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.
No, about 2000 of the current parking spaces under Downtown Plaza will be destroyed as they are under the arena footprint itself, except for about 1000 spaces which will be the VIP parking area for players, team owners, and assorted folks willing to pay a very premium price. There is no additional new parking planned for the arena itself.
The lack of parking is also one of the things I like about the plan. Parking structures are bad for cities, and we already have a lot of excess capacity. I'm no fan of "free" parking. However, there are a few problems.
As mentioned above, the financing plan is based on public parking revenue to pay back a large loan from Goldman Sachs. The current revenue from downtown parking is about a $9 million/year profit, and the arena will in theory generate around $3-4 million in fees. The GS construction loan will require a payment of about $20 million per year. We're giving the arena team about one-third of the city's supply of downtown parking spaces, along with several lots near the arena site, but that loss of parking spaces means revenue has to go up to compensate, and most of those lots aren't that empty (the Old Sacramento and Music Circus/Memorial Auditorium lots get pretty full already.) Currently downtown parking is unrestricted after 6 PM except for around Music Circus, so I assume metered parking will be run later--probably 10 PM or midnight--in order to capture that revenue, and rates will most likely go up.
However, there are some loopholes. The term sheet specifies that there won't be any additional fees for private parking lots, which means that there may be a bonanza for private owners of parking lots--and encouraging people to open up lots that can freely charge less than city lots. Already, we are seeing new development applications for private parking lots in the central city--one on 12th Street, one in the alley between I and J at 11th, and another in Midtown at 20th and I. Theoretically state lots could be used, but there isn't a plan (so far as the public knows) to promote use of state lots, and that revenue wouldn't go to pay off the city debt either.
Doesn't anyone other than Curmudgeon and myself see a problem here? The City should control as much parking as it can for financing.
Other thoughts:
1. It's *not* free parking, it's revenue raising, and the more the better there.
2. If downtown is revitalized, parking demand will increase substantially. The more stacked parking, the better.
3. If "the Old Sacramento and Music Circus/Memorial Auditorium lots get pretty full already" where is all this excess parking capacity? In Downtown Plaza? That's going away, yes?
If industry isn't a hopeless cause for Sacramento, the Natomas arena site would also make a great spot for an industrial park.
With its excellent road access and being near the junction of two major freeways, the Natomas site would also make a great location for something involving shipping, distribution, and hauling / trucking.
If industry isn't a hopeless cause for Sacramento, the Natomas arena site would also make a great spot for an industrial park.
With its excellent road access and being near the junction of two major freeways, the Natomas site would also make a great location for something involving shipping, distribution, and hauling / trucking.
I'd agree, but it's basically government and healthcare (oh, and basketball teams, I guess) making those kinds of investments at this point. Too bad, because something that brought in some decent blue collar-ish jobs would have a hugely positive effect on that area.
Doesn't anyone other than Curmudgeon and myself see a problem here? The City should control as much parking as it can for financing.
No, I see where you're coming from--but a lot of the parking in question is inside the property the arena group just bought, and they can't build an arena without destroying a large chunk of the parking. In my mind, a better solution would be a surcharge to private parking within 1 mile of the arena, to ensure that they can't undercut city lots, and a moratorium on new private lots to avoid diverting the supply of parking. Some folks are even trying to convince folks that they won't charge for street parking after 6.
Quote:
Other thoughts:
1. It's *not* free parking, it's revenue raising, and the more the better there.
There is no such thing as "free" parking, just subsidized parking and market-rate parking. I know we don't agree on much, but I assume we're both okay with the market dictating the price of parking.
Quote:
2. If downtown is revitalized, parking demand will increase substantially. The more stacked parking, the better.
That's the nice thing about current parking policy: there is no parking minimum for construction in the central business district, which means that parking supplies in any new project are dictated by what the developer thinks they need, not arbitrary parking minimums.
Quote:
3. If "the Old Sacramento and Music Circus/Memorial Auditorium lots get pretty full already" where is all this excess parking capacity? In Downtown Plaza? That's going away, yes?
