Globe Mills (Sacramento: apartments, leasing, lofts)

[Curmudgeon]

I think this has everything to do with the politically correct, progressive movement towards "mixed use" housing so prevalent in the Sacramento area; a good example of which is Natomas. Forcing the haves to live in close proximity to the have nots is nothing more than a recipe for urban blight. Most unfortunately, the low drags the high down rather than the other way around and freedom to choose one's neighbors becomes horribly diluted and degraded.

Having lived in Sacramento for the past 19 years (we just moved to another state), we've come to the conclusion that what little planning exists is so tied up in politics that the city and environs will continue to degrade and decay.

[wburg]

Nobody is forcing the haves to live anywhere--the haves can live wherever they want. It is the "have-nots" who are forced by economics into very limited spaces. Current low-income housing requirements call for 15% of the housing to be affordable to 40% of the population. If you are wealthy, you have all sorts of choices--if you're not, there are a few places with a waiting list.

Not every project is a boondoggle. Pensione K is also extremely-low income housing, built in uber-hip Midtown. On the other end of Midtown is St. Francis Terrace, a low-income housing project right next to Sutter's Fort. You don't hear about them because they are professionally run, and professional housing managers stop problems before they start. Mixed-income neighborhoods are certainly possible, and in many ways they are inevitable, they just have to be well-managed.

Oh, by the way, "mixed use" refers to a mix of residential and commercial uses in a single building. You're thinking of "mixed income" ordinances within neighborhoods.

[x15]

There is little evidence to suggest that mixed income neighborhoods are inevitable or even stable. Instead the evidence suggests that mixed income neighborhoods are highly transitory. Either the neighborhoods are gentrifying and higher rents drive out the poor who no longer can bid enough for the right to live in them or the neighborhoods are in decline as those with enough resources to leave escape to better neighborhoods.

The regions biggest experiment with mixed income neighborhoods was Natomas and that neighborhood seems to have declined faster and further than any other neighborhood in the region. The schools are getting worse, homes formerly occupied by owner occupants are being turned into rentals. The bay area had better success with mixed income ordinances in part because of fairly big impediments to new housing in that region. Because there is little affordable housing in that region, people were willing to act as urban pioneers and gentrified areas like, West Berkeley, Emeryville and parts of Oakland.

What there isn't a lot of evidence to support is the idea that mixed income neighborhoods are inevitable or even stable.

The problem in Sacramento is that as housing prices in the region have fallen, several of the communities have or are talking about dropping their mixed income ordinances. Rancho Cordova has dropped there ordinance and I suspect other cities in the region will do the same to attract developers or simply to be competitive with Rancho Cordova.

Given that school scores seem to drive a lot of development in the region, I see problems going forward in Natomas attracting new development even after the current building moratorium is lifted assuming the levies are recertified. Of all of the areas poised for new development, the schools in Natomas are now among the worst performing.

As you pointed out the haves can live where ever they want. But if the schools are middling to poor in Natomas, but better in Elk Grove or Placer County, the home buyers will follow the school scores.

[wburg]

Okay, before we turn yet another thread into a discussion of the merits of mixed-income neighborhoods, and specifically the merits of Natomas, a neighborhood that nobody here (myself included) will jump up to defend, I'll cede the field.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by wburg

Nobody is forcing the haves to live anywhere--the haves can live wherever they want. It is the "have-nots" who are forced by economics into very limited spaces. Current low-income housing requirements call for 15% of the housing to be affordable to 40% of the population. If you are wealthy, you have all sorts of choices--if you're not, there are a few places with a waiting list.

Not every project is a boondoggle. Pensione K is also extremely-low income housing, built in uber-hip Midtown. On the other end of Midtown is St. Francis Terrace, a low-income housing project right next to Sutter's Fort. You don't hear about them because they are professionally run, and professional housing managers stop problems before they start. Mixed-income neighborhoods are certainly possible, and in many ways they are inevitable, they just have to be well-managed.

Oh, by the way, "mixed use" refers to a mix of residential and commercial uses in a single building. You're thinking of "mixed income" ordinances within neighborhoods.

My bad for mixing terms. Do remember, please, that Pensione K was built in about 1994-95, well before downtown became "hip." My office was right next door with the ugly cowboy/cow statue.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

My bad for mixing terms. Do remember, please, that Pensione K was built in about 1994-95, well before downtown became "hip." My office was right next door with the ugly cowboy/cow statue.

Not so sure about that. I moved downtown in 1993, and it was most definitely becoming "hip" then. Heck, people were talking about Midtown becoming "hip" in the mid-1980s, I have flipped through plenty of news articles talking about Midtown in pretty much the same terms we use to describe it now, they're just talking about Club Can't Tell and Lord Beaverbrook's instead of the Park Ultra Lounge and Mulvaney's. Remember, there was a burst of historic-home renovation and condo construction in the 1980s too.

Pensione K was completed in 1996. It is a mixture of multiple levels of affordability (some low-income, some very-low-income, and some extremely low income) and considered SRO-level housing in terms of affordability. It is also a "mixed-use" building, with a retail storefront and retail uses allowed in the "garage" units on the western end. It's an older example, but professionally run, both when built and today--it is an example of how mixed-income developments SHOULD be built, and SHOULD be run. Globe Mills' failure has less to do with when it was built and more to do with how it is run.

Midtown and the central city was considerably MORE dangerous in the mid-1990s than it is now. Midtown was notorious for drug dealers on the street and crank labs in the houses, there was prostitution on J Street where Lucca is now. As a street punk in my mid-20s I was hesitant to enter parts of Alkali/Mansion Flat where I don't mind walking as a 40 year old fuddy-duddy these days.

[bliss61]

One of the fears I have here, in addition to coming out my front door and confronting an armed drug dealer, is fire. There has not been one fire drill since the buildings were occupied.

About a month ago, an alarm went off and everyone came out of the buildings. Someone stated, "isn't this a good excersize?" I said, "where is the parapalegic who lives on (blank) floor?" Everyone got quiet.

[x15]

What midtown is, is incredibly white. Its whiter than Folsom, Davis, or Elk Grove. Generally where ever there are a lot of white people. You find some white people congratulating themselves about how hip they are and where they live.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by bliss61

One of the fears I have here, in addition to coming out my front door and confronting an armed drug dealer, is fire. There has not been one fire drill since the buildings were occupied.

About a month ago, an alarm went off and everyone came out of the buildings. Someone stated, "isn't this a good excersize?" I said, "where is the parapalegic who lives on (blank) floor?" Everyone got quiet.

I have never lived in an apartment building that does fire drills; is that unusual?

Originally Posted by x15

What midtown is, is incredibly white. Its whiter than Folsom, Davis, or Elk Grove. Generally where ever there are a lot of white people. You find some white people congratulating themselves about how hip they are and where they live.

Tell you what, x15, you post a new thread about how white Midtown is and I'll explain to you why you're wrong. I think this thread has already gone too far afield.

[x15]

I do find it interesting how the white people living in white neighborhoods are so preoccupied with proclaiming their own hipness.