HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1781  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 6:42 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
Nighttime security and trash pickup? I wish they'd spend some real money and make real improvements to improving midtown's pedrestian friendlyness. Things like improving sidewalks and adding lighting.
Read through that again... it's all there. parking, lighting, infrastructure, marketing, security, etc. Sidewalk improvement is probably on the agenda too.

--

The Greater Broadway PBID passed last month as well. Hopefully Midtown and Broadway will see a bit less obstruction and controversy than the Downtown Partnership has recently.

Resolution approving the GBPBID
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1782  
Old Posted Aug 17, 2007, 7:08 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Great... broadway REALLY needs massive improvements to the sidewalks and lighting.

As for midtown, I hope parking improvements doesnt mean surface lots.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1783  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 1:57 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
As a member of the MBA (my biz is in West Midtown -Capitol Ave-J St, 16th-21st) I support the improvment district but I don't have a lot of faith in some of the people involved in the MBA. Many of the merchants do not live in Midtown so there is somewhat of a discontect with the neighborhood they do buisness in. (Of course this is typical) but it affects their judgement as to what is really helpful for all who have the most at stake. I'm hopeful but we'll just have to wait and see. And whoever came up with the lame name "Midtown Boutique District" for the J/K corridor - should be forced to have lunch at Chipotle with Mayor-esque Fargo every day for a year.

In addtion all the things the article said I would like to see a neon "MIDTOWN" sign, like the ones they have in San Diego, hung over J Street at 17th Street.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1784  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 3:45 AM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
private security? lol great....

i remember back in 1993 when my sister lived in greenhaven off of pocket road and there was a private security force that would target minorities and try to make them go back across I-5 to meadowview...
of course meadowview/the garden/29th st. was a dangerous place back then, but i still think they let their jobs go to their heads

hopefully a private security force in MT will show more restraint....id rather see real law enforcement doing that job
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1785  
Old Posted Aug 18, 2007, 3:47 AM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
In addtion all the things the article said I would like to see a neon "MIDTOWN" sign, like the ones they have in San Diego, hung over J Street at 17th Street.
i like the sign they have in the gaslamp quarter of SD

Last edited by kryptos; Aug 18, 2007 at 4:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1786  
Old Posted Aug 19, 2007, 11:21 PM
sacamenna kid sacamenna kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 44
Aura?

Anybody know anything? I'm just guessing that with the mortgage meltdown, this one is well nigh impossible now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1787  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2007, 5:37 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
While there are definitely some nighttime lighting gaps in midtown, it's hard to imagine how it could be more walkable, other than replacing some of those parking lots with mixed-use buildings. Although I get a little concerned when every project that comes down the pike gets a parking waiver. We're supposed to have a new downtown parking strategy, with lofty concepts like more effective use of existing surface lots, but there isn't much implementation of these new parking strategies. Hopefully the midtown PBID will address that.

One of those lots is slated for just such a building, behind the Midtown Building at 20th and O...more details once I find 'em out.

td: What sort of obstruction and controversy has the Downtown Partnership experienced recently?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1788  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2007, 7:41 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
td: What sort of obstruction and controversy has the Downtown Partnership experienced recently?
I phrased that poorly. I don't necessarily mean the DTP has experience difficulties directly - more like every single project they've backed has languished or failed.

Actually one instance where the Downtown Partnership has been directly impacted is when Mohanna put his gaggle of legal goons to work on the organization after they backed the St. Rose of Lima Park/K Street/Lightrail improvements and alterations. He wasn't happy that the organization chose to ignore his visionary quest to single handedly rejuvenate K Street. So he put the screws to the DTP and they were forced to employ legal consultants to cover their bases.

Obviously contributing more money to legal battles and less money to the downtown... which is entirely against the point of a PBID.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1789  
Old Posted Aug 20, 2007, 8:14 PM
econgrad econgrad is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 795
Great Article!

Marcos Bretón: A leader for city -- please stand up
By Marcos Bretón - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, August 19, 2007

Leadership.

Where is it in Sacramento? Who has vision and political clout?

Sadly, the answer is nobody.

Apparently, local political leadership is a bridge too far. Or in this case, it's a new Sacramento Kings arena too far. It's a 53-story downtown skyscraper too far. It's a revitalized K Street mall too far.

