June 12, 2007
A bittersweet “I told you so.”
Tags: density, sacramentoPart of me feels vindicated. Part of me feels sad. Let’s start with the second part.
The Sac Towers are dead, but we knew that already. In the last two years I’ve become a quiet cheerleader for the project, even going so far as to say at various times on Living In Urban Sac and Central City Opinion that I didn’t think the project would fail. I thought the city (and CalPERS, and others) had too much invested in the project, and much of what they had invested went far beyond money. This project was to have irrevocably changed the image of Sacramento and dragged our fair city kicking and screaming into the pantheon of the new West Coast city, a la Seattle, Portland, and even our bayside neighbor. Even though I was skeptical of the project from the start, I very much wanted to be proved wrong.
If I were proved wrong, it would mean more, much more, housing downtown, and possibly a more vibrant urban core. It would mean Sacramento could go balls-out toward higher densities and maybe even develop multi-family housing targeted at a market beyond the “luxury” one. It would mean developers would not have to fear building in the urban core. It would mean that Sacramento could finally move beyond its bland suburb-dwelling, car-loving, chain-store-following, existence. Alas, ’twas not to be.
I 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 living. I said:
Sacramento needs to be thinking higher density, but it needs to be thinking smaller.
I got a lot of flack for my post–or more accurately for the second half of that sentence–especially from a contingent of skyscraper patriots, even though I made it very clear that I was a strong believer in high density and in housing downtown. But I’m a realist. I didn’t think that there was enough demand for luxury condos, and I wasn’t convinced that luxury condos would really create “community.” [note: my current theme is not displaying comments on old posts. I need to fix that]
Granted, it wasn’t just a lack of demand for the Towers that killed the project so much as Saca’s attempts to manipulate his funders, as well as his and the City’s rose-colored glasses. No one wanted to look at the project realistically and really see if it penciled out. I also wonder how much of the project really was full. The soft housing market didn’t help either.
Now it looks like CalPERS will be taking my advice:
CalPERS is tapping Los Angles-based developer CIM Group to evaluate and develop another high-rise project at the location that is likely to include a hotel and some condominiums, though not the 400 units Saca had planned for his project. The evaluation process is expected to take at least 18 months.
The fact that CalPERS is still willing, at least at the beginning of the evaluation phase, to consider housing, is encouraging. I have to wonder though if their accounting wonks will look at what buildings are actually being built in downtown–the new US Bank Building and Tsakopolous’ office building–and decide that it is better for everyone if yet another office building goes up.
That would be a big mistake. No amount of snazzy office space, luxury hotels, and swanky restaurants like 55 degrees will make downtown anything more than a high-priced “destination”, a theme park with winos and valet parking. Without housing people will still get in their cars and crawl away to their homes in Natomas, Rocklin, Elk Grove, and points even farther away.
Now the City’s hope for a luxury condo jump start lies with the Aura. I was talking with Arranging Matches this weekend and he was commenting how incredible it was that the giant pictures of Liebeskind on Capital Mall, L Street, and Sixth had not been vandalized. I suggested that was proof that there really was no one downtown after dark. I’m not encouraged anymore that the Aura will go forward either, although I have noticed that there’s been a lot of ground preparation on the site where it is supposed to be built. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it gets scaled way down, just as CalPERS expects to do with the old Towers site. It is a mistake to try to build “the tallest building in Sacramento.” Don’t waste your money. Try to develop something that will actually work.
RSS Feed
I’ll agree with your comment. It isn’t the high-profile projects that will really make a difference, it’s the hundreds of small projects that gradually add up. It isn’t the luxury housing (or restaurants etc.) that only appeal to the six-figure income set that will make downtown Sacramento come alive in a big way, it is housing (and restaurants etc.) that state workers, retail employees, students, small businesspeople, and maybe even disabled people and senior citizens can afford.
I am an avid supporter of small projects, like those on tap from LJ Urban or D&S Development, that combine high unit densities with comparatively moderate overall sizes. This means more housing opportunities that lower overall price pressure, filling gaps in the existing urban fabric (vacant lots and parking areas) instead of razing neighborhoods and existing buildings, and accessibility to a broader demographic. It will be necessary to decouple the term “density” from the term “overcrowding”, because too many people still associate the two. That association is a main reason why downtown Sacramento was forcibly depopulated fifty years ago, and it’s time to reverse that mistake.
