HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4921  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 1:31 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
25-story apartment towers proposed for downtown Sacramento

25-story apartment towers proposed for downtown Sacramento would be the region’s tallest
By Tony Bizjak
[email protected]
Published: Wednesday, Mar. 26, 2014 - 7:00 pm
Last Modified: Thursday, Mar. 27, 2014 - 12:09 am


A real estate investment firm from Beverly Hills said Wednesday it will build two 25-story apartment towers, the tallest residential buildings in the region, as well as midrise apartments, condominiums and perhaps a boutique hotel in a quiet residential area off Capitol Mall in downtown Sacramento.

The ambitious proposal, called Sacramento Commons, could add 1,200 apartments to the downtown’s housing stock, more than has been built in the central city in the last dozen years combined. City officials said it is a sign that the downtown Sacramento housing market could be stirring to life after years of minimal development.

The developer, Kennedy Wilson, an international real estate investor, purchased most of the site bounded by Fifth and Seventh streets and N and P streets several years ago, after it conducted an analysis that showed there is a market for housing in Sacramento’s central business district.

“We feel confident and encouraged by what we see happening downtown and want to be involved,” Kennedy Wilson vice president Dave Eadie said.

The project is being challenged, however, by some current residents of the site who say the high-density development plan will ruin the area’s bucolic, garden-like setting. The plan calls for eventually knocking down as many as 200 two-story garden apartments known as Capital Villas, but leaving three existing housing towers in place. Two of those towers, Bridgeway and Pioneer, are on the project blocks but are not owned by Kennedy Wilson.

Jim Pachl, an environmentalist and retired attorney who lives in the Bridgeway Towers building adjacent to the development site, said the city and developers are trying to squeeze too much onto the property. He said the city should focus on other empty or blighted sites around downtown in need of redevelopment.

“This neighborhood is working,” Pachl said. “It’s been livable housing for decades. Why cannibalize it?”

The project also has drawn opposition from SacMod, a group that promotes preservation of midcentury architecture in Sacramento.

“The open space planning (at the site) was intentional … for the mental health and well-being of people who live there,” SacMod’s Gretchen Steinberg said. “Sacramento Commons is trying to fill that space with buildings and mass.”

Project developers counter that their plan meets city and regional “smart growth” goals by providing more urban-style housing close to jobs, stores and entertainment areas. The project site is literally in the shadows of Capitol Mall offices and five blocks from the Capitol.

The site also is just two blocks from the planned Sacramento Kings arena at Downtown Plaza, although Kennedy Wilson’s Eadie said his company chose to invest in downtown Sacramento prior to the emergence of the arena plan. Notably, though, Eadie’s company has hired site planner AECOM, the company the Kings are using to design their arena.

Eadie said his company will submit its plans to the city on Friday. City officials have been pushing for years to get more people living downtown. City Planning Director David Kwong said the project would be one of the first major housing applications in the post-recession era.

“It’s a good sign that they are taking the risk to move forward with this kind of project,” he said. “It (indicates) a confidence level on their end.”

Councilman Steve Hansen, who represents the area, declined comment on the project until he sees the developer’s plans, an aide said.

Michael Ault, head of the Downtown Sacramento Partnership, said downtown needs housing projects, along with the arena, if it is going to see a resurgence and become a 24-hour community.

“That is what we are looking for, people with discretionary income, the creative class, people with resources to be part of this downtown momentum,” he said. “The arena itself is a great project, but we’ve got to be about more complementary use. We have to do a better job of building more residential, and more variety of retail, something more than just restaurants.”

The Sacramento Commons development calls for removing the two-story Capital Villas apartments in phases over years to make room for new high- and midrise buildings. Those new buildings would be built adjacent to the three existing housing towers on the four-block site – Bridgeway Towers on N Street, Pioneer Tower on P Street and Capitol Tower near Seventh and O streets.

The plans call for two 25-story residential towers, located near the northwest corner of Seventh and P streets. Eadie said his company intends to rent at market levels, but declined to guess what those rents would be. He said he expects some of the 1,100-square-foot high-rise apartments will be marketed to affluent renters.

