HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2521  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 6:29 AM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
They look perfectly fine to me. I'll definately be buying a unit if metro is built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2522  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 6:42 AM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
I like them, too. We don't need every building to be a work of art. People are people downtown and the more middle income residents we get down there at an affordable cost, the better it will be for the city!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2523  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 7:35 AM
sacamenna kid sacamenna kid is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 44
I agree

Quote:
Originally Posted by neuhickman79 View Post
I like them, too. We don't need every building to be a work of art. People are people downtown and the more middle income residents we get down there at an affordable cost, the better it will be for the city!
Was just down in San Diego and saw a lot of the stuff they've put up there over the past five years (some still under construction). Amazing. You can't be a purist if you want progress.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2524  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 4:09 PM
Bob Lablaw Bob Lablaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Near Sacramento CA
Posts: 25
I can definitely see both viewpoints on the exterior design of Metro and Cathedral Square, but I think I'm leaning (slightly) toward Cynical's thinking. The developers can (and should) do a little better.

I'm happy that there's development afoot, and neuhickman79 is correct - getting people downtown at a reasonable price is good for the city. But, it wouldn't take a heck of a lot to really punch up those buildings. Perhaps a different material selection here, or a softened architectural line there.

I am not suggesting that we need anything so "iconic" (read: gimmicky) as the neon spire at the Esquire Tower (although I feel that was the right gimmick at the right location). And, even though I am aware that not every building can be its own unique little snowflake on the city skyline, we'll have to live with these plain vanilla towers (the current renderings) for our lifetimes. I hope the developers can find a way to add some interest and have it pencil out financially.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2525  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 4:59 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy? Will there be affordable or mid-income units, or is it all market rate? Do we have some idea of what these units will cost?

"Middle-income" in Sacramento means a single person making around $54,000 a year--"low-income" around $36,000. Folks in those income ranges can afford rents or mortgage payments of about $1500 or $1000 a month. Would those be feasible in the Met?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2526  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2007, 9:56 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
My semi-educated guesses...

Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy?

Not without a bit of stretching. I'm sure a middle-income couple could potentially.

Will there be affordable or mid-income units, or is it all market rate?

Market rate. I can't imagine this building would be feasible unless it is either
heavily subsidized or 100% market rate.

Do we have some idea of what these units will cost?

No. Somewhere below the Towers and Aura. Maybe around $300-$400 per sq. ft. ??

"Middle-income" in Sacramento means a single person making around $54,000
a year--"low-income" around $36,000. Folks in those income ranges can afford
rents or mortgage payments of about $1500 or $1000 a month. Would those be
feasible in the Met?


Not by that definition. Especially not after monthly HOA dues are added to that.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2527  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 3:47 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
They look perfectly fine to me. I'll definately be buying a unit if metro is built.
I don't think it will look that bad either. And the views from the Cathedral Square looking south are going to be sweet.. The Cathedral, the Capitol DOME...

I just wish something would get built...
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2528  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 5:51 PM
jsf8278's Avatar
jsf8278 jsf8278 is offline
Edge_City
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Any news on Cathedral Square? On the St. Anton website it still says its under development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2529  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 6:22 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
My semi-educated guesses...

Will the units at Metro be ones that folks in the middle-income range can buy?

Not without a bit of stretching. I'm sure a middle-income couple could potentially.
A "middle-income couple", a household of two people, according to Sacramento's definitions, makes about $52,000 a year. Two people who are individually in the mid-income range, generally DINKs or empty nesters (that target market for downtown living everyone wants), making around $80-100K a year combined, bumps up into the "high" category.

I suppose I'm just a bit resistant to characterizing places like the Metropolitan and the Cathedral building as places for "middle-income residents" when they're definitely aimed at upper income brackets. Not that that is inherently a problem--there is a market for swank places downtown waiting to be filled. But let's define the Met as what it is--a fancy place for folks with fancy incomes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2530  
Old Posted Dec 20, 2007, 6:44 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
I'm under no disillusions. In fact that building has been more commonly
characterized as "middle-up" which is accurate in my opinion. Buying a
newly constructed home has always been something for the priveledged
or successful. If you're looking to get into a home at a middle income range,
then there is always going to be some opportunities in the resale market -
especially in older fixers.

Besides, no developer would want to build something right now that couldn't
potentially get the most return for their investment. Most homebuilders are
struggling to sell at a loss right now.

I'm pretty sure that high-rise living for "the people" is only viable in China
at the moment. And we don't want to get into how they're achieving that.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2531  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 5:40 PM
Dakotasteve66 Dakotasteve66 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 28
The Citizen and Cooper Union

I don't know if this is new news to anyone, but it was the first time I'd seen it.

