Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[SoMaSF415]

What's up guys, just moved to Sacramento and excited about exploring the city and all the new developments.

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by SoMaSF415

What's up guys, just moved to Sacramento and excited about exploring the city and all the new developments.

Welcome! I'm assuming you moved from The City. I went to school at SF State.

I'm hoping you're adjusting to Sac well and are not underwhelmed by the lack of urbanity.

Cheers!

[Mr. Ozo]

This one is going to ruffle a few feathers.

[wburg]

Why?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SoMaSF415

What's up guys, just moved to Sacramento and excited about exploring the city and all the new developments.

Welcome.

[SoMaSF415]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Welcome! I'm assuming you moved from The City. I went to school at SF State.

I'm hoping you're adjusting to Sac well and are not underwhelmed by the lack of urbanity.

Cheers!

I like my neighborhood near Sac State. It is unpretentious and diverse, a real middle class neighborhood which SF pretty much has lost completely.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by SoMaSF415

I like my neighborhood near Sac State. It is unpretentious and diverse, a real middle class neighborhood which SF pretty much has lost completely.

I find this response interesting and heartening. It's good to see people, especially transplants, appreciating Sacramento for what it is.

[Mr. Ozo]

Well, perhaps attitudes have changed. 5 years ago the site was a major battle when Cornerstone tried to move in and was eventually stopped. The city has changed it's planning code since then and most people seem to be more accepting of density. Now it's just that whole demolishing a historic church thing.

Also the cottage was recently landmarked. They are proposing to move it to U street, but we were also told it was impossible to move any structures past the light rail tracks. (Although 20th street comes to mind)

My own take: clearly the time for more projects like this with housing in the central business section of Midtown has come. I can point to 20 parking lots within 5 blocks that could be developed. I'm ok with moving the house and demoing the church.



http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=29&clip_id=2449&meta_id=211481

http://sacramentopress.com/2010/08/09/cornerstone-remodel-delayed/

Originally Posted by wburg

Why?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

Well, perhaps attitudes have changed. 5 years ago the site was a major battle when Cornerstone tried to move in and was eventually stopped. The city has changed it's planning code since then and most people seem to be more accepting of density. Now it's just that whole demolishing a historic church thing.

Also the cottage was recently landmarked. They are proposing to move it to U street, but we were also told it was impossible to move any structures past the light rail tracks. (Although 20th street comes to mind)

My own take: clearly the time for more projects like this with housing in the central business section of Midtown has come. I can point to 20 parking lots within 5 blocks that could be developed. I'm ok with moving the house and demoing the church.

The issue with Cornerstone had nothing to do with density, it was because, at the time, restaurants in the central city had to have parking lots or get a waiver, and there were other logistical issues including no place to put a commercial dumpster on the site. Conversion of the building from church to restaurant meant other expensive mechanical changes. Also, there were issues with the building--prior to Cornerstone, the owners of Zocalo bought the building with the intent of opening a restaurant, and accidentally removed some structural portions of the building, causing a partial collapse of the foundation that would have been expensive to repair. I think the neighbor who lived in the house next door was upset about the restaurant, but neighbor objection is typically pretty far down on the list of reasons to deny a project for the City of Sacramento. And she sold her house to the developer who is building this project.

But a restaurant in the church doesn't involve any increase in density--that refers specifically to population. That part of K Street is already a residential neighborhood--the central city's population is mostly in Midtown, it's Downtown that really needs population density (the central business district is about as densely populated as Land Park, if you don't include the population of the main jail, Midtown averages about 3-4 times that dense.)

It's not impossible to move buildings under the light rail tracks--generally it means cutting the wire at a bond and rolling the building through late at night. It's not cheap and is a hassle but it can be done. The developer apparently gave the house to a local rehabber to be relocated.

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by wburg

The issue with Cornerstone had nothing to do with density, it was because, at the time, restaurants in the central city had to have parking lots or get a waiver, and there were other logistical issues including no place to put a commercial dumpster on the site.

Yes, almost all the complaints were about parking or lack there of. So the city changed the code to deal with sites like this. But wouldn't 2 retail sites plus housing create even more of a parking issue? I don't see parking included. I understand that city code allows it by right now, so it can't be appealed on that basis.

[wburg]

The building has six parking spaces included, presumably 4 are for the residential units and 2 for the businesses (in Midtown, the parking minimum is .5 spaces per unit for new construction, retail doesn't need any parking on lots 6400 sf or less.) No retail tenants have been announced yet, so it's hard to gauge traffic. Theoretically, neighborhood-serving retail uses wouldn't require much if any parking, since Midtown is such a walkable neighborhood and relatively densely populated, most of their customers might arrive on foot or by bike (bike parking is becoming pretty standard in Midtown these days) and other visitors would have to find street parking (there are some street parking spaces, although some would be lost for a curb cut.)

If the city's issue was a lack of parking, they obviously don't have that issue anymore since the parking minimums were changed.

[fouroheight68]

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...oper-sketches-new-ideas-as-property.html

Interesting: "Preliminary plans call for a high-rise medical tower on the eastern portion of the 18 acres for the project, Kelley said. An open area would be in the middle, with mid-rise buildings on the west end. Immediately north would be a 10-acre regional park now under design, he said."

[yolonative]

Originally Posted by fouroheight68

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...oper-sketches-new-ideas-as-property.html

Interesting: "Preliminary plans call for a high-rise medical tower on the eastern portion of the 18 acres for the project, Kelley said. An open area would be in the middle, with mid-rise buildings on the west end. Immediately north would be a 10-acre regional park now under design, he said."

