HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3341  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2008, 10:49 PM
Darn Good City's Avatar
Darn Good City Darn Good City is offline
Is My Name Champ?
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 23
The B Street Theatre building is absolutely awesome. Very good move to add residential units on top. People moving up and down the large spiral stair at the glass corner will add alot of visual movement.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3342  
Old Posted Jul 5, 2008, 10:52 PM
arod74's Avatar
arod74 arod74 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: east Sac
Posts: 358
I agree, B Street condo center would be a nice score if it went in over what the current plan is. Would seem to be a win-win so keeping fingers crossed.
__________________
Damn you Robert Horry!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3343  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2008, 5:54 AM
quevinh's Avatar
quevinh quevinh is offline
It's been tested
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by arod74 View Post
Yeah it was posted not too long ago. I would take the information posted here over the Bee article based on the amount of errors they have reported over the years concerning other various projects. Though Fleming's is a nice joint, I wouldn't be too heartbroken about losing a steakhouse. There seems to be plenty in town and something a little more exotic would be nice..

I agree 100%. Although I love steak, we have more than enough steak joints in this town. Once a cow (or steer) has been killed and cut up, how hard is it to throw the thing on some flame and eat it? Give me Waterboy anyday, I'll stick with my Weber.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3344  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2008, 8:19 AM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by quevinh View Post
I agree 100%. Although I love steak, we have more than enough steak joints in this town. Once a cow (or steer) has been killed and cut up, how hard is it to throw the thing on some flame and eat it? Give me Waterboy anyday, I'll stick with my Weber.
I feel the same way about Steak, might as well make that at home. Waterboy is also my favorite in town.
__________________
C'est le moment ou jamais
C'est facile comme tout
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3345  
Old Posted Jul 7, 2008, 11:39 PM
enigma99a's Avatar
enigma99a enigma99a is offline
Megalonorcal 11M~
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Rocklin
Posts: 2,254
yeah I agree. And waterboy (my favorite place in Sac) does have steak as well
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3346  
Old Posted Jul 8, 2008, 12:59 AM
L8 4 Tahoe L8 4 Tahoe is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 27
Front page of the Wall Street Journal today Original link (includes some cool graphics and some video)
Quote:
With Gas Over $4, Cities Explore
Whether It's Smart to Be Dense
Sacramento's 'Blueprint' for Growth
Draws National Attention
By ANA CAMPOY
July 7, 2008; Page A1

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Gasoline was less than $2 a gallon when Mike McKeever brought his gospel of bikes, light rail and tightly packed neighborhoods to this state synonymous with cars, freeways and suburban sprawl.

"The development industry was very concerned," says Mr. McKeever, head of Sacramento's regional planning agency. "The environmental community was openly negative," concerned that it was "just more talk, talk."
[planning]
Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Urban Advantage
Sacramento officials used photo imagery to show how different parts of the city could be brought in line with their pedestrian-friendly vision. See how things could change.

Seven years later, with gasoline hurtling past $4 a gallon, Sacramento has become one of the nation's most-watched experiments in whether urban planning can help solve everything from high fuel prices to the housing bust to global warming.

"They're really the model," says Steve Winkelman, a transportation expert at the Center for Clean Air Policy.

For decades, backers of "smart-growth" planning principles have preached the benefit of clustering the places where people live more closely with the businesses where they work and shop. Less travel would mean less fuel consumption and less air pollution. Several communities built from scratch upon those principles, such as Celebration in Florida, sprouted across the country. But they were often isolated experiments, connected to their surroundings mainly by car. So, as gasoline remained cheap, the rest of the country continued its inexorable march toward bigger houses and longer commutes.

Now, smart-growth fans see a chance to reverse that.

"Expensive oil is going to transform the American culture as radically as cheap oil did," predicts David Mogavero, a Sacramento-based architect and smart-growth proponent.
Over the past 50 years, cheap gasoline has encouraged developers to build communities further and further away from city cores. Now, city planners are experimenting with "smart growth" that keeps work and shopping close to home.

