Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[enigma99a]

More apartments? When are owners coming to Downtown?

[Korey]

I would accept the 4 story height and texas donut configuration (holding my nose) but no street level retail is a non-starter in my mind.

[wburg]

The project is rental because it uses public funds for low-income housing that are available, which precludes ownership housing. The location is actually part of the Railyards--that block was a yard for "piggyback" flatcars (truck trailers rolled onto flatcars in the era before standardized cargo containers) with ramps at the end of each track. The eastern half of the block will be directly on the 1920s passenger depot track alignment, so yes, it's very much in the Railyards property.

It also makes more sense to me to build at the edges of the Railyards, where it connects to the rest of the neighborhood, and build inward, unlike what Township 9 did, build the first housing at the far end several blocks away from Richards Boulevard and the transit station. That way, you're reintegrating the neighborhood into the new development, merging Alkali Flat into the Railyards, instead of creating a separate "island" of development in the middle of the Railyards separate from the surrounding neighborhood. It might also help encourage growth on some of the long-vacant lots where houses once stood in Alkali Flat on the other side of 7th.

I'm less worried about ground floor retail in this building because of the design--instead of a flat, unapproachable exterior and a single entrance, it is done with a series of front stoops and multiple entrances, like the sides of 17th & L Street. So there are multiple porches and opportunities for eyes on the street. I guess they figure that they're right next to a very commercial area, with a lot of current commercial vacancies, so there is not as much opportunity for ground floor retail on that lot. And a lot of recent nearby mixed-use properties, like the one a block away at 8th & H and the one at La Valentina on 12th, have had great difficulty filling their commercial spaces. If commercial spaces fill up rapidly in response to growing population and demand, I'd expect the next project to feature a retail component.

Ownership is a tougher thing to manage--no easy solutions there. But given the housing ownership rate of the central city is only 10%, in a city where nearly 2/3 of households are ownership, something needs to change.

[snfenoc]

I have to agree... I think it's reality check time. Although there are a number of proposals floating around and some actual projects under construction, many of the proposals may never be built, and those projects under construction have been kicked around for years - with a subset receiving government handouts.

Yes, there is "demand" for housing and retail in the grid. But that demand for an urban lifestyle extends to other cities across the state and beyond. It's possible Sacramento could support some 15-30 story residential towers, but I think the profit margin for developers and investors is too small to justify such a risk, especially being in the shadow of (and in competition with) such a high return market like SF.

In this case, I think the developer could probably go a couple stories higher and include some retail. However, these apartments are meant to be affordable - that may play a role in the choice of height and amenities. AND wburg makes a good point that the immediate area may be saturated with commercial vacancies. Remember, these people are trying to profit, not indulge our vision.

People are asking, "Where are all the proposals?" Take a look at DowntownSac.org and see what's in the pipeline. Not bad for a city that has to compete with SF, SJ, LA, SD, and even Fresno! Also, I don't think this "good" economy we have is sustainable - it sure feels like a "bubble" to me. I hope whatever is planned gets proposed, entitled, funded, and built before the bubble bursts.

[ltsmotorsport]

I think reality is important when considering the first development in the railyards, but you also have to consider who is behind this project. A suburban investor with a fairly uninspired design. LPAS has done better work (aren't they the firm designing the Stockton and T project?), but they may not have the budget from the developer. GFR for at least one small tenant would be nice though

And not that LDK isn't completely capable of facilitating development of the railyards, but this is by far the most complex site they have dealt with and a bit out of their norm. They have done a great job with McClellan, but turning a former air base into an industrial park isn't much of a change of use. Now, turning a former railyard into a completely new urban neighborhood? New territory.

[Folks3000]

Originally Posted by wburg

The project is rental because it uses public funds for low-income housing that are available, which precludes ownership housing. The location is actually part of the Railyards--that block was a yard for "piggyback" flatcars (truck trailers rolled onto flatcars in the era before standardized cargo containers) with ramps at the end of each track. The eastern half of the block will be directly on the 1920s passenger depot track alignment, so yes, it's very much in the Railyards property.