That's a good question, one that doesn't seem to have much of an answer so far. There are a couple of small lots, and some lots being given to the arena group like one at 8th & K, one at 14th & H, and two near the Crocker, but folks here assure me that the arena group would have no interest in using them for arena overflow parking, because parking lots aren't a money-maker.
Traffic congestion is a small price to pay if this arena actually helps the pathetic, dying urban core of Sacramento. The empty storefronts and homeless people everywhere isn't a great look. If we can get more people downtown and staying downtown, get more businesses going, maybe one day -- ONE DAY -- we can have a downtown that isn't sad and depressing. We should be so lucky.
What? I been downtown Sac and there is activity.. it is not homeless people everywhere really. I feel there is life down there. What big difference and how much better could the arena make the city? Natomas is bad but if all this is is a bubble, then that will burst and then KJ will be on the hot seat imo.
No, I see where you're coming from--but a lot of the parking in question is inside the property the arena group just bought, and they can't build an arena without destroying a large chunk of the parking. In my mind, a better solution would be a surcharge to private parking within 1 mile of the arena, to ensure that they can't undercut city lots, and a moratorium on new private lots to avoid diverting the supply of parking. Some folks are even trying to convince folks that they won't charge for street parking after 6.
If there would be a surcharge to the city on any private parking within 1 mile of the arena, then let the private sector build all the new stacked parking it wants! Anyone who will walk more than a mile to the arena gets a medal as far as I am concerned, and there will be people who park at the RT stations and ride RT into the arena, just as there are downtown office workers who do that now to avoid paying for parking downtown.
How much stacked parking should be built? As much as necessary that every Kings fan, or anyone else, who wants to drive downtown and is willing to pay the extra price, can do so.
What should that extra price of parking be? Whatever maximizes revenue and pays off the bonds soonest. All realists agree that this arena deal is on shaky financial ground as it is. Obviously, too low a price and not enough revenue, but also too high a price and not enough revenue either, as not enough people will then drive downtown to the arena and surrounding attractions and park.
The reality is that the Downtown Arena financing is built on a model of attracting enough drivers downtown and charging them for parking. I don't care if you like it or not; that is what the model is.
You want to build housing downtown? I am sure the people who tried to build luxury condo towers at the still fenced off holes in the block formed by 3rd/4th and L Street/Capitol Mall did too. Meanwhile, "Carless SRO units", better known as FLOPHOUSES, aren't going to provide the population with the clout to gentrify downtown. It is as simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
There is no such thing as "free" parking, just subsidized parking and market-rate parking. I know we don't agree on much, but I assume we're both okay with the market dictating the price of parking.
OK, reality check. In most of this Greater Sacramento world, in most of the real world in fact, the parking must be provided for by the commercial or industrial development, or the shoppers or workers or vendors or suppliers simply *will not* do business there. This is also true in your beloved Midtown. Those two Safeway stores would fold up and disappear without providing parking for their customers. Some small corner marts can get away without providing parking beyond what is on the street, but they are *small*, and they have enough apartment dwellers living nearby them.
Now there are places that can charge for parking. Those places are:
1. Those attractions that control all the walkable parking around them. For example, the State Fairgrounds.
2. Those areas where many attractions are concentrated in one place. Which is what they hope to achieve downtown. For type #2, parking is stacked in multi-story garages because of the price of the real estate and in order to have the concentration of attractions around said stacked parking to begin with. Obviously, "moats" of open sky parking means no concentrations of attractions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wburg
That's the nice thing about current parking policy: there is no parking minimum for construction in the central business district, which means that parking supplies in any new project are dictated by what the developer thinks they need, not arbitrary parking minimums.
Except that you can't seem to stop yourself from telling developers (see above) not to build new parking if they judge it necessary. (hint: It probably will be....)
Last edited by NickB1967; 03-27-2014 at 02:33 PM..
