Urban Development Discussion Thread (Los Angeles, San Jose: apartment, condos, how much)

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wburg

The Railyards project is moving forward, they are finishing the toxic cleanup and starting on the infrastructure. K Street has always been a failure because it was always based on the foolish idea that you can convince suburbanites to come downtown if you make downtown look like a suburban mall. Of course, suburbs already have suburban malls, closer to their homes and with free parking, so it never works...

Is that what they were thinking? I always thought Sacramento was the only city around, except maybe Riverside, to build a pedestrian mall just for the homeless. That was such a success that RT built the south line so fare-jumping gangsters could get to the mall easier to rip off the stores and shoot one another in the Downtown Plaza.

[Phil Minor]

At K Street the freeway is permeable. There is a pretty big underpass that lets people through. I think the bigger problem right now is that there isn't enough going on in the K Street Mall to get them to walk under it. There needs to be more going in the area between Old Sac and where the K Street Mall starts at Macy's. Maybe street performers or a sculpture garden. Something to activate that block in front of the Holiday Inn. You might even want to sell something in the underpass, maybe flowers or a newstand. Maybe street vendors like what happens on Telegraph Avenue in Berkeley. Between the under pass and the Holiday Inn, that area is too desolate for people to bother to walk through the area to even get to the mall. You need to provide more things there to give them a reason to walk through the area. Once they are back in their car, you have lost them.

I don't think the issue is creating competition for the Roseville Galleria. If the K Street Mall was more successful, who would be hurt the most would be the Arden Fair Mall. The weaker the Arden Fair Mall is the more the Galleria can draw people from Natomas, Antelope or Citrus Heights who potentially might shop right now at either location. Its is in the best interest for Westfield to strengthen the K Street Mall. But they may not actually have the focus to figure out how to do it.

Fixing malls is tough work. Buzz Oates failed for several years trying to turn around Country Club Center. He bulldozed have of it and put up office space. Bringing in Walmart was the only thing that really worked. Millions were spent to remodel Country Club Plaza and the remodel just never really worked. Birdcage was mostly dead for at least 10 years and the success there was helped in part by bringing in Target. Sunrise has been limping around for the past 10 years. Florin was mostly bulldozed and they are starting again with a Super Walmart. In the playbook for mall owners to turnaround a struggling mall, bringing in a Walmart is actually something that has a better than average track record. I don't think its the best solution to the K Street Mall area, but I also understand why Westfield would suggest it. Its one of the less expensive lower risk fixes for the mall operator, that has worked in a lot of other malls. Westfields interest is primarily about looking for quick and cheap ways to turn around its part of K Street, it lacks the wider focus on figuring out what will increase foot traffic in the downtown area of Sacramento.

Pier 39 was developed by locals whose only property at the time was Pier 39. If K Street gets sick enough, it probably could be turned over to someone like that.

Bass Pro Shops may have not been the cities idea, but the fact that the plan the city approved allowed something like Bass Pro Shops to be built is reason to be sceptical of the plan as approved. Remember Natomas. It was hailed as smart growth. In some respects it sort of is. But it turned out a lot more suburban than people who were backing the plan implied at the time the plan was going through the development process. Right now, its tough to find people who like it.

Township 9 and the Railyards are supposed to create an extension of downtown Sacramento. When they opened in the region, both Frys and Ikea were unique to this region. In a sense both were wins for those communities. I suspect Bass Pro Shops will be similiar in appeal to these stores. But you wouldn't want Fry's nor Ikea going into an area that is supposed to be urban. The more parking lots you build in this neighborhood, the less you are going to have your walkability, the more its going to attract car oriented development. What I fear is the high density sprawl of Natomas. Bass Pro Shops isn't proof that these neighborhoods are going to end up that way, but it is reason to have a great deal of sceptism.

As for K street, I think the future of K Street should be based more upon attracting people not just from the suburbs, but from the wider area as well - Chico, Modesto, Stockton and Grass Valley - people looking for a day trip. There are people looking for something to do on the weekend and visiting Sacramento could be an option. But you need to give them enough attractions to make them willing to do the drive.

I think Streetcars might be part of that. But I also wonder about something like London's two story busses as well. I know they were doing that for a while in Davis, I just thought that was an idea, that could be expanded. One of the things I thought SF did a good job was using mass transit choices as tourist attractions as well. In this region, SF probably has the market cornered on cable cars, so something a bit different might work better. I also wonder about attacting some more regional attractions. Land is cheap in this region compared to the bay area. Maybe we could an amusement park like Great America or expand the Zoo like San Diego did or create a wild Animal Park to draw some of the people from the bay area to this region. Once you come to the region, you will hit other things while you are here. But you need some stronger attractions to pull people out here from areas further away.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Phil Minor

Remember Natomas. It was hailed as smart growth. In some respects it sort of is.

