Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Majin

Based on what? No chance they overturn. This isnt Fargo's council (which 100% would of overturned). The only person who will vote against this is Ashby and I hope steinberg hangs the vote around her neck.

I'm curious to see how Hansen votes...?

[Pistola916]

The proposed 6-story Fort Sutter Hotel is being appealed to city council this week. 6-stories!

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

The proposed 6-story Fort Sutter Hotel is being appealed to city council this week. 6-stories!

Does that mean someone is contesting it? Why? It's not old enough to be a historic building and it's completely surrounded by huge buildings.

[snfenoc]

According to the SBJ, a union is appealing the proposal. Just a typical strong-arm tactic - probably to ensure unionized labor at the hotel. They'll have their stupid say, the council may or may not ask for a concession or two. Regardless, this'll be a rubber stamp job. Approved. Sadly, these annoying hiccups are just part of the process. Vote libertarian.

This proposal and Yamanee are both really nice. I hope they happen. But I doubt NO votes from the city council will derail them. Nope. If they fail, Sacramento's poor-🞵🞵🞵 economy will be the culprit.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...es-curtis-pk-vill-adds-dollar-store.html


Turns out Petrovich was not bluffing... Curtis park is getting a discount grocery story and a dollar store .... hahahhahahah. The NIMBYs actually managed to make their neighborhood much much worse. Classic.

Luddite activists don't understand economic reality. Who knew?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Does that mean someone is contesting it? Why? It's not old enough to be a historic building and it's completely surrounded by huge buildings.

The building on the corner is old enough to be a historic building (it's 95 years old, generally a building has to be 50 or older to possibly be historic--the one behind it is a 1980s tilt-up and clearly not historic), and was identified as a historic building in a survey back in the 90s and the Sutter EIR, but Paragary found a consultant willing to say it wasn't historic anymore. But this appeal, as snefnoc mentions, is coming from the hotel employee union, and they haven't produced a statement regarding why they have appealed the decision. I don't think the height is an issue, I think it's a few feet over the max for that zone but not by much. Randy Paragary's name carries a lot of weight and Ron Vrilakas is one of the city's most respected architects. The item was continued to the 31st of May according to the staff report on the city council agenda page.

[Korey]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

Luddite activists don't understand economic reality. Who knew?

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article61324667.html

There won't be a Grocery Outlet on that site. The price of the new homes and the economics of the surrounding area mean Petrovich (and BlackPine) would be able to get much more $ with a more "upscale" mix of tenants. $ doesn't lie, he thought he could squeeze more with the gas station, council called his bluff.

I live in OP so I'd like this shopping center to get built. A gas station won't affect me negatively as it isn't in my immediate area, but I'm OK with Curtis Park putting its foot down on this issue. The proposal was already watered down enough from what it could be.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

The building on the corner is old enough to be a historic building (it's 95 years old, generally a building has to be 50 or older to possibly be historic--the one behind it is a 1980s tilt-up and clearly not historic), and was identified as a historic building in a survey back in the 90s and the Sutter EIR, but Paragary found a consultant willing to say it wasn't historic anymore. But this appeal, as snefnoc mentions, is coming from the hotel employee union, and they haven't produced a statement regarding why they have appealed the decision. I don't think the height is an issue, I think it's a few feet over the max for that zone but not by much. Randy Paragary's name carries a lot of weight and Ron Vrilakas is one of the city's most respected architects. The item was continued to the 31st of May according to the staff report on the city council agenda page.

I always chuckle when people in Sacramento refer to a building as being "historic". That's not to say that there aren't buildings with unique character or architectural significance for Sacramento and California that deserve to be preserved. But I think the word "historic" is used far too often in Sacramento.


Just my opinion.

[wburg]

Why Sacramento in particular? It doesn't matter whether a building is in Sacramento, Wichita, Juneau or Hoboken, 50 years is the generally accepted minimum threshold for a building to be considered historic. Of course, it takes more than just being old to be eligible--a building also has to be significant. Big cities tend to have strong preservation programs: it's small towns that don't consider their historic places to be worthy of consideration. So when people complain that a place is too obsessed with history, I consider that person a victim of small-town thinking.

[LandofFrost]

R street is on a roll.


http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article78508567.html


New retail and housing on the corner of 11th and R across from the Fox and Goose. They are only keeping the shell, but having walked into that building randomly once, it was basically and empty warehouse.

It has been owned by the Larson family for a very very long time and sold in 2014 for almost $3,000,000 to an LLC. I can't imagine that, with that amount of money, they will just be sitting on it. That's the second large lot on R street to sell for close to three mil.

[UnclearColt]

Originally Posted by wburg

Of course, it takes more than just being old to be eligible--a building also has to be significant.