And heck, I think Aura will be just fine. I just hope they get rid of the giant creepy-ass Liebskind photo once the building is up: I assume it went unvandalized because his terrifying visage scares people away like a medieval gargoyle.
June 13, 2007 @ 9:48 am
I certainly don’t blame Saca for having big ambitions, but when I heard that the project finally failed, my thought was that I would have much preferred 10 five story buildings to one 50 story building. Even if half of your five story buildings fail, you’ve still got five of them. When your 50 story building fails, you’ve got a hole in the ground.
June 13, 2007 @ 10:00 am
Nice post. I totally agree with you on the housing. I think we would be fooling ourselves though if we though they are going to do anything other than luxury.
As long as CIM/CalPERS puts some dense housing on that site, I’ll be ‘okay’ with it being scaled down, though I would have loved to see those buildings in the skyline.
There was an article in the Bee today that CIM is thinking two buildings, one office and one hotel/condo. They used their Waterview project in DC as an example. Though i assume (and hope) it would look much different.
http://www.waterviewresidences.com/
I would have loved to see those buildings in the the skyline, but like you said housing is what we still need in the end.
June 13, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Great post Uneasy ,
Im not so much saddened as dissappointed . im sure none of us are all that surprised really .
I think its high time the city became the aggressor when it came to downtown housing of all types . Why wait around for developers ? Go get em - a proactive approach .
I can but remember a day when all the late Mayor Serna would talk about was dtwn development , Laying the groundwork for much of the interest we see today .
If the city would be as aggressive with housing as it was with the arena we would be in great shape .
June 13, 2007 @ 10:36 am
you mean? you mean? John Saca will not build his condo project and it was all just a bunch of hot air, phooey, hype and BS spread by knownothings?
tell me it ain’t so joe…
and oak is an oak or maybe an elm…and the craftman detailing is quite nice inside many homes…and is still pleasant to sit outside at Rubicon, even though you must put up with State Workers…
June 13, 2007 @ 2:06 pm
phooey?
you mean a load of hooey?
have no fear dudes and others, now there will be an “Iconic” project, not Doric, and certainly nor Ionic, maybe a tad bit Spartan, but Iconic nonetheless…
Yes Cole, we been had…and not because or rising construction costs, but because the main hypster dude could not add…as in adding up the costs of the project before the hype began…
It is interesting that these two dudes, Saca and Nassi seem to be a tad bit on the loosey goosey side…lol…but hey, that’s just Living in Urban Sacramento for ya…
June 13, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
wburg and carl — I’m for whatever works to increase density and invigorate our city. If it’s small projects like LJUrban’s and others, great! If Aura can get off the ground, great!
LIUS, is it my imagination or does the CIM project in DC look like a doubled-up version of our federal courthouse? Our skyline will continue to develop; it’s just going to take a little more time.
Central, spot on. The city needs to be proactive, but I think it will take a Mayor and a Council with more cojones than this one.
cole, as long as Sacramento is the Capital, there will be state workers.
jks, I’ll agree that I think there was a little “creative accounting” on the project, but rising construction costs were certainly one nail in the coffin, as was the suddenly soft housing market in general.
June 13, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
Oh, and wburg, you’re absolutely right about the gargoyle. That picture creeps me out. I think it’s because it makes him look more than a little unstable.
June 13, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
If what you say is,
Sacramento already has the seeds of a humane city, all one really has to do is look around and use what has been built or planted in the past or has been built successfully recently, then, there you go…Portland and Seattle have developed over a Century with their own unique patterns, and San Francisco, well is San Francisco and great to live in, as are Paris and Rome and…
Comments by a Sac Native, woman, Architect, married to one of the Sacramento Illuminati…
“1. Sacramento is infected with a hodgepodge disease, where one minute they design stuff and put put money here and a few years later exit that location and put design stuff and money over there…a real buckshot approach to urban design
2. Why would I buy a highrise condo in the middle of nowheresville, with no amenities when you walk out the front door and then have to deal with drunks and druggies?”
and that’s why they call it “urban design”….
Highrise condos are great if you’ve got a great body like Neve Campbell, a great amount of cash like Martha Stewart and a great neighborhood
otherwise you might as well build the highrise condo in Rancho Cordova next to “Show Girls”…where the action is hot…
June 15, 2007 @ 5:42 pm