March 28, 2007
Post midlife midtown? Downtown geezertown?
Tags: housing, midtown, povertyridge, sacramentoI give up. The whole concept of creating housing for first time homebuyers or middle class families that isn’t in Yuba City or some godforsaken piece of dry grassland off of Highway 50, that is close-in and urban rather than far out and grossly suburban, seems lost. Or rather, I am a voice crying in a wilderness, being drowned out by all the bulldozers.
I had high hopes for the Tapestri Square development happening on 21st and T Street. I knew it wasn’t going to be affordable. There was never any hope of that. But I had hoped that they were going to demonstrate how to build higher density single-family living and maybe, just maybe, attract a cross section of the somewhat more affluent parts of our community. Instead, they’re targeting a specific audience: trend-following former yuppie empty-nesters who wish Sacramento was really someplace else.
The look, feel, and publicity of the development play this out.
First, the look. Tapestri Square is located in Poverty Ridge (or as I like to call it, “greater Midtown”), home to some majestic homes, more modest homes, and interesting architecture. There is no reason why they couldn’t try to make the development fit in a little more. Instead, they’re importing the “brownstone” concept to what the publicity calls, rightly, “one of Sacramento’s most desirable neighborhoods.” “Brownstones,” the tour goes, “are found in some of the more historically affluent neighborhoods in the country.” The subtext? Live here, and you’ll look wealthy too.
John Packowski, marketing principal of PHA Architects, said the idea for the buildings’ look evolved as he walked past brownstones on the Upper West Side of New York City and later in Chicago. [Sacramento Bee]
I’ve railed before on people who want Sacramento to be New York. Guess what? It’s never going to happen. We can get better restaurants, more nightlife, a vibrant downtown, but we will never be New York. We will always be Sacramento and we should always be proud of that.
[I have nothing against the brownstone concept and ultimately they might fit the neighborhood better than I think. But I hate the whole "brownstones are affluent" vibe.]
The feel. Looking at the floor plans, it is obvious they aren’t targeting families. There are three plans, a two-bed, two-bath and two three-bed two and a half baths. The two-bed, two-bath is a decent sized and relatively comfortable looking plan, and the only one I would consider “family friendly.” And this is why. If you look at the two three/two plans (the Highland and the Madison), you’ll notice something right away: there is only one bedroom on the upper floor. It is a large, dare I say “luxurious” bedroom. One floor plan has an upstairs den, which they call a “private retreat.” Not a bedroom. Where are the other two bedrooms? Not on the main floor with the living room, dining room, and kitchen. Nope, they’re on the ground floor with the garage. The owners have an entire floor between them and their guests or their good-for-nothing, back-to-the-nester children. As the parent of a small child, I’d feel very uncomfortable having my kid’s bedroom be so far removed (two flights of stairs) from my own. The other two bedrooms, with their tiny space and their tacked-on closets, are obviously afterthoughts, almost certainly meant to be guest rooms or home offices.
The publicity. In an article in the Bee a few days ago, the developer shot point-blank at the audience he was targeting:
The plan is to snag people downsizing from bigger single-family homes after their children are grown. “That was the idea, to appeal to a somewhat older buyer who typically has an older, bigger home and furniture they don’t want to part with. It can travel down with them,” said Packowski, the architect.
What about trying to get people to reject the “upsizing” lifestyle entirely? What about trying to attract people, and I know I’m not the only one out there, who are more than happy to trade a bajillion square feet of empty space for something a little more efficient and cozy?
Why give up on trying to build housing to attract and develop a diverse urban lifestyle and instead build what amount to trendy retirement communities without the golf courses?
RSS Feed
I certainly like the idea of Brownstones. The lack of shared walls is a big plus for some people, as is a garage. I’d need a little yard out back to consider actually purchasing one.
The bigger issue is that all of the new downtown/midtown housing costs way too much money. It’s like these people have never walked around midtown. The average age of a midtowner is probably mid-30’s, and there a LOT of renters. I’m going to guess that very few of the existing residents can afford a $400,000+ mortgage.
I would definitely consider a brownstone-type development in midtown, but I can’t justify paying $100,000 extra just so I don’t have to make the 10 minute drive downtown from the ‘burbs.
Housing developers are ignoring the entire market of younger people who’ve proven they want to live in midtown. How many wealthy retirees live in ANY downtown area anywhere in the country? It doesn’t make any sense.
