Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by ozone

Vanir’s tower is yet another missed opportunity. Yes, it's a very welcomed infill. Cheers to that! But the design is not a game changer and it's seems kind of dated, which is not surprising since it's by Pei Cobb Freed & Partners. If I were building my company's HQ/signature tower I'd want to make a real statement. But I hope I end up eating my words.

The design is what I'd consider boring for New York or San Francisco but for Sacramento, its still a sharp looking high-rise IMO. But who knows, maybe they'll tweak the design before construction starts.

A real statement would be to increase the floor count to a whopping 30 stories. Vanir is less than 50 feet from being the tallest building in the city. How hard is it to surpass 429 feet, which is the height of the Wells Fargo Center.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

The design is what I'd consider boring for New York or San Francisco but for Sacramento, its still a sharp looking high-rise IMO. But who knows, maybe they'll tweak the design before construction starts.

A real statement would be to increase the floor count to a whopping 30 stories. Vanir is less than 50 feet from being the tallest building in the city. How hard is it to surpass 429 feet, which is the height of the Wells Fargo Center.

A building above 429 hasn't been done before so it can't be done at least thats the thinking

[ozone]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

The design is what I'd consider boring for New York or San Francisco but for Sacramento, its still a sharp looking high-rise IMO. But who knows, maybe they'll tweak the design before construction starts.

A real statement would be to increase the floor count to a whopping 30 stories. Vanir is less than 50 feet from being the tallest building in the city. How hard is it to surpass 429 feet, which is the height of the Wells Fargo Center.

Totally agree with this!

Originally Posted by enigma99a

A building above 429 hasn't been done before so it can't be done at least thats the thinking

Haha. Funny, at the same time not because we all know there's knuckleheads that think like this.

[ozone]

Sacramento Business Journal
Ben van der Meer
Apr 17, 2015

As the Sacramento Commons housing redevelopment project winds through city planning and approvals, the debate is only ramping up over whether it includes historic elements that should be protected. Capitol Towers was developed more than 50 years ago on a parcel surrounded by N and P streets and 5th and 7th streets and is regarded as a rare example of an intact midcentury modern neighborhood. In January, it won designation on the National Register of Historic Places....

SacMod, a group opposed to the project, took heart in a decision by the city’s preservation commission earlier this week to recommend the site be placed on the local historic registry as well. With historic designation, Sacramento Commons project gets complicated....

Group president Gretchen Steinberg said the commission also recommended the City Council deny the project. The Sacramento Commons proposal would require demolition of some garden-style apartments as part of a plan to add several new residential buildings, including a pair of 25-story towers.

“To this day, the applicant has continually refused to acknowledge its responsibility for stewardship of the historic district even though it was advised of the historic resources on site by the preservation community in February 2014,” Steinberg said in an email Friday. “Preservation AND progress can be achieved at the same time through compromise and ingenuity.” .....

Once developed, Sacramento Commons would have more than 1,300 new residential units, and could include a hotel."

I hate this meddling by a bunch of mostly suburban-orientated individuals, to save one of downtown's out of place suburban-style developments. Ms Steinberg disingenuously refers to this place as a "historical district". Of course, they were the ones who pushed to get it placed on the National Register of Historic Places in the first. Which it should never have been IMO.

Our fellow forumer wburg supports the efforts to derail this project and "likes" SacMod's Facebook page. I wonder how he reconciles his persistent call for more downtown housing with his efforts to try and stop Sacramento Commons, which will add more housing and likely spur additional infill nearby?

[LandofFrost]

Originally Posted by ozone

I hate this meddling by a bunch of mostly suburban-orientated individuals, to save one of downtown's out of place suburban-style developments. Ms Steinberg disingenuously refers to this place as a "historical district". Of course, they were the ones who pushed to get it placed on the National Register of Historic Places in the first. Which it should never have been IMO.

Our fellow forumer wburg supports the efforts to derail this project and "likes" SacMod's Facebook page. I wonder how he reconciles his persistent call for more downtown housing with his efforts to try and stop Sacramento Commons, which will add more housing and likely spur additional infill nearby?

I also don't understand this, I'm sorry but I'm totally ok with all of those poor quality (I've been inside them many times) two story buildings on that super block. The one thing i don't like about this project is that these homes are surrounded by blocks of surface level parking and a giant one story office building. Why can't they build on one of those vacant lots instead of eating up existing housing. There are two entire blocks of vacant parking to the East and South.

[wburg]

LandOfFrost makes a good point: why destroy a currently fully occupied, economically viable housing complex, one of the most densely populated in the central city, when there are so many empty parking lots, vacant lots, failed-project sites etc. within a stone's throw? The Capitol Towers superblock includes a total of 440 units, and if you add the other two buildings on the four city blocks, the overall density is 59 units an acre--if the whole central city was that dense, 100,000 people would live there--three times what there are now.

