April 29, 2005
Manhattan, the Pearl, and Penis Envy
Tags: sacramentoCarl posts about another new residential skyscraper planned for downtown Sacramento. The Aura (gak) will join The Towers on Capital Mall as they vye for position on Sacramento’s skyline. Both offer luxury condos and a host of amenities on-site including terrific views of the surrounding flat countryside which, if more developers have their way, will morph into terrific views into other people’s luxury condos.
The goal of increasing housing density in Sacramento is laudable if not downright critical. Without housing in the city’s core, the long-wished for revitalization of downtown will never happen. Without higher densities, more people will have to live farther away to commute, increasing pollution and taking much needed farmland and important habitat out of service.
But is this the right kind of development for Sacramento? Sacramento is still a quiet cow town at heart. Although home to a fair number of tragically hip types, it does not have the critical mass of youthful hipsters that one finds in San Francisco or Seattle, or even in Portland. What I’m talking about, generally, are highly educated 20 or 30 something urban professionals who are unmarried, childless, or both, and who have a lot of disposable income and/or family money. Exactly the kind of people who leave Sacramento because it is a quiet cow town.
While not the only demographic for condo living (there’s also seniors), in general these folks start families and start pining for the American dream of a detached home with a yard, a dog, and good schools. This won’t apply to everyone. Since the explosion of construction in Portland’s Pearl District, the Oregonian has run stories on people trying to raise families in their condos. It can be done, and for all its faults, the Pearl does begin to provide a sense of community (albeit an expensive one).
But this isn’t the Pearl. It’s Manhattan. These towers represent exclusivity. They function like gated communities in the middle of downtown. Every morning the doormen will do a sweep of the perimeter to make sure that there are no homeless people inside the buffer zone or sleeping where a Mercedes coming out of the parking lot might run them over. The towers will keep people in. If you want your community revitalized, you have to get people out into the community. If people who live downtown say “I live downtown,” you have succeeded. If they say “I live at The Aura,” you have failed to create community.
Sacramento needs to be thinking higher density, but it needs to be thinking smaller. Although I have plenty of negative to say about the loft developments (mainly this: have you noticed that all of the new residential developments in downtown Sacramento are for “luxury” living?), these are better models. They don’t create insulated communities. Get enough of them together, put some parks around them, maybe a restaurant and the inevitable Starbucks, art gallery, and “if you have to ask you can’t afford it” furniture store, and you might just improve Sacramento’s livability. At the expense of some gentrification, but still…
The problem is in the planning. Portland had a vast contiguous area of decrepit industrial buildings on which to build its Pearl, anchored on one end by the vacant Weinhard’s Brewery and Powell’s Books, and ten blocks away on the other by the Willamette River. Sacramento, in general, has spots of empty land here and there where developers are just plopping down whatever suits their fancy. These developments, while interesting and good in and of themselves, are not connected.
Will these towers actually get built? Maybe. Both seem to depend on selling a certain number of the condos before construction can start. We will see soon enough if there really is a market for such “luxury living.” I’m certainly intrigued even as I wish they had thought a little smaller. Looking at the floor plans, the condos are large enough (another complaint I have with lofts is that they are often small - under 1000 square feet - if they are anything near affordable) and provide adequate living environments. But anything big enough for our needs is also out of our price range. And wouldn’t a garden be nice?
RSS Feed
Very nicely put. I have a feeling that there isn’t a market for 150 stories of condo towers in Downtown Sacramento. As you said, we have a dire shortage of the tragically hip, and I don’t see empty nesters from Granite Bay or El Dorado Hills moving downtown (though I wouldn’t be surprised to see 50-somethings currently living in McKinley/Land/Curtis park moving into condos.)
The Aura really is pretty ugly. As is the case with most things design or fashion-related, it’s more about who designed it than the design itself.
April 29, 2005 @ 11:05 pm
I spent a little time on the website (which I don’t recommend because the music just keeps building and adding layers until it becomes a discordant cacophony of funky white jazz). Apparently, Liebskind’s design for the Aura bears a striking resemblance to his failed design for the new World Trade Center in NY.
