when the owner thought the site could be demolished
turned into a high-rise.

[snfenoc]

Whatever. All I know is that both planning applications were filed on 11/24/14....last week.

The description of the office building project says it would be the west coast headquarters of the company that is actually building it (Vanir)...a good sign? I am absolutely skeptical, especially since the app fees are currently listed as "Outstanding".
But it is something to talk about.

In regard to application the Marshall/Jade property, the planning application fees are listed as "Paid". I do wonder how the preservation community feels about simply keeping the Mashall's facade.

[wburg]

I'd like to hear more details about the plan--the developers behind it have been planning it for years but haven't been very available to present and answer questions. Perhaps if it's finally moving forward, they will provide a little more details/q&a opportunities--and hearing about their considerations re internal rehab vs. facadomy.

And yeah, office towers are kind of silly considering how much vacant office there is downtown--where are the residential towers? I think a lot of the development community is still convinced that the "millenials" still want to live out in the suburbs like Mom & Dad did and commute to downtown office, instead of actually living downtown.

[fouroheight68]

Whatever. All I know is that both planning applications were filed on 11/24/14....last week.

The description of the office building project says it would be the west coast headquarters of the company that is actually building it (Vanir)...a good sign? I am absolutely skeptical, especially since the app fees are currently listed as "Outstanding".
But it is something to talk about.

In regard to application the Marshall/Jade property, the planning application fees are listed as "Paid". I do wonder how the preservation community feels about simply keeping the Mashall's facade.

Looks like it'll be a Hyatt Place http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4233663.html

[Mr. Ozo]

Looks like it'll be a Hyatt Place http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4233663.html

Boy that truly is hideous (http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/01/owners-of-marshall-hotel-plan-to-transform.html?s=image_gallery). Absolutely appallingly hideous.

Have more points to make but I'll just leave it at that for now.

[Majin]

Boy that truly is hideous. Absolutely appallingly hideous.

Have more points to make but I'll just leave it at that for now.

Where do you see a rendering?

[Mr. Ozo]

Where do you see a rendering?

Didn't realize the Bee didn't have the rendering. See the Biz Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/01/owners-of-marshall-hotel-plan-to-transform.html

[Majin]

Didn't realize the Bee didn't have the rendering. See the Biz Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/01/owners-of-marshall-hotel-plan-to-transform.html

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

[jbradway]

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

I'm guessing they have to go over the top of the existing Marshall in order to make the project make sense. Long before the arena, the opportunity to do this project as a hotel renovation within it's own original footprint and height just never got off the ground. And now with the arena, it really doesn't make financial sense to see this as a Hotel Berry 2.0 project.

So in recent years this has brought the building over the building approach using the disposable Jade building. It's not ideal, but it gets this project off the ground finally.

My input would be to reduce the amount of building over the top of the Marshall by half and convert the roof space freed up to an outdoor space for dining, bar or even a small pool. Then increase the height of the new structure up to 15-20 floors. Although I don't like the light color facade on the new building. I think something more contemporary with a lot of glass. It should embrace a contrast rather than try to disappear through blah color and design.

A secondary idea would be to expand the current Marshall footprint to cover over the Jade property and replicate the same ornate brick design and then build five new floors on top of the expanded building using the same style. Basically a new building using the existing facade and expand the same design. Probably bends the intent of the historical status. But possible if the expanded floors and foot print stay true and reuse the existing facade.

[enigma99a]

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

Scaled down from 17 to 10 :(

[Pistola916]

I realize the Marshall is a historic landmark. Are developers permitted to paint over the historic structure to match the color of the new building? I'm not liking the two-tone colors at all.

Other than that and maybe a few more floors, for a budget hotel, the design is OK.

[Mr. Ozo]

Are developers permitted to paint over the historic structure to match the color of the new building?


How about they design the new building to match the old building instead of painting over historic brick?

The new building looks like it belongs in Natomas or Laguna as rendered, not as part of a landmark structure.

[wburg]

Painting over brick is generally not a good idea. Personally I'd like to see something more like the WAL on R Street, which combines the existing historic building with new construction on the side, which uses the old building for architectural cues but does not slavishly mimic the historic style, and can reflect a lot more modern style in its architecture. Because it is downtown, rather than on the R Street corridor, the new adjacent construction can certainly go a lot taller--a more vertical building would provide more space and maybe make it less necessary to build over the roof of the Marshall. One article mentioned using the current roof of the Marshall as a rooftop deck, which makes a lot of sense--it's a steel-framed building. A lot of buildings of that era had them (high-story views of K Street show a lot of rooftop pergolas where people could hang out on the roof) so it might already be strong enough for a deck.

[snfenoc]

According to the article in the Business Journal, the building would have a rooftop deck over part of the Marshall property.

