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.
The density is higher in Natomas than in other suburban developments
Do you have numbers to prove that? (North) Natomas is looks like a slighly newer version of elk grove with more apartments. But it still looks like maybe 25% of Natomas is still undeveloped and most of the undeveloped areas are likely commerical areas so that won't add to the density.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Minor
My understanding is that when built out Natomas will have densities comparable or even higher than existing neighborhoods like East Sac, or Curtis Park.
Bull.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Minor
In that sense Natomas achieved what was set out for it. In that sense its smart growth.
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.
I'm quite familiar with the Market Street streetcars in San Francisco--but San Francisco also uses modern streetcars and LRVs. The Sacramento/West Sacramento plan is not for historic streetcars--it is for modern streetcars. There are actually a lot of cities that use streetcars these days--San Francisco doesn't hold a copyright on them or anything. Look at examples in Portland, or Seattle (their South Lake Union system) or even Little Rock, Arkansas--dozens of cities are either operating, building or planning streetcar lines, including a lot of cities like Sacramento that were built around streetcars in the first place (pretty much any city that was around from the late 19th-early 20th century.) Streetcars are practical transportation, and tourists like them even if they aren't historic. They offer a smoother ride than buses, and their fixed routes spurs private investment and denser growth in ways that buses can't.
I encourage you to check out the Overhead Wire blog: The Overhead Wire
Trust me when I say that a streetcar line in Sacramento isn't just "copying" San Francisco but rather a return to a good idea we abandoned in favor of government-subsidized freeways and suburban sprawl. Double-decker buses are cute but they're basically a cheesy novelty, and as has been pointed out, Davis already has them. Streetcars are real transit, would work better in places like the K Street Mall (as streetcars worked well on K Street back when it was Sacramento's main street) and is cheaper than LRVs.
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.
All it takes is money, vision, and commitment. The Lower Downtown area (specifically Larimer Square) is a big hit in terms of night life in Denver. The revitalization of LoDo, as it's called, has been a major success from what I've heard. And it's pretty obvious. Tons of people walking around at night and a pretty good crowd at that. We love going there for dinner or drinks.
The 16th Street Mall has probably benefited a great deal from LoDo's success. It's not as busy at night compared to Larimer Square, but the spill-over traffic is significant. It's all pretty close together, making it easy to walk from one area to the other.
I wanted to also touch on the fact that the mall does have some nearby competition. About 3-5 miles south is the ultra ritzy mall in Denver (Cherry Creek Mall), which has all the high end stores - think Valley Fair in San Jose. Most people shop there instead of the 16th Street Mall. Yet, because of all the surrounding stores/restaurants/shops/sports bars/etc, the 16th St. Mall area seems to be more of a destination than Cherry Creek - probably because it's got a downtown vibe to it as well, where Cherry Creek is located in the middle of a high-end suburb neighborbood.
I think what also helps the area is the proximity of all the major sports venues - the baseball park and basketball/hockey arena is walking distance to downtown, which makes a huge difference. All of that "after game" crowd tends to hang out and take advantage of the scene downtown. It's too bad Sacramento isn't more of a sports town, as that's a big part of what has helped Denver revitalize its downtown areas. They used the Rockies ballpark as one of the starting point to rebuilding Lower Downtown. It sounds like Sacramento needs something to build around - a foundation or anchor.
I think what also helps the area is the proximity of all the major sports venues - the baseball park and basketball/hockey arena is walking distance to downtown, which makes a huge difference. All of that "after game" crowd tends to hang out and take advantage of the scene downtown. It's too bad Sacramento isn't more of a sports town, as that's a big part of what has helped Denver revitalize its downtown areas. They used the Rockies ballpark as one of the starting point to rebuilding Lower Downtown. It sounds like Sacramento needs something to build around - a foundation or anchor.
I've noticed that in Denver too, especially with the way it helps LoDo before the games. I think 16th may get more daytime pedestrian action, with the evenings shifting over towards LoDo.
I've seen something similar happen in my former hometown, Columbus, Ohio. They have an area somewhat similar to 16th St in Denver, and K St in Sacramento, called the "Short North District". Unlike K St and 16th, it has vehicles in the area, however it is a very specific and distinctive area, with funding support from local businesses.
Like Denver's LoDo, Columbus developed something beginning about a dozen years ago called the Arena District, which is somewhat filled with new apartments, bars and restaurants. It is adjacent to the Short North District, and the "pivot point" for attracting continuing action is sports. Columbus built Nationwide Arena just to the south of the Short North, and linked it to what became the Arena District. Subsequently, the AAA baseball club, the Columbus Clippers, built a stadium in the area, and now you have the synergism of ice hockey fans in the winter and baseball fans in the summer populating the bars and restaurants of both the Arena District and Short North.
Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening in Sacramento. They have the AAA Rivercats located across the river in West Sacramento, however the area is a separate city and county from downtown Sacramento. It seems as though building the new Kings arena in the same area, and sharing the parking lot with the Rivercats would be a good idea, especially since their seasons don't conflict (unless the Kings ever make the playoff's). However, the current proposal is to build the Kings an arena on the opposite side of the city, about five miles from the heart of downtown. As a result, K St gets no spillover from the Rivercats today, and wouldn't benefit from the Kings arena in the future.
Folks, looking at the evolving discussion, and considering how many urban projects are somewhat linked, I decided to rename the thread.
Also, I placed it as a "sticky", to encourage more participation in the discussion. This thread is about what is proposed or underway in the central Sacramento area, not the suburbs.
Unfortunately, I don't see this ever happening in Sacramento. They have the AAA Rivercats located across the river in West Sacramento, however the area is a separate city and county from downtown Sacramento. It seems as though building the new Kings arena in the same area, and sharing the parking lot with the Rivercats would be a good idea, especially since their seasons don't conflict (unless the Kings ever make the playoff's). However, the current proposal is to build the Kings an arena on the opposite side of the city, about five miles from the heart of downtown. As a result, K St gets no spillover from the Rivercats today, and wouldn't benefit from the Kings arena in the future.
I wouldn't rule it out. Sacramento's situation is kind of unique: downtown is nestled right up against the very western edge of the city, with suburban development traditionally going north, south and east. The Riverfront Streetcar program is a collaborative project between Sacramento and West Sacramento (the city across the river) and is explicitly designed to make it easier to get from West Sac to downtown/midtown Sacramento and vice versa. Service to the Rivercats stadium is very much a part of that. Old Sacramento absolutely gets some spillover from Rivercats games (the pedestrian walkways on the Tower Bridge were tripled in size to handle the extra ped traffic walking from downtown Sacramento to Raley Field) since there are no restaurants or other post-game places to go immediately around Raley Field. A streetcar would help post-game revelers more easily get into downtown Sacramento--or downtown West Sacramento.
As to the proposed Kings arena at Cal Expo, that area isn't exactly greenfield: in many ways, the area near Cal Expo is near Arden Fair Mall and many neighborhoods on the northern end of the city. It would also be more convenient for people in the bigger eastern suburbs (Citrus Heights, Roseville, Folsom, Rancho Cordova) and the unincorporated areas in between (Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Arden/Arcade.) That means easier access to a potential market twice the size of Sacramento's population--but still convenient from most of Sacramento. There is even talk of putting a streetcar loop in to connect it to the Light Rail line. Sacramento is a geographically big place, and there is room to promote development in more places than just the central city and its immediate environs. In some ways, promoting denser development to the east is more in line with serving the whole region than focusing all the energy on downtown, which is on the very western edge of the city.
Do you have numbers to prove that? (North) Natomas is looks like a slighly newer version of elk grove with more apartments. But it still looks like maybe 25% of Natomas is still undeveloped and most of the undeveloped areas are likely commerical areas so that won't add to the density.
Bull.
Mission Accomplished
Is the condescension, sarcasm and vulgarity really necessary? I prefer more civil discussion.
Look at the plans. The key is the the large amount of apartments and condos. Apartments and condos pack a lot of people into a very small footprint. N. Natomas has a lot more of them.
Compare the plans. Most of East Sac is single family homes. Very little of it is either medium or high density residential.
Now compare it with N. Natomas. Natomas has a lot more high density and medium density residential. The high density residential has a target density of 22 dwelling units an acre. The medium density residential has a target density of 12 dwelling units and acre. The single family homes have a target density of 7 dwelling units an acre.
My hunch is that under SB 375 and the Sacramento Blueprint, I think this region is pretty much obligated going forward to build a lot more dense sprawl. I see nothing in SB 375 or in the Sac Blueprint preventing the construction of another N. Natomas style development and a lot to suggest that N. Natomas style development is probably the best way of complying with both the Sac Blueprint and SB 375. Remember under ther Regional Housing Needs Assessment process, growth is mandated in the urban fringe in areas like Lincoln and Elk Grove.
While Rancho Cordova needs to add housing under the RHNA, nothing in the blueprint prevents it from continuing to build out Anatolia instead of building densely along its light rail lines.
If you look at the goals of SB 375, if your goal is to get more people to use transit. In Los Angeles County about 7% percent of the population use transit to get to work vs the 2.9% that use transit in Sacramento County right now. In that sense, I think the legislation will probably be hailed as a success.
But if your goal is to get people out of their cars. The 72.3% driving alone in LA County isn't significantly better than the 75.2% driving alone in Sacramento County.
When all is said and done, I suspect that SB 375 and the Sac regional blueprint will need to be significantly revisited if the goal is to dramatically reduce vehicle miles travelled (vmt).
