Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Majin]

Here is my take on Sacramento development in it's current state.

Good things:

1) Unlike two years ago, there is finally a ton of stuff actually under construction in the grid.

2) It seems like we are moving into an era where high density is the norm, not the exception.

3) DOCO redevelopment, although slowly, is turning out to be very well done.

4) In the city (with the exception of Natomas), urban high density development is spreading outside of the grid, even as far as the Sac State area in East Sac which is looking like that area will be completely transformed in 5 years time. Urban midrise development outside of the grid looks to be the standard.

5) It seems the speed of project development is slightly quicker than it was in the early 2000s boom, but in my opinion still way too slow.

Bad things:

1) There are still too many proposals that fizzle out into nothing, similar to the early 2000s boom

2) Although there are now finally lots of units under construction, nothing is really changing our skyline except for the DOCO tower, which gives the perception nothing is really going on and doesn't offer any visual improvement.

3) Most of the development is still in midtown with barely any units added in Downtown proper. This leaves me worried about the long term future of DOCO area and the surrounding area (J Street, K street near the Arena, etc). How many times do we have to go through this cycle of tons of commercial development with very little/no residential development? Then people wonder why things start closing down after the initial hype wears off? We have seen this movie before.

4) Despite a real estate and rent/home prices boom (we lead the nation for many years), developers still seem skidish about developing downtown/midtown? If we cant get a ton of construction out of this market, it leads me to believe there is a different underlying problem that has nothing to do with market conditions.

5) Railyards development still not happening, riverfront development not happening (on both sides of the river). Old Sac has seen ZERO improvement this development cycle.

[j_deguzman10]

The Sacramento Bee has an article talking about Jason Jacobs, the head of the Sacramento Zoo, and his idea of moving the zoo from Land Park to a much larger area. The head said that Association of Zoos and Aquariums might stop supporting the zoo because of its outdated facilities and lack of big animals. Jacobs points out that while the zoo has consistently brought in about 500,000 visitors a year, the lack of space to expand and house larger animals as well as poor parking is hurting the zoo's potential. He also points out that most of the animals at Sacramento Zoo are small animals or normal zoo animals and not that exotic...


While the plans are still in only discussion mode, it appears that the proposed project will cost around 120-150 million dollars and could double or triple the size of the zoo. This means that the size of the zoo will be increased from 14 acres to 28 or even 42 acres. This, according to Jacobs will allow the zoo to house animals like rhinos and chimps.


It appears that Ashby and Steinberg approve of the proposal while Hansen is more cautious about this proposal.


Personally I think that the city should upgrade the zoo and move it elsewhere. The zoo is very outdated, old, and small and is not really inspiring or great TBH. The zoo is already planning a 75 million dollar renovation by why spend the money on that when it'll only focus on smaller animals and not allow the option to expand the zoo. If anything the 75 million dollar expansion will turn the zoo into a biodiversity center, which I don't think the city wants. I recently visited the Dallas Zoo while I was in Dallas and it was massive, it had two parts totaling 100 acres, a monorail to go around the zoo, and had so many unique animals like hippos, gorillas, rhinos, and others that Sacramento does not have. I agree with the article; Sacramento is the capital of the world's 5th largest economy but has a very poor zoo, not really representable of a world class state and growing city.

After looking at Google Earth and Maps, I think that the proposed zoo should be built in Sutter's Regional Park near McKinley Village or maybe the city can demolish Sleep Train Arena and use that area as the location for the new zoo??? The only problems I see with both options is parking and being located in a suburban area.

Let me know what you guys think about this, I think this is something that should be talked about.

https://www.sacbee.com/

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

The Sacramento Bee has an article talking about Jason Jacobs, the head of the Sacramento Zoo, and his idea of moving the zoo from Land Park to a much larger area. The head said that Association of Zoos and Aquariums might stop supporting the zoo because of its outdated facilities and lack of big animals. Jacobs points out that while the zoo has consistently brought in about 500,000 visitors a year, the lack of space to expand and house larger animals as well as poor parking is hurting the zoo's potential. He also points out that most of the animals at Sacramento Zoo are small animals or normal zoo animals and not that exotic...