March 29, 2007 @ 8:00 am
This post has been nominated for The Sacramento Bee’s roundup of
regional blogs, which appears Sunday in Forum.
The Sunday newspaper column is limited to about 800 words. Blog
posts included in the column are often cut to fit. No editing is done
other than to add ellipses to indicate deleted passages. The blog’s
main address will appear in The Bee, and the online copy of the
article will contain links to the actual blog post.
If you have questions (or you DON’T want your blog post considered for
inclusion in the newspaper column), contact me at greed@sacbee.com
Gary Reed
Forum Editor
March 29, 2007 @ 8:34 am
Carl, you’ve got that right. And even though you live in the ‘burbs, you’re actually real close to downtown compared to, say, Rancho Cordova.
Gary, happy to be considered, although, since I was in the paper last week, maybe the spot would be better taken by someone else. Also, you have an unfortunate username @sacbee!
March 29, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
If you read a lot of the aging literature right now, there’s a fairly decent argument that boomers want to move into the central city of other cities–or that they are already in pockets there to begin with. It’s all based on the concept of aging in place, wherein a community of people ages without moving away to a retirement villa or in with family members, etc. It seems more of a problem on the east coast and in established areas in the bay area and Southern California. What’s odd is that Sacramento developers see that as being the case here. I agree with you guys that there’s a better market for the current population in midtown, instead of launching them out to the suburbs as soon as they want to start a family. On the other hand, there are a fair amount of middle-aged folks in Land Park and East Sacramento. Perhaps that’s part of the market they’re targeting?
March 29, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Absolutely, I think what you said is the basis of reflecting the uniqueness depth of our community , substantively making Sacramento a “place” on the map, versus a McCity, or an aesthetic and architectural knockoff.
March 29, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
looked “low budget”
and without any design,
WHATSOEVER…
or maybe extremely
crappy design…
March 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Imagine a vertical mobile home, with a tiny garage at it’s base. Lets pack them several dozen of them into an area that has a few mansions of our Robber Baron and Media Mogul ancestors, but is mostly crappy townhouses, apartments, subdivided Vics and Georges, and office strips. I guess one wouldn’t notice the inherited rundown homes, inhabited by some vestige of our past that seems to exist on various combinations of SSI, criminal enterprise, and scavenging. When the methamphet cyclists prowl at night, relentlessly looking for any salable item or weak lone inhabitant to strongarm, the value of such places will seek their true level. I suspect that they will sell for far less than 400k, and will probably have to be demolished within a decade due the the low nature of it’s inhabitants and poor construction materials.
April 01, 2007 @ 12:07 am
Am I the only one who had a hard time looking at those floorplans? I only looked at the 2/2. I couldn’t figure out where the hell the front door was on the second floor.
From what I could make out, I didn’t like the way the bathrooms were planned. Who the hell wants their laundry in their bathroom? And guests would have to go down stairs to use the restroom? That seems to be a little inconvienent.
April 01, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
Sounds like M Evans hasn’t visited midtown in the past decade or so…Poverty Ridge is a designated historic preservation district, and, in my rather biased opinion, about the nicest neighborhood in the central grid, up there with Boulevard Park and the mansions along Capitol Avenue. Okay, you might see a non-white person or a poor person occasionally, which will send suburbanites scurrying back to Elk Grove or Roseville.
“vertical mobile home” is laughable… get over your paranoia and take a look at the project, they’re rather nice sized buildings and no less sturdy than buildings in the burbs–but a lot more space-efficient, without big useless yards. People had the same dire predictions about Metro Square, but that project has served as a model for developments like this–and turned out rather nicely. The plans are very similar to the “skinny house” homes put up in Portland, and they are quite practical. So they have stairs–so do Queen Anne Victorians and other vertically-aspected 19th century houses of all sorts!
April 02, 2007 @ 10:48 am
After living a block from the project (on 21st Street) for six months, I’d had enough after two break-ins. You can ignore the problem, most in the neighborhood do.
They will make nice flophouses for lotus eaters. Some people don’t mind the formaldahyde emanating from composite pressboard, and it is the cheapest material to build with, which seems to be the consistent trait for the Projects.
April 02, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Integration of opportunity
Imagine a new development that intentionally provides opportunities for daycare providers to live in the same neighborhood or “row house” as the families of the children they care for. Or, what if the paramedic lived next door instead of in Carmichael?