One by one, the big civic projects that gave Sacramento reason to hope have failed or been endlessly delayed.

The latest was a legal setback related to K Street, vital downtown real estate condemned to being slumlike, maybe for years to come.

City officials want to redevelop the 700 block of K Street by installing the Z Gallerie furniture chain. Joe Zeiden, owner of Z Gallerie, had pledged to attract other high-end businesses to transform the entire block of decayed, though historic buildings.

But the owner of huge swaths of K Street -- a gentleman named Moe Mohanna -- is standing in the way, prevailing over the city in court last week, promising further legal battles.

Meanwhile, parts of K Street remain a toilet where potential is getting flushed.

Yes. One man with impeccable manners is mightier than Sacramento City Hall.

Mohanna initially agreed to a K Street deal but later backed out, claiming he'd be getting a raw deal financially. Developers such as David Taylor say this is a pattern, killing deals at the last minute out of nerves or mistrust.

Mohanna hasn't developed a single new project in 20 years. He poses as a champion of downtrodden tenants in these threadbare buildings, but employs multiple lawyers for his City Hall battles.

But it gets better. The city is spending $5 million to renovate the Berry Hotel, next to the Greyhound station at L and Eighth streets.

In doing so, the city is forgiving $1 million in loan payments from the current owners. Guess who is getting $1 million for his option on the Berry?

You betcha. Is Mr. Mohanna using that million to feed the homeless? Or to fund his legal fight with the city?

Good questions. The Bee had many related to Mohanna for Mayor Heather Fargo last week.

But we were told that she couldn't comment because she hadn't been briefed yet.

Briefed? For the love of Joe Serna. Do you see what we're talking about here?

Can you hear the deafening silence from the rest of Sacramento's elected officials?

In the vacuum of that silence, people like Mohanna flourish. And now he could become a poster child in a statewide eminent domain fight.

If the city pursues eminent domain against Mohanna, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association might use him as the face of the little guy fighting City Hall in a statewide ballot measure campaign.

Talk about building a righteous house on a shaky foundation. And think of the briefings Mayor Fargo would require if that happens.

A leader would have dealt with Mohanna long ago. A leader would have had the stature to soothe the volatile Kings owners during failed arena negotiations. A leader would have bought time for the now-shelved 53-story towers on Third and Capitol Mall.

Maybe even the late Mayor Serna, who died in 1999, would have struggled on these fronts.

But on critical issues facing Sacramento, he didn't need a briefing to know how to lead.

Go to: Sacbee / Back to story

This article is protected by copyright and should not be printed or distributed for anything except personal use.
The Sacramento Bee, 2100 Q St., P.O. Box 15779, Sacramento, CA 95852
Phone: (916) 321-1000

Copyright © The Sacramento Bee
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1790  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 1:05 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
While there are definitely some nighttime lighting gaps in midtown, it's hard to imagine how it could be more walkable, other than replacing some of those parking lots with mixed-use buildings. Although I get a little concerned when every project that comes down the pike gets a parking waiver. We're supposed to have a new downtown parking strategy, with lofty concepts like more effective use of existing surface lots, but there isn't much implementation of these new parking strategies. Hopefully the midtown PBID will address that.

One of those lots is slated for just such a building, behind the Midtown Building at 20th and O...more details once I find 'em out.

td: What sort of obstruction and controversy has the Downtown Partnership experienced recently?
What is a "more effective use of surface (parking) lots anyway? Isn't a parking lot just a parking lot? And excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by parking waiver? Also does the downtown parking strategy have anything to do with midtown?

20th and O hum..trying to think. I live just down the street and my biz is 21/2 blks away but I just don't know what that project is.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1791  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 5:47 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
What is a "more effective use of surface (parking) lots anyway? Isn't a parking lot just a parking lot? And excuse my ignorance but what do you mean by parking waiver? Also does the downtown parking strategy have anything to do with midtown?

20th and O hum..trying to think. I live just down the street and my biz is 21/2 blks away but I just don't know what that project is.
More effective use of surface lots: Many lots are filled during the day and vacant at night, or vice-versa. Effective strategies to more effectively use these lots means things like getting businesses together to double up so more people can park off-street. Signage indicating where the parking is for non-central-city residents is also part of such a strategy.

