Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[yolonative]

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Townhomes starting construction on 20th and Q

What is the ticker referring to on their website? Has to be days until sale begins, right?

https://20pqr.com/

[enigma99a]

LOL..


Whole Foods cancels lease for midtown Sacramento store

Whole Foods Market will not be coming to midtown Sacramento after all.

A spokeswoman for the Austin-based grocery chain said in an email to The Sacramento Bee on Wednesday that the lease with developer Pappas Investments has been terminated.

“Unfortunately, following a series of timing challenges we faced with the landlord, Whole Foods Market opted to terminate the lease for our Midtown Sacramento store. We remain committed to finding the right site in Sacramento, but have not secured a location yet,” spokeswoman Beth Krauss said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...#storylink=cpy

[Korey]

I thought something smelled fishy with that one. Damn. I bet Sac Co-Op is happy though, haha.

[urban_encounter]

The project's residential component being reduced in size and the withdrawal of Whole Foods from the proposal should come as no surprise. I just wrote the other day on this forum that it remained to be seen whether the project would ever get built.

(That's Sacramento after all, where even mediocre projects often go to die.)

On the bright side, maybe they can attract a Nugget Market or Sprouts. In any case, I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Majin]

Whole Foods probably fed up with all of the delays, IIRC from the original articles from 2014 it was suppose to start over a year ago but the parking garage hasn't even been razed yet.

I still fail to understand why shit can't get build here on schedule. The demand and price component is definitely there.

[sacamenna kid]

Originally Posted by Majin

Whole Foods probably fed up with all of the delays, IIRC from the original articles from 2014 it was suppose to start over a year ago but the parking garage hasn't even been razed yet.

I still fail to understand why shit can't get build here on schedule. The demand and price component is definitely there.

This is what happens in a third-tier wannabe ville that will always be Jay-vee. Such an incredible lack of competence, top-tier professionalism, and ability to carry through. Poor, sad Sacramento.

[ltsmotorsport]

Doesn't sound like the city per se, but an unorganized developer who didn't meet timing milestones...at least from what the Bee article is saying.

In a larger sense, I agree with what others have said that we compete with a larger region for capital and labor to get these projects out of the ground. It seems lenders need to have more confidence in Sacramento infill projects to get them built more quickly.

[snfenoc]

At least we still get the parking garage!!! yay.

The benefits of a new arena.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Doesn't sound like the city per se, but an unorganized developer who didn't meet timing milestones...at least from what the Bee article is saying.

In a larger sense, I agree with what others have said that we compete with a larger region for capital and labor to get these projects out of the ground. It seems lenders need to have more confidence in Sacramento infill projects to get them built more quickly.

I think you sum it up well. It's a nice project, but our competition is too stiff. I don't blame the major parties. Pappas likely can't get the funding in a reasonable time frame, because of skittish and skeptical investors. Also, I think Whole Foods truly wants to be in or near Midtown. But they aren't going to sit around and wait wait for this to get built. It could take years beyond multiple we've already waited.

Finally, while I understand it's a good idea to replace the lost parking first, I do think it's a convenient excuse. With the cost of parking skyrocketing as demand increases, I question how motivated and committed the developer and investors are to complete Phase 2. I think they'd be perfectly content with a new garage for displaced, non G1C visitors and some retail space.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

because of skittish and skeptical investors

Why? Every mixed used project in midtown over the past decade has had no issues leasing, rents are increasing, demand is increasing. What risk is there these days?

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

At least we still get the parking garage!!! yay.

The benefits of a new arena.

The new arena is one of the few things Sacramento has going for it on the development front. It may very well be the catalyst for growth downtown during the next economic recovery cycle.

Too bad really because most of the economic recovery has mostly skipped downtown Sacramento following the "Great Recession" with the exception of the arena and Kimpton hotel.

But healthy economy or not, it's pretty clear neither lenders nor developers are willing to finance and build the kind of residential projects we see in SF, LA, SD, Austin or Portland. It's just not that kind of market and likely never will be because of the costs associated with such projects. Simply put, it's just cheaper to build in Natomas than it is in Sacramento's downtown (or midtown) and there's much less hassle from NIMBYs in the burbs compared to Sacramento's central city.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by Majin

Why? Every mixed used project in midtown over the past decade has had no issues leasing, rents are increasing, demand is increasing. What risk is there these days?

There's not enough development money in Sacramento for those kind of projects. As long as out of town developers can build projects in LA, SF, and SD and make (a lot) more money for the same amount of development hassle, they won't even consider Sacramento's central city.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Too bad really because most of the economic recovery has mostly skipped downtown Sacramento following the "Great Recession" with the exception of the arena and Kimpton hotel.

The economic recovery mostly skipped every part of Sacramento except the central city--1400 new housing units in the past five years, on a new housing units per mile basis, that puts us on a par with San Francisco. It's obvious to anyone who spends time in downtown/midtown and travels more than a couple blocks from the arena site.

But healthy economy or not, it's pretty clear neither lenders nor developers are willing to finance and build the kind of residential projects we see in SF, LA, SD, Austin or Portland. It's just not that kind of market and likely never will be because of the costs associated with such projects. Simply put, it's just cheaper to build in Natomas than it is in Sacramento's downtown (or midtown) and there's much less hassle from NIMBYs in the burbs compared to Sacramento's central city.

Tell that to Paul Petrovich. And the flood moratorium did more to stop development than neighborhood activists could every hope to do to stop development in North Natomas--it took another drought to get that moratorium rescinded, we'll see how nature responds in the next few years.