…impossible in the hundreds of new condos, luxury lofts or town homes being built in Downtown Sacramento.
It’s sad, really. Entire occupations are systematically being excluded from downtown neighborhoods as new “brownstones” are built. Working people with lower salaries can’t even find a 30 year old glorified apartment turned condo with an outdated wall heater and energy bleeding single pain windows for less than $250,000 downtown.
It does not have to be this way! In the US, the right to build is a privilege granted to developers by our elected representatives on the city council. Our council could require that when new town homes are proposed, some of those homes be built and sold at affordable rates. It’s called inclusionary housing or mixed income housing and it’s done in hundreds of cities throughout CA and the country.
We need to ask our council, “Where is the housing that we can afford?” If you want to get involved in an effort to ask this question, contact the Sacramento Housing Alliance at http://www.sachousingalliance.org
April 02, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
Sacramento does have an inclusionary housing ordinance: 15% is supposed to be for low-income individuals (and before M. Evans can start in about “lotus eaters”, low-income in Sacramento County means someone earning less than $36,000 a year–about 3 times what one makes on SSI.) However, midtown infill projects are largely exempt from this requirement.
April 03, 2007 @ 9:01 am
Yes- however the city’s ordinance only applys in North Natomas, the two railyard sites & Delta Shores. - No where else in the city…
April 03, 2007 @ 11:04 am
Ethan, you hit the nail on the head. I think we need to start taking at least some baby steps in that direction. For one, the median income family should be able to afford the median priced home. That’s still going to exclude a lot of people, but it gets us moving in the right direction. I’m a fan of inclusionary zoning because developers won’t build more affordable housing so long as the market for the less affordable stuff lasts (and really, how long will that be?)
April 03, 2007 @ 11:42 am
The 800 J Street and 1701 L Street projects both have low-income and very-low-income units (VLI for Sacramento County is around $24,000 a year.) It was my understanding that the inclusionary ordinance applied to new developments (like the ones you mentioned) but not urban infill projects (aside from rentals.)
The problem with affordable housing, and this is nothing new, is that it costs more to build new housing than someone with a median income can afford. How do we make housing cheaper? Price controls on materials, which would mean shortages of materials? Lower pay for construction labor, which would mean less skilled labor and outraged construction workers? Lower building-code standards, which means shoddier buildings? Outright subsidy for construction, which would come from tax dollars already stretched thin in most cities?
It’s not an easy question to answer.
April 03, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
M.Evans - Formaldehyde is a naturally occuring chemical found in all wood. True it is added to OSB (Oriented Strand Board) which you refer to as pressboard. The facts are that OSB is a much more environmentally responsible use of timber than conventional plywood. The houses at Tapestry are actually using some cutting edge energy efficiency techniques.
I am not so sure that forcing developers to build affordable housing is the answer. What you get then is the type of poorly constructed stuff you are referencing. W. Burg brings up very valid points about the complexity of this issue. It would be great to hear more insightful discourse such as his. One answer would be to reduce city fees for building the inclusionary housing. That way a developer could build at the same quality as his or her market product and still afford to take the risk to put projects like this together.
April 03, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
Who asked for a high density, high priced townhouses down by the railway tracks? I don’t know anyone that wants that. Our local developers/City Council (same thing) seem to think that we’ll want even more of these. They’ll be skinny shacks all the way down the tracks past City College if we don’t stop them.
I know the real estate agents will be pulling out their picket fences and flower pots to dump these on buyers, as well as running interference on naysayers like myself. I complain because I care. Regular state pay Sacramentans deserve better than this.
As for the particle board, a quick visit to home depot will tell you what is what. It takes more formaldahyde to stick the cheap sheets together (which slowly evaporates back into the dwelling). It doesn’t last as long, and has more problems with moisture. Save the sales pitch, I’ve seen what it does and don’t use it in my own home.
April 04, 2007 @ 12:52 am
Cities are dense. The denser the better. The more utility we receive out of existing infrastructure the more energy efficient and environmentally responsible we are. I am not sure what you are getting at M. Evans. Have you checked the price of land in midtown lately? You can’t pay $80-$100/SF for land and put a couple houses on it. What exactly is it that you want? In 2000 attached housing made up 4% of new sales, in 2006 it comprised 40% of new sales. Are you promoting that sprawl is better? If you don’t want the density in the downtown then where does it go? Answer some of those questions please. And it is not particle board, but again give an alternative that you know performs as well or better and uses less resources.