The company remains uncertain whether it will propose condominiums or a boutique hotel, or a combination of the two, for the corner of the site at Seventh and N streets.

Kennedy Wilson officials say they expect the city planning and approval process will take two years. The first construction would likely start no sooner than 2016, Eadie said.

Call The Bee’s Tony Bizjak, (916) 321-1059.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/26/6271504/25-story-apartment-towers-proposed.html#storylink=cpy
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4922  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 1:45 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd View Post
Sounds like some NIMBY complaints on their way, specifically from the residents adjacent.
Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4923  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 4:50 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Of course, some of current residents are against it. They will have move because their two-story suburban-like apartments are going to be demolished in the process. They successfully fought a previous proposal. Let's hope they do not win again. If want to live in a "bucolic" garden-like environment move to the burbs already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4924  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 8:08 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Daybreak (So. Jordan), UT
Posts: 791
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?
You've obviously haven't lived in California lately... though to be fair, every neighborhood has its NIMBYs... In Cali they just seem to have more clout for some reason or another. Or more money; which ever is easier.

Though I do miss Sactown from time to time, I am so glad I'm not in Cali anymore. Now I keep up on Sactown-area news to keep my family still there informed. "Son! Do you know what's being built over on R Street?" "Dad... you do still remember that I live in Utah now? Oh and it's x-project..."

__________________
Giant Meteor 2024
Just end it all already.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4925  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 8:08 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
Of course, some of current residents are against it. They will have move because their two-story suburban-like apartments are going to be demolished in the process. They successfully fought a previous proposal. Let's hope they do not win again. If want to live in a "bucolic" garden-like environment move to the burbs already.
....or go set up a tent on the river! IJS
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4926  
Old Posted Mar 27, 2014, 8:31 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldcntry View Post
You've obviously haven't lived in California lately... though to be fair, every neighborhood has its NIMBYs... In Cali they just seem to have more clout for some reason or another. Or more money; which ever is easier.

Though I do miss Sactown from time to time, I am so glad I'm not in Cali anymore. Now I keep up on Sactown-area news to keep my family still there informed. "Son! Do you know what's being built over on R Street?" "Dad... you do still remember that I live in Utah now? Oh and it's x-project..."

You're right! I moved in 2009 to Colorado Springs because the company I was working for(USAA) closed their office in Sacramento (my hometown) and they moved me there (which I hated). While it is true that I haven't lived there for 5 years, I follow developments there very closely (news, blogs, etc.). I probably know more about the city than most people living there (those on this forum not included). That being said, the development previously proposed went stale because of the economy, IIRC. If I were a developer, I wouldn't want to deal with NIMBYs in the economy we just came out of...it was bad enough. So, they pulled the plug. It didn't seem like a very concrete proposal, anyway. This one seems different...with renderings and the possibility of a new revenue stream (the arena and the developments and activity surrounding it), this seems like a better proposal. Also, with a City Council/Mayor probably BEGGING to let this arena be the impetus for great things downtown, I think it should be an easy process. That said, I'm no mind reader...so, one can't say for sure what they're actually thinking! But, I have high hopes for this one!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4927  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:18 AM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Can they really stop the property OWNER from building additional buildings on the site? Move somewhere else if you don't like it! Those are all rentals, right!?
Every project can be negotiated and scaled. In this case I would say the villas probably won't stay if the project is truly viable. But it is important to protect some open space there in a semi like park setting. That's what makes Sacramento unique.

It would send a bad signal to shoot down the first project proposal (post recession) from out of town developers because we want to save suburban looking apartments at the cost of higher densities.
__________________
Sacramento
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4928  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 3:20 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
Every project can be negotiated and scaled. In this case I would say the villas probably won't stay if the project is truly viable. But it is important to protect some open space there in a semi like park setting. That's what makes Sacramento unique.