Reported

[wburg]

In this region, SF probably has the market cornered on cable cars, so something a bit different might work better.

Phil Minor: I'm not talking about cable cars. The streetcars I'm talking about are powered by electric overhead, while cable cars are pulled by a traveling cable in the street. Sacramento had streetcars (first horsecars, then electric streetcars) from the 1870s until the late 1940s, and has had an LRV system for 22 years, so it's not exactly a new idea around here--heck, the Tower Bridge carried electric trains, and its predecessor the M Street Bridge carried a streetcar from Sacramento to West Sacramento.

[Ludachris]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Well, 16th St in Denver works pretty well as an equivalent to K St in Sacramento. However, I assume Denver has more housing downdown than Sacramento provides. If this is true, it might help explain the success of 16th St in Denver, and provide ideas as to how K St may benefit here.

Since you're comparing it to the 16th Street Mall here in Denver I'm curious to see it. I can tell you some of the draws of the mall here in Denver:

It's right in the middle of 16th Street, which is a pedestrian-only street open only to free electric buses pedicabs, and horse drawn carriages, which makes it very walkable. The street has a ton of restaurants, sports bars, and shops/stores - with several popular chains, which go for probably 5 blocks in each direction. The mall features a Nike Town, Coyote Ugly, amongst other attractions, but it's not a typical mall with the big anchor stores like Macys. I wouldn't consider it very upscale really. I don't know that I'd go downtown just for the mall, but when we go to 16th Street, we usually will duck in at least one of the mall stores. It's definitely one of the places we'll take visitors to see.

As for housing in the area, it's pretty close and just as diverse as any downtown area. There aren't many (if any) pockets of "bad" areas near the mall that you wouldn't feel safe walking through at night. You'll find some high-end lofts and apartments, but the houses are a little further away from that area. But that's part of what makes Denver so nice - it's got a great downtown vibe at night.

I think the reason the downtown mall works here is because of all the other attractions that surround it to help make it a diverse destination. It's very walkable and there is plenty to do at all times of the day. The free buses that go up and down the street are a big hit too. However, parking in downtown is horrible and very expensive - but I suppose that's how it is everywhere. I really think they could follow San Jose's multi-level parking garage model and make parking much easier.

Some really good and fairly accurate (from my experience) feedback on the 16th Street Mall in Denver:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/16th-street-mall-denver

You'll see that there is more good than bad in those opinions, which is probably a good reflection of how the mall is perceived. It's not perfect, but it's still a destination.

[wburg]

K Street was Sacramento's main shopping and entertainment street until the 1950s. Most of the city's movie theaters, department stores and hotels were on K Street or within a block or two. There were dense residential neighborhoods on both sides, and K Street carried more streetcar lines than any other street in the city, making K Street accessible to pretty much everyone in town. That changed in the 1950s and 1960s when the residential neighborhoods near K Street were demolished to build office buildings, the K Street hotels were occupied by transients and migrant workers evicted from the demolished hotels near the waterfront (travelers had already moved to the new motels along 12th and 16th Street, middle-class residents in the hotels moved to apartments or the suburbs.) K Street was still a driving street, with no streetcars after 1947, but its businesses were suffering without customers, parking lots for cars, or freeway access.

The K Street Mall was originally an open-air mall, pedestrian-only aside from small van-sized buses made up to look like trolleys. There were sculptures, landscaped spaces and play structures along K Street, commonly known as the "tank traps." It was moderately successful, but not on the order of downtown malls, because downtown Sacramento was still regarded as an unsafe, unpredictable, risky place, with a lot of prostitution and drug dealing. Because the surrounding neighborhoods are almost all offices, there was nobody on the street at night except for the homeless, and the residential neighborhoods closest to K Street were also considered the most dangerous in the central city.

In 1987, the new Light Rail system was built onto K Street. From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, the Convention Center was expanded, new high-rises and mid-rises went up (often on top of residential hotels and apartment buildings) and the western end of the mall was enclosed into the Westfield "Downtown Plaza" mall. But because folks from the suburbs don't like taking light rail, don't like having to pay for parking, and still don't feel safe downtown. The suburban malls are still closer, have free parking in big open lots, and because they are private property the security can evict anyone they consider a "bad element." K Street is a public right-of-way, and while there is a security presence, they can't just kick anyone off the public street without a definite reason. Over the past 15 years or so, the city has continued trying to doll up K Street as though it was a suburban mall, without success. Even the IMAX theater suffers in the same way as Westfield Downtown Plaza: because of non-competition agreements, the IMAX downtown can't carry first-run movies that compete for customers with the Century movie theater in the mall--or the IMAX theater in Rocklin. So even though it's a gorgeous big theater in a great building, they can't compete with a suburb in the theater or a standard multiplex.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Ludachris

