Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hilton's Canopy brand is the best! We stay at them when we can. You have to learn about the rooms with the hidden features. They really do put charging ports everywhere! They get a lot of higher income European and Asian travelers.
Hyatt is starting to build up in California. We stick mostly to the Marriott and Hilton brands because they have better locations in most areas of the state. We're in hotels over 100 nights each year, and Hilton has the easiest rewards program.
It's exciting to see all the great stuff coming into downtown sacramento. Thanks for this thread!
Your welcome, I'm glad you like the thread!
I love to see non Sacramentans take an interest in our city.
(By the way, Aloft by Marriott is a pretty fun brand of hotel as well).
High Rise Boutique Hotels
1. Hyatt Centric - 7th and L Streets - Should open this summer 2021
2. Hyatt House - Eastern Star Historic bldg renovation - 2713 K Street across Sutters Fort. - Open by Late 2021 or early 2022.
3. Fort Sutter Hotel - Hilton Tapestry Collection - next to Sofia Center (28th & Capital Streets) - Opened early this year 2021. Nice indoor and outdoor bar. Great indoor and outdoor restaurant. Hotel is next door to a Sofia Center/B Street theater - Wonderful Venue!
4. Hilton-Canopy 275 rooms - 831 L Street (9th and L Streets) -
5. Historic Fruit Bldg 4th & J - Hilton-Curio Hotel & “Eccelente!” Italian Rooftop Restaurant - Opening this Fall?
6. West Sacramento Riverfront Hotell next to Tower Bridge (part of residential development) - Hotel Brand not named
Last edited by Chimérique; 04-06-2021 at 01:59 PM..
Thanks, that has been a void in the area for a few years now. I know the S St side is getting a midrise affordable apartment building, so the "critical mass" that would help keep R St vibrant seems to be coming together.
Design looks appropriate and like a good fit for the area too.
In some ways it's ironically appropriate; this block was a particular point of contention for decades because AKT wanted to build a 15-20 story office tower there back in the late 80s/early 90s, while neighborhood groups had convinced the city to adopt the R Street Plan that called for mixed use, midrise buildings instead of car-centric office buildings. The neighborhoods won, resulting in the basic template for R Street we see today, but the building owner declared that because they didn't get what they wanted, they wouldn't do anything, but I think the property sold a few years ago and they're building basically what the neighbors asked for 25 years ago. The principal architect, Ron Vrilakas, was also a prominent neighborhood activist in the debate over R Street.
One thing about this building that represents a shift of city policy: ground floor spaces in these mixed use buildings was supposed to be all commercial, but what we're discovering is that it creates a glut of ground floor retail space, resulting in some older mixed use projects with long term vacancy issues (like the building at 21st & L) converting ground floor retail space to live/work spaces that can be residential or commercial. This building has retail pads at each corner, but in mid-block it's all live/work from the outset, reflecting the priority for housing. Although I think some on the Planning & Design Commission may complain that there's too much parking, 1 parking space per unit. This is another point of contention where theory bumps into practice; in other recently constructed buildings that took advantage of lower parking requirements, they are finding that when the target market is a luxury buyer, more parking is necessary. Even if the occupant doesn't drive much, they want a place to put their car. However, they found it's less critical to put parking in buildings that are affordable (the building just started on S Street, with affordable units, has a lower parking ratio) as middle income & low income renters are more likely to just go car-free than the luxury tenant. So presumably this project is aimed at the luxury tenant.
.....Since the late eighties!
My god, that was a life time ago, an entire generation, meanwhile, look what Austin, Portland, Denver, Phoenix have done since then...they have neighborhood-friendly, walk-friendly dense housing, that includes 10-20 story housing that fit in just nicely with single story housing....Sacramento is a city, not a suburb....don't be afraid of high-rise housing.
The Railyards, Waterfront, even downtown/midtown is by far a major disappoint of what should have already been built 10 years ago........
This is what I mean about failure, lack of success, opportunities missed, a lack of SYNERGY in Sacramento.
Govt' interference, red tape, NIMby's, Activists, "greedy" developers, I don't care who we blame, the proof is in the pudding, why does it take us DECADES to get anything done? Other cites have the same issues, but they still get things done in less than half the time.
.
Last edited by Chimérique; 04-06-2021 at 02:41 PM..
And it all could have been avoided if AKT, Benvenuti and other suburban/office developers had listened to the neighbors and the city instead of dragging their heels for decades because they didn't get what they wanted (high-rise office, not housing, which of course we got on the not-so-vibrant Capitol Mall). The developers were all convinced that nobody would ever want to live in those neighborhoods, even as the people who lived in those neighborhoods told the builders what the future customer would want (mixed-use midrise housing with room for artists and local businesses.) Basically the older generation of developers had to die off, allowing a younger generation to take up those ideas, and old neighborhood activism veterans like Vrilakas and Mogavero are now the mainstream builders. Although age is hardly an excuse; a lot of those activists from the 80s like Kay Knepprath and Brooks Truitt were the same age, they just thought a lot younger!
Of course, the developers are happy to take credit for those "new" ideas a quarter-century later, and at least Brooks Truitt got a dog park off R Street named after him!