Sacramento -- yoked to the car and mired in one of the lousiest housing markets in the country -- offers an intriguing laboratory for that idea. Four years ago, just as oil was gaining momentum in its torrid climb to $140 a barrel and beyond, the six-county region adopted a plan for growth through 2050 that roped off some areas from development while concentrating growth more densely in others, emphasizing keeping jobs near homes.

The local governments in the area aren't compelled to follow the so-called Blueprint, but the plan -- backed by a strange-bedfellows coalition of ordinary citizens, politicians, developers and environmentalists -- shows signs of working, nonetheless.

"To me, the simplest way to test whether local governments are mainstreaming Blueprint growth principles is to look at...what is getting built," says Mr. McKeever. "The evidence there is pretty clear."

Between 2004 and 2007, the number of projects with apartments, condominiums and town houses for sale in the region increased by 533%, while the number of subdivisions with homes on lots bigger than 5,500 square feet fell by 21%, according to housing-research firm Hanley Wood Market Intelligence.

Things were different during the 1990s, as new single-family homes crept out to fill the abundant open spaces far from downtown. Traffic exploded, rising 66% from 1990 to 2003. In 2000, the American Lung Association ranked Sacramento 11th for the worst air pollution among U.S. cities -- though, with about 1.4 million people, it was 28th in population.
[Drive Time]

Facing the threat of losing its federal transportation funding because of its poor air quality, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments hired Mr. McKeever in 2001 to lead the region's cleanup effort. He brought with him an eclectic environmental résumé: He'd run a business that used a door-size fan to test homes for leaks of precious heated or cooled air; he'd become an expert in siting houses so they got the most sun possible, saving on electricity; and he'd become a planning consultant, helping Portland, Ore., create a walking city with compact neighborhoods connected by buses, streetcars and light rail.

When Mr. McKeever arrived in California, gasoline was relatively cheap and developers comfortable in building subdivisions the way they always had. He knew he would need to be able to paint a detailed, realistic picture of what life in the area would be like in 2050 if the traditional pattern of plopping one house on one acre of ground far from the owners' jobs continued.

Buildings' Impact

His staff collected information on all 750,000 pieces of property in the region, such as the number of housing units, people employed there, and return-on-investment rates generated by various building projects. They plugged those numbers into a database to be used with computer software Mr. McKeever helped develop to calculate the impact different kinds of buildings have on traffic, job growth and pollution.

In 2003, he took the computer model on the road to workshop after workshop. This wasn't the typical public hearing where officials sit in a row and take questions from the crowd. Instead, the more than 5,000 people who attended got a chance to use the computer program to play planner for a day, tweaking the mix of buildings to see what would happen.

"It sounds hokey," says the typically earnest Mr. McKeever, "but it's about making democracy work."

Wary Developers

Developers were wary. The higher density was tantalizing, but they weren't sure how to get financing and permits, how to build and market the new communities.

"My first big policy direction was, 'You need to go stop this Blueprint thing at all costs,'" recalls Dennis Rogers, a lobbyist with the North State Building Industry Association.

Mr. McKeever persevered. He conducted shuttle diplomacy of sorts, gliding between meetings with developers and environmentalists in a golf-cart-like neighborhood electric vehicle.
[Go to graphic]

Gradually, the builders began to accept Mr. McKeever's argument that adding town houses, condos and apartments to the mix of single-family homes would expose them to more markets and protect them from a downturn in any particular one. At the same time, residents were becoming more open to alternatives to the typical suburban house thanks to what they were learning at the workshops.

"The building industry is one of the most customer-driven that you can find," says Marcus Lo Duca, a lawyer who has represented builders for 20 years. "You have to adjust what you do to meet what home buyers want."

Dave Morris, an area developer, became a convert when he attended a workshop where officials presented their forecast of what the region would look like in 50 years if it kept growing in the same way. On a big screen in front of hundreds of people, they flashed traffic and air-quality figures that showed "you would commute faster on a bicycle," says Mr. Morris. The quality of life for communities without jobs nearby would nose dive.

"It was really an eye-opener," says Mr. Morris, 60 years old.