If there would be a surcharge to the city on any private parking within 1 mile of the arena, then let the private sector build all the new stacked parking it wants! Anyone who will walk more than a mile to the arena gets a medal as far as I am concerned, and there will be people who park at the RT stations and ride RT into the arena, just as there are downtown office workers who do that now to avoid paying for parking downtown.
How much stacked parking should be built? As much as necessary that every Kings fan, or anyone else, who wants to drive downtown and is willing to pay the extra price, can do so.
See, that's just it--there is already enough stacked parking (public and private) within half a mile of the arena to fit every Kings fan, if they all drove in by car, with only one person in each car, with room to spare. But under the current scenario, the city doesn't make a dime off people who park in private lots, and they just gave away one-third of the city's supply of parking, including most of it that is close to the arena site.
Quote:
What should that extra price of parking be? Whatever maximizes revenue and pays off the bonds soonest. All realists agree that this arena deal is on shaky financial ground as it is. Obviously, too low a price and not enough revenue, but also too high a price and not enough revenue either, as not enough people will then drive downtown to the arena and surrounding attractions and park.
We're agreeing on this--the price of parking should be driven by the free market. Currently there is no charge for parking downtown after 6 PM because the city doesn't perceive a demand. But a nighttime use like an arena justifies a dramatic increase of a good with limited supply and high demand.
Quote:
The reality is that the Downtown Arena financing is built on a model of attracting enough drivers downtown and charging them for parking. I don't care if you like it or not; that is what the model is.
Whether I like it or not ain't the issue--the question is, will the financing model as it is currently written pay off the loan to Goldman Sachs? My guess is no, not even close. It will end up eating into TOT and probably the general fund. Naysayers will be blamed for not cheering loudly enough.
Quote:
You want to build housing downtown? I am sure the people who tried to build luxury condo towers at the still fenced off holes in the block formed by 3rd/4th and L Street/Capitol Mall did too. Meanwhile, "Carless SRO units", better known as FLOPHOUSES, aren't going to provide the population with the clout to gentrify downtown. It is as simple as that.
I think you're misunderstanding here. There is no rule against people building condos and including parking, and if a developer wants to build a condo with parking for their tenants, I'm just fine with that. What has changed is that, instead of a faceless government bureaucrat deciding that their condo requires X number of parking lots based on the Official Government Equation, the developer can decide how many parking lots they want their building to have--even if that number is zero. In fact, there is a proposal already being submitted for a mid-rise residential tower at 15th and I Street that will include bike lockers for every apartment, but no parking, aimed at moderate-income folks (not "flophouses.") There are nearby parking garages where a resident who wants to park their car for rent--but the cost of that parking space has now been decoupled from the cost of the apartment. The resident can choose to pay it if they want, but a car-free urban resident (as a growing number are) can choose otherwise. This allows the developer to build the building without public subsidy--and without any requirement regarding low-income housing (since, to an extent, it is "low-income" by design.)
Quote:
OK, reality check. In most of this Greater Sacramento world, in most of the real world in fact, the parking must be provided for by the commercial or industrial development, or the shoppers or workers or vendors or suppliers simply *will not* do business there. This is also true in your beloved Midtown. Those two Safeway stores would fold up and disappear without providing parking for their customers. Some small corner marts can get away without providing parking beyond what is on the street, but they are *small*, and they have enough apartment dwellers living nearby them.
Actually, most of the businesses in the central city don't have parking lots. Some do, and that's just ducky. I don't have a problem with private developers including a parking lot in their development, as long as it isn't stupidly designed for an urban setting. For some types of businesses, like supermarkets, a parking lot is necessary, and I don't deny that. But many don't really need one. As central city housing increases, neighborhood businesses will be even less dependent on car-based traffic, reducing the need for existing parking levels, and hopefully encouraging more infill on underutilized parking lots.