Putting an office tower on the R St site would look a bit out of place today. I don't have a long history of Sacramento, having just arrived 15 years ago. But it does seem that office space need has been overestimated, seeing a lot of long term vacant space in the entire metro area. I know government uses a bit of office space, so maybe that was behind some of the thinking, but like I said I don't have a feel for Sacramento history.
I think R St is coming along pretty nicely and is becoming a good city asset. I find it odd that it seems the buildings are almost all the same height though, past places I've lived typically would have more variance in building height. I'm not stating putting a 20 story building next to a 5 story building, but maybe a mix of buildings in the 4 to 10 story range could make for a more interesting appearance.
Putting an office tower on the R St site would look a bit out of place today. I don't have a long history of Sacramento, having just arrived 15 years ago. But it does seem that office space need has been overestimated, seeing a lot of long term vacant space in the entire metro area. I know government uses a bit of office space, so maybe that was behind some of the thinking, but like I said I don't have a feel for Sacramento history.
I think R St is coming along pretty nicely and is becoming a good city asset. I find it odd that it seems the buildings are almost all the same height though, past places I've lived typically would have more variance in building height. I'm not stating putting a 20 story building next to a 5 story building, but maybe a mix of buildings in the 4 to 10 story range could make for a more interesting appearance.
That was one of the arguments against the office tower idea, the project was speculative rather than for a specific company or state office--and, now as I check some notes, he wasn't actually going to build the tower, he just wanted entitlements to build the tower, which could then be sold to a developer to build it later. So basically the same thinking that results in big holes in the landscape like the one at 4th & Capitol (or 16th & R.) There wasn't demand for an office tower later, but that was the developer's business model (office towers downtown, suburban homes to the east, and big superhighways to move people back and forth between them 10 times a week) and no amount of convincing could shift it. But their business model was always based on promoting Sacramento as a small town, and the whole suburban/agrarian mythology, a place where people can pretend they're farmers because they have a lawn.
The common height of new buildings has more to do with the structural limitations of wood-on-concrete construction and the heights that trigger more expensive high-rise building techniques (about 75 feet.) In order to build more cheaply, using wood instead of steel and using low-rise instead of high-rise standards, they tend to stay below a maximum height. There is also a maximum height on the corridor itself (I think it's 90 feet on R Street itself), but generally the limitation has more to do with engineering and expense, not so much a statutory limit. Fortunately there are a lot of historic buildings on the corridor whose height is unlikely to change, which will presumably maintain the same height and maintain some differentiation between buildings on the corridor.
There were, of course, other issues that explain part of the delay--toxic cleanup on R Street, which had been an industrial corridor for a century, took many years and lots of money, which was made possible when a former Sacramento city councilmember who became a state assemblymember and senator, Deborah Ortiz, made R Street part of CADA's boundary, which allowed them to unlock access to public resources for toxic cleanup. That cleanup made a lot of the later housing developments possible with lowered risk to the public, as well as financing; unlike cities, CADA still has a limited ability to do redevelopment projects which went away statewide in 2012 under Brown, which became another big limitation on urban housing construction during the past decade.
1. HYATT CENTRIC - DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO - 7th and L Streets - OPEN
2. Hyatt House - Eastern Star Historic bldg renovation - 2713 K Street across Sutters Fort. - 2022.
3. FORT SUTTER HOTEL-HILTON-TAPESTRY-MIDTOWN SACRAMENTO next to Sofia Center (28th & Capital Streets) - OPENED early this year 2021. Nice indoor and outdoor bar. Great indoor and outdoor restaurant. Hotel is next door to a Sofia Center/B Street theater - Wonderful Venue!
4. Hilton-Canopy 275 rooms - 831 L Street (9th and L Streets) -
5. THE EXCHANGE HILTON-CURIO - DOWNTOWN SACRAMENTO - Historic Fruit Bldg 4th & J - Hotel & “Eccelente!” Italian Rooftop Restaurant - HOTEL OPEN
6. West Sacramento Riverfront Hotell next to Tower Bridge (part of residential development) - Hotel Brand not named
7. NEW SMF INTERNATIONAL AIPORT AREA HOTELS - OPEN - There are now at 7 new/newer airport area hotels within a few miles of the Airport.
Wyndham Garden, FourPoints-Sheraton, Homewood Suites-Hilton, Holiday Express, Hampton Inn Suites, Hiton Garden Inn, TownPlace-Marriott
I've been reading about Lot X, company from Nashville purchased it and their are talking 28-story apartment/condo building that would be likely 400 feet or more!...?
Also, at 7th and I Street, a new AC Marriott Hotel should be going up soon. I think 9 floors. 179 rooms. 22 months of construction, should be open end of 2023. I believe this is the site of the old city police building or a Bank of America.
The AC Marriott is going up next to the former Bank of America building that also served as a city police building (and briefly as City Hall during the rehab of the old City Hall building), which is undergoing rehab right now (most likely for commercial use.)
Very curious about the details for that 28 story apartment building on Lot X, presumably if floor heights average 14' or so it would hit the 400 foot mark. The site will also have what will probably be an ~8 story office building next door (based on its proposed volume and wood construction.)
SKK is proposing a half-block midrise on J Street between 16th & 17th, I think there was already a plan for a building occupying a quarter block at 17th & J but it sounds like since Lucca announced they were closing permanently they decided to expand the project to half a block.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