At the time, he was building two gated communities with single-family homes on one-acre lots. Mr. Morris is now working on a 171-loft project that will include shops and offices in downtown Woodland, a small city northwest of Sacramento near the university town of Davis. The site is near a courthouse, one of the main employers in town, as well as restaurants and coffee shops. It has access to public transit that can take residents to downtown Sacramento. The public library is just a few blocks away.

"I see gas prices making people take the Blueprint seriously," he says. "It's kind of like not worrying about fast food till the doctor tells you that you have a bad heart."

No. 1 Concern

A poll earlier this year by California State University, Sacramento, found that high gasoline prices were the No. 1 concern in the area and that 12% of respondents had changed jobs or moved in the past year to shorten their commute to work.

Matt Overmyer moved to a new compact development in Roseville, a city northeast of Sacramento. It now takes him 15 minutes to get to his job as a manager of a Lowe's home-improvement store, compared with the 45 minutes he drove from Folsom, a nearby town he describes as "suburbia at its finest."

Mr. Overmyer's new neighborhood sits at the western-most edge of Roseville, where cattle grazed not long ago. But unlike many of the typical suburban developments that sprouted on farmland surrounding Sacramento in previous years, his is designed around a "village square" with restaurants and shops. Once it's built out, it will be just a couple of blocks away from Mr. Overmyer's home. A school, which his 19-month-old daughter will attend once she's old enough, has already been built less than half a mile away.

Mr. Overmyer, 30 years old, now bikes to the grocery store, something he never did in Folsom. Because the houses in his new neighborhood are close together and share a back alley, he also interacts a lot more with his neighbors.

"My social life now consists of four neighbors up and down the street," he says. Before, he and his wife had to drive at least a few miles to see friends.

Mr. Overmyer says he's enjoying spending less time behind the wheel and "the bigger sense of community." He's also pleased to see that the houses around him are already selling for more than what he paid for his last year.

While the Blueprint is still only a guide and local governments have the final word on development, many have begun incorporating its principles into their local laws, giving them real teeth.

In Rancho Cordova, a city east of Sacramento that has adopted a Blueprint-friendly development plan, residents in densely packed town homes and small houses can walk to work at nearby office parks. The light-rail line built to commute to Sacramento now serves as a tram for local residents.

"We're a suburb that wants to become a city," says Linda Budge, Rancho's mayor.

In the spring, the regional-planning agency's board took another major step by approving a $42 billion transportation plan designed to mesh with the Blueprint. Together, both are projected by 2035 to reduce the amount of driving per household by 8% and global-warming emissions per household by 12% from their 2005 levels.

Now, California's Transportation Department is offering grants to help other areas in the state create their own Blueprints. Two environmental groups have co-sponsored a bill in the state legislature encouraging other areas to follow Sacramento's example. Think tanks such as the Center for Clean Air Policy are lobbying to include Blueprint methods in the federal transportation bill, which is up for reauthorization next year.

Placer Vineyards

But Mr. McKeever, who became his agency's director in 2004, still has battles to fight every day. Take, for example, Placer Vineyards, a 14,132-unit proposed housing development. It's in a good Blueprint location, close to both Sacramento and the city of Roseville, a big job center. But the proposal doesn't meet the Blueprint standard of an average 10 housing units per acre, which would translate into a 21,631-unit project. That's the necessary density to accommodate its projected future population growth within the Blueprint's boundaries.

"If you don't build those 7,000 units there," Mr. McKeever says, "they will go somewhere else," potentially onto land that the plan called for remaining undeveloped.
[photo]
SACOG
Mike McKeever, of the Sacramento Area Council of Governments

Mr. McKeever negotiated with the project's developers to present two plans to the Placer County Board of Supervisors for approval -- the original plan, and the Blueprint version. But the board chose the developer's less-dense, original plan. "I felt like they were pushing those 7,000 units on me," says county Supervisor F.C. "Rocky" Rockholm.