What I have a problem with is the expectation of small business owners who don't build and maintain their own parking lots that the streets of the neighborhood, including the residential neighborhoods near their stores, must serve as public-subsidized parking lots for their businesses. And I also have a problem with government bureaucrats who insist that every business provide a set quantity of parking based on the idea that every customer will arrive by car, even if the private property owner thinks differently. Which is why I'm pleased by last year's changes to parking minimums in city code.
Quote:
Except that you can't seem to stop yourself from telling developers (see above) not to build new parking if they judge it necessary. (hint: It probably will be....)
I think you are under the impression that I have some sort of veto power over local developers. If so, I am unaware of it...maybe you know something I don't?
NickB, maybe you have this all wrong. What I'm talking about is the elimination and reduction of government-mandated parking minimums. I'm not talking about banning parking lots entirely in the central city. I'd like to see less, and promoting housing, walking and biking is a good way to make many of those lots redundant. A lot of today's developers think that way too, and I often express public support (to city bodies, not just on Internet forums) for those projects, even the market-rate ones, if I like them.
I actually am for completely banning surface parking lots in the grid, or even within the outter grid such as east sac, oak park, land park, and curtis park.
Forgive me if this has already been addressed ( I didn't see anything in the search forum) but I'm wondering why on earth the powers that be in Sacramento would approve a huge arena in the downtown area. Sacramento , especially the Capital Mall area , is so beautiful I just can't imagine this will be an improvement. What am I missing?
As someone who was born and raised in Sacramento, I give my opinion from the perspective of someone coming of age in Sacramento in the 1980s. For the most part, Sacramento was this large, major city; but it had an identity crisis. There was this duality that it was simultaneously a major U.S. city and a small, farming, community. Essentially, it was, and still is, one giant suburb that no matter what it does it cannot seem to shake rid of its agrarian past. I remember well when the Kings relocated to Sacramento. It was a very big deal. Having a major sports team meant that Sacramento was finally on track to becoming a "real" city. The Kings put Sacramento "on the map". Then two years later the Lite Rail debuted, and there was a general feeling that Sacramento really was changing. Of course, not much more happened for almost another 20 years outside of the Down Town Plaza project and the long awaited expansion of the Lite Rail.
Tthis was at a time when Arco Arena was figuratively out in the middle of nowhere considering that at the time Natomas was still largely undeveloped. There was very little there expect for many, many, vacant lots and open fields. The buildup of Natomas has been credited to the Arena and in my opinion the same will happen to downtown Sacto and perhaps even West Sac along the river.
So, what you are missing is the belief by many that with the moving of the Kings downtown will come a much wanted development into downtown that will give residents something to be proud of and perhaps, hopefully, become a regional economic powerhouse.
Capital Mall will not be touched.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
Funny because I wonder why the city let downtown deteriorate into a dump filled with eyesoares, vagrants and homeless people for so long. But let's complain about an Arena that will revitalize downtown, create jobs and clean it up - because building it will create so much traffic for all the people that are not going there anyway . . .Makes perfect sense.
Downtown Sacto, in particular K Street Mall, was a heckofalot worse in the 80s. When Down Town Plaza opened the area cleaned up significantly, but seems to have fallen back in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin
People like wburg and bluevo somehow think that Ranadive is going to pour $400+ million into downtown just to have the homeless, thugs, and minorities flood into downtown to scare everybody from CD away back to roseville
Unless I have missed something, wasn't it you who said this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sacite
People in Seattle call it "homefield advantage".
Perhaps this is in reference to the Seahawks and the "12th Man", but c'mon, you have to know that all sports teams from all of the major sporting leagues win more at home than they do on the road. And yes, statistically during playoffs the team that has home field advantage wins the big game more often than not. That is why it is called home field advantage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickB1967
If there would be a surcharge to the city on any private parking within 1 mile of the arena, then let the private sector build all the new stacked parking it wants! Anyone who will walk more than a mile to the arena gets a medal as far as I am concerned, and there will be people who park at the RT stations and ride RT into the arena, just as there are downtown office workers who do that now to avoid paying for parking downtown.
A mile is not that far and can be walked in roughly 20 minutes.
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.