I think it's a given that constructing a 10-story structure is less expensive than constructing a 20-story structure. (Unless, of course, the 10-story structure is a government project.) That fact likely influenced the decision to integrate the Marshall's facade into what seems like a new, mid-rise building.

One thing I'd like to see, and probably isn't cost-prohibitive, is better integration between the new facade and the Marshall facade. I'm not sure I like that line of glass. They might has well have joined the two with duct tape.

[wburg]

Assuming all else is equal, a 20 story building would cost more than a 10 story building--but keep in mind that the 20 story building not intruding on the Marshall would have half the footprint of the 10 story building, so the total cubic footage is about the same. In terms of expenses for high-rise construction, the big expenses come with buildings higher than 7-8 stories, which means steel construction instead of things like wood on a concrete podium, more elevators, emergency access etcetera, which would all be just as triggered on a 10 story building. 20 stories means the building would have that much more verticality, and thus market appeal, for the residential units (better view of the river and skyline) and profile for the hotel. Alternately, they could also build into the stub of Kayak Alley behind the building, which is blocked by the arena and practice facility anyhow--will it be needed for arena access? Could they expand the footprint of the building north to the back wall of the building at 7th & K?

[Mr. Ozo]

The alley is going to be a driveway into the parking structure under the practice facility.

Although you could build over it and still leave room for a driveway if you got the rights from the city.

[ltsmotorsport]

The Bee has an article on the Vanir Tower now as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html


The Biz Journal also had a nice write up and picture gallery of the Cannery Place Apartments in Township 9.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/03/look-inside-cannery-place-apartments-first.html?page=all

[creamcityleo79]

The Bee has an article on the Vanir Tower now as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html


The Biz Journal also had a nice write up and picture gallery of the Cannery Place Apartments in Township 9.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/03/look-inside-cannery-place-apartments-first.html?page=all

Both very exciting projects! Sacramento is on the precipice of something amazing...you can feel it (even 2 time zones away!)

[Pistola916]

The Vanir Tower has a revised rendering. It is pretty sweet.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html

http://livinginurbansac.blogspot.com/

[Majin]

This is great and all, don't get me wrong, you guys know I love skyscrapers :skyscraper: But where the hell are the residential developments?

The CDB really needs a lot more residents to truly create a "all hours" CDB with lots of retail, grocery stores, and non-weekend entertainment downtown.

[snfenoc]

One way to add residents to the central city is add jobs to the central city. I'm not sure if Vanir plans on expanding its operations here (in terms of jobs), but one thing Sacramento needs is a stronger, larger corporate base.

[Majin]

One way to add residents to the central city is add jobs to the central city. I'm not sure if Vanir plans on expanding its operations here (in terms of jobs), but one thing Sacramento needs is a stronger, larger corporate base.

Isn't that simple, right now there is already a huge imbalance in the CDB of jobs to residents. Why would adding even more jobs improve the situation?

[aufbau]

The Vanir Tower has a revised rendering. It is pretty sweet.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html

Thank Goodness. There are enough vintage late 80s/early 90s high-rises in Sacramento. We're not far enough in the future for a revival of that style.
Could someone post photos? I hit that stupid Sacbee paywall.

[snfenoc]

Isn't that simple, right now there is already a huge imbalance in the CDB of jobs to residents. Why would adding even more jobs improve the situation?


Let's say for every 10 CBD jobs, 2 of them will live in the city and 8 will live in the burbs. If an office building ADDS 1000 jobs, 200 of those will live in the city...that's more demand for housing. It may not be the amount you want, but it is more. Of course, one thing to watch out for is the good old game of "musical buildings". I want to see new office buildings add jobs to the CBD, not simply empty out others in competition. Currently, Vanir has offices in North Sac and elsewhere. If this project brings those offices together within the CBD, it has just added jobs to the CBD and some of those jobs may want to live in the city. I know there are big "ifs" here, but I don't see any reason to be pessimistic at this point, in this case.

The culture is changing - younger people are interested in living in the city. Likely, most CBD jobs are government workers. I would guess a large portion of those workers are middle-aged and have suburban inclinations. As they retire and a new, urban-inclined generation replaces them, you may just see the imbalance level off a bit.

Also, building a residential tower may not be economically feasible. But building smaller residential structures seems to be. You ask where the hell are the residential developments? I ask, have you been paying attention these past few years? We have had quite a few...just no high rises, and that is fine with me.

[sacamenna kid]

Looks to me like they're talking about demolishing one of the few classical facades left on J Street to build the Vanir. Isn't that bank landmarked?

[wburg]

It's not a classical facade, it's a 1970s bank building. Sacamenna Kid, are you maybe thinking of the D.O. Mills Bank at 7th and J, a block away?