Parking waivers: The city has rules regarding parking requirements for things like businesses and residences: you have to have X number of parking spaces per Y number of restaurant tables or square feet of floor space etcetera. If a project wants to have less parking than the city asks for, a waiver is required. The restaurants on L Street in the 1801 building, for example, have no parking lots. They asked the city to waive their parking requirements, exempting them from the required number of parking spaces, and the city did so.

The "downtown parking strategy" refers to the central city parking strategy, which includes midtown.

The 20th and O project is a deal in the works, the sale isn't finalized but what it looks like is a condo building 4 stories tall on a parking lot, plus ground-floor retail added to an existing office building.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1792  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 5:53 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Well I'm very much opposed to any parking requirements. My biz in the Cap/18th area which is the area that's probably the hardest place to find a parking space. I have to make sure my clients have parking and it costs me to buy parking spaces (and they are available) so I understand fully the parking crunch. However, I also understand that if we are going to ever achieve a true urban, walkable central city we can no longer make concessions for the car. Parking is a bitch in the heart of every real city on this planet. That's just the way it is. You can not have the convenience of the suburbs and the vitality of the city- the two are incompatible. We've tried that to do that and failed so many times over the years so you'd think we would know this by now? Do some business suffer for lack of parking -yeah they do. But other business suffer for lack of foot traffic. The fact is that there more people walking around Capitol and 18th than any other area in Midtown and yet it's one of the hardest places to find a parking space. Parking problems are actually a good thing. It means people want to be there. And they want to be there because other people are there and because they don't have to walk through a sea of cars to get where their going.

If you require parking spaces that will just take up valuable commerical/residential space it makes developing a small lot more difficult and expensive. I am in favor of more effective use of surface lots but I'm opposed to adding any new ones. I would rather see a couple of city-owned multi-level parking garage in Midtown (with street-level retail -like the one on H Street). I would prefer a city-owned gargage because they seem to be better maintained than private ones.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1793  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 6:29 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Parking lots can be done well though. Look at the city-owned lot on 14th & H. That lot fills to the gills with convention center, music circus and general restaurant/nightlife crowds. It also houses a Starbucks cafe, Brew It Up restaurant/bar, Byuti salon, and the The Melting Pot restaurant.

Hopefully we'll see that kind of success at the garage under construction at 28th and N in the Sutter complex.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1794  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 7:47 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Current parking standards, and the current parking situation in midtown, is nothing like the convenience of the suburbs. We do have to make allowances for the car, albeit fewer than in a suburban context, just as we have to make allowances for bicycles, public transit and pedestrians. The secret is the right mix--which is where smarter parking strategies can help. The idea is to do more with fewer parking spaces, while other strategies (like having people live close to work, and having properly run public transit) reduce incentives for car trips.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1795  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 7:52 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Well I'm very much opposed to any parking requirements. My biz in the Cap/18th area which is the area that's probably the hardest place to find a parking space. I have to make sure my clients have parking and it costs me to buy parking spaces (and they are available) so I understand fully the parking crunch. However, I also understand that if we are going to ever achieve a true urban, walkable central city we can no longer make concessions for the car. Parking is a bitch in the heart of every real city on this planet. That's just the way it is. You can not have the convenience of the suburbs and the vitality of the city- the two are incompatible. We've tried that to do that and failed so many times over the years so you'd think we would know this by now? Do some business suffer for lack of parking -yeah they do. But other business suffer for lack of foot traffic. The fact is that there more people walking around Capitol and 18th than any other area in Midtown and yet it's one of the hardest places to find a parking space. Parking problems are actually a good thing. It means people want to be there. And they want to be there because other people are there and because they don't have to walk through a sea of cars to get where their going.

If you require parking spaces that will just take up valuable commerical/residential space it makes developing a small lot more difficult and expensive. I am in favor of more effective use of surface lots but I'm opposed to adding any new ones. I would rather see a couple of city-owned multi-level parking garage in Midtown (with street-level retail -like the one on H Street). I would prefer a city-owned gargage because they seem to be better maintained than private ones.
Very well said.