Mr. Rockholm, one of the 32 government officials who sit on the regional planning board, voted for the Blueprint, but he argues that the denser version is wrong for the site, now just farmland dotted with cows and yellow mustard flowers. Area residents were concerned about the traffic the denser development would generate. Aside from the density issue, Mr. Rockholm says, Placer Vineyards will be Blueprint-compliant, with a bus transit center and trails and bike paths connecting homes to parks and schools, he says.

But without density, counters Terry Davis of the area Sierra Club chapter, smart growth doesn't work. His group joined the local Audubon Society to file a lawsuit against Placer County and the developers, charging them with destroying natural land with plans that "unnecessarily promote urban sprawl." The parties are in settlement talks.

Plans for Streetcar

Even projects that fully comply with the Blueprint have their problems. Mark Friedman, a local developer, is working on a mixed-use development across the Sacramento River from the California State Capitol, the heart of downtown. In his loftlike office, a retrofitted former Pontiac-dealership, Mr. Friedman points to a sleek architectural model to show how a streetcar would connect apartments, office buildings and retail, making cars unnecessary.

Except that without building housing first, there won't be enough people to justify the state and local money that will help finance a streetcar. And without the streetcar, the carless project doesn't work. "It's a chicken-and-egg situation," says Mr. Friedman.

Building in the heart of the city costs more than creating subdivisions in empty land on city outskirts, says Mr. Friedman. But with the rising price of gasoline driving up the cost of commuting, he and other developers are finding healthy demand for their city projects at a time when suburban sales are slumping.

Even though the area's housing market has been wracked by price drops of 25% in the last year and one of the highest foreclosure rates in the country, Mr. Friedman says he already has sold nine of 28 town houses near downtown that he recently completed, and three more are under contract, "which is not bad considering the dismal state of the Sacramento real-estate market."

Mr. Morris, the developer, says the housing downturn is hurting the places that have the "dumbest growth. Smart growth works when the rest of it doesn't."

Write to Ana Campoy at [email protected]
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3347  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 3:40 AM
Darn Good City's Avatar
Darn Good City Darn Good City is offline
Is My Name Champ?
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by midtownup View Post
Very well said.

The bottom line here is money. I would take steps to protect my investment as well. It's just common sense. Development isn't about preserving. Preserving is just a bonus when it can be done while still turning a profit.

We have enterprising movers and shakers doing something "constructive" with not only this city but also their lives. Building buildings and a legacy at the same time. These people wake up in the morning with a sense of urgency to make a mark and do something worthwhile with their time on this earth. These people are building venues for the economy to thrive, creating jobs in construction, retail and housing just to name a handful. We have to keep moving forward and reinvent ourselves every day to adapt.

Of course these people are fundamentally different from those who "hinder development". The likes of which spend endless amount of time trying to change and control their environment instead of being the environment that others try to control. The amount of redundant historical "well read" banter is not a bad thing but just shows what the other side of the coin concerns themselves with and lives to postulate. "Poo poo-ing" others and trying to sound smart and look good while doing it might be what makes these people happy instead of building buildings, making money or transforming this city.

That being said:

a) The building at 20th and Capitol was a joke. Glad it's gone. Midtown is a goldmine of bulldoze-able parcels and this is just the start. The transformation currently taking shape in midtown is just the tip of the iceberg.

b) Although arguing over semantics on a forum which holds, for the most part, a completely different point of view and clogging every section may pass the time or provide a venue for releasing creative/intellectual steam- it has become quite disruptive. I don't think many of us are going to proclaim: "thank GOODNESS for the light! I never saw it that way! Thank GOODNESS for the incredible all knowing historical figure, I don't know what I would have done with my limited knowledge and lack of facts". As a trained debater I can reassure you these arguments will never end and continue to clog the forums as there is no such thing as the perfect argument-for or against.

c) Preservationists fail to recognize that maybe the original builders of mediocre "historical" buildings turn in their graves when people try to preserve them. What if their original intent was never to create a historical building but to make some money at the time? I'm sure they would be in favor of progress and re-building. I can reassure you preservationists didn't build historical buildings. Builders did. Just to be clear, when I refer to historical buildings I am strictly speaking of those hardly historical rickety structures downtown / midtown Sacramento, not actual historical buildings.

d) Utopian views about what is best for "the most of us" regarding what should not be built midtown is grossly negligent and incredibly ill suited when many people live in the area BECAUSE of the transformation taking place. Myself included. These views and sometimes actions against development are incredibly sicking especially when these views physically stand in the way of a developer's right to proposer. I like new things being built. I am excited about the next new development. That is why I visit the forum (lurking til now) and live in midtown. This last and final point begs the question: if you are fighting to preserve a certain building which no one really cares to preserve- who are you preserving the building for? At least in this forum, the pretense that others share the same view is false.

cheers!