Majin is right on both counts--the production of new housing in the central business district is way, way behind, and there is a massive jobs/housing imbalance in the central city as a whole and in the CBD in particular. There are about 100,000 jobs in the central city--and roughly 30,000 residents. The vast majority of those residents are in Midtown, Southside and Alkali/Mansion Flat, and the majority of the jobs are in the CBD. Which means if everyone who lives in the central city, including retirees, children, the disabled, and the 2000 folks in the main jail all had jobs in the central city and none of them did a reverse commute, you still need more than twice as many commuters as residents driving to work every day.

The closest thing to a figure on how many people commute from the suburbs to downtown comes from the following report: http://definingdowntown.org/read-the-report/ . This report states that of the roughly 73,000 people living in a zone defined as downtown Sacramento and the neighborhoods within a 1 mile radius, and 151,000 jobs. 27.2% of the people who live in that radius also work within that radius. Personally I'd suggest that those who live within the "grid" proper are even more likely to work in the central city, because it's that much easier to walk to work. Despite snefnoc's stereotypical caricature of the middle-aged, suburban state worker, I know a lot of folks who live in the central city who work for the state from their twenties to senior citizens, including retired state employees who apparently didn't get the memo that Midtown is only for young people. Some moved here for a short commute to work, some started working for the state after moving here because there were a lot of state jobs in their neighborhood (far more than the neighborhood population can possibly fill.)

I don't think building more office capacity is a good strategy for encouraging more residential use. Let's assume for a moment that snefnoc's 80% ratio is correct, and that of 1000 employees in the Vanir Building, 200 end up living downtown. Figure that the remaining 800 will primarily commute via automobile--some will take transit, maybe 5%, but that's still 750 cars on the roads, clogging up already overloaded highways. That also means 750 parking spaces--reinforcing demand for more parking garages, not downtown housing. Now, the idea is obviously not to force everyone to live downtown (far from it!), but if we can shift that balance from 20-30% to more like 40-50%, not only do we reduce rush hour traffic for all commuters, we meet more of the existing demand for downtown housing. The CBD is zoned for as many as 450 residential units per acre, but the number who actually live there (not counting the jail) is more like 7-8 per acre--which is the maximum zoned density for neighborhoods like Land Park and East Sacramento. Which is less than a quarter of the maximum density for Midtown, but that's another post.

And yes, there is demand--you can see it in the recently opened developments near the central business district. Legado de Ravel filled up very quickly, despite rents of $2000+ for 1 and 2 bedroom apartments, and the not-yet-completed 16 Powerhouse, with rents as high as $3000, has a long waiting list. For-sale housing, what little of it has come on the market, gets snapped up very quickly, even though it is priced considerably higher than houses of comparable size, and generally bigger lots, in the suburbs. Why? Because they're not comparable--being close to downtown is an amenity in and of itself, worth more money to the urban customer.

Some of the disappointment may stem from changes to the city's General Plan that happened recently--the 2030 General Plan was designed to really promote high-density housing in the CBD, but the latest update sets their sights much lower, accepting a few more fourplexes in Midtown in place of high-rise residential Downtown. My personal pet theory is that the biggest builders in the local market have an established business model, new greenfield residential in the suburbs, offices downtown, and they are too risk-averse to change their business model. Odds are, we may just have to wait for some of these developers to die off, because there are younger and more forward-thinking developers who are building new housing in parts of the central city, but only a handful so far within the central business district--and they'll make the money that the old-school suburban developers are leaving on the table, waiting for it to be the 1950s again.

That said, I don't have any particular problem with the Vanir building. I figure they can always convert part of it to residential use later.

[CAGeoNerd]

This is great and all, don't get me wrong, you guys know I love skyscrapers :skyscraper: But where the hell are the residential developments?

The CDB really needs a lot more residents to truly create a "all hours" CDB with lots of retail, grocery stores, and non-weekend entertainment downtown.

I'm still holding out for what will happen at 3rd and Capitol... The former Towers site.... if we can get anything close to that (and I do think we can), that will be HUGE.

[ltsmotorsport]

Also, building a residential tower may not be economically feasible. But building smaller residential structures seems to be. You ask where the hell are the residential developments? I ask, have you been paying attention these past few years? We have had quite a few...just no high rises, and that is fine with me.

I agree there has been a lot of progress recently, but we still have much further to go. It would be cool however to have something like the KOIN Tower in Portland. Office space on the lower floors with high-end condos up top, but keeping the Vanir design as much as possible. The Vanir Tower's location of a half block north of the arena would seem to be a good fit.


KOIN Tower for reference.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/41/KOINCenterPortland.jpg/250px-KOINCenterPortland.jpg

[goldcntry]

Here are the pics from the article for those locked out of the Bee's Paywall...
http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/goldcntry/vanir04.jpg

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/goldcntry/vanir02.jpg

http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m126/goldcntry/vanir03.jpg

[LandofFrost]

I don't mind the Vanir Building at all. It adds to the skyline in a very understated way and isn't horribly postmodern (1990s). Also, isn't this the first large headquarters of any type in Sacramento?