April 29, 2005 @ 11:19 pm
The Web site is a nightmare. I’m excited about these new towers, though. No tower is an island, and if 50 floors of people start living downtown, some of them will go to downtown plaza or shopping on J Street (particularly around 24-26th Street!)…maybe 1 or 2 will even wander onto K Street Mall! Aside from the environmental benefits of people living AND working downtown, I’m excited about the possibility of Sacramento getting bigger and starting to have some things to do…let’s start with having more than one art museum! My only experiece with urban planning comes from playing a lot of Sim City, but it seems logical that more people downtown would create more demand for things to do.
Maybe it’s because I’m a newcomer to Sac, but I would love for this town to be come more manhattanized and for traffic downtown to become so bad that people have no choice but to use public transportation, use their legs, work at home, or take a cab (ha ha). My neighbors in east sac would kill me if they heard me say that.
If we were moving to Sacramento and these towers existed, we’d move into them. Does that make me tragically hip?
May 03, 2005 @ 4:14 pm
I admit, if the towers existed and were affordable, we’d certainly consider it. I do agree that the towers will help with downtown redevelopment, but not as much as more general high-density development. I think I have a vicerally negative reaction to downtown becoming “luxury.” Rich people aren’t the only ones who drive.
May 03, 2005 @ 8:01 pm
> Rich people aren’t the only ones who drive.
WELL, with gas prices like these, maybe that’s not so true anymore! just kidding. I thought I’d get in the manditory high gas prices comment before anyone else did.
May 04, 2005 @ 8:16 am
Yeah, gas prices are pushing people in to poverty. Or at least cutting into their latte budgets.
May 04, 2005 @ 11:44 am
I think your argument is terribly short-sighted. It also forces you into a hole from which you can’t escape. On one hand, you claim Sac could never resemble anything like NYC. Yet on the other hand, you argue against two projects that would make Sac much more urban and NY-esque.
Furthermore, you say that young well-to-do’s leave Sacramento. This is true. Yet projects of this magnitude are likely to draw those same hipsters back to town…especially considering thesurrounding retail rejuvenation that will likely occur.
I believe that you, like too many others in the area, have a severe shortage of civic pride. If you believe your city to be second-class, then second-class is what your city will be.
May 05, 2005 @ 11:15 am
I won’t speak for John, but I am not opposed to these condo towers. I’d like to see them modified to some degree, but I wouldn’t reject them outright because they’re bigger than what I see as the ideal. I suspect that we won’t see all 150 stories built. Some of these projects will scale down and others will fall off, which would be fine.
>If we were moving to Sacramento and these towers existed, we’d move into them. Does that make me tragically hip?
If we didn’t have the dog, I’d live in a downtown condo too. So if you’re tragically hip, so am I.
May 05, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
Chad, I appreciate your comments, but I don’t think you’ve gotten the gist of my argument. First, your “one hand/other hand” statement is entirely consistent. Both hands know what they are doing.
Second, my last paragraph indicates that I am not straight-out opposed to these towers, only ambivalent. I’m concerned because of the “exclusive” nature of tower developments, but, as you can see, I am “intrigued” and would even consider buying in to such a development. I am also simply wondering aloud if the market can stand such developments or, as Carl suggests, if Sacramento would be better served by high-density developments on a somewhat smaller scale.
Finally, I grew up in Sacramento (in Midtown, not the ‘burbs) and, like many, couldn’t wait to leave. I lived in Portland, Oregon for fifteen years but always felt homesick. I made a conscious decision to return, because I love it here (earning no end of derision from many of my childhood friends). Don’t accuse me of not having civic pride just because I don’t want Sacramento to be like Manhattan (or San Francisco, for that matter). It is in fact my civic pride that makes me wonder about the nature of development in this town.
It may surprise you to know that I actually agree with much of what you say in this post.
May 05, 2005 @ 2:57 pm
The real crux of the downtown Sacramento high-rise condominium issue is the need to continue providing a diversity of housing types from which people can choose. Downtown has its share of single-occupant residential hotels (located in the heart of downtown on and near K and L Streets which is a significant detriment to redevelopment). There are single-family residences and plenty of apartments. However, there is a distinct lack of high-density, for purchase, units. The proposed high-rise condominiums will provide a housing type that currently does not exist downtown. We all know about the benefits of more residents living downtown (better air quality, a critical mass of residents with discretionary income that will draw support amenities like restaurants, entertainment venues, and cultural facilities). Sacramento will never become a “San Francisco” or “Manhattan”. We are what we are - a relatively affordable medium-sized community that is alluring to people who want to living in a city where people still smile and say “hi” as they pass each other on the street.