While the plans are still in only discussion mode, it appears that the proposed project will cost around 120-150 million dollars and could double or triple the size of the zoo. This means that the size of the zoo will be increased from 14 acres to 28 or even 42 acres. This, according to Jacobs will allow the zoo to house animals like rhinos and chimps.


It appears that Ashby and Steinberg approve of the proposal while Hansen is more cautious about this proposal.


Personally I think that the city should upgrade the zoo and move it elsewhere. The zoo is very outdated, old, and small and is not really inspiring or great TBH. The zoo is already planning a 75 million dollar renovation by why spend the money on that when it'll only focus on smaller animals and not allow the option to expand the zoo. If anything the 75 million dollar expansion will turn the zoo into a biodiversity center, which I don't think the city wants. I recently visited the Dallas Zoo while I was in Dallas and it was massive, it had two parts totaling 100 acres, a monorail to go around the zoo, and had so many unique animals like hippos, gorillas, rhinos, and others that Sacramento does not have. I agree with the article; Sacramento is the capital of the world's 5th largest economy but has a very poor zoo, not really representable of a world class state and growing city.

After looking at Google Earth and Maps, I think that the proposed zoo should be built in Sutter's Regional Park near McKinley Village or maybe the city can demolish Sleep Train Arena and use that area as the location for the new zoo??? The only problems I see with both options is parking and being located in a suburban area.

Let me know what you guys think about this, I think this is something that should be talked about.

https://www.sacbee.com/

I recently visited the San Diego Zoo and was in awe. I wish we had something like that here. It bothers me Fresno’s Zoo is 3x bigger at 50 acre than ours. Too bad Gold Rush Park never came to fruition. The zoo belongs in the urban core. If they do expand I preferably like for it to stay in Land Park or somewhere in Sutter Landing Park, the Railyards or the Docks.

[urbanadvocate]

How awesome would if be if that could somehow connect the zoo with the new science center on the river (i.e. perhaps an informative nature walk/path to a location in the railwards).

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

The Sacramento Bee has an article talking about Jason Jacobs, the head of the Sacramento Zoo, and his idea of moving the zoo from Land Park to a much larger area. The head said that Association of Zoos and Aquariums might stop supporting the zoo because of its outdated facilities and lack of big animals. Jacobs points out that while the zoo has consistently brought in about 500,000 visitors a year, the lack of space to expand and house larger animals as well as poor parking is hurting the zoo's potential. He also points out that most of the animals at Sacramento Zoo are small animals or normal zoo animals and not that exotic...

While the plans are still in only discussion mode, it appears that the proposed project will cost around 120-150 million dollars and could double or triple the size of the zoo. This means that the size of the zoo will be increased from 14 acres to 28 or even 42 acres. This, according to Jacobs will allow the zoo to house animals like rhinos and chimps.

It appears that Ashby and Steinberg approve of the proposal while Hansen is more cautious about this proposal.

Personally I think that the city should upgrade the zoo and move it elsewhere. The zoo is very outdated, old, and small and is not really inspiring or great TBH. The zoo is already planning a 75 million dollar renovation by why spend the money on that when it'll only focus on smaller animals and not allow the option to expand the zoo. If anything the 75 million dollar expansion will turn the zoo into a biodiversity center, which I don't think the city wants. I recently visited the Dallas Zoo while I was in Dallas and it was massive, it had two parts totaling 100 acres, a monorail to go around the zoo, and had so many unique animals like hippos, gorillas, rhinos, and others that Sacramento does not have. I agree with the article; Sacramento is the capital of the world's 5th largest economy but has a very poor zoo, not really representable of a world class state and growing city.