It also makes more sense to me to build at the edges of the Railyards, where it connects to the rest of the neighborhood, and build inward, unlike what Township 9 did, build the first housing at the far end several blocks away from Richards Boulevard and the transit station. That way, you're reintegrating the neighborhood into the new development, merging Alkali Flat into the Railyards, instead of creating a separate "island" of development in the middle of the Railyards separate from the surrounding neighborhood. It might also help encourage growth on some of the long-vacant lots where houses once stood in Alkali Flat on the other side of 7th.

I'm less worried about ground floor retail in this building because of the design--instead of a flat, unapproachable exterior and a single entrance, it is done with a series of front stoops and multiple entrances, like the sides of 17th & L Street. So there are multiple porches and opportunities for eyes on the street. I guess they figure that they're right next to a very commercial area, with a lot of current commercial vacancies, so there is not as much opportunity for ground floor retail on that lot. And a lot of recent nearby mixed-use properties, like the one a block away at 8th & H and the one at La Valentina on 12th, have had great difficulty filling their commercial spaces. If commercial spaces fill up rapidly in response to growing population and demand, I'd expect the next project to feature a retail component.

Ownership is a tougher thing to manage--no easy solutions there. But given the housing ownership rate of the central city is only 10%, in a city where nearly 2/3 of households are ownership, something needs to change.

A cool idea I have seen in the Midwest was to build it with ground floor residential units that could easily be converted to retail if the market demanded. I get there are a lot of commercial vacancies now, but who knows what ten years down the road might bring. I wish they could just plan for the possibility of retail, mixed use is the only thing that is going to bring the railyards to life.

[wburg]

Depends on the zoning, but the ground floor walk-up units could very easily be live/work units like those on the sides of the 17th & L apartments. And that end of the Railyards is really part of Alkali Flat, which already has plenty of vacant commercial ground floor space (and vacant lots) that need filling.

Still very curious about what LDK is planning in the Railyards--and still kind of disappointed by the initial assessment of half as many residential units (5000 instead of 12,000) in the revised project area.

[Majin]

Again, another article on how much demand and how expensive the grid is getting. It's now the most expensive in the region and jumped tremendously over the last few years. It's a hot growing market.

So where the hell are all of the proposals????

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/03/18/hot-multifamily-market-affecting-desired.html

[ltsmotorsport]

Yep, another story proving what we know about the demand for units not being met and further proving the point that revising residential numbers down in the railyards is a mistake.

[snfenoc]

Sacramento is getting people's attention. Hopefully, things continue that way.

New construction is a whole different animal than buying existing properties that are already rented.

Even if demand is heading in the right direction, has it reached the tipping point, where we can expect lots of investor dollars funding many new multifamily developments? Sacramento may not be there quite yet. Maybe that's why you feel there aren't enough proposals right now.

The Sacramento market doesn't exist in a vacuum and investment dollars are not infinite (granted, the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank may disagree ).
Rents in the Bay Area are astronomical. So the lure of making ridiculous money in San Francisco may draw investment away from new developments that Sacramento could reasonably support now.

However, the cure for high prices is... high prices!
As the Bay Area starts pricing out certain segments of the market, people will look to Sacramento as a place to live. If enough people do that and they make enough $$, Sacramento may get those dense, urban developments we crave.

It's a process that we may just have to wait out.

[wburg]

There are actually a huge number of projects in the pipeline, on the order of maybe 20,000 new residential units in and around the central city, but none of them are taller than the Burj Khalifa so they don't interest Majin.

[snfenoc]

Names? Descriptions? Locations? I listed quite a few proposals in an earlier post. I was thinking closer to 5000 units, but 20,000? That's a lot. What does "around the central city" mean? Folsom?

So building heights similar to Burj Khalifa are out of question? How about heights closer to that of Wiz Khalifa? Buh dum bum. Sorry. I had to.

I do agree, however. Sacramento is doing just fine. I do think there's more to come as Bay Area prices rise. I think the latest Sacramento property acquisitions and higher lease rates are, in part, a result of spill over. My only concern is what happens when the bubble bursts? The "pipeline" can be very long and hard to navigate.