[fouroheight68]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/05/its-a-gamble-but-timing-could-be-right-for-vanirs.html

[otnemarcaS]

Thank Goodness. There are enough vintage late 80s/early 90s high-rises in Sacramento. We're not far enough in the future for a revival of that style.
Could someone post photos? I hit that stupid Sacbee paywall.

At work I never encounter the Sacbee paywall. At home I hit the paywall a long time ago. Just open your browser in incognito mode when you go to Sacbee's website and voila, you are a new visitor again. :yes: I use a chrome extention that opens a new window in incognito mode anytime I click on any Sacbee link.

[enigma99a]

All elevations

http://s7.postimg.org/a1n0clhdn/vanirtower1_600xx769_1153_47_0.png
http://s27.postimg.org/wwhb01ckz/vanirtower3_600xx309_463_59_0.png
http://s18.postimg.org/n7ht2u9hl/vanirtower2_600xx305_458_45_0.png

[downtownserg89]

Sac loves its nubby little skyscrapers. Still hoping The Metropolitan happens so we can have something over 30 stories for once!

[CAGeoNerd]

I like the interesting shape, even though it is "plain." I think Sacramento needs more modern looking architecture like this in the skyline. 26 floors is nice - not great, still want something to command the skyline, crossing my fingers for a bigger project. But my fear with this one is as we've seen in the past, interesting designs come out, it gets approved and everyone is excited, then the developers realize it will cost X million $ more for such a design and dumb it down to lower costs. I really hope this irregular box doesn't turn out to be a regular box, is what I mean..

[creamcityleo79]

Kaiser buying building near arena for medical offices

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/4658751/sacramentocorporatecenter011113dm.jpg


In another dramatic development for downtown Sacramento, Kaiser Permanente said it is buying the six-story Sacramento Corporate Center at 501 J St. and plans to renovate it for medical offices.
Kaiser is spending $40 million for a building that has been largely vacant for years. But it's in a key location, across the street from the new Sacramento Kings arena. Kaiser is a partner of the team as its official provider of medical services.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2014/12/18/kaiser-buying-building-near-arena-for-medical.html

[creamcityleo79]

^^^^^That is potentially HUGE news. As the article says, this may be the first step in a Kaiser Hospital in the railyards (and the only hospital downtown)!

[wburg]

We've got a couple in Midtown, but no Kaiser facilities. Could save Kaiser patients in the central city some driving time at the very least--very convenient from light rail or the planned streetcar line.

[cozmoose]

Sac loves its nubby little skyscrapers. Still hoping The Metropolitan happens so we can have something over 30 stories for once!

any chance that this building will break the 500 ft barrier?

[enigma99a]

any chance that this building will break the 500 ft barrier?

No chance.

[enigma99a]

Someone said in the city data forum that Epic is back on. Has anyone heard that?

[creamcityleo79]

Someone said in the city data forum that Epic is back on. Has anyone heard that?

I've heard, from a good source, that a group of investors in Minneapolis attempted to buy the plans for Epic AND 701L! I don't know yet what came of the attempt!

Edit: Both attempts were unsuccessful. Maybe they are back on!? :)

[snfenoc]

From the Sacramento Bee

Sacramento group seeks to put public market in downtown train depot
BY RYAN RLILLIS@SACBEE.COM
01/05/2015 9:00 PM - Updated 01/06/2015 8:16 AM

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/city-beat/article5473497.html

Seeking to capitalize on Sacramento’s growing profile as a food and agriculture hub, a group advocating for a permanent public market in the city has recommended that the facility be placed inside the historic downtown train depot.......


I am curious about this. The train depot sounds like an OK spot with its close proximity to a transportation hub. However, I wonder if the former Greyhound bus depot makes better sense.

[wburg]

The Greyhound depot is a lot smaller. It might be nice for a neighborhood market (something bigger than a corner store but smaller than a supermarket) to serve downtown residents but not the right size for something like this, and without quite as many visitors passing through. It might make a good complement for the depot if it is done right--something more along the lines of the SF Ferry Building, where transportation functions are still taking place alongside the market. Just opening up some folksy "farmer's market" stands inside the beautifully restored depot would be a poor fit. However, there is a lot of room between the tracks and the depot that could be brightened up with a few kiosks selling goods to travelers, or regular special events like the Friday farmer's market in front of the Ferry Building. The depot will still have transportation functions for quite a few years--but there is a lot of room to utilize on the eastern side of the building, away from the relocated Amtrak offices and ticket counter.

[wburg]

edit