Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[homebucket]

And the renderings:











https://sfyimby.com/2023/04/more-sta...velopment.html

[Bubb90]

Driving down 50 and 80 you can see two buildings with cranes starting to peak above the trees! I think it's Aggie Square but was not able to drive by it. Even though they won't be tall (9 and 13 or so stories) it will will add some density in the skyline.

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by homebucket

And the renderings:

Awe yeah, hopefully this comes to fruition.
It's not the biggest chunk of land to and it's mightily compact.

[wburg]

The renderings of towers are, of course, entirely theoretical, the $42 million is basically enough for about a third of the planned station extension that will cantilever over the tracks (labeled as "Transit Connectivity" in the graphic above). Although the description in the linked article contains a typo: Sacramento is the seventh busiest Amtrak station in the country, not the county.

[Bubb90]

Driving downtown this morning and at 17th and N st there was a fence and construction crew breaking up the parking lot. Is this the start of 1619 n st (Jefferson School Building)? If so it's been a long time coming

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Bubb90

Driving downtown this morning and at 17th and N st there was a fence and construction crew breaking up the parking lot. Is this the start of 1619 n st (Jefferson School Building)? If so it's been a long time coming

Yes, they were demo'ing the concrete block corner building earlier this week, that part will be row houses facing 17th, with a midrise apartment building facing 16th and a rehabbed Jefferson School building in the middle. They've also been removing windows in prep for window rehab and doing interior demo in the school building itself.

[urbanadvocate]

Originally Posted by wburg

Yes, they were demo'ing the concrete block corner building earlier this week, that part will be row houses facing 17th, with a midrise apartment building facing 16th and a rehabbed Jefferson School building in the middle. They've also been removing windows in prep for window rehab and doing interior demo in the school building itself.

Are there any renderings by chance? I really wish that would do something about the office buildings to the north. Those useless streets running through East/West should be closed off and better parks and publics spaces should be created as an extension of the Cap Park. What a wasted opportunity.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

Are there any renderings by chance? I really wish that would do something about the office buildings to the north. Those useless streets running through East/West should be closed off and better parks and publics spaces should be created as an extension of the Cap Park. What a wasted opportunity.

You can find all of the planning documents and renderings using the city's Agency Counter website: https://sacramento.agencycounter.com/

Turning the seldom-used auto lanes on Capitol between 15th & 17th into ped/bike paths and an expanded park is a good idea, especially if it was combined with actual programming of events & gatherings there, but they are state owned property and DGS has little to no interest in "activating" public spaces under their control with events or activities that might draw people or other interest. If the state could be convinced to either turn the street median over to the city of Sacramento (as was done on Capitol Mall) or to CADA (as was done with the R Street corridor) that might change, but I'm not holding my breath for it to happen.

[Bubb90]

I just seen an article in the Sac Bee. A 28 story hotel at 15th and K. It will be connected by a sky bridge to the convention center.

[snfenoc]

Thank god about the hotel.

Because, take a look at this awful proposal on an important building site… Here we go again with yet another disappointing proposal:


Pre-application calls for redeveloping former Sacramento Bee site into more than 500 apartments
By Ben van der Meer – Senior Reporter, Sacramento Business Journal
Jun 8, 2023

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ff-realty.html

A multifamily project of more than 500 units is planned on the site of the former Sacramento Bee plant, nearly three years after the newspaper announced it would vacate its longtime headquarters in Midtown Sacramento,

Property owner Shopoff Realty Investments has submitted a pre-application for a five-story, 538-unit project at 2100 Q St., where the current building has stood for more than 70 years...

..Rupp said Shopoff doesn't plan any retail space in the project. Several existing and planned retail spaces are in neighboring buildings and projects.

Really? This is all we get for a huge property?

Well, I guess it's time to join "Team Majin" because this proposal is awful.

If this were 2008, after the economic downturn, I would be defending it - "I'd rather have something than nothing." However, after 15 years of the same "Developer Modernist" boxes, I am done.

Sacramento developers are tight-fisted, boring, and unimaginative. All they care about is NOW. They don't think about the future at all. Plus, they aren't visionary:

Yeah, times are tough right now. Taller doesn't "Pencil." Retail, restaurant, and entertainment don't "Pencil." Good design doesn't "Pencil." We could wait for the inevitable uptick in the business cycle. We could wait for the much-needed price corrections in the construction labor and materials markets. But we want our land processed and sold ASAP. So, let's just tilt up four walls, lay a flat roof, staple on some fake brick and corrugated steel panels, and pretend the project is "urban." Maybe we can call it, "The Bee Hive Commons on The Q Near The Midtown in The Sacramento in The California on The West Coast in The United States in The North America on The Earth... in the Billiard Room with The Candlestick," or some stupid shit like that to make it sound urban.