I just read your post, so I thought I'd chime in since unfortunately not alot is going on in new construction. First, welcome to the forum. The point about preserving buildings that "no one really cares about" is flawed logic. Obviously the person fighting to save the building is the one who cares about it, and they are fighting for their own sense of what is important. If we as a society continued to only leave standing and build buildings that the majority wanted, we would end up with a boring homogeny--constantly culling the oddballs creates a middle of the road result--the building equivalent of only watching American Idol. If you don't have the super modern strange buildings because "no one cares about them" and you don't have the strange old homely little buildings because "no one cares about them", you get a mediocre short spectrum of middle of the road buildings. I prefer interesting variety. I would prefer the building equivalent of a corny Film Noir next to A Clockwork Orange next to a Honeymooner's rerun next to The Jerk next to an Animation Festival. Is any of these an example of the best in their genre? Maybe not, but if you took out maybe the Honeymooners and the corny Film Noir and replaced them with a whole season of Friends, would you necessarily have a more interesting block? Maybe while Friends was popular. What everyone thinks is a good building today may not be what everyone thinks is a good building tomorrow. Styles change. As a city we will do better to have a diversified portfolio of building stock than to sell a large portion of one type of stock and buy a whole bunch of what's hot now. Maybe the hot trend will be weird old wood buildings in the future. Who would have thought in the 30's that auto garages downtown would house some of the trendiest restaurants in Sacramento today? The problem is, if we sell our old stock, we can never buy it back in the future if it starts to be popular again. I mean even the ones that "aren't worth preserving" in our current definition of "worth preserving". Obviously, popular opinion of everything that has been demolished in Sacramento at the time it was demolished was that it "wasn't worth preserving". The thing that's great about Sacramento is, to continue with the stock portfolio analogy, we don't have sell off most of the one to get the other--we have so many wasted empty lots and surface parking lots and the railyards. We should be building high and dense on these, and we don't have to sacrifice so much of the diversity to current tastes. If we both sell off a chunk of the old and buy only the new, the old becomes a smaller and smaller ratio of our holdings, and we lose our portfolio's diversity, which is what keeps us a healthy desirable city through changing fads. We can always build an unlimited amount of new, and we can never build even one single old thing. We need radical buildings--very tall and very modern and very unusual--and part of what is hot now. At the same time---we need Perspective! Perspective that times and styles and fads change. To get rid of what is not hot now for what is hot now lacks Perspective.

Your description of "developers" is far too simplified. Some developers have great vision and build really great things and leave a legacy. Some developers have no vision, bad taste, and/or build really bad projects that actually harm the evolution of the city, and it isn't because Preservationists stopped them from doing an amazing project---its because some developers just don't care about building anything great; they are just doing a job. Of course, as has been said many times on this board --its their land which they just chose to buy with an old building on it and they can do what they want and further if they can afford to buy up every piece of property in a 4 block area in Downtown, they can do what they want with it, including leveling all of the highrises that block their view of the Capitol from their office, and no one nearby gets to complain about their own property values going down as a result because developers can do what they want with the property they buy. (Yes, I just presented an ironic exaggeration based on an extrapolation.) But what are we discussing on this forum if we only discuss the projects we are personally developing. The boards would probably get pretty quiet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3348  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 4:25 AM
Darn Good City's Avatar
Darn Good City Darn Good City is offline
Is My Name Champ?
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by midtownup View Post
Very well said.

The bottom line here is money. I would take steps to protect my investment as well. It's just common sense. Development isn't about preserving. Preserving is just a bonus when it can be done while still turning a profit.