After looking at Google Earth and Maps, I think that the proposed zoo should be built in Sutter's Regional Park near McKinley Village or maybe the city can demolish Sleep Train Arena and use that area as the location for the new zoo??? The only problems I see with both options is parking and being located in a suburban area.

Let me know what you guys think about this, I think this is something that should be talked about.

https://www.sacbee.com/

My modest proposal:

1. DON'T move the Zoo - move the golf course. And perhaps eliminate a few ball fields if not utilized enough.

2. Expand the Zoo or remodel it onto said golf course. In this situation, there might also be room for Funderland or Fairytale Town improvements / expansions if desired.

3. For the streetcar / trolley / electric rail enthuisasts, replace the Steam Train out of Old Sacramento with a historical streetcar or other electric railway between the Zoo and Old Sacramento. Could this be done in conjunction with the Western Electric Railway museum?
http://www.wrm.org/

Perhaps have said electric railway even further down into South Sacramento and the Delta (Hood? Courtland Pear Festival? Walnut Grove? Isleton? How much of that old right of way still exists?) although I suppose the stuffy NIMBY Land Park people will still object.

4. For the old style Steam train enthusiasts, there is still the (West) Sacramento River Train route:
https://www.sacramentorivertrain.com/our-trains/sacramento-rivertrain/

5. Visitor Parking (yes, more will be needed) could be stacked, or perhaps placed further down the electric rail line right of way, and serviced by it, in the area of the Executive Airport. (here the stuffy NIMBY Land Park people again might be a problem). Or could that additional parking be placed along the "Promenade" south of the Embassy Suites Hotel and again serviced by said electric trolley line?

[NikeFutbolero]

Jut get rid of the zoo altogether. Animals don’t belong in captivity.

[CAGeoNerd]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

My modest proposal:

1. DON'T move the Zoo - move the golf course.

2. Expand the Zoo or remodel it onto said golf course. In this situation, there might even be room for Funderland or Fairytale Town improvements if desired.

3. For the streetcar / trolley / electric rail enthuisasts, replace the Steam Train out of Old Sacramento with a historical streetcar or other electric railway between the Zoo and Old Sacramento. Could this be done in conjunction with the Western Electric Railway museum?
http://www.wrm.org/

Perhaps have a quieter electric railway even further down into South Sacramento and the Delta (Courtland Pear Festival? How much of that old right of way still exists?) although I suppose the stuffy NIMBY Land Park people will still object.

4. For the old style Steam train enthusiasts, there is still the (West) Sacramento River Train route:
https://www.sacramentorivertrain.com/our-trains/sacramento-rivertrain/

5. Visitor Parking (yes, more will be needed) could be stacked, or perhaps placed further down the electric rail line right of way in the area of the Executive Airport. (here the stuffy NIMBY Land Park people again might be a problem).

My thoughts exactly. Stay in the same spot, expand to surrounding area, demo/remodel existing zoo as needed.
Too much character and history tied to the zoo and Land Park in that location, and always been somewhat related to Fairytale Town and Funderland, it's a destination location. Not a fan of moving it.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by NikeFutbolero

Jut get rid of the zoo altogether. Animals don’t belong in captivity.

Educating small (and even big) humans about biology, nature, critters, and even the importance of wildlife?

Providing a place for "Extinct in the Wild" creatures?

Giving wounded and crippled rescued animals a new life? (There are a lot worse ways for some creatures to live out their existence.)

Anyway, think again....

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Interesting talk about removing I-5 through downtown Sacramento.

https://mobilitylab.org/2018/09/12/why-new-york-dc-and-sacramento-should-demolish-a-few-highways/

I know it has been brought up before, but this is a new one. Now we just need a spare billion dollars.

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

I think it'd be a great idea. The question is, where would they route I-5 to connect it from 50 to I-80?

This also again brings to mind the idea of "roofing" the depressed part of I-5, which, as costly as that is, would probably be less than trying to acquire the right of way for a re-route and then building it. (half a billion and counting?)