It would send a bad signal to shoot down the first project proposal (post recession) from out of town developers because we want to save suburban looking apartments at the cost of higher densities.
Yes! As I said, I think they'll be drooling at the feet of the first (few?) developer(s)!...at least, one would hope they would!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4929  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 3:35 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4930  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:00 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sacramento California
Posts: 2,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.
I agree with you. It takes a good leader to push a city like Sacramento forward. Too many people here would do nothing. Maybe it's a curse of having so many state employees? The reason they (NIMBYs) are so brazen is that they've had success here in the past. I like an engaged public and sometimes the NIMBYs make a project even better or stop a project that is all wrong. Think about the NIMBYs who wanted to stop the destruction of the Alhambra Theater or stop the construction of Interstate 5 through downtown. In hindsight they were right. However, in a lot of cases (like this one) it's a case of opposing something due to self-interest and not because it is best thing for the community.

BTW I don't think it's a particularly California thing. But exes, like NIMBYs, always seem to need something to gripe about - ;-)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4931  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 4:47 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
If this were the still the Fargo era, nimbys would be worrying.

I think going forward, KJ has shown there is a new sheriff in town and nimbys won't have the same political sway they did 10 years ago. I'm not worried in the slightest. The developers will be in complete control and this will pass the city council/planning commission without issue.
As a person, I liked Fargo better. As a mayor, KJ has, I believe, saved the city from so much embarrassment and future issues, he was most certainly the right man for the job!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4932  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 5:34 PM
Majin's Avatar
Majin Majin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Downtown Sacramento
Posts: 2,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
As a person, I liked Fargo better. As a mayor, KJ has, I believe, saved the city from so much embarrassment and future issues, he was most certainly the right man for the job!
In what way is Fargo likable as a person?
__________________
Majin Crew: jsf8278, wburg, daverave
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4933  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 6:29 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin View Post
In what way is Fargo likable as a person?
I had met her a couple times years ago and she was very nice.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4934  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 8:39 PM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Did NIMBYs really have a lot of sway 10 years ago? Many big projects were approved under Mayor Fargo. Granted, few were built; but that had more to do with economic factors than NIMBY influence.

I will agree that Mayor Johnson is a better cheerleader for the city than Mayor Fargo was.

I'm not going to defend NIMBYs, as I strongly believe in the right of property owners to do as they please. However, it's silly to blame a tiny group of gadflies and self-interested residents for Sacramento's perceived failure to develop.



I have to say, the size of the Sacramento Commons project makes me a little incredulous. 1000+ housing units! That's a lot, more than the Towers on Crapitol Mall, and we all know what became of that grand scheme. Still, the developer has owned the properties for a number of years, and I can only assume that's a good amount of time for due diligence, right?

The article mentions removing the two-story apartments in phases. Does that mean the developer plans to build in phases too? I hope so. We wouldn't want everything to be demolished at once and the site left to rot when the bubble inevitably bursts again. I'd rather have something than nothing; Sacramento doesn't need another hole in the ground. Also, if I were a resident of Bridgeway towers, I wouldn't be pleased about having my view changed from "bucolic" to wasteland for a decade.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4935  
Old Posted Mar 28, 2014, 9:00 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
Did NIMBYs really have a lot of sway 10 years ago? Many big projects were approved under Mayor Fargo. Granted, few were built; but that had more to do with economic factors than NIMBY influence.

I will agree that Mayor Johnson is a better cheerleader for the city than Mayor Fargo was.

I'm not going to defend NIMBYs, as I strongly believe in the right of property owners to do as they please. However, it's silly to blame a tiny group of gadflies and self-interested residents for Sacramento's perceived failure to develop.



I have to say, the size of the Sacramento Commons project makes me a little incredulous. 1000+ housing units! That's a lot, more than the Towers on Crapitol Mall, and we all know what became of that grand scheme. Still, the developer has owned the properties for a number of years, and I can only assume that's a good amount of time for due diligence, right?