We have enterprising movers and shakers doing something "constructive" with not only this city but also their lives. Building buildings and a legacy at the same time. These people wake up in the morning with a sense of urgency to make a mark and do something worthwhile with their time on this earth. These people are building venues for the economy to thrive, creating jobs in construction, retail and housing just to name a handful. We have to keep moving forward and reinvent ourselves every day to adapt.

Of course these people are fundamentally different from those who "hinder development". The likes of which spend endless amount of time trying to change and control their environment instead of being the environment that others try to control. The amount of redundant historical "well read" banter is not a bad thing but just shows what the other side of the coin concerns themselves with and lives to postulate. "Poo poo-ing" others and trying to sound smart and look good while doing it might be what makes these people happy instead of building buildings, making money or transforming this city.

That being said:

a) The building at 20th and Capitol was a joke. Glad it's gone. Midtown is a goldmine of bulldoze-able parcels and this is just the start. The transformation currently taking shape in midtown is just the tip of the iceberg.

b) Although arguing over semantics on a forum which holds, for the most part, a completely different point of view and clogging every section may pass the time or provide a venue for releasing creative/intellectual steam- it has become quite disruptive. I don't think many of us are going to proclaim: "thank GOODNESS for the light! I never saw it that way! Thank GOODNESS for the incredible all knowing historical figure, I don't know what I would have done with my limited knowledge and lack of facts". As a trained debater I can reassure you these arguments will never end and continue to clog the forums as there is no such thing as the perfect argument-for or against.

c) Preservationists fail to recognize that maybe the original builders of mediocre "historical" buildings turn in their graves when people try to preserve them. What if their original intent was never to create a historical building but to make some money at the time? I'm sure they would be in favor of progress and re-building. I can reassure you preservationists didn't build historical buildings. Builders did. Just to be clear, when I refer to historical buildings I am strictly speaking of those hardly historical rickety structures downtown / midtown Sacramento, not actual historical buildings.

d) Utopian views about what is best for "the most of us" regarding what should not be built midtown is grossly negligent and incredibly ill suited when many people live in the area BECAUSE of the transformation taking place. Myself included. These views and sometimes actions against development are incredibly sicking especially when these views physically stand in the way of a developer's right to proposer. I like new things being built. I am excited about the next new development. That is why I visit the forum (lurking til now) and live in midtown. This last and final point begs the question: if you are fighting to preserve a certain building which no one really cares to preserve- who are you preserving the building for? At least in this forum, the pretense that others share the same view is false.

cheers!


I just read your post, so I thought I'd chime in since unfortunately not alot is going on in new construction. First, welcome to the forum. The point about preserving buildings that "no one really cares about" is flawed logic. Obviously the person fighting to save the building is the one who cares about it, and they are fighting for their own sense of what is important. If we as a society continued to only leave standing and build buildings that the majority wanted, we would end up with a boring homogeny--constantly culling the oddballs creates a middle of the road result--the building equivalent of only watching American Idol. If you don't have the super modern strange buildings because "no one cares about them" and you don't have the strange old homely little buildings because "no one cares about them", you get a mediocre short spectrum of middle of the road buildings. I prefer interesting variety. I would prefer the building equivalent of a corny Film Noir next to A Clockwork Orange next to a Honeymooner's rerun next to The Jerk next to an Animation Festival. Is any of these an example of the best in their genre? Maybe not, but if you took out maybe the Honeymooners and the corny Film Noir and replaced them with a whole season of Friends, would you necessarily have a more interesting block? Maybe while Friends was popular. What everyone thinks is a good building today may not be what everyone thinks is a good building tomorrow. Styles change. As a city we will do better to have a diversified portfolio of building stock than to sell a large portion of one type of stock and buy a whole bunch of what's hot now. Maybe the hot trend will be weird old wood buildings in the future. Who would have thought in the 30's that auto garages downtown would house some of the trendiest restaurants in Sacramento today? The problem is, if we sell our old stock, we can never buy it back in the future if it starts to be popular again. I mean even the ones that "aren't worth preserving" in our current definition of "worth preserving". Obviously, popular opinion of everything that has been demolished in Sacramento at the time it was demolished was that it "wasn't worth preserving". The thing that's great about Sacramento is, to continue with the stock portfolio analogy, we don't have sell off most of the one to get the other--we have so many wasted empty lots and surface parking lots and the railyards. We should be building high and dense on these, and we don't have to sacrifice so much of the diversity to current tastes. If we both sell off a chunk of the old and buy only the new, the old becomes a smaller and smaller ratio of our holdings, and we lose our portfolio's diversity, which is what keeps us a healthy desirable city through changing fads. We can always build an unlimited amount of new, and we can never build even one single old thing. We need radical buildings--very tall and very modern and very unusual--and part of what is hot now. At the same time---we need Perspective! Perspective that times and styles and fads change. To get rid of what is not hot now for what is hot now lacks Perspective.