The silly thing is, Kennedy Wilson isn't even a developer--they're a real estate investment trust. They aren't actually planning to build anything, and those renderings are just volumetric placeholders, not actual designs they want to build. Once they have the entitlements they will flip the now far more valuable parcels to other developers, who may or may not build what KW has tentatively planned for the lost (if they decided they wanted to do something else, all they have to do is submit a new planning application.) But even a lot of local developers are questioning the logic of high-rise housing in Sacramento even in the middling future--they don't see how KW or other developers are going to make the money back they would have to spend for high rise towers here.

Is it disingenuous if it's factual? It is a historic district, designed by an award-winning team of architects. The buildings aren't abandoned, vacant or falling apart--in fact, they have all been recently fixed up and people are eager to rent there. Part of why they are eager is because, as older buildings, they can't command the super high rents of new buildings, so they are within reach of the existing central city workforce. The proposed replacement would not be nearly as affordable, and you'd lose the comfortable, parklike atmosphere that helps conceal the fact that you're sitting in a neighborhood that is among the most densely populated in the city except for the Main Jail!

59 DUA is pretty much in the "sweet spot" for transit-oriented development; the long-range objective of central city housing is to build on parcels where there is no housing, not destroying housing to create different housing. That's how redevelopment worked back in the 1950s, and for the most part it was a failure--with the notable exception of Capitol Towers. 59 units an acre is also about the same as the MAXIMUM planned density for the ESC and ancillary development (maximum 550 units on 8.5 acres, currently only 69 units are planned) so apparently that density is good enough for the ESC at the heart of downtown--and of course, if you walk down 7th Street between these two sites, the population density is zero. Since the Marshall Hotel closed, nobody lives in the intervening blocks!

As to how I reconcile more central city housing with saving places like Capitol Towers, there is no need to reconcile them because they are in no way contradictory. We could double the population of the central city without demolishing one building. Just fix up and fill up the vacant buildings, build new housing on parking lots and other empty lots, and we'd be back to 50-60,000 in the central city within a decade or two. We can have our city and live in it too, and we're seeing it happen right now.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by wburg

LandOfFrost makes a good point: why destroy a currently fully occupied, economically viable housing complex, one of the most densely populated in the central city, when there are so many empty parking lots, vacant lots, failed-project sites etc. within a stone's throw? The Capitol Towers superblock includes a total of 440 units, and if you add the other two buildings on the four city blocks, the overall density is 59 units an acre--if the whole central city was that dense, 100,000 people would live there--three times what there are now.

The silly thing is, Kennedy Wilson isn't even a developer--they're a real estate investment trust. They aren't actually planning to build anything, and those renderings are just volumetric placeholders, not actual designs they want to build. Once they have the entitlements they will flip the now far more valuable parcels to other developers, who may or may not build what KW has tentatively planned for the lost (if they decided they wanted to do something else, all they have to do is submit a new planning application.) But even a lot of local developers are questioning the logic of high-rise housing in Sacramento even in the middling future--they don't see how KW or other developers are going to make the money back they would have to spend for high rise towers here.

Is it disingenuous if it's factual? It is a historic district, designed by an award-winning team of architects. The buildings aren't abandoned, vacant or falling apart--in fact, they have all been recently fixed up and people are eager to rent there. Part of why they are eager is because, as older buildings, they can't command the super high rents of new buildings, so they are within reach of the existing central city workforce. The proposed replacement would not be nearly as affordable, and you'd lose the comfortable, parklike atmosphere that helps conceal the fact that you're sitting in a neighborhood that is among the most densely populated in the city except for the Main Jail!

59 DUA is pretty much in the "sweet spot" for transit-oriented development; the long-range objective of central city housing is to build on parcels where there is no housing, not destroying housing to create different housing. That's how redevelopment worked back in the 1950s, and for the most part it was a failure--with the notable exception of Capitol Towers. 59 units an acre is also about the same as the MAXIMUM planned density for the ESC and ancillary development (maximum 550 units on 8.5 acres, currently only 69 units are planned) so apparently that density is good enough for the ESC at the heart of downtown--and of course, if you walk down 7th Street between these two sites, the population density is zero. Since the Marshall Hotel closed, nobody lives in the intervening blocks!

As to how I reconcile more central city housing with saving places like Capitol Towers, there is no need to reconcile them because they are in no way contradictory. We could double the population of the central city without demolishing one building. Just fix up and fill up the vacant buildings, build new housing on parking lots and other empty lots, and we'd be back to 50-60,000 in the central city within a decade or two. We can have our city and live in it too, and we're seeing it happen right now.

Utter Rubbish!

[wburg]

Originally Posted by ozone

utter rubbish!

RHETORICAL MASTERSTRoKE

[midtownsacto]

I noticed a fence went up around the former Pyramid Brewing Company building on 11th & K, anyone know what's going on there?

[sacamenna kid]

Anyone know anything about the Powerhouse science museum? Nothing happening.

[creamcityleo79]

The Mill at Broadway targets millennials as home buyers

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...e19099410.html

[wburg]

Originally Posted by midtownsacto

I noticed a fence went up around the former Pyramid Brewing Company building on 11th & K, anyone know what's going on there?

They're converting the upper floors back into apartments (it was an apartment building before being converted to department store/offices) but no word on a ground floor tenant yet.