There's a big red sign on the 6th floor, west side of the Citizen Hotel claiming a Fall 2008 opening.

And there is now a leasing office and website for the Cooper Union building. The leasing office is on 16th, just south of the Cooper Union building. And the website is 1600HLofts.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2532  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 7:22 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Mmmm, Well... who saw this coming? I'm sure it's 10 years or more down the road if it happens.

Westfield shopping for new mall site
Speculation centers on I-5 locations

By Kelly Johnson of The Sacramento Business Journal

Friday, December 21, 2007

The owner of the Roseville and downtown Sacramento malls is quietly pursuing property along Interstate 5 for a large center to be built years down the road, according to Northern California retail and real estate players.

"That is something they're strongly investigating," said Matt Holmes, a principal with retail brokerage Retail West Inc. in San Francisco.

"Although Westfield is always looking for and evaluating opportunities for growth of our portfolio, the company declines to comment on market rumor/speculation," said Catharine Dickey, Westfield spokeswoman.

It's not clear if Westfield has pinpointed a site, or whether the mall would be within the city of Sacramento or in the unincorporated county. Sources said one area Westfield is considering is near the Interstate 5 interchange planned for Metro Air Park. That development slowly taking shape on the east edge of Sacramento International Airport is zoned by Sacramento County for 21 million square feet of warehouses, offices, retail and high-tech space, and a golf course.

Marvin "Buzz" Oates, a partner in Metro Air Park who owns about 800 acres there, said he had not heard from Westfield about property there.

Officials with the city and county of Sacramento said Westfield had not approached them with the idea. Without having some idea of where Westfield wants to land, officials said they couldn't speculate whether they would be receptive to a development proposal.

Jim Teare of Colliers International confirmed he represents Westfield in looking for potential mall sites in Northern California, and has done so for 1½ years. He declined to comment further.

Reaction to the possibility of a North Natomas mall was mixed. The area already has a tremendous amount of retail and much more is planned, including projects of almost a half-million square feet each proposed by Enlow Ose and by Angelo G. Tsakopoulos and his father, George.

But the area has no department stores. Also, any major mall wouldn't be built for years. By then, housing built in the corridor from Sacramento to Sutter County could support more shops and restaurants.

Different stores, new competition
Once North Natomas develops further -- and if Metro Air Park and the 577- acre Greenbriar housing project proposed north of Interstate 5 are built -- "you could certainly justify a mall," said Ken Noack Jr., a retail broker with Grubb & Ellis Co.

A mall would attract a "different complexion of tenants" from those found at the various big-box and neighborhood shopping centers now open in North Natomas and others that are proposed, he noted. But nearby centers, including the big-box Woodland Gateway center that developer Paul Petrovich is building, could compete for shoppers and tenants.

"It will be who can build a better mousetrap" and when, Noack said. Westfield Galleria at Roseville and Arden Fair mall in Sacramento could "be impacted a little bit," he said.

Westfield Downtown Plaza, which the Australia-based shopping center giant plans to remodel possibly with the addition of Target and a grocery store, might have to be revamped to survive with another mall so close in Natomas. Westfield officials said at a recent city Design Commission meeting that they might consider a more extensive overhaul of the mall down the road, one that could add housing.

Strategy and clout
Perhaps that later overhaul could turn Downtown Plaza into a value-oriented center or a mixed-use center with a healthy dose of housing and offices, real estate sources said.

"You don't need another mall in this trade area," Holmes said. Westfield, though, must think Natomas needs some department stores, he added.

Bob Dong, a retail broker with the Terranomics division of BT Commercial, doesn't understand why Westfield would consider a mall in North Natomas now.

"There's just too many unknowns at this point," he said. Those unknowns include what the federal government will decide about Natomas' flood risks and levee conditions, whether customers are willing to buy homes near the airport, and when the housing slump will end, allowing renewed home construction. Most developers Dong works with are not looking that far down the road, he said.

A population of 250,000 is needed to support a mall, Dong said. South Natomas and North Natomas had a combined estimated 2006 population of about 84,000.

Having three shopping centers in this market would give Westfield tremendous clout with retailers, Holmes said. Getting a spot in the Galleria would be the initial draw, but retailers might be enticed to locate in multiple Westfield centers in this market. That might preclude those retailers from locating elsewhere -- perhaps even keeping them out of the retail space planned for The Railyards, the huge industrial redevelopment project just north of downtown Sacramento.