Your description of "developers" is far too simplified. Some developers have great vision and build really great things and leave a legacy. Some developers have no vision, bad taste, and/or build really bad projects that actually harm the evolution of the city, and it isn't because Preservationists stopped them from doing an amazing project---its because some developers just don't care about building anything great; they are just doing a job. Of course, as has been said many times on this board --its their land which they just chose to buy with an old building on it and they can do what they want and further if they can afford to buy up every piece of property in a 4 block area in Downtown, they can do what they want with it, including leveling all of the highrises that block their view of the Capitol from their office, and no one nearby gets to complain about their own property values going down as a result because developers can do what they want with the property they buy. (Yes, I just presented an ironic exaggeration based on an extrapolation.) But what are we discussing on this forum if we only discuss the projects we are personally developing. The boards would probably get pretty quiet.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3349  
Old Posted Jul 11, 2008, 4:31 AM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
The nugget in the SACOG article above caught my eye:

Quote:
Plans for Streetcar

Even projects that fully comply with the Blueprint have their problems. Mark Friedman, a local developer, is working on a mixed-use development across the Sacramento River from the California State Capitol, the heart of downtown. In his loftlike office, a retrofitted former Pontiac-dealership, Mr. Friedman points to a sleek architectural model to show how a streetcar would connect apartments, office buildings and retail, making cars unnecessary.

Except that without building housing first, there won't be enough people to justify the state and local money that will help finance a streetcar. And without the streetcar, the carless project doesn't work. "It's a chicken-and-egg situation," says Mr. Friedman.
Which is why the Sacramento/West Sac streetcar plan doesn't include state or federal money...it will be funded partially by sales tax, part by special assessment district, and part by parking and hotel room fees. Thus, you don't have to wait years for state/federal money that might not arrive.

And the folks doing the streetcar know a secret that made men like Borax Smith and Henry Huntington rich: you run your streetcar from a place with buildings to a place WITHOUT buildings--then you build buildings in the place without! The difference in the 21st century is to do it in infill/brownfield locations instead of greenfields, but the logic is the same. Build the streetcar, the housing comes later--as long as you build it smart, relatively dense, and close to the streetcar line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3350  
Old Posted Jul 15, 2008, 10:11 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,265
I just posted this in the suburban development thread but figured I put it here too so we can keep everything in one place. I had forgotten about this. Pretty significant development... and $1B? That's almost as much as the new airport expansion.



Source: www.sacbee.com/101/story/922065.html




Groundbreaking marks start of Thunder Valley expansion
By Art Campos - [email protected]
Last Updated 2:09 pm PDT Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The United Auburn Indian Community will break ground Wednesday at Thunder Valley Casino near Lincoln on an expansion project that will include construction of a 23-story hotel atop the current gaming facility.

Besides the planned five-star, 650-room hotel, the facility will include a convention center, ballrooms, more gaming space, restaurants, a spa, a lounge, a 3,000-seat performing arts center and a parking structure.

The ceremony will begin at 11 a.m. at the south-entrance parking lot at the casino, 1212 Athens Ave.