I just don't understand this spate of low rise, low energy, boring proposals. Especially those that would take up huge swaths of land. In an older post, I mentioned that a developer wants to build a 5-story apartment complex on that parking lot, across from CalPERS' "sprawlscraper." (On the southeast corner of 3rd and R streets.) It's an entire city block, and they want to build a 5-story building that takes up the whole thing?! Originally, we were told [by CalPERS?] that block would have a really special project. Well, it's just more of the same. I am beginning to think that Majin's warning that all the good sites would be taken up might just come true.

Anyway, if you think that proposal bad, the former Sacramento Bee property is 2 blocks. It's huge. This development would be two block-sized, 5-story buildings with zero retail. Most good-sized proposals are a half or even a quarter of a block in size. A huge portion of Midtown will be dead much of the time. Why can't the developer subdivide this property two, four, six, or eight parcels, build a non-sprawling, 7 story building on of theme, and sell the rest?

It's time for me side with Majin, we cannot allow these sprawling, residential-only proposals any longer. We're going to regret them later on. They are a poor use of valuable land.

I would be less upset if the proposal included ground floor retail, restaurant, bar, and entertainment spaces. But it doesn't. And that brings me to another issue I have with this and other recent proposals: They are NOT mixed-use.

In this case, the developer says the neighborhood has several other existing and proposed retail spaces. That's a horseshit excuse. Yes, the area does have some retail establishments, restaurants, and bars. There's even two supermarkets (Safeway and Coop) within a few blocks. However, 538 residential units equals roughly 1,000+ residents. Another proposal across the street has 240+ units. That's even more people. All those residents (and their visitors) could use a restaurant, some retail, a small bodega, and entertainment. Plus, let's not forget about all the other non-residents that could be in the area. What about them?

Without retail, et. al., this building gives non-residents very little reason to use those two blocks and help energize them.

The proposal includes a "paseo" that non-residents could use, but it opens onto a part of R Street that is a parking lot, and it has a light rail train trestle overhead. That paseo will just be a little-used dark alleyway. If it had retail spaces, with some al fresco dining, I would love it. But it's just a stupid pathway that opens up onto nothing.

Another thing I hate - The design (or lack there of): It looks the same as just about every other proposal. It's a box (two boxes, actually) with a flat roof. The design is in the same Developer Modernist style as everything else that has been proposed and built over the past decade-and-a-half. There are no curved lines or interesting architectural features. It's a box with "urban-looking" siding.

Of course, I am not saying that developers should consider building twin 53-story towers. However, we need to progress passed these 3 to 6 story boxes.

Please... Developers, give us something interesting and exciting.

[snfenoc]

Here's a rendering of the hotel.



Meh. It's OK... I am not a big fan of modern architecture, but it's better than the sprawlscraper proposed on Q street.

[ThatDarnSacramentan]

If you want better design, change the economics of housing. As long as housing is seen as an investment commodity, the bottom line will always win out; cheapest constructability and materials that developers can get away with through permitting to increase profit margins is the name of the game. And isn't that what we all want? Cash is king, right?

For profit developers, faceless corporations, don't give one damn what you, I, or anyone else think, and that's not going to change. The players won't change unless the rules of the game change.

[CAGeoNerd]

The hotel is a good thing on many fronts, and filling in a small surface parking lot right next to the CC is great. I will definitely take it.

The huge complex going in at the old Sac Bee location is boring and uninspiring, but given the location it fits in with midtown height and the newer buildings that are across 21st street. Prime location for people walking to the Co-Op and everything else in midtown. Right next to the light rail line which the noise I'm sure influenced what they were going to pump into that site. It's a ton of units though. More people on the grid is what it needs to keep going up.

[Pistola916]

I welcome the new CC hotel. The design needs some revisions, especially at the base. I would like to see a ground floor activation on the K street side, perhaps a restaurant with outdoor seating. The pedestrian bridge connecting it to the CC is lame. Please do with out it.

I couldn't find anything about the height of the building but at 28 floors it seems on par with the Sheraton. So the new hotel is somewhere between 300-325 feet.

I am curious what kind of hotel brand they can attract - perhaps a Grand Hyatt, JW Marriott, Westin, Hilton, to name a few.

I look forward to this project coming to fruition. There's been a few hotel projects proposed over the last 5 years that never made it out of the rendering phase i.e Hilton Canopy on 9/L and Mohanna's 10th and K.

[SacTownAndy]

The wait to fill the hole in the ground continues...

Citing market conditions, CalPERS pauses marketing for 301 Capitol Mall
By Ben van der Meer – Senior Reporter, Sacramento Business Journal
Jun 14, 2023

A long-sought opportunity site for development in Downtown Sacramento is in quiet mode again, with the owner citing market conditions in pausing a marketing campaign to sell it.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System is in no hurry to sell the full-block site at 301 Capitol Mall, so it's waiting for more favorable winds to start pushing it again, said spokesman John Myers.