I think we'll see some of the kind of residential projects seen in all of those cities--but largely of the small-infill, mid-rise, wood-on-concrete-podium "Texas Donut", adaptive reuse, and other forms like the ones we've seen so far, and maybe a few more high-rises downtown in the CBD--hopefully some residential ones. But probably not the sort of skyline-busting stuff like the one currently sinking into the ground and leaning over in San Francisco.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

There's not enough development money in Sacramento for those kind of projects. As long as out of town developers can build projects in LA, SF, and SD and make (a lot) more money for the same amount of development hassle, they won't even consider Sacramento's central city.

That still doesn't make sense. You can make a lot more money in LA and SF than almost every city in the country. Sacramento has higher rental prices than a lot of places and higher demand. I just posted that chart that YOY increases in Sacramento are more than every other city. Yes you can argue the money isnt here, but my question is why given that other cities with LOWER rental cost and LOWER demand see more construction than us.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by Majin

That still doesn't make sense. You can make a lot more money in LA and SF than almost every city in the country. Sacramento has higher rental prices than a lot of places and higher demand. I just posted that chart that YOY increases in Sacramento are more than every other city. Yes you can argue the money isnt here, but my question is why given that other cities with LOWER rental cost and LOWER demand see more construction than us.

Competition from the SF Bay area?

I'm not saying residential and mixed-use projects cannot get built in the grid. I'm merely opining that larger, more risky projects, such as the Whole Foods, likely have trouble getting financed. Sacramento rents and sales are skyrocketing, and that's great for property owners. However, are those rents and sales prices high enough to justify risking lots of money building the larger, exciting projects most of us want to see? Keep in mind, they Bay Area is just an hour or two away.

Certainly, a few large projects will get built. But, as Sacramento's history has shown, more plans will get tabled than completed. A basic plan for grocery and residential at that site has been kicked around for a while. Too long. We're well into this supposed recovery, and only the parking garage is getting built. What does that tell you? What does it tell Whole Foods? It looks like they simply got tired of waiting and figured they better find a less-complicated way into the central city.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by wburg

--1400 new housing units in the past five years, on a new housing units per mile basis, that puts us on a par with San Francisco.

The city of Sacramento (entirely) is not on par with San Francisco residential construction, to say nothing of the central city. To even suggest that is comical.
You can word play all you want with the "housing units per mile basis" but Sacramento isn't even in the same league as San Francisco in terms of residential construction. There were 6,000 units under construction in SF alone in 2014.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

The city of Sacramento (entirely) is not on par with San Francisco residential construction, to say nothing of the central city. To even suggest that is comical.
You can word play all you want with the "housing units per mile basis" but Sacramento isn't even in the same league as San Francisco in terms of residential construction. There were 6,000 units under construction in SF alone in 2014.

That's why I was focusing just on the central city, not on the entire city. People say "There's nothing being built in downtown/midtown" but if you actually look at the number of projects, there is as much going on there as there is in San Francisco--and almost nothing going on outside that 5% of the city. My question is, when is the rest of the city of Sacramento going to catch up with its own urban core? Or is that 5% of the city expected to shoulder all the growth? I'm not defending the city of Sacramento here, rather, I am challenging it.

[ozone]

I'm not even going to get involved in the argument above because it involves an individual who actively works against urban infill that he and his band of *self-appointed* arbitrators of proper urban planning and good taste deem unacceptable. In my book this pretty much makes his participation here completely disingenuous.

Now some the complaints made lately sound a little like butthurt fanboys. It's true that there are no skyscrapers being built but there is plenty of other stuff going on around town that just doesn't get the press or even much notice on this board. Not only new infill (like the Ice Blocks), but a lot of upgrading of existing properties which helps to improve the over-all quality of life. The demise of the Whole Foods deal is not a big deal IMO, at least from the consumer standpoint. A lot of what they offer can be found at the Co-Op and with a similar price point. The other stuff they offer is kind of superfluous in this neighborhood. I'd much rather see a real gourmet market or even a lower-cost organic/heath food market like Sprout's go in there. But honestly it's not the best place for a large grocery store anyway.

[Justbuildit]

I was looking in Wikipedia viewing the towers proposed for Sacramento. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Sacramento They have the height of the Capitol Grand Tower at 1,210 feet, tallest outside of NY and Chicago in the US. Wondering if someone is joking around or is this tower actually going to get built? Before that it was 1,100 feet which would tie the Wilshire Grand in LA, then someone recently adjusted it to 1,210 feet, but I can't verify that anywhere else online.

Man, that would be awesome if Sacramento had the tallest in the US outside of NY and Chicago. I don't know if there is any height restrictions downtown, so that could one day be a possibility.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Justbuildit

I was looking in Wikipedia viewing the towers proposed for Sacramento. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._in_Sacramento They have the height of the Capitol Grand Tower at 1,210 feet, tallest outside of NY and Chicago in the US. Wondering if someone is joking around or is this tower actually going to get built? Before that it was 1,100 feet which would tie the Wilshire Grand in LA, then someone recently adjusted it to 1,210 feet, but I can't verify that anywhere else online.

Man, that would be awesome if Sacramento had the tallest in the US outside of NY and Chicago. I don't know if there is any height restrictions downtown, so that could one day be a possibility.

Last I heard was 965' (10 years ago). And no it's not getting built any time soon unless mohanna has $250+ million in funding secured.