Doug Elmets, a spokesman for the Indian tribe, which owns the casino, said in a news release that the expansion project will create about 1,000 construction jobs and 1,200 permanent jobs. Completion is set for July 2010, he said.

Analysts have estimated cost of the expansion to be $1 billion.

When completed, the project will generate $10.2 million in property tax, $900,000 in food and beverage taxes and $1 million in occupancy tax annually for Placer County.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3351  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 6:00 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
The Design Commission approved John Saca’s Metropolitan Tower tonight
and yesterday the City Council signed off on the plan

The tower was approved consisting of 190 condo units and 190 hotel rooms
along with ground floor retail and restaurant space. The approved tower
would rise 410’ to the roof and 435’ to the top of the spire.

Since Nov. of last year, a few changes were made to the exterior like a
grander/taller lobby, more precast concrete giving it a bolder civic look and
a darker color. Over all, the high-rise now has a more traditional look.
The original design was sleek and modern and most all the design commission
members said that they really like it... but some where between Nov. and
today, the design was taken back to a more traditional style.

This tower is still quite a ways from breaking ground. With the current
housing mess and credit crunch gripping the nation, Saca’s probably
several years away from breaking ground.

I really like the darker color and additional use concrete giving the building
more contrast.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3352  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 2:38 PM
doriankage doriankage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 150
^^^
So even with the hotel ,which could be the Continental from the Towers, it's still years away?
I understand the credit crunch and all, I thought with a hotel in it, it would help get the project off the ground quicker.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3353  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 5:38 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
The problem is that you still need financing to build big things, and financing isn't exactly easy to come by with banks starting to go belly-up and needing federal bailouts. The economy being in a tizzy also means fewer people doing recreational travel, thus lowering the potential number of people that might visit this hotel--ditto for business travelers, while business isn't booming so much. Give it a few years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3354  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 5:45 PM
doriankage doriankage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg View Post
The problem is that you still need financing to build big things, and financing isn't exactly easy to come by with banks starting to go belly-up and needing federal bailouts. The economy being in a tizzy also means fewer people doing recreational travel, thus lowering the potential number of people that might visit this hotel--ditto for business travelers, while business isn't booming so much. Give it a few years.
Sorry for my ignorance. I am currently living in Spain, so I am really not affected by all the shit going on back home.

However, you figure with conventions and all, don't you think downtown could use another hotel and absorb the 190 rooms?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3355  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 5:50 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Give me a break, it will likely take 2 years to complete construction. 190 condos would easily sell in 2 years time. He could break tomorrow and be sold out by the time the condos are ready to be moved into.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3356  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 7:00 PM
doriankage doriankage is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 150
I like Majins thinking on this.
Only way to make money is to spend money!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3357  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 7:01 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Everybody likes the way I think, but only a few admit it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3358  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 7:11 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,411
Quote:
Originally Posted by doriankage View Post
I like Majins thinking on this.
Only way to make money is to spend money!
Yeah, but it takes money to spend money, and Saca doesn't have enough in his couch cushions to finance this. Thus, he'll need money from investors, and they're a bit twitchy right now. Considering the number of unsold and price-reduced condo units in the central city, plus all the ones with "now leasing" signs where there used to be "for sale" signs, it's not going to be easy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3359  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2008, 9:27 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
I'm excited for this project. I know its still 2-3 years down the road, but the next 3-7 years Sac will be looking at a new airport terminal, museum expansion, this Metropolitan project, and we know there will be at least two towers on the "hole in the ground" on Capitol mall. Meridian II could start next year and I think that will be the next high-rise to start construction. There's room for another tower where Aura was going to be built. And all the little infill projects in Midtown, around Sutter's Fort is much as important as the high-rise. A new streetcar line. Also a brand new Kings arena, hopefully. Yes, the economy sucks butt, but the real estate market will pick up, so Sac is heading to a brighter future as we get to 2015.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3360  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2008, 5:35 AM
SactownTom SactownTom is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 94
I saw that they’re going vertical at the Crocker.

I also noticed that the blue windows are going in on the bottom floors of 500 Capitol Mall (not sure how that’s going to turn out).
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 4:21 AM.

     

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