Since you're comparing it to the 16th Street Mall here in Denver I'm curious to see it. I can tell you some of the draws of the mall here in Denver:

It's right in the middle of 16th Street, which is a pedestrian-only street open only to free electric buses pedicabs, and horse drawn carriages, which makes it very walkable. The street has a ton of restaurants, sports bars, and shops/stores - with several popular chains, which go for probably 5 blocks in each direction. The mall features a Nike Town, Coyote Ugly, amongst other attractions, but it's not a typical mall with the big anchor stores like Macys. I wouldn't consider it very upscale really. I don't know that I'd go downtown just for the mall, but when we go to 16th Street, we usually will duck in at least one of the mall stores. It's definitely one of the places we'll take visitors to see.

As for housing in the area, it's pretty close and just as diverse as any downtown area. There aren't many (if any) pockets of "bad" areas near the mall that you wouldn't feel safe walking through at night. You'll find some high-end lofts and apartments, but the houses are a little further away from that area. But that's part of what makes Denver so nice - it's got a great downtown vibe at night.

I think the reason the downtown mall works here is because of all the other attractions that surround it to help make it a diverse destination. It's very walkable and there is plenty to do at all times of the day. The free buses that go up and down the street are a big hit too. However, parking in downtown is horrible and very expensive - but I suppose that's how it is everywhere. I really think they could follow San Jose's multi-level parking garage model and make parking much easier.

Some really good and fairly accurate (from my experience) feedback on the 16th Street Mall in Denver:
16th Street Mall - Lodo - Denver, CO

You'll see that there is more good than bad in those opinions, which is probably a good reflection of how the mall is perceived. It's not perfect, but it's still a destination.

Your insights about Denver get to the heart of my sentiments. I'm hopeful that projects such as Township 9 and the Railyards significantly increases the "synergism" in downtown development, providing Sacramento the type of residential and activity mix Denver has with areas such as the 16th St and Lower Downtown areas.

I guess I would summarize my view as these things should help expand each other, as opposed to the assumption they would cannibalize the potential markets.

[Phil Minor]

Originally Posted by Majin

Reported

Natomas did a lot of what it was intended to do. The density is higher in Natomas than in other suburban developments. While homes are large, lots are small - the homes are set closer to the street and the homes are closer together than in other suburban communities. The area also has lots of multi-family units pushing up the density to support transit. It also has a fairly extensive network of bike trails including a pretty good share of class 1 bike trails. My understanding is that when built out Natomas will have densities comparable or even higher than existing neighborhoods like East Sac, or Curtis Park.

In that sense Natomas achieved what was set out for it. In that sense its smart growth.

Where it went wrong is that it is neither a successful suburb nor a successful new urban area. I don't know anyone who strongly defends it. It doesn't have the walkability that people associate with urban areas. The land uses are too segregated and there is too many mini-mall developments.

But it also isn't really succeeding as a suburb. If the schools were better in Natomas, office workers with kids wouldn't feel the need to commute from Fair Oaks, Davis or Roseville. Crime is already an issue in the area.

Moreover I think the schools are going to get worse in that area as the existing housing stock ages. Apartments and condos age rapidly losing the ability to retain middle income folks. Most of what SHRA has taken over is aging apartment or condo complexes. Between the mixed income ordinance and the large number of multifamily units, Natomas isn't going to age well.

[Phil Minor]

Originally Posted by wburg

Phil Minor: I'm not talking about cable cars. The streetcars I'm talking about are powered by electric overhead, while cable cars are pulled by a traveling cable in the street. Sacramento had streetcars (first horsecars, then electric streetcars) from the 1870s until the late 1940s, and has had an LRV system for 22 years, so it's not exactly a new idea around here--heck, the Tower Bridge carried electric trains, and its predecessor the M Street Bridge carried a streetcar from Sacramento to West Sacramento.

True but SF has also already done the older street cars. It runs a bunch of older street cars along Market street and out toward Fisherman's Wharf.

Historic Streetcars

What I thought was a good idea about the F street line was that it functioned as an attraction for tourists but also served as transporation for residents of SF.

But why I like the double deck bus idea better is that its something you won't find elsewhere in Northern California. A London Style Bus painted blue is something that could really brand Sacramento better. If you saw a picture of someone in a blue double deck bus, quickly people would recognize that they must have visited Sacramento.

The entire RT fleet doesn't have to be double deck buses. But you probably want at least one route going through downtown.

[Mr. Ozo]

But why I like the double deck bus idea better is that its something you won't find elsewhere in Northern California.


Except for Davis 20 miles away.

:/

but it's not a bad idea, except the obvious: cost.