"The bottom line is it's not a great time to be selling real estate," Myers said, adding the property is still for sale and CalPERS is still accepting offers. "But we're pausing the marketing until we evaluate the strategy to sell. The goal is to resume marketing when we think the economy dictates it."

....

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...ing-pause.html

[CAGeoNerd]

Death, Taxes, and 301 Capitol Mall being an empty crater

[SacTownAndy]

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but here's two more...

Downtown Sacramento projects on K Street, Lot X pushed back until next year at soonest
By Ben van der Meer – Senior Reporter, Sacramento Business Journal
Jun 15, 2023

In another reflection of the struggles some developers face these days in making a project work, two more high-profile Downtown Sacramento projects won't be getting underway this year.

Southern Land Co., the Nashville, Tennessee-based developer of two residential towers on the site known as Lot X, has pushed back the start of construction to mid-2024. And Sacramento-based Mohanna Development Co. has requested a three-year entitlement extension for 10K, a 15-story project of apartments, hotel rooms, co-living space and retail at 920, 924 and 930 K St.

"Like many developers, we have felt the impacts of the current market conditions and we have adjusted our plans accordingly," said Jenna Lefever, a director of public relations for Southern Land Co.

Full article here:
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...s-delayed.html

[enigma99a]

I have been following this here for 22 years, and Sacramento is slow to get going and finally at downturn cycles, everything is canceled.

[innov8]

Capitol Annex demolition began on Monday and the public is still waiting to see
what will be built in it's place. In 2020 the estimated cost to do this project
was $775 million, today the cost is $1.4 billion. Any guess what it will cost
when completed?

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

If you want better design, change the economics of housing. As long as housing is seen as an investment commodity, the bottom line will always win out; cheapest constructability and materials that developers can get away with through permitting to increase profit margins is the name of the game. And isn't that what we all want? Cash is king, right?

For profit developers, faceless corporations, don't give one damn what you, I, or anyone else think, and that's not going to change. The players won't change unless the rules of the game change.

I just saw this reply to a post that I made weeks ago, and thought it warranted a reply...

For starters, I am not sure if removing the private investment aspect of residential (and other) development is a good idea. We all remember the government "projects." They were ugly and rife with crime.

Profit motivates. Without motivation, I doubt we'll get better developments.

The issue isn't evil corporations or the profit motive. It's really simple: Construction prices are just way too high. Couple that with higher interest rates, and it does not make sense to develop better projects.

Quite frankly, I think developers should wait until the market improves, and much-needed price corrections occur. If developers only want to build cheap, residential-only infill projects with uninspiring architecture, they can focus on our alleyways.

Regardless, "changing the rules" and (I assume) involving the government with development (more than it already is) should not be the answer. In fact, I think the government is a huge contributor to the overall issue.

I am convinced that the government's monetary and fiscal policies cause inflation.

Furthermore, government-backed construction projects have significantly higher budgets than similar, private construction projects. This is a big reason why construction prices are so high.

A few months ago, I read an article about a small to medium-sized, affordable, multi-family residential project in the Bay Area. 95% of the cost will be paid for by government grants. The cost is $1.2 million per unit. That’s ridiculous! If that were a completely private development, there is no way it would cost $1.2 million per unit.

Another good example is the state offices projects: They have cost well over $2 billion (maybe $3 billion). That doesn't include the State Crapitol Annex project, which now has a $1.4 billion price tag.

Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention the high-speed rail project that will now cost many times more than originally estimated. It's also a partially government-funded project.

I also think it's appropriate to mention that cities all over the country are spotting billionaire "sports ball team" owners hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies for new stadiums.

All of these government projects use up construction labor and materials that could otherwise go toward privately-funded developments, with reasonable budgets.

Contractors and construction laborers have no incentive to lower their prices if there are so many government or government-backed projects in the pipeline.

If we turned off the government-funding spigot, construction prices would have to come down. (It may take a while, and it would be hard, but habits and addictions are hard to break.)

Additionally, I think that way too many young people are attending college for useless, mostly social sciences degrees. The government is responsible for this trend by guaranteeing student loans. Without that seemingly free money floating about, high school graduates might be learning trades and increasing the construction labor pool. (Also, college tuition and books prices would have to come down.)

Aside from costs, one major reason that office, restaurant, retail, and entertainment space demand has sunk is the pandemic... Or our complete overreaction to it. We did not need to close down most of the country. We only needed to protect those in at-risk groups. We also should have allowed care-givers to use alternative treatments. However, for political reasons (so the economy would crash and a certain octogenarian would win the presidency), the media and left-leaning politicians demanded massive quarantines, office closures, and the suspension of live entertainment. Consequently... We decided we could work from home and office space vacancies went up. We stopped going out and restaurants and entertainment establishments took a big hit. Well, you got what you wanted - Orange Man Bad. It only f***ed up our economy.

It's funny that you always turn to the government, when I think that government is problem.