April 04, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
ME, a lot of people want higher density in the urban core, and the developers are banking on it. The “lotus eaters” can’t afford the prices they’re asking and I’m willing to bet they’ll manage to sell most of the units. Even if they cut the prices by 20-25 percent, they’re still out-pricing the “riff-raff.”
But I agree with you that regular state pay Sacramentans deserve better than this; I suspect though that our ideas of what is better diverge.
Mahala — those are great stats about attached housing (which technically the brownstones aren’t, but they’re the same idea) - do you have a citation? I’d love to be able to use it over and over.
As for forcing developers to build affordable units, I’m not convinced that the biggest barrier isn’t greed. Yes, land in the urban core is expensive and that *is* a significant part of the problem. Yes, reducing or eliminating fees might help, but I suspect it would have about the same impact as replacing the “high end” accouterments like granite countertops and swanky appliances with something from Sears; i.e. not a whole lot. There are other parts of the country where housing is built far more inexpensively. Try selling these units for $400 grand in Omaha and see what happens.
“The denser the better.” I can get behind that statement.
April 04, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Uneasy - Word! That statistic was quoted to me by a guy who would know today. I will see if I can dig it up.
The reasons I know of that allow housing to be built cheaper in the majority of the rest of the country are as follows; Insurance Costs - No ten year warranty requirements for builders to cover i.e. warranty reserves, land is far cheaper, labor is half the cost it is in CA, and oh yeah, CA is the most litigious state in the Nation. Not trying to be a smart ass but I am very involved in all these aspects and painfully aware of the squewed costs in CA. Good post.
April 04, 2007 @ 9:48 pm
When will the city council and board of supervisors realize that there are people in Sacramento that do not have high five figure incomes? It is not have that kind of wage-base community. The people that have moved here from the bay area are only part of the reason for the increase of rent and/or real estate market value. The Section 8 office is so back logged people will either move out of state or die before their name comes up on the list for affordable housing. rent control could be a part of the answer. But until people speak up and get involved, they should just keep their comments to themselves. We do not need lip service, we need community service anad involvement
April 05, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Cities are just like any living organism. They go through various life cycles…they die, are reborn, and die again…Sacramento is going through a rebirth and not a moment too soon. I’m not originally from here but remember growing up thinking it was the armpit of California. Today though, I enjoy witnessing it go through its rebirth! So redevelop but do it RIGHT!
Everyone should be entitled to safe, decent, affordable housing. But we can’t afford to sit back and let the market dictate the cost of housing. We need to stand up and let our voices be heard. The Sac Housing Alliance is waging a worthy war and you’d be wise to stand up and support them. Go to your city council and speak on the behalf of affordable housing in particular a stronger inclusionary housing policy. Inclusionary housing has proven to be an effective tool for local jurisdictions to ensure that new housing development is balanced with affordable dwellings for families, local workers, seniors and disabled persons who would otherwise be priced out of the market. Inclusionary housing is bitterly opposed by much of the building and real estate industry! They maintain that inclusionary housing constitutes a tax on new development that will diminish builder profits, increase the cost of noninclusionary housing in order to pay for the affordable units and dry up residential construction in jurisdictions that implement inclusionary policies. Many of these criticisms have been largely refuted and discredited…just take a look at cities such as San Diego and Salinas or even little communities such as Winters…development is still occurring regardless of an inclusionary policy. Inclusionary housing works but it needs to have teeth! And that is where you come in…let those Maloof loving politicians know that you won’t let money dictate the life of this city!
April 05, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
Uneasy - You had asked for the basis of the statistic I quoted in the post above. Well I tracked it down today and found out it came from Greg Paquin at the Gregory Group. So I called him to get the real scoop. So here it is; I incorrectly stated that it was all attached housing. The stats are that in 2002 single family detached [editor's note: something happened and the full text didn't post.]
April 05, 2007 @ 8:42 pm
Mahala - sorry about that; I have no clue what is happening. If you feel like it, feel free to email me at the address at the bottom of uneasyrhetoric.net and I’ll insert the missing text into the comment. I’ll delete the others.