"I think the railyard's in trouble if this thing happens," Holmes said.

Noack disagreed. A mall and the railyard would pursue different types of retailers, he said.

Even real estate sources who think Natomas couldn't support a mall said they like the idea of another amenity that could draw people to the city of Sacramento.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2533  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 7:49 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
1.5 years ago was when the railyards deal really appeared to be going through.

But that's the only part of this article that makes any sense. Sure Westfield wants
to make sure that the Railyards is a failure, but a mall in Natomas ensures even
less traffic for the DTP. Every professional in that article seemed confounded with
Westfield's strategy for different reasons...

And I highly doubt that the City will allow them to start any construction on a new
project in the City limits without first addressing the issues with the DTP.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2534  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 8:58 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
1.5 years ago was when the railyards deal really appeared to be going through.

But that's the only part of this article that makes any sense. Sure Westfield wants
to make sure that the Railyards is a failure, but a mall in Natomas ensures even
less traffic for the DTP. Every professional in that article seemed confounded with
Westfield's strategy for different reasons...

And I highly doubt that the City will allow them to start any construction on a new
project in the City limits without first addressing the issues with the DTP.
Seriously...I wouldn't let them do it! We need the 2 divas to come out quick on this one (Lauren Hammond and Bonnie Pannel) and shut this sh!t down before it starts!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2535  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 9:08 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
we've spoke on the forum about how downtown should perhaps have it's
own council district. But this is a shiny example to me of why that's not
really true.

DTP is in Tretheway's district and so is Natomas. If you were him, would
you allow Westfield to expand into another area that directly competes
with the languishing Downtown Plaza?

I guess it all depends on whether or not Westfield tries to aquire land
inside the city limits. If they grab something outside city boundries and
in Sacramento County, they'll probably get to do whatever they want.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2536  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 9:58 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clearlake, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area
Posts: 17,162
Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!
__________________
#ruralurbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2537  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 10:06 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!
You'd have to get a lot of subsidies to have a $900 2br in a tower DT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2538  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 10:12 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
Dam, low income is 36 thousand? So what would 13 put me? (and 12k untaxed). Why can't they make a rental tower? Like a 2 bdr would be around 900 bucks. That is how you get economic diversity downtown!
As of 2006, $36,600 is low-income for one person. The next category is "very low income," 50% of median income, or around $23,500 a year. That 15% inclusionary housing law you hear so much about (which normally doesn't apply to infill housing unless they use public funding) is two-thirds VLI, one-third LI. 5% of all low-income housing, or 0.45% of all housing, is supposed to be ELI, "Extremely Low Income." That's the category for folks making $12K-18K a year, roughly the amount one makes on SSI or Social Security. Downtown Sacramento's SRO hotels, for example, are around $350-500 a month, and for the most part those don't even qualify as studio apartments: most are just rooms, without bathrooms or kitchens.

I got a look at one of the low-income units at 1801 L Street yesterday as part of a facility tour. It's a one-bedroom, around 500 feet. Nothing spectacular in the way of furnishing, but they do include a compact washer/dryer instead of a communal laundry room. They rent for around $650 to those who qualify (folks making around $20K-24K) while the market-rate 1br units are around $1100 and identical in furnishings. Sotiris mentioned he was kind of proud that his residents included people who wait tables at nearby restaurants and one guy who works at the car wash across the street, as well as folks who get their Lexus washed across the street. He also claimed they are 93-95% full, although I got a postcard from 1801's leasing office a while back (bulk mailed) offering a free month's rent to anyone who wanted to move into their units.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2539  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 10:42 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is online now
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Clearlake, CA Micropolitan Statistical Area
Posts: 17,162
so no towers can be 900 bucks for a 2bdr. What about a regular apartment in downtown? Everywhere I looked seem to be over 1k for 2 beds. I'm gonna have a 3rd roommate, are there even 3 bdr apartments in DT? I looked at the place behind the wels fargo tower, I think it was 1500 or something for 3 bdr, still waay to much for me.
__________________
#ruralurbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2540  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2007, 11:01 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by TWAK View Post
so no towers can be 900 bucks for a 2bdr. What about a regular apartment in downtown? Everywhere I looked seem to be over 1k for 2 beds. I'm gonna have a 3rd roommate, are there even 3 bdr apartments in DT? I looked at the place behind the wels fargo tower, I think it was 1500 or something for 3 bdr, still waay to much for me.
Try the CADA Apartments...http://www.cadanet.org/homepage.html
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 6:16 PM.

     

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