The article mentions removing the two-story apartments in phases. Does that mean the developer plans to build in phases too? I hope so. We wouldn't want everything to be demolished at once and the site left to rot when the bubble inevitably bursts again. I'd rather have something than nothing; Sacramento doesn't need another hole in the ground. Also, if I were a resident of Bridgeway towers, I wouldn't be pleased about having my view changed from "bucolic" to wasteland for a decade.
Good points! BUT, it's not like there doesn't need to be any new housing units built. The area is growing (regardless of the economy) and will continue to need new housing. Many people want to live downtown and this will give those people that option. ALSO, remember it was the lack of will by the city and the developer that brought down the Towers NOT lack of interest. IIRC, they had deposits on 50% of the units before one pile was even driven. The demand is there. The time is right. Sacramento missed out on the first part of the last economic/housing boom! This time has to be different...and it appears to be shaping up that way!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4936  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 1:12 AM
snfenoc's Avatar
snfenoc snfenoc is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Steve in East Sac
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by creamcityleo79 View Post
Good points! BUT, it's not like there doesn't need to be any new housing units built. The area is growing (regardless of the economy) and will continue to need new housing. Many people want to live downtown and this will give those people that option. ALSO, remember it was the lack of will by the city and the developer that brought down the Towers NOT lack of interest. IIRC, they had deposits on 50% of the units before one pile was even driven. The demand is there. The time is right. Sacramento missed out on the first part of the last economic/housing boom! This time has to be different...and it appears to be shaping up that way!

I just want to be clear, I am not saying Sacramento can't support, or doesn't need, new housing units. I just think 1000+ housing units is a bit optimistic for one development. I hope it is built in phases. It looks like the proposal is for mostly rental units, which may be a good thing.

What causes you to say the Towers on Crapitol Mall failed due a lack of will from the city? I sure don't think so. I recall the city was prepared to sink millions into the development, as long as it met certain reasonable standards. Unfortunately, the project was unable to unlock financing in a tough real estate and and lending market. Blame the economy. Blame the unrealistic developer. Don't blame the city. Sure, the project generated a lot of interest, but it needed more than that. It was proposed too late game, and it was too big.
__________________
Sincerely,
Steve in East Sac
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4937  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 2:10 AM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 7,758
Yeah, from my memory, the target to unlock the main financing package was something around 50% pre-sales, which just wasn't possible given the time constraints/economy collapsing. CalPers came in to provide something of a stop-gap, but it was too little, too late. If they had started 6 months earlier, the towers would be there today, IMO.


And back to the Sacramento Commons project, the opinion of some of the residents is important, but they would have a stronger argument without offhandedly dismissing the plan from the outset. This is classic NIMBYism; saying no from the beginning and threatening strong action instead of trying to work with the developer (essentially their landlord). Those "villas" are nothing special anyway. The only reason they look decent is because of a paint job ~5 years ago and some appliance upgrades. Other than that, they really aren't a product that is worth keeping in downtown with the demand for new housing, and better design sure to come from this proposal.
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4938  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 2:04 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by snfenoc View Post
I just want to be clear, I am not saying Sacramento can't support, or doesn't need, new housing units. I just think 1000+ housing units is a bit optimistic for one development. I hope it is built in phases. It looks like the proposal is for mostly rental units, which may be a good thing.

What causes you to say the Towers on Crapitol Mall failed due a lack of will from the city? I sure don't think so. I recall the city was prepared to sink millions into the development, as long as it met certain reasonable standards. Unfortunately, the project was unable to unlock financing in a tough real estate and and lending market. Blame the economy. Blame the unrealistic developer. Don't blame the city. Sure, the project generated a lot of interest, but it needed more than that. It was proposed too late game, and it was too big.
Certainly the city and the developer were not equally to blame. But, I think some on the city council did a little more foot dragging than was acceptable to the financiers (who were, maybe rightfully, a little skeptical about something of such a grand scale). As for the 50% number, I do think it was very close to that number who had deposits down. Either way, I completely agree had this project been proposed 6 months earlier (maybe only a few months earlier), it would be done, in the ground, and we may be talking about a different Sacramento now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4939  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 2:12 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Just checked the 301 thread. 500/833 units had soft deposits.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4940  
Old Posted Mar 29, 2014, 8:50 PM
Pistola916 Pistola916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO/SACRAMENTO
Posts: 634
^
The Towers was an overly ambitious project but having that many soft deposits, why didn't they gone with building one tower?
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 5:08 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.