Based on what I've seen, preservationists use that word "significant" rather loosely.

[wburg]

And "demolitionists" use that word "significant" rather rigidly--"if it's inconvenient, it's not significant."

The hotel project and this other project at 11th & R Street share the same architect, and it's interesting to note that he's taking a different approach with the two projects. 11th & R is already a listed landmark, and they're reutilizing all of the exterior walls (the interior is primarily open space on one side, and the other side was converted to a theater in the 1990s, so probably not much interior to speak of other than the roof trusses) so it's definitely in the "adaptive reuse" category, but I think this looks pretty good, and appropriate given the industrial setting of R Street. I suppose, given my druthers, I would have liked to see an approach more like this on 28th and R Street, utilizing the 95 year old building combined with a new building on the back or, at the very least, utilizing the facade. The architect mentioned that this is a wood and stucco building rather than masonry, so there are more limitations with that approach. If the building had been listed prior to this project coming up, the calculations might have worked out differently, but they still might have worked out to the project's benefit.

[snfenoc]

The SBJ hosted their "Redefining the Core" event today:

For those of you who wonder why Sacramento doesn't sprout housing units like zits on a 15 year old's forehead, this comes from a report on today's meeting:

EXCLUSIVE: ​Real estate heavy hitters detail trends in downtown development
May 20, 2016, 1:45pm PDT

Sacramento construction costs resemble Bay Area — though rents, fees much smaller

One of the biggest challenges facing the city is that costs to build here are comparable to the Bay Area although fees are lower and rents are significantly lower. That makes it harder for a project to pencil out, said John Dangberg, Sacramento assistant city manager.

“That creates a challenge,” he said.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2016/05/20/real-estate-heavy-hitters-detail-trends.html

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

The SBJ hosted their "Redefining the Core" event today:

For those of you who wonder why Sacramento doesn't sprout housing units like zits on a 15 year old's forehead, this comes from a report on today's meeting:

On the other hand, many are looking to move here because of the cheaper cost of living.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

The SBJ hosted their "Redefining the Core" event today:

For those of you who wonder why Sacramento doesn't sprout housing units like zits on a 15 year old's forehead, this comes from a report on today's meeting:

I'm curious what rents they would need to collect to "pencil out" considering some of the outrageous rents in Sacramento's central city?

You would think the city of Sacramento would streamline the process and make it cheaper for developers. That combined with cheaper costs of land might help.

Although as I said earlier,, I seriously doubt that there will ever be a strictly residential tower built in Sacramento since banks are unwilling to take a chance on the market. A project that involves anything other than wood or prefab construction is probably a non starter. The exception may be Yamanee in Midtown. Sacramento really needs to help Yamanee succeed so it encourages banks and developers to push the envelop with future projects in Sacramento's central city.

[BillSimmons]

Originally Posted by UnclearColt

Based on what I've seen, preservationists use that word "significant" rather loosely.

Like Capitol Towers...

[nalmak]

As someone looking to move to Sacramento (or San Diego), in the next year, these developments are much needed. Outside of downtown, its pretty bland (exception Folsom and Carmichael. Can't count West Sac "Mills" yet). Would love to see other areas develop more.

I understand having a suburb full of KB Homes, and Toll Brothers houses next to each other, but not 6-8 areas. That's my one gripe on Sac, is if your not in downtown, your in suburbia in all directions. But money talks.

[wburg]

So if land and fees are cheaper, but construction costs are comparable (materials cost, labor cost, and environmental regulations being relatively consistent throughout California), building here is still cheaper. Can't see past the paywall--what is the suggested course of action? (My guess: Reduced regulation & expedited project review)

[ltsmotorsport]

While it may be cheaper than the Bay Area, the lenders also know there's more money to be made from projects there rather than here. Therefore, more money is available to lend there, and more projects proposed/get built there. It's a game played for money against time, where the winner gets to make the most money the sooner they open the doors. If you can make more money in location A over location B, you go to A because a lender will look more favorably on your project.

This is all not to say it is impossible here, just harder, with scrutiny by lenders being that much more intense. Of course our market can absorb what has been proposed, and many more projects, but only so much money will come here (see above).

This is especially important to consider when seeing larger projects such as Yamanee and Sac Commons. These are larger projects from developers with ties to money outside of Sacramento. If we truly want more central city housing and residents (of all income levels), these projects must be supported by everyone who says they want downtown and midtown to thrive. Showing these projects can not only be approved, but are supported by the community, says a lot about the maturity of the city's residents and invites more investment in housing developments for the city in the future.

[UnclearColt]

Originally Posted by BillSimmons

Like Capitol Towers...

But it was designed by all these master architects! Something something mid-century modern! /s