I'm actually very glad the city is making all the concessions they are making as far as parking requirements. In all reality they just need to get the parking requirements off the books completely and let it be up to the developer to decide if their project needs parking and how much they should provide.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1796  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 8:07 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Portland Oregon project removes cars from the equation
Posted on November 13, 2006

PORTLAND, Ore.
Peter Yates for The New York Times




There are no parking spaces for Mary Stonecypher-Howell at the Moda condominiums in Seattle. ANNEMIEKE CLARK and her boyfriend, Daniel Pasley, do not spend a lot of time driving. Ms. Clark, a 29-year-old nursing student at Oregon Health and Science University, takes the bus to school. Her boyfriend is a “crazy bike rider,” she said.

So when they decided to buy their first home last winter, they chose a one-bedroom unit in the Civic, one of the first new developments in Portland to market condominiums without parking spaces. Ms. Clark said they bought the $175,000 condo, which will be ready next summer, because “it was absolutely the cheapest one selling.” Mr. Pasley also hoped a unit without parking would inspire Ms. Clark to sell her 1992 Subaru.

“So, part of it was idealism — that we would get rid of the car,” Ms. Clark said.

Although condominiums without parking are common in Manhattan and the downtowns of a few other East Coast cities, they are the exception to the rule in most of the country. In fact, almost all local governments require developers to provide a minimum number of parking spaces for each unit — and to fold the cost of the space into the housing price. The exact regulations, which are intended to prevent clogged streets and provide sufficient parking, vary by city. Houston’s code requires a minimum of 1.33 parking spaces for a one-bedroom and 2 spaces for a three-bedroom. Downtown Los Angeles mandates 2.25 parking spaces per unit, regardless of size.

Today, city planners around the country are trying to change or eliminate these standards, opting to promote mass transit and find a way to lower housing costs. Minimum parking requirements became popular in the 1950s with the growth of suburbia, said Donald Shoup, a professor of urban planning at the University of California at Los Angeles and the author of “The High Cost of Free Parking” (American Planning Association, 2005). “They spread like wildfire,” he said.

But in the 21st century, skyrocketing housing prices and the move toward high-density urban development are bringing scrutiny to the ways in which cities and developers manage the relationship between parking and residential real estate. Once a tool of government, parking requirements are increasingly driven by the market.

Last year, for example, Seattle reduced parking requirements for multifamily housing in three of the city’s major commercial corridors. Next month, the City Council will vote on a proposal to eliminate minimum parking requirements in Seattle’s six core urban districts and near light-rail stations. In June, San Francisco replaced minimum requirements downtown with maximum standards allowing no more than 0.75 parking spaces per unit. In Portland, where central city parking minimums were eliminated six years ago, developers are breaking ground on projects with restricted parking.

“In the future,” Dr. Shoup said, “we will look back at minimum parking requirements as a colossal mistake. Change will be slow, but it’s happening now.”

The Civic, a 261-unit project, includes 24 condos without parking. The building is six blocks from downtown and near a major bus and light-rail line, and will offer residents a rental-car-sharing arrangement.
“We’re always looking for ways to promote smart growth,” said Tom Cody, a project manager of the Gerding/Edlen Development Company, which developed the Civic. “We decided to test the water and see if there was a market for units without parking spaces.” The 24 condos sold out, he said.
In San Francisco, more downtown housing has been approved over the last few years than in the last 20 years combined, said Joshua Switzky, a city planner. The booming real estate market there inspired local officials to revoke minimum-parking requirements in the central core, Mr. Switzky said. “The city’s modus operandi is ‘transit first,’ ” he said. “Everyone recognized the existing rules didn’t match the policy.”

Under San Francisco’s new parking maximums, downtown developers are also required to “unbundle” the price of parking from the price of the condo. “Buyers aren’t obligated to buy a parking space, and developers don’t have the incentive to build spaces they can’t sell,” Mr. Switzky said.
Sustainable development is not the only factor driving changes to parking standards. “We talk about affordable housing as the most critical thing facing cities and the nation,” Mr. Cody said. “But we never talk about the costs of the automobile.” Since individual parking spaces cost about $40,000, reducing or eliminating parking is an effective way to lower housing prices, he said.

At the Moda condominiums, a development under construction in Seattle, only 43 out of 251 units have assigned parking. Eighty-three units have no parking and the remainder have access to a permit parking system. The building is in the downtown Belltown neighborhood, where the average condo has one and a half parking spaces.