Such a large concrete slab could be a solar panel parking array like some of the State Fair parking has, and allow existing adjacent parking to become more building sites?

[Sachornet]

Here are some updated photos courtesy of the Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/n...nstruction-update-photos-of-notable.html

[CastleScott]

I went by that project at 19th and J today and it looks to be almost topped, oh btw there's a pretty large 5-6 story project-part of its steel with 3 floors of wood on top with a possible concrete garage next to it-this one's at US 50 and Stockton Blvd.

[j_deguzman10]

The Sacramento Bee wrote today that the high rise restrictions have been loosened on 16th and N because Cresleigh Homes plans to build a high rise on the site. According to the article, there is no height restriction on that half block of land, meaning that the high rise can be as tall as it wants to be. According to the article, the VP for Cresleigh Deana Ellis said that renderings will be coming in a few months and that the high rise could go up in 2019...


Any thoughts on this guys?

https://www.sacbee.com/

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

The Sacramento Bee wrote today that the high rise restrictions have been loosened on 16th and N because Cresleigh Homes plans to build a high rise on the site. According to the article, there is no height restriction on that half block of land, meaning that the high rise can be as tall as it wants to be. According to the article, the VP for Cresleigh Deana Ellis said that renderings will be coming in a few months and that the high rise could go up in 2019...


Any thoughts on this guys?

https://www.sacbee.com/

Awesome sauce!

Article under paywall. Does Cresleigh still plan to pursue their mid-rise on 14th and N or will they scrap that project altogether for the high-rise at 16th and N?

[j_deguzman10]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Awesome sauce!

Article under paywall. Does Cresleigh still plan to pursue their mid-rise on 14th and N or will they scrap that project altogether for the high-rise at 16th and N?

I think the article said that they are going to keep 14th and N and build 16th and N too because I remember a 2014 SBJ article saying that they were planning something for 16th and N but were waiting for a good market.

[Sachornet]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Awesome sauce!

Article under paywall. Does Cresleigh still plan to pursue their mid-rise on 14th and N or will they scrap that project altogether for the high-rise at 16th and N?

The article does say that Cresleigh is still planning the nine-story condo project on 14th and N, but no further details on the timeline.

For the 16th and N proposal, Cresleigh says it's likely they'll exceed 120 feet, but don't know how tall they'll go yet. The city's building code on that site allows for a highrise as tall as 240 feet.

[ozone]

^^^ I don’t know why we need any height restrictions in this city at all? If something doesn’t fit the neighborhood context then let that be challenged, debated and determined at the time. Anyway, at 16th and N I’m assuming this is the empty lot across from the Eviva, next to the old school? Its all good but I’m really waiting to see 16th and J get developed. Anything but parking lots would be preferable. It’s such a waste at a vital transition location.

[Sachornet]

The Sacbee did a story/profile on Kurt Spataro over the weekend... it mentions that the Paragary Hotel is supposed to the completed in 2020, 6 stories, 105 rooms. Hopefully they start work on it soon... not sure what the hold up has been since they demolished the old café bernardo/monkey bar.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Awesome sauce!

Article under paywall. Does Cresleigh still plan to pursue their mid-rise on 14th and N or will they scrap that project altogether for the high-rise at 16th and N?

If you ever have troubles looking at the sac bee, just open it with an incognito window and you should be ok.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by Sachornet

The Sacbee did a story/profile on Kurt Spataro over the weekend... it mentions that the Paragary Hotel is supposed to the completed in 2020, 6 stories, 105 rooms. Hopefully they start work on it soon... not sure what the hold up has been since they demolished the old café bernardo/monkey bar.

The holdup is that they did not have a hotel brand chosen. I am not sure if they have one yet, but I think it's really bad planning to demolish a well-loved cafe for some pie in the sky project without having all of your ducks in a row.

[novatone82]

Is a planned 40-story tower in downtown Sacramento finally on track?Sotiris Kolokotronis,John Saca,10th and J streets????