Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

This thing is starting to get some traction

Sacramento might get a 29-story tower for long-suffering California tax collectors

Read more here: https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics...#storylink=cpy

Again I rather have it built within the Central Business District, the railyards near the proposed soccer stadium or in the West Sacramento. I'm not really a fan of a skyscraper in the middle of nowhere. But whatever.

I like it when skylines are spaced out, and this makes it kind of like an uptown basically
It seems like more agencies should have their own building, and there should be more in general. We are the largest state after all.

[CastleScott]

Here's a good piece of a downtown project:
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/vide...itol-mall-lot/

[ozone]

^^^ It seems odd that people are obsessed that this one site be a high-rise. Personally I rather see new high-rises elsewhere. I’d rather see a mid rise
and housing here than have the developer back out and the market soften so that we are stuck with a parking lot for another 10 years.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by ozone

^^^ It seems odd that people are obsessed that this one site be a high-rise. Personally I rather see new high-rises elsewhere. I’d rather see a mid rise
and housing here than have the developer back out and the market soften so that we are stuck with a parking lot for another 10 years.

I would rather have a parking lot for 10 years than wait 70 years for thar midrise to be demolished

[c01]

Do people think there will be more Sacramento housing starts in 2019 than 2018? What's a decent source for these projections?

[j_deguzman10]

Originally Posted by c01

Do people think there will be more Sacramento housing starts in 2019 than 2018? What's a decent source for these projections?

Well I mean we have more residential projects and they are actually going taller than our typical 5 story buildings (10K for example will be 15 stories) and we have a good amount of hotels being built or speculated (Metropolitan, Vanir, Hotel Marshall, etc.). The Sacramento Commons even started construction and there are 3 state office buildings in the works.

Unfortunately, I don’t see a big residential book coming for the next few years. The only area that’s really taken off in terms of residential is midtown. Downtown developers are still hesitant to build, hence why we aren’t seeing any high rise condominiums.

Furthermore, our 3 main areas for multi family development: The Railyards, TBD, and Township Nine have not started or are growing very berry slowly. Those infill projects will new a catalyst, a company, or an upgrade to really get things going (the MLS stadium is probably our best shot).

Single family homes will be stronger tho, McKinley, the Mill, and Natomas are growing really quickly cause developers and homebuilders are trying to appeal to Bay Area families.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

I would rather have a parking lot for 10 years than wait 70 years for thar midrise to be demolished

It’s funny hearing people complain about this and equate a midrise here with smaller valley towns. To me this attitude is more provincial. I honestly don’t understand this reasoning. Who cares if a high rise ever gets built on that site? Look at the crappy high rises that went up on the mall before the crash. None of them contribute much to the street or the skyline, will not positively.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by ozone

It’s funny hearing people complain about this and equate a midrise here with smaller valley towns. To me this attitude is more provincial. I honestly don’t understand this reasoning. Who cares if a high rise ever gets built on that site? Look at the crappy high rises that went up on the mall before the crash. None of them contribute much to the street or the skyline, will not positively.

Exactly!

I love skyscrapers and highrises; but I love density, street level pedestrian activity and well designed urban housing more regardless of whether it’s low, mid or high rise residential.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by ozone

It’s funny hearing people complain about this and equate a midrise here with smaller valley towns. To me this attitude is more provincial. I honestly don’t understand this reasoning. Who cares if a high rise ever gets built on that site? Look at the crappy high rises that went up on the mall before the crash. None of them contribute much to the street or the skyline, will not positively.

Is it possible to have a compromise? Not quite the 20something stories the city wanted, but perhaps 12?

[j_deguzman10]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

Is it possible to have a compromise? Not quite the 20something stories the city wanted, but perhaps 12?

I would love to see 30 stories at the minimum on that site, but I also would not mind a 14-15 story building like Mohanna's proposed 10K.

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

I would love to see 30 stories at the minimum on that site, but I also would not mind a 14-15 story building like Mohanna's proposed 10K.

I would also prefer a mid-rise but the only reason Mohanna's 10K is even taller as it is is due to the hotel component attached to the project.

I expect Council will give the green light to move forward with 601 Capitol Mall. I welcome the housing and density it brings to an otherwise surface parking lot.

I pray Tower 301 can come through. Even a mid-rise on that particular site would be super underwhelming.

[Sachornet]

Bay Miry and Katherine Bardis will be speaking on topics such as their real estate development families, their current construction projects, Sacramento's future, etc. on Thursday February 7th at 6:30 at Ruhstaller on 726 K Street.