May 11, 2005 @ 7:21 am
My partner and I would love to live downtown. We’re boomers who have no kids and are tired of maintaining a home. We can lock a condo and leave it for weeks or months at a time. We’re specifically applying for the Towers because it’s walking distance from almost everything we want. Among other things:
·It’s adjacent to the river where the view will never be obstructed,
·Across from the mall where we can get anything of a textile nature we need,
·Two blocks down from the Crocker museum and Crocker Park,
·Across from the baseball park,
·Five blocks from the Crest with it’s funky movies and music,
·Six blocks to Capitol Park, and
·Seven blocks to the Community Center;
It will be a community in itself, but it will also contribute to the feeling of sharing a downtown community. As for your arguments that we’re a “wanna be hip ” cow town, I guess you haven’t visited downtown in a while. Besides all of the above “hip” characteristics, we have a high density of many really incredible restaurants now, good music venues, and a waterfront that (I think) is the best thing about the city.
The people I’ve spoken with who are willing to pay a premium price for a condo in Sacramento feel something of a mission to contribute to the downtown community (and economy). We want to it grow into a community where more folks feel like they’re coming home when they arrive here. We already feel that way but, until now, we haven’t seen anything we wanted to buy in to. These condos are an exciting development for Sacramento and we’re looking forward to moving in.
May 11, 2005 @ 8:05 am
We want to it grow into a community where more folks feel like they’re coming home when they arrive here. Amen. So do I, and I don’t think I’ve said anything to contradict that.
I’m not opposed to the towers in general, and, as my last paragraph states, would consider living in one if I could afford it. I firmly believe this city should grow up instead of out. However, I’m worried that the market can’t sustain that much luxury condo living, and I continue to be concerned about the development of luxury living while ignoring the need for housing for people of more modest means. I sincerely hope the developers and the city prove me wrong.
I’m also concerned that the condo population will still be largely transient, either up and comers who haven’t started families yet, or seniors who won’t be around forever. Of course, this won’t be entirely true, and hopefully enough people will take up more or less permanent residence and create the community we both want.
Finally, I’ve been loving the personal attacks on my civic pride. You said: I guess you haven’t visited downtown in a while. Sigh. This is a problem with Sacramento. Everyone assumes everyone else is from the ‘burbs (because it is still largely true). I rent in East Sac and I work downtown. I walk to work. That’s right, I walk. I spend a lot of time downtown, even on weekends.
May 11, 2005 @ 8:46 am
Dave, thanks for your comments. I’m sorry they got moderated - my anti-comment-spam software is letting me down.
May 11, 2005 @ 8:50 am
Why is it that good in-fill, space-saving, UGB (ha!) protecting living is always “luxury living”? I’d live downtown if I could afford it. Walk to work across the river, shop at the proposed Nugget Market on L, pay too much for a movie at Century. I’d even give up my dream of a garden for a balcony and few pots.
But I can’t afford it, not without going into debt. And I couldn’t afford it when I lived in Portland.
May 12, 2005 @ 7:08 pm
I just wanted to say a few quick things, Kst and downtown are not Portlands pearl district, sorry. At least the archetecture there attempts to blend in to the exsisting neighborhood. Yes, it is expensive to live there and highly gentrified but the shock of that will be nothing compared to the bright shiny hideous towers they have planned.
And as far as downtowns color and hipness, soon the people who bring art and music to downtown as well as sell you your tickets at the crest and bus your table at zocolo will be priced completely out of downtown.
May 13, 2005 @ 11:22 am
[...] lowed to be half-assed about anything. This has really hit home on my recent post, “Manhattan, the Pearl, and Penis Envy,” not only via the comme [...]
May 14, 2005 @ 7:03 am
[...] can’t help but feel just a tad smug. Two years ago I wrote a post here that questioned whether Sacramento’s housing market could support high-rise luxury condo [...]
June 12, 2007 @ 10:07 pm
Hi, my sites:cf73be
November 28, 2007 @ 6:47 am