Urban Development Discussion Thread (Sacramento, Elk Grove: cul-de-sac, 2009, lofts)

[rose2009]

Hi, Thanks a lot

simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France - Credit immobilier de France, simulation credit immobilier. Résultat mitigé pour le crédit immobilier de France.simulation taux banque credit immobilier de France

[NewToCA]

Looks like we are finally getting some movement here, I was concerned that the project was going to turn into nothing but a pile of dirt:

Stalled for weeks for lack of funds, the downtown Sacramento railyards development project is expected to resume this month with construction of a bridge at Fifth Street.

Railyard developer Thomas Enterprises last week signed final agreements with state housing and community development officials to receive $47 million in state infrastructure bonds over the next few years...the company hopes to build Fifth Street on a three-lane bridge north over the railroad tracks into the railyards by 2011. That street will hook up with the development's main street, an east-west road called Railyards Boulevard.

Sacramento railyards redevelopment to resume - Latest News - sacbee.com

[sacramento916]

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.

But that's exactly the point.

Because California's population is continuing to grow, we need more sustainable models of development than to simply build McMansion sprawls throughout our region.

The Railyards project and the general revitalization of our neglected downtown core is a perfect example of promoting sustainable and smart growth. it is recycling what we already have and concentrating urban populations in density, rather than spreading them out and conquering farm land or wilderness.

Also, I think that by renewing Sacramento's downtown, it will give this city a lot more character and would also create a far more vibrant cultural scene, something that this city desperately needs.

Sacramento's downtown is plain horrifying. It is neglected, abandoned and in many places resembles crumbling Detroit. If anything is certain, it is vital that the Sacramento region as a whole need to support the development of a revitalized, prosperous and dense urban core that will act as the business and cultural anchor of our region.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by sacramento916

in many places resembles crumbling Detroit.

Wouldn't quite take it that far

[wburg]

Yeah, neither would I--other than a few blocks of the K Street Mall, which is far from the whole of downtown, I don't see that at all. Comparing it to Detroit is pretty laughable--in Detroit houses sell for a few thousand dollars because whole neighborhoods are vacated. In downtown Sacramento, fixers on 1/13 acre lots still run about $250,000. Calling downtown as a whole neglected and abandoned is a gross overstatement.

The central city can use some infill to fill in the gaps and meet the demand for people who want to live downtown, but in the long run there will be better targets for infill: strip malls along the suburban corridors, the decayed hulks of cheap late 20th century tract housing, vacant big-box stores, and all those damn parking lots.

[bigdave01]

Do strip malls, and tract housing often get redeveloped? I'm just really curious, has that happened in other cities? Have they replaced old run down suburban areas and built more urban type things? That would be really awesome.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by bigdave01

Do strip malls, and tract housing often get redeveloped? I'm just really curious, has that happened in other cities? Have they replaced old run down suburban areas and built more urban type things? That would be really awesome.

I have seen extensive redevelopments involving strip shopping centers in places like Columbus, Cleveland, Washington DC, Kansas City, Philly and Boston. My experience is that it seems to happen about every 15-20 years, usually with some swapping of tenants to retarget evolving markets.

A couple of good example I saw a few years ago were the large Graceland and Lane Avenue Shopping Centers in Columbus, Ohio:

Going to Graceland - Business First of Columbus:

Lane Ave. makeover to include 'village' shops, new retailers - Business First of Columbus:


The results were impressive, to say the least. Both went from being pretty much dead to quite lively and attractive. As more folks became regular visitors to both centers, expansions into out parcels made them even more substantial.

Found some pictures/sites that show the older Graceland Center and new Lane Avenue Center, and ongoing efforts in modernization and expansion:

http://www.tallgeorge.com/graceland2...lection=Target


http://travel.webshots.com/photo/219...10108649YMOdTR


As far as tract housing redevelopment, I haven't personally seen organized efforts in that area. I would think due to property owner rights, this would be a bit difficult to pull off. About the closest thing I've seen to that sort of effort would be a strengthening of housing codes, and then ensuring all residences in that area met the codes.

[cityx]

[quote=sacramento916;10793672]

Sacramento's downtown is plain horrifying. It is neglected, abandoned and in many places resembles crumbling Detroit.

At least it's not as bad dowtown Stockton.

[bigdave01]

Those are nice, but they are still strip malls. Its not like they turned the strip mall into a more urban development.

[wburg]

Knocking down single-family homes to build multi-story apartments or condos or offices has been happening in downtowns for a long time. If you look at downtown/midtown Sacramento, it happened all over: nearly every 1950s or newer apartment complex took the place of an older single-family residence. Capitol Mall and the O Street state office complex, and Interstate 5, used to be a residential/commercial mixed-use neighborhood. It's just not quite the strip malls' turn yet.