[Ryan@CU]

Page one of this thread needs a serious update

[joeg1985]

Originally Posted by creamcityleo79

The Mill at Broadway targets millennials as home buyers

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/...e19099410.html

Does anyone else think that this development is going to look like crap? Those renderings are horrible. Who would want to buy into this?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

Does anyone else think that this development is going to look like crap? Those renderings are horrible. Who would want to buy into this?

Watch the video to determine their target market: http://millatbroadway.com/live-on/

Renderings are always horrible. I know some of the folks involved in the project's design aspects, but the principal architect is a firm in Granite Bay. Looks like variations on the "skinny house" model with various exterior finishes intended to mimic "historical" styles but doesn't seem to do so very well.

[NickB1967]

Originally Posted by joeg1985

Does anyone else think that this development is going to look like crap? Those renderings are horrible. Who would want to buy into this?

Somebody single, or recently coupled, who wanted to be really close to their downtown work, I reckon. They could make really swell starter homes, and possibly rental properties after that.

The extra bathrooms (relative to bedrooms) make for a useful shared housing or roommate situation.

"The 2.5 acre urban farm" I suspect will have to have a hired professional gardener for it, as the inhabitants may be too busy out having fun or more likely ekeing out a living, depending upon the economy and their debt situations.

[joeg1985]

I guess I have very little concept about how much people in Sacramento care about what their home looks like. Whether it has curb appeal or not. Renderings don't typically look that bad. Usually it seems the finished product isn't as great looking as the rendering. The renderings are suppose to sell the property (ie should look amazing).

[ozone]

Sacramento Business Journal
Apr 27, 2015
Ben van der Meer

A concrete slab for mixed-use housing project Eviva should be poured early next month, with the modular housing units appearing by summer’s end.

In presenting an amendment to the original Capitol Area Development Authority agreement for the project at 16th and N streets, authority staff on Friday updated long-awaited progress on the project.

Though the project broke ground last summer, progress was hardly noticeable until recently. CADA deputy executive director Marc de la Vergne said the original local subcontractor couldn't meet construction deadlines, so the developer Integral, working with LDK Ventures, switched to Boise-based Guerdon Enterprises LLC. Tricorp Hearn is the general contractor.

Eviva, with 118 market-rate units and 5,000 square feet of first-floor retail space, will have units built in Boise and assembled at the project site, a process called modular construction.

The delays also allowed the developer to tweak the project’s design. Renderings released with the groundbreaking showed a building hardly distinct from neighboring state office buildings.

De la Vergne said Eviva now has corners slightly taller than the rest of the project, with a slight setback at the top. As well, the balconies are wider and there are more of them, and the color palette is more eye catching, he said.

Denton Kelley of LDK said the project’s delays ended up making it better.

“An unfortunate snafu with the subcontractor provided us with an opportunity to work on the design,” he told CADA’s board. “So we’re very happy with the outcome.”

The amendment CADA’s board approved Friday accelerated $3 million in property tax rebates for the project over a 10-year period, rather than the original 20. CADA’s contribution is capped under the amendment.

[ozone]

Sacramento Business Journal
Mar 17, 2015
Ben van der Meer

A Roseville-based developer has proposed the first private project for the Sacramento railyard.
USA Properties Fund Inc. expects next week to submit to the city a plan for the four-story, 200-unit apartment project, to be called Metro Crossing. The company hopes to start construction in summer 2016.
The project is notable because it's a tangible sign of progress for the 200-acre railyard. Problems with toxic soil clean-up, economic downturns and ownership upheaval have stalled development of the infill site for years. Although many ambitious ideas have been floated — including a major-league soccer stadium — the only other firm construction plans so far are for a Sacramento County courthouse.

Art May, senior vice president of development at USA Properties, said Metro Crossing would be an affordable housing project totaling about 316,000 square feet.

The plan will call for apartments surrounding a five-story parking garage. Amenities would include a community room, pool, pet-washing station and bike repair shop. In layout, Metro Crossing would be similar to the Cannery Place Apartments in Township Nine, but without any retail space, May said. LPAS Architecture and Design in Sacramento is the project architect.

Apartments would range from one-bedroom, one-bathroom units of about 620 square feet to two-bedroom, one-bathroom units of about 940 square feet. There also would be two-bedroom, two-bathroom units.
USA Properties also would have space for on-site classes through its nonprofit partner LifeSTEPS, May said, including job training assistance and after-school programs.

Metro Crossing would be on Seventh Street between extensions of F and G streets, with the western side facing the completed but unopened Sixth Street bridge over the railroad tracks.

May said his company, which specializes in affordable housing, estimates an 18- to 20-month construction timeline.

"The railyards are going to be a great opportunity for multiple different developments," May said. "And there's a huge need for affordable housing."

Railyard developers needed to include an affordable housing project as a condition of receiving state money for railyard infrastructure. May said Metro Crossing satisfies about half of that requirement.
But as his company moves into more market-rate housing projects as well, May said, it's possible they'll be doing more in the railyard.

"Nothing is guaranteed yet, but we're hopeful," May said

• Video Link

[Majin]

^^ Suburban garbage