April 05, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
We tend to believe that experts that we give lots of money to can predict the future, or that because things in the past were a certain way one can draw assumptions. In both situations the logic is false.
A tiny number of people make decisions about what sacramento needs, but it is very rare for them not to do so in their own self interest.
Admittedly most people who are reacting to this project want a situation that would be to their interest. The Developer who created it did so in the belief that it would be more profitable than it presently seems to be.
The prophecy of continued large growth in the area may be false. What if Sacramento shrank in population? Property values would drop even further.
Sacramento is already a mega sprawl, vacancies in business and living space are already high, because of economic incentives that reward such excessive development. California has had a high risk speculative real estate culture for over a hundred years. Real estate speculators, investors and procurers have run rampant over the landscape, comsumed available resources and are only now starting to hit the entropy wall.
What will happen if we don’t have cheap oil? Imagine what life will be like if most people can’t afford a car.
I don’t think small pockets of boutique homes made of cheap materials are good solutions. Nor are developments that ignore the needs and cultural conditions of an area. Both the City council and the dozen or so Developers seem completely incapable of creating what we need here.
April 06, 2007 @ 1:32 am
Okay, now I’m just convinced that M Evans is just trolling. First he has a problem with dense housing in the central city, then he things sprawl is bad. First he thinks these buildings are too expensive, then he thinks we should stop building new buildings because he doesn’t want prices to drop. First he shakes his fist at housing for low-character “lotus eaters” then he doesn’t want expensive boutique housing.
And now he wants us to believe that we should stop all construction on the off-chance that one of the fastest-growing cities in the United States (Sacramento) might suddenly shrink in population.
Go find yourself another bridge, pal.
April 06, 2007 @ 9:22 am
Ad homenim. Qui Bono? Try digesting the meaning of my post, or just ignoring it if you can’t reply constructively. Observing that Sprawl is already a fact is hardly approval.
Lotus Eaters refers to people who ignore the realities around them and live in a daze of narcoticized stupor. In this case it seems to be the urban professionals who will buy in to the pipe dream.
April 07, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
Great discussion of infill development and its relationship to affordable housing. I too am concerned that many who work downtown cannot afford to live there.
At 5:00 p.m. today, 4/9/07, the Mayor’s discussion of vision for Sacramento will be held at the Library Galleria. All the city appointed commissions will be there. It’s our chance to put affordable housing on the City’s agenda.
Also, next Wednesday, 4/18, at 7:00 pm the League of Women Voters of Sacramento County is hosting a forum on affordable housing at the USC “campus” 1800 I Street. Sharing thoughts on how Sacramento will house EVERYONE will be a for profit developer, a non profit developer, a first time home buyer and the director of the City/County Ten Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
Show UP!
April 09, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Our discussion can be turned into action!
When: Tuesday May 1
Time: 7:00 pm
Where: Sac City Hall - 915 I Street
What: The council will host a workshop on the progress of their existing inclusionary (mixed-income housing) program that is only required in north Natomas, the railyards & Delta Shores. They will be considering issues such as “should this be a city-wide program.”
Our organization will make a case for expanding the program to include housing (as the county’s program does) for families earning less than $20K per year. These people are low wage earners and seniors and persons with disabilities living on fixed incomes who are too poor to benefit from the housing required under the current ordinance. In essence, they are left wishing that they were “low income.”
*(low income definition = family of four earning 80% of area median income or $52,300)
Come to the hearing and talk about the need for affordable rental and for sale homes downtown.
There will also be another workshop before the city on May 29th to discuss a development strategy for the Central City. This is another opportunity to have your voice heard.
April 10, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Thank You
April 23, 2007 @ 7:08 pm
A’alona…
Thank you for your great post, i am always looking to improve my home for my familiy, and your post have given me some insperation, thank you very much …
June 13, 2007 @ 5:31 am
Array
June 13, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
the idea that poor people (low income) can be shoved out is an idea that is antique & cruel…..most people are poor..to deny them shelter & housing is creating a burgeoning peasant class that is growing larger every day…there is a horrible reckoning coming to those priviliged few who think this “problem” will just go away…as long as realty companies have unreal expectations like you can pay two thirds or even one half of your earnings in rent..then things are going to get nasty….you cannot expect the employers to keep upping the minimum wage with no corresponding laws…dream on fools the reckoning is coming soon….
August 03, 2007 @ 5:56 pm