Urban Development Discussion Thread (Sacramento, Stockton: apartment complex, condo, credit)

[wburg]

The RT Metro Green Line will go straight through the Railyards and Township 9, which will directly connect both of those projects with downtown and the rest of the transit system. So they're covered, and the money for that has already been spent. So they don't need a streetcar line, and if the Downtown/Riverfront Streetcar line gets built it would be child's play to add streetcar operation to the Green Line LRV line (they use the same track, overhead and voltage as LRVs.)

The streetcar concept mentioned in conjunction with a Cal Expo project (as opposed to the Sacramento/West Sacramento one) wouldn't benefit Fulton Avenue or Howe Avenue--the most likely alignment would be from the Swanston light rail station (where there is a planned TOD project) to Expo and back, possibly returning via Arden by looping around Ethan Way. So it wouldn't go anywhere near Town & Country Village. That particular line is still entirely theoretical--it is a couple of steps behind the arena plan, and doesn't really exist on anyone's planning radar other than as a potential line drawn on some very long-range planning schematics.

I personally don't care where the Kings go--I don't really care about sports. It just seems like Cal Expo would be a good spot for an arena.

[NewToCA]

South Korea-based Consus Asset Management has pledged to invest more than $91 million to build the 409-room, 25-floor hotel at 8th and K streets and a six-story parking garage at 8th and L, says lead developer Bob Leach.

If all goes well, Leach's team expects to begin construction next summer on a Hilton, Marriott or Starwood hotel. The opening would be in late 2012.


Korea company backs downtown hotel project, developers say - Sacramento Business, Housing Market News | Sacramento Bee

[Majin]

I'll believe it when I see dirt flying. Either way we need more housing downtown not more hotels.

[Majin]

Wow, I just noticed Moe Mohanna is involved.

This thing is doesn't have a chance. Goodnight.

[wburg]

Okay, that answers a question that was not mentioned in the Notice of Preparation sent out by the City of Sacramento regarding this property--no specific developer or financing was mentioned.

The Bee article does not mention the city landmark building on the property: the Bel-Vue Apartments. This project would demolish the city landmark and the surrounding quarter-block.
Sacramento Press / City To Demolish Landmark "Bel-Vue" Building

[ca_north]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

A groundbreaking with speeches and a ceremonial blasting down of a wall Thursday kicked off construction of Township 9, a development expected to place 2,900 residences, offices and stores on 65 acres just north of downtown Sacramento..."This is one of the largest infill, largest mixed-use projects in the country," said Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.

That's well and good, but the root problem is non-stop population growth in a finite land area. Projections of 60 million Californians by 2040 should terrify thinking minds.

The public is disturbingly apathetic about constant crowding and the demise of living quality that goes with it. Population growth is simply too many families (globally) ignoring the need to practice birth control at a replacement level. It's still assumed that people can just do whatever they want and resources "must" appear unto them. All this talk of "going green" should include smaller families so we don't need to keep satiating more demand.

Distractions over taxes and land-use categories creates ignorance of the basic problem. Once you fill up remaining downtown quadrants with a few thousand people, future growth is either going to eat up farmland or wilderness. Neither is expendable and shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of more tax revenue and rising consumption for its own sake.

Google "Infinite Ingress" for a great L.A. Times article on this. You don't see many pieces written with that candor, but it should remain on the front page daily.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by ca_north

That's well and good, but the root problem is non-stop population growth in a finite land area. Projections of 60 million Californians by 2040 should terrify thinking minds.

The public is disturbingly apathetic about constant crowding and the demise of living quality that goes with it. Population growth is simply too many families (globally) ignoring the need to practice birth control at a replacement level. It's still assumed that people can just do whatever they want and resources "must" appear unto them. All this talk of "going green" should include smaller families so we don't need to keep satiating more demand.

Distractions over taxes and land-use categories creates ignorance of the basic problem. Once you fill up remaining downtown quadrants with a few thousand people, future growth is either going to eat up farmland or wilderness. Neither is expendable and shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of more tax revenue and rising consumption for its own sake.

Google "Infinite Ingress" for a great L.A. Times article on this. You don't see many pieces written with that candor, but it should remain on the front page daily.

Maybe, but I have some doubts about the population projections based upon recent economic difficulties. While I have little doubt that California, and Sacramento, will continue to grow, I suspect the growth rate will be substantially less than projected a couple of years ago.

Managing growth is a different story, and we can have a massive discussion about the ideas associated with smart growth.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by ca_north

That's well and good, but the root problem is non-stop population growth in a finite land area. Projections of 60 million Californians by 2040 should terrify thinking minds.

The public is disturbingly apathetic about constant crowding and the demise of living quality that goes with it. Population growth is simply too many families (globally) ignoring the need to practice birth control at a replacement level. It's still assumed that people can just do whatever they want and resources "must" appear unto them. All this talk of "going green" should include smaller families so we don't need to keep satiating more demand.

Distractions over taxes and land-use categories creates ignorance of the basic problem. Once you fill up remaining downtown quadrants with a few thousand people, future growth is either going to eat up farmland or wilderness. Neither is expendable and shouldn't be sacrificed for the sake of more tax revenue and rising consumption for its own sake.

Google "Infinite Ingress" for a great L.A. Times article on this. You don't see many pieces written with that candor, but it should remain on the front page daily.

I don't think so. We have plenty of land. 60 million people in California is no problem. The land used by Sacramento, as is, could easily support 10 million no problem. Of course every square inch of land would have to look like Manhattan.

[NewToCA]

Apparently the budget agreement has caused some funding questions concerning our large downtown projects:

Some of Sacramento’s largest projects, such as The Railyards and Township 9, rely on tax-increment financing, a method that redirects property taxes in certain geographic areas for use as redevelopment funds. Officials say the agency’s ability to use those funds is now “seriously impaired.” Sacramento often uses redevelopment funds as the “local match” when receiving state bond funds, so the ability to claim that money also is in question.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/othercities/sacramento/stories/2009/08/03/story5.html?b=1249272000^1870255&s=industry&i=econ omic_snapshot

[NewToCA]

Sacramento has long waited for the owners of the downtown mall to pump new life into the struggling center...By some estimates, Westfield won’t be able to get rolling with its revitalization of the downtown mall until at least 2011, when forecasters predict that the retail climate will improve...“They either need to invest in the center themselves or sell it to someone who will,” City Councilman Steve Cohn said. He’s not convinced Westfield will invest in the mall even when the economy improves.

http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/othercities/sacramento/stories/2009/08/03/focus2.html?b=1249272000^1869685&s=industry&i=reta iling_restaurants