From the same article, this is also interesting:

"For five acres along the Sacramento River, there could be high-rise residential development with river views. That could tie into pedestrian access to a Sacramento version of the High Line public space in New York City, on what’s now the I Street Bridge."

I didn't know that riverfront high-rises were on the radar. Was hoping for something like that, but thought for sure they would opt for more mid-rise. Let's hope we get more specifics on all of the above in the coming weeks/months.

Also, for those like me who weren't familiar with NYC's High Line, I looked it up and something similar would be a great reuse of the I Street bridge.

[yolonative]

I did some research on the NAIOP Sacramento event that occurred today, and saw that a representative from Vanir Development was a presenter at the event. Did a search on Vanir tower out of curiousity..and found this:

http://www.vanirtower.com/

VanirTower.com.. is it just me, or is this a newly created site? Last I checked a couple months back, there was a brief page on vanirdevelopment.com regarding the tower here:

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

Now there's a full site dedicated to it! I know it's mostly just a marketing website... but it's progress!

Check it out for renderings and info on the architects behind the design. Anyone have any clue when this might break ground?

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by yolonative

I did some research on the NAIOP Sacramento event that occurred today, and saw that a representative from Vanir Development was a presenter at the event. Did a search on Vanir tower out of curiousity..and found this:

http://www.vanirtower.com/

VanirTower.com.. is it just me, or is this a newly created site? Last I checked a couple months back, there was a brief page on vanirdevelopment.com regarding the tower here:

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

Now there's a full site dedicated to it! I know it's mostly just a marketing website... but it's progress!

Check it out for renderings and info on the architects behind the design. Anyone have any clue when this might break ground?

The websites have been live for awhile now. It's scheduled to break ground in 2016, according to their site, but I that's a stretch. The building needs to be 50 percent leased before any construction can begin. The folks at Vanir seem like wonderful people, unlike Saca and Mohanna, so I'm pulling for them. Despite the abundance of office vacancies downtown, I'm optimistic Vanir Tower will get build eventually. I don't think it will be next year though.

[Web]

Originally Posted by yolonative

From the same article, this is also interesting:

"For five acres along the Sacramento River, there could be high-rise residential development with river views. That could tie into pedestrian access to a Sacramento version of the High Line public space in New York City, on what’s now the I Street Bridge."

I didn't know that riverfront high-rises were on the radar. Was hoping for something like that, but thought for sure they would opt for more mid-rise. Let's hope we get more specifics on all of the above in the coming weeks/months.

Also, for those like me who weren't familiar with NYC's High Line, I looked it up and something similar would be a great reuse of the I Street bridge.

Union Pacific is not going anywhere......not at all like the abandoned high line

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Web

Union Pacific is not going anywhere......not at all like the abandoned high line

Union Pacific isn't on the second level of the bridge. I've been making noises about doing something like this for a couple years, when they started talking about an alternative auto route to the I Street. UP is definitely a limiting factor, because they're still using the lower level bridge and gets touchy about access to their facilities, but it could be done. I know some people won't like the idea because they look at the I Street Bridge and just see a rusty old eyesore, just as I'm sure people looked at the High Line and saw a rusty old eyesore. It takes a certain amount of vision and creativity to take on a plan like this. Having some high-rise residential along the riverfront definitely has appeal, that's a holdover from the original Railyards plan that called for the same thing.

[Web]

Originally Posted by wburg

Union Pacific isn't on the second level of the bridge. I've been making noises about doing something like this for a couple years, when they started talking about an alternative auto route to the I Street. UP is definitely a limiting factor, because they're still using the lower level bridge and gets touchy about access to their facilities, but it could be done. I know some people won't like the idea because they look at the I Street Bridge and just see a rusty old eyesore, just as I'm sure people looked at the High Line and saw a rusty old eyesore. It takes a certain amount of vision and creativity to take on a plan like this. Having some high-rise residential along the riverfront definitely has appeal, that's a holdover from the original Railyards plan that called for the same thing.

again the high line was an abandoned railroad line......the I st bridge is a live railroad bridge very different....you think the railroad will allow development on the bridge?

[wburg]

And they aren't talking about using the still-utilized railroad level of the bridge that UP still uses, but the upper level that automobiles travel on, which is public right-of-way. I suppose it's an open question as to whether or not it will still count as public right-of-way if it's no longer used as a road for automobiles. Anyone can walk over the upper level of the I Street bridge right now, it offers a great view of the river and the waterfront in both directions. If you haven't been up there it's worth the stroll.

What was done to the High Line was only "development" in the broadest of terms--a little landscaping, pedestrian pathways, and some seating, is really all that was done. I suppose a bigger issue than the travel of trains is whether or not the bridge will still have to rotate to let boats through. If so then it probably wouldn't be a good idea to have tables and places to sit in the center section, but they could be located on the non-rotating ends of the bridge, with the center a pedestrian path that can be cleared by sounding the warning siren when the bridge is going to rotate.

[SuburbanRefugee]

Heres an interesting article by Ben van der Meer from today's SBJ about crowd funding the i15 project. 'Bay Miry has an unusual plan to fund his next mixed-use project in midtown'

I hadn't heard of Equitynet until I read the article so Im not familiar with the type of equity you'd receive in exchange for a financial contribution. Here is the listing if you want to dig a little deeper. Thoughts?