[wburg]

Including stuff like Northwest Land Park, McKinley Village, Township 9, etcetera, although it includes specific plans that are just zoning for units like circa 8000 in the River District and 12,000 in the Railyards. So maybe 20,000 is going overboard--but here's a list of stuff going on right now, in the development pipeline, entitled, or recently completed:

Railyards, 200 units (of a downgraded 5000 units)
Township 9, 2500 units
Metropolitan (10th & J) 350 units
Former Clarion Hotel (16th & H) 160 units
Crystal Ice (17th & R) 150 units
Whole Foods (21st & L) 140 units
700 K Street, 137 units
Eviva/Warren, 118 units
WAL, 116 units
Legado de Ravel, 118 units
515 T, 14 units
St. Anton, 65 units
La Valentina, 65 units
The Arbors, 55 units
i15, 80 units
16 Powerhouse, 50 units
The Creamery, 98 units
Hall of Justice, 42 units
1500 S Street, 70 units
Tapestri Square, 58 units once complete
2500 R, 34 units
24th & S, 5 units
20th & S, 9 units
Sacramento Commons, 1300 units

Nearby:
Curtis Park Village, 500 units
Curtis Park Court, 91 units
McKinley Village, 336 units
Northwest Land Park, 800 units
Sutter Park, 120 units
Alder Grove/Marina Vista (proposed quadrupling of 750 unit housing project to around 3000 total units)
Bridge District: 4000 units
Capitol Yards, 270 units

That's all stuff within a mile or two of the central city grid. How much actually gets built before the next bubble bursts, or the local wave of arena fever abates, that's a good question.

[creamcityleo79]

Piggy-backing on the amazing post above...

Ice Blocks project moves ahead in midtown Sacramento

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/bob-shallit/article15307148.html


Also, it's wonderful to have Bob Shallit back in a reporters desk...if only temporarily!

[Sactorleans]

Originally Posted by wburg

Including stuff like Northwest Land Park, McKinley Village, Township 9, etcetera, although it includes specific plans that are just zoning for units like circa 8000 in the River District and 12,000 in the Railyards. So maybe 20,000 is going overboard--but here's a list of stuff going on right now, in the development pipeline, entitled, or recently completed:

...
24th & S, 5 units
...

That's all stuff within a mile or two of the central city grid. How much actually gets built before the next bubble bursts, or the local wave of arena fever abates, that's a good question.

Please tell me more about the 5 units at 24th & S Street. I am curious and unaware of those plans.

[Surefiresacto]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

Piggy-backing on the amazing post above...

Ice Blocks project moves ahead in midtown Sacramento

Also, it's wonderful to have Bob Shallit back in a reporters desk...if only temporarily!

Completely agree with the return of Bob Shallit. When he left the Bee a few years ago, my knowledge of ongoing Sacramento projects dropped tremendously. I was forced to look elsewhere for updates and never found anything that filled the gap quite as well. His column/blog has been bookmarked!

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Sactorleans

Please tell me more about the 5 units at 24th & S Street. I am curious and unaware of those plans.

Hm. Another person compiled this list, maybe they meant the recently built apartments at 24th and T.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Surefiresacto

Completely agree with the return of Bob Shallit. When he left the Bee a few years ago, my knowledge of ongoing Sacramento projects dropped tremendously. I was forced to look elsewhere for updates and never found anything that filled the gap quite as well. His column/blog has been bookmarked!

He's only back temporarily. He's filling in for someone.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/bob-shallit/article14708585.html

[Korey]

Originally Posted by wburg

It also makes more sense to me to build at the edges of the Railyards, where it connects to the rest of the neighborhood, and build inward, unlike what Township 9 did, build the first housing at the far end several blocks away from Richards Boulevard and the transit station. That way, you're reintegrating the neighborhood into the new development, merging Alkali Flat into the Railyards, instead of creating a separate "island" of development in the middle of the Railyards separate from the surrounding neighborhood. It might also help encourage growth on some of the long-vacant lots where houses once stood in Alkali Flat on the other side of 7th.

Originally Posted by wburg

I guess they figure that they're right next to a very commercial area, with a lot of current commercial vacancies, so there is not as much opportunity for ground floor retail on that lot. And a lot of recent nearby mixed-use properties, like the one a block away at 8th & H and the one at La Valentina on 12th, have had great difficulty filling their commercial spaces.

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Remember, these people are trying to profit, not indulge our vision.

Very good points. Being oversupplied with retail does keep prices down though and allows for a possible interesting mixture of businesses that would otherwise not open up with higher rents. One can dream :/

[ltsmotorsport]

BTW, where exactly is that affordable housing project going in the railyards? I'm assuming it's close to the new courthouse block.