Best part is that it's free to attend, and you can check out the progress on the 700 block of K if you haven't been there recently.

https://www.godowntownsac.com/event/...up-sacramento/

[snfenoc]

Some smaller projects have either begun construction or will start construction very soon:

Two new central city housing projects start work
By Ben van der Meer – Staff Writer, Sacramento Business Journal
Jan 29, 2019, 2:57pm PST Updated Jan 29, 2019, 8:32pm EST
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...tart-work.html

Site work is underway for a 41-unit project at 1818 X St., in two three-story buildings. And on the southeast corner of 16th and E streets, SKK Developments said this week that construction had started for E@16, a five-story, 95-unit project.

1818 X Street:


16th and E Streets:





Oak Park apartment and retail project expected to get underway by summer
By Ben van der Meer – Staff Writer, Sacramento Business Journal
Jan 29, 2019, 9:49am EST
https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...pected-to.html

Within the next few months, work should begin on a project of 21 apartments and first-floor retail space on empty land in Sacramento’s Oak Park.

Oak Park Place, at 3204-3206 Broadway, would be the first project in over a decade for Steve Cruz, who focused on lobbying on behalf of builders after the construction market crashed in 2008.

[snfenoc]

Of course, we have the usual drama from antsy developers.

Property owner sues city over alleged delays to proposed H Street project
By Scott Rodd – Staff Writer, Sacramento Business Journal
Feb 5, 2019, 10:00am EST

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen...delays-to.html

An area property owner is suing the city of Sacramento, alleging it's improperly slowed demolition and development at the site of a planned eight-story apartment and retail project on H Street.

In May, Orloff Property Management Inc. proposed building a 97-unit apartment complex with 2,700 square feet of ground floor retail space at 1220 H St.

The developer is asking the court to rule that the current building is not eligible for the historic register, thus making the site ready for demolition and development without a historic impact report.

Without comment from the city or much from the developer, it's a bit of a one-sided report. There is probably more to the delay than the developer would have everyone believe. Having said that, housing is very important. Before the next crash, the city should be making it as easy as possible to get developments built or under construction quickly. The current building is certainly an example of mid century architecture, but housing should take precedence.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by j_deguzman10

BREAKING NEWS:

According to CBS 13 the new Sacramento Zoo will go in Natomas in the Sleep Train Arena site!!! The renderings and site map can be found on their Twitter!!! They also have an article on the new zoo found below.

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018...-move-natomas/

I think that this is a fantastic choice for the new zoo and will invigorate the Natomas area and add something to do other than shop. The video and article states that the zoo size will expand from 14 acres to 180 ACRES, 13 times bigger than the current zoo. The attendance in a year could reach 1 million visitors according to the video.

The Director Jason Jacobs says that the Zoo is halfway between the Airport and Downtown and can help jumpstart the Green Line that has been proposed for decades. The site will also contain a hotel, nature walks, and larger animals like hippos, lions, elephants, etc.

What do you guys think?

This is not a bad idea, and would be more impetus for the dream of extending the Sac RT "Green Line" up to Natomas.

However, I still prefer keeping it in Land Park, moving the golf course out of Land Park, and expanding the zoo (and any other underused parts of the Park) accordingly. If there was a good electric rail line built linking the Land Park expanded zoo and Old Sacramento, both sites combined area could become "Tourist Trap Day" for out of towners.

I will say that in economic terms, the old Arena site, given that it is near the junction of two Interstate Highways, one going north-south and one going east-west, would be the best shipping and distribution center for many and various industries, and perhaps the Ultimate Truck Stop for the drivers.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by enigma99a

I would rather have a parking lot for 10 years than wait 70 years for thar midrise to be demolished

And have another hole in the ground like 301 Capitol sitting for years and years? Ack, no.

Activist fools forcing would-be developers to build more, when it doesn't realistically "pencil out" (or now, spreadsheet out), just leads to more fenced off holes in the ground.

[Sachornet]

Originally Posted by NickB1967

And have another hole in the ground like 301 Capitol sitting for years and years? Ack, no.

Activist fools telling the developers to build more, when it doesn't realistically pencil out, just leads to more fenced off holes in the ground.

The appeal for 601 Capitol Mall was denied, still no word on a timeline for this project moving forward.

https://www.bizjournals.com/sacramen..._news_headline

[novatone82]

activist fools lost again to none visionary ass weirdos , "trash" take that shit to Modesto or Stockton....

[Deno]

Natomas is a good fit for the zoo. It would have enough acres to have great natural exhibits. Almost as large as the Bronx zoo.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by novatone82

activist fools lost again to none visionary ass weirdos , "trash" take that shit to Modesto or Stockton....

I cringed at that statement. Its someone trying to say we are a big city so we deserve higher buildings. But ironically it just comes across as provincial to me. Urbanity comes in many forms. Some of the most densely populated and urbane cities are filled with mid-rises. I'll take this over another trashy-designed high-rise, like most along the mall.