I wouldn't rule it out. Sacramento's situation is kind of unique: downtown is nestled right up against the very western edge of the city, with suburban development traditionally going north, south and east. The Riverfront Streetcar program is a collaborative project between Sacramento and West Sacramento (the city across the river) and is explicitly designed to make it easier to get from West Sac to downtown/midtown Sacramento and vice versa. Service to the Rivercats stadium is very much a part of that. Old Sacramento absolutely gets some spillover from Rivercats games (the pedestrian walkways on the Tower Bridge were tripled in size to handle the extra ped traffic walking from downtown Sacramento to Raley Field) since there are no restaurants or other post-game places to go immediately around Raley Field. A streetcar would help post-game revelers more easily get into downtown Sacramento--or downtown West Sacramento.
As to the proposed Kings arena at Cal Expo, that area isn't exactly greenfield: in many ways, the area near Cal Expo is near Arden Fair Mall and many neighborhoods on the northern end of the city. It would also be more convenient for people in the bigger eastern suburbs (Citrus Heights, Roseville, Folsom, Rancho Cordova) and the unincorporated areas in between (Carmichael, Fair Oaks, Arden/Arcade.) That means easier access to a potential market twice the size of Sacramento's population--but still convenient from most of Sacramento. There is even talk of putting a streetcar loop in to connect it to the Light Rail line. Sacramento is a geographically big place, and there is room to promote development in more places than just the central city and its immediate environs. In some ways, promoting denser development to the east is more in line with serving the whole region than focusing all the energy on downtown, which is on the very western edge of the city.
Is the Cal Expo plan actually viable? It seems to me that the area already has a lot of vacant retail space, the sites of both former Circuit Cities are vacant, the top half of the K Street Mall is mostly vacant, the sites of Tower Records and Books near Watt and El Camino are vacant. The Gottshalks in Country Club is going to be vacant and a lot that mall is vacant. The site of the former Compusa on Alta Arden is vacant as is the Marconi Grill across the street. The site of the former Savings Center on Watt Avenue is vacant. As the auto dealerships on Fulton Avenue flea for automalls or just die, some thing needs to go in there.
My hunch is that the area has too much retail already. When there is this much empty inventory around, how much can developers get for additional inventory? Also look at the demographics of those neighborhoods. The neighborhoods around Town and Country Village and Arden Fair are continuing to deteriorate. The new poorer residents living there don't have the income to support the existing retail. How are they going to support new retail next to a future Kings arena? In short where are the customers for this retail?
Most of the areas you mention (Watt Avenue, Alta Arden, Fulton Avenue, Town & Country Village, Country Club) aren't in the Sacramento city limits, they are in the unincorporated county, so the city of Sacramento doesn't have much say about what goes there. I don't think the Cal Expo plan is particularly viable, nor do I think it is a particularly good plan--I don't like the idea of selling off the fairgrounds for another development project, nor do I think we should lose that giant chunk of fairgrounds. But I think the Cal Expo area is a pretty good place to put an arena--ideally one visible from both the Business 80 highway and the Amtrak/UP main line (and, if it ever arrives, the HSR orientation along the Elvas wye.) My dream location would be along the big grassy field of overflow parking on Expo nearest the freeway.
An arena there would have the benefit of good freeway access, potentially far better access to public transportation (the aforementioned streetcar loop), and proximity to lots of post-game recreation/dining options along Arden--which, as you have mentioned, are having a rough patch right now. They would almost certainly consider an arena in their backyard a shot in the arm that they definitely need.
I suspect this region isn't going to be able to keep the Kings. So far none of the plans proposed actually seem viable. The plan involving the smallest public subsidy probably involves being built in Natomas at the site of the existing arena. The plan that probably has the most spill over benefits to justify a subsidy would be in the Railyards. But I have yet to see a viable funding source for any subsidy let alone one of the scale required to make it happen downtown.
If the city of Sacramento is going to subsidize street cars it probably should subsidize street cars in areas where the benefits are going to be captured by residents of the city of Sacramento (meaning Sacramento Railyard). Politically are the residents of the city of Sacramento going to be willing to subsidize a streetcar when the benefits are going to be felt in the unincorporated parts of the county? (Town and Country Village). The problem the county is already having in trying to turnaround Fulton Avenue is that county residents further afar don't want to pay subsidies to turn around a part of the county they don't live in. If you live in Antelope or Fair Oaks why vote to raise taxes to subsidize Fulton Avenue or Howe Avenues?
A big part of the reason incorporating Arden Arcade hasn't worked is that area no longer has the sales tax basis to justify it. It can't fund the required payments to the county and have anything left over to fund city services. Car sales on Fulton Avenue are down (and are to be shared with the City of Sacramento as an inducement to discourage them from building their own automall), retail sales at the Country Club Center and Plaza malls aren't what they were 25 years ago. The region also lacks new greenfield development to help fund such a city. Under prop 13 property taxes fail to keep up with inflation, so the fact that this area has lots of established neighborhoods with lots of long term residents is probably a negative.
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.
