HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7441  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 3:29 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd View Post
Thanks for that summary, but I think it's safe to say most people on this forum are interested in growing urban density and building high rises, not depressing suburban sprawl.
Also, in Sacramento, it's just 5 or I-5, not "THE 5".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7442  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 4:50 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
^^^ I'm not at all interested in any development in North Natomas, unless it's a public amenity such as a new zoo. North Natomas is the biggest 'bait and switch' development scheme in my lifetime. A total disaster and disgrace.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7443  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 8:21 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by novatone82 View Post
Will there ever be a increase in the private sector? and what can be done to gain the private sector? Do you think government has a lot to do with these proposal never going threw?
Sacramento high-rise residential is an unproven market, so the financial risk is
high. Travis Bickle has personal experience with this and has explained this in
depth on this forum. I would recommend clicking on his profile and then
viewing his previous posts. I believe in his last 20 posts you will find some
information as to why it’s not happing here.

For the last 20 years or so high-rise offices built by the private sector in
Sacramento only seem get built when they receive subsidies from the city.
The most recent was The US Bank tower on Capitol Mall, the developer David
Taylor bought the whole block for $1 from the city promising to build a
high-rise. This was a subsidy from the city to buy the land for almost nothing,
which made this project possible. Before that in the 1990’s, the Esquire Plaza
and Sheraton Grand were both financed with heavy subsidies also by Taylor.
Ever since then, most developers planning to build big projects also have
their hand out to the city… the Towers almost got $10 million from the city.
The arena and hotel/condo tower were also built with heavy subsidies by the
city to the tune of $272.9 million in addition to a mega land give away.
Just last year the proposed Metropolitan was asking for a $3 million subsidy
from the city, they did not get it and now it’s a dead proposal. CADA has had
to offered taxpayer-funded subsidies for every housing project they have ever
done up until the site at 14th & N Street.

At some point, taxpayer-funded subsidies stopped being a catalyst and started
becoming a crutch. All these subsidies from the City have manipulated the
market picking winners and losers.

I think developers building downtown are now beholden public money if they
wanna make a profit. David Taylor been the leader of the pack. $6 million to
build a mermaid bar, a nightclub and a pizza joint. $10 million for the
Cosmopolitan entertainment complex. $6 million in city redevelopment money
for IMAX Theater next door to the Esquire tower. I have not seen Taylor build
anything downtown without taxpayer-funded subsidies other than 1201 K
Street (Ban Roll-On Bldg.), he’s the king developer for downtown but only if
he receives subsidies. Taylor has received over $50 million in public funds for
all his projects, but he is also the one who can get things done when others can’t.

In addition, the cost Per Square Foot to construct a new tower is beyond what
the Sacramento market can pay right now. The current rate for Class-A office
space is $3.19psf, but a new tower has to ask nearly $3.75 psf to make new
construction profitable because construction cost have been rising and rising.
Only once has a high-rise in Sacramento (500 Capitol Mall) been built on
speculation and self-financed. No lending rules or needing to pre lease 50%
of the building before construction could begin. In Sacramento this unheard
of and the bet paid off for them.

I could go on and on… hope this is good info.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7444  
Old Posted Aug 30, 2019, 9:45 PM
LandofFrost's Avatar
LandofFrost LandofFrost is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 195
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post

In addition, the cost Per Square Foot to construct a new tower is beyond what
the Sacramento market can pay right now. The current rate for Class-A office
space is $3.19psf, but a new tower has to ask nearly $3.75 psf to make new
construction profitable because construction cost have been rising and rising.
Only once has a high-rise in Sacramento (500 Capitol Mall) been built on
speculation and self-financed. No lending rules or needing to pre lease 50%
of the building before construction could begin. In Sacramento this unheard
of and the bet paid off for them.
hmmm, so $3,500 a month for a 2bed 1000 square foot high rise apartment, that doesn't seem that crazy actually.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7445  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2019, 4:27 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Also, in Sacramento, it's just 5 or I-5, not "THE 5".
I say “the five”....
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7446  
Old Posted Aug 31, 2019, 4:35 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandofFrost View Post
hmmm, so $3,500 a month for a 2bed 1000 square foot high rise apartment, that doesn't seem that crazy actually.
Yeah I think we will eventually get there in time (meaning demand) but I don’t think we’re anywhere close yet. I saw a rental on Zillow (I think it was Zillow) for a 1 bedroom at $4100/month at 500N.

I don’t know if they’ll get that to be honest. It’s probably still posted online because it was only a few days ago. But I doubt there are many people willing to pay that price in Sacramento willing to justify a high rise tower. Who knows though because when it comes to development in Sacramento I’m always wrong.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7447  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 2:19 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I say “the five”....
I've never known any Sacramento native to say "the ?". That's really a tell tale sign someone is from Southern California. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule; but, there have been plenty of articles and discussions about this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7448  
Old Posted Sep 3, 2019, 6:37 PM
TWAK's Avatar
TWAK TWAK is offline
Resu Deretsiger
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Lake County, CA
Posts: 15,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by LandofFrost View Post
hmmm, so $3,500 a month for a 2bed 1000 square foot high rise apartment, that doesn't seem that crazy actually.
That's about 1k more than my former apartment in the bay area....and more than mortgages in sac itself. Pretty good IMO. HOA fess though might be the killer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
I say “the five”....
secretly a so-cal-er haha
__________________
#RuralUrbanist
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7449  
Old Posted Sep 4, 2019, 3:46 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,261
Nothing new here we don't already know, but interesting to see an outsider perspective... just wish it would move faster...