Peter DaSilva for The New York Times

In San Francisco, One Rincon Hill allows for one space per unit.
“I wanted the least expensive unit,” said Mary Stonecypher-Howell, a computer database specialist who bought a Moda studio without parking for $170,000. Ms. Stonecypher-Howell said it was the only downtown condo she could find for less than $200,000. “In the city, it’s simpler not to have a car,” she said. Moda units with parking cost about $30,000 more than units without.

Lenders traditionally balk at financing projects without parking, said David Hoy, who developed the Moda condos. The concern is that they would be difficult to resell. “But in a high-density urban environment, there’s a strong demand and a shortage of supply,” Mr. Hoy said. Moda, which is financed by United Commercial Bank, sold out in less than a week, he said.
Other cities are also reconsidering parking standards. In Houston, for example, a committee is reviewing parking minimums along the light-rail line, according to Suzy Hartgrove, a spokeswoman for the city’s planning and development department. But not everybody is enthusiastic about the piecemeal changes taking place around the country, especially because often-arcane parking codes vary from district to district and city to suburb.

In the Rincon Hill neighborhood of San Francisco, where the new luxury tower One Rincon Hill is selling for $1,000 a square foot, parking standards allow a maximum of one space per unit. Just a few blocks away, downtown requirements undercut that figure by a quarter, making One Rincon Hill more attractive to buyers with cars.

“It gives them a marketing advantage,” said Victor Gonzalez, director of development for Monahan Pacific, a local company that has built condo properties downtown. “You’d be killed if you tried to do a project in the suburbs without parking,” he added.

Others point to the free-market parking situation in Manhattan, where monthly rates now exceed $500 a month. Planners are undeterred. In the United States, “housing is expensive and parking is cheap,” Dr. Shoup said. “We’ve got it the wrong way around.”
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1797  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 8:13 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
Current parking standards, and the current parking situation in midtown, is nothing like the convenience of the suburbs. We do have to make allowances for the car, albeit fewer than in a suburban context, just as we have to make allowances for bicycles, public transit and pedestrians. The secret is the right mix--which is where smarter parking strategies can help. The idea is to do more with fewer parking spaces, while other strategies (like having people live close to work, and having properly run public transit) reduce incentives for car trips.
The only thing that should be allowed in the central city is mixed used parking garages like 14th and H and 28th and N. There shouldn't be any reason to make any additional surface lots anywhere in the central city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1798  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 8:27 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Daybreak (So. Jordan), UT
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
The only thing that should be allowed in the central city is mixed used parking garages like 14th and H and 28th and N. There shouldn't be any reason to make any additional surface lots anywhere in the central city.

Absolutely!!! Personally, there should be NO surface lots at all. 14th & H is a perfect example of how future parking issues should be handled. Everytime I use 10&H, I am struck by how vibrant it feels! If only the entire downtown were that way.
__________________
Giant Meteor 2024
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1799  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 8:55 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
The only thing that should be allowed in the central city is mixed used parking garages like 14th and H and 28th and N. There shouldn't be any reason to make any additional surface lots anywhere in the central city.
We are of a mind on this. There still needs to be some parking, and it does need to be in places like mixed-use garages rather than lots. You'll also be happy to know that the current residential parking requirement is 1 space per unit in the central city, which puts us far closer to San Francisco than Los Angeles in terms of parking requirements. I'm all for turning Sacramento's parking lots into structures with parking underneath--as I mentioned elsewhere, I just cheered for a local developer who has plans to turn a quarter-block parking lot on 20th and O into a four-story condo structure with submerged parking under the building--one space per unit.

Parking requirements doesn't have to mean creating surface lots. Some new projects have satisfied parking requirements by (gasp) making arrangements with nearby underutilized lots, or taking other measures ranging from transit passes to free scooters. I don't think simply letting builders off the hook for parking, and trying to convince ourselves that bad traffic will make us into a World-Class City (TM), is the right answer.

I get the feeling folks have the impression I want the central city to resemble Elk Grove. Sorry, you've got the wrong guy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1800  
Old Posted Aug 21, 2007, 9:02 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
I was checking out Yelp.com and some one posted that Bountiful Market on 13th and I is closed due to illness. The owner posted a note saying that the new owners are turning it into a boutique hotel.

Any one heard anything?

Now that building is a one story structure so there are obviously going to have to change that. Maybe the Sterling is taking it over since it's directly in back of it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.