Sacramento, California’s booming downtown may double in size with Railyards project

https://www.curbed.com/2019/9/3/2083...ment-railyards
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7450  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2019, 2:57 AM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,261
The glass curtain wall is starting to go up at the Natural Resources HQ





Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7451  
Old Posted Sep 6, 2019, 4:34 PM
urbanadvocate urbanadvocate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 213
So is there about 2 more floors to go or have they topped out on steel?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7452  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 2:52 AM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
Tower 301 SCRAPPED

Plan for Sacramento’s tallest building scrapped — for now — as CalPERS ends agreementact with CIM.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics...mpression=true
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7453  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 4:20 PM
CAGeoNerd CAGeoNerd is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
Plan for Sacramento’s tallest building scrapped — for now — as CalPERS ends agreementact with CIM.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics...mpression=true
Uuuuuuuuuuuugggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhh
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7454  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 5:40 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
CalPERS set the bar lower than most for this tower begin construction. While a typical
high-rise needs to pre-lease 50% of the building, this one only needed to pre-lease 40%.
I also believe the per-square-foot asking rate of $3.75+ for Class-A office space was a
mark the local market could not pay when the average rate is $3.19psf but as high as $3.50psf.
https://www.ai-cio.com/news/calpers-...elopment-plan/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7455  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 6:36 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pistola916 View Post
Plan for Sacramento’s tallest building scrapped — for now — as CalPERS ends agreementact with CIM.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics...mpression=true
Barry Broome (Greater Sac Economic Council) tweeted this in response to the article:


"We have had the anchor tenant secured for months. Our community should not accept this as an outcome. It's time we stop being a door mat."



So what gives? Anchor tenant secured. Sounds to me more like politics than economics.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7456  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 6:53 PM
Bubb90 Bubb90 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 77
The last two paragraphs are interesting

https://www.ai-cio.com/news/calpers-...elopment-plan/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7457  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 8:15 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacTownAndy View Post
Barry Broome (Greater Sac Economic Council) tweeted this in response to the article:


"We have had the anchor tenant secured for months. Our community should not accept this as an outcome. It's time we stop being a door mat."



So what gives? Anchor tenant secured. Sounds to me more like politics than economics.
Berry Broome has the ability to provide more information on why he believes
this; instead, he offers a vague reference with no substance. Who is this
anchor tenant? How is this decision to cancel the current proposal make “us”
a doormat? The CalPERS board might be playing it safe if the economy is
softening, since they have taken ownership of the site they have spent
approximately $70 million and there little to show for it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7458  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 9:20 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
TBH I'm not all that disappointed. The tower's design was uninspired at best and I don't trust CalPERS to ever deliver something that will be. My hope is that they will sell the land. And I don't give a rat's ass if there's a high-rise on that site. There are a ton of other sites downtown for that. What I do not want is for the site to remain empty for another 10-15 years.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7459  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 11:01 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacTownAndy View Post
Barry Broome (Greater Sac Economic Council) tweeted this in response to the article:


"We have had the anchor tenant secured for months. Our community should not accept this as an outcome. It's time we stop being a door mat."



So what gives? Anchor tenant secured. Sounds to me more like politics than economics.

You might be right about politics. I think Cal PERS was regretting its vote to move forward with the proposal since the board gave the go ahead with a slim majority. Still you would think they would need to propose something with enough significance that they can recoup some of the money that they’ve sunk into 301 CM, going back to their failed partnership with Saca.

Considering how long that empty lot has been sitting there i would be thrilled with a quality mid rise 8-12 stories. I think infill projects like the one proposed by Shornstein can help erase some of the blight downtown.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7460  
Old Posted Sep 11, 2019, 11:14 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 5,979
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
The CalPERS board might be playing it safe if the economy is softening, since they have taken ownership of the site they have spent approximately $70 million and there little to show for it.
Cal PERS hasn’t been completely comfortable with the size/scope of the projects proposed (first the Towers and recently Tower 301). As far as playing it safe, they’re way past “safe”. They’re going to have to roll the dice if they have any hope of recuperating that $70 million. They’re in the business of maximizing investment opportunities for state employees and there’s a slim profit margin for them in Sacramento’s office market. Again, with their $70 million already sunk into that site, they may not ever see any profit for their investment and the board likely knows this.

Hopefully Cal PERS sells the property so that another developer can propose a residential project; albeit on a smaller scale so that something finally gets built.
__________________
“The best friend on earth of man is the tree. When we use the tree respectfully and economically, we have one of the greatest resources on the earth.” – Frank Lloyd Wright

Last edited by urban_encounter; Sep 12, 2019 at 3:17 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 3:11 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.