Tag Cloud
Monday, May 20, 2013
Boqueria centerpiece for K Street plan
by Suzanne Hurt, published on June 28, 2010 at 10:47 PM
Storyline: K Street Mall
Loading images
They brought Sacramento the Citizen Hotel and its restaurant, Grange.
Now that same team is proposing an even more ambitious downtown project. Calling themselves the Sacramento Alliance Team, the partners behind the Citizen Hotel are seeking Sacramento City Council approval to redevelop the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street Mall.
Two weeks before a council vote on the matter, they held an open meeting on the plan's centerpiece: a 35,000-square-foot public market, tentatively called the California Boqueria, that would showcase the state's food and wine at the corner of Eighth and K streets.
Two of the partners, Rubicon Partners co-founder Kipp Blewett and Grange Executive Chef Michael Tuohy, encouraged about 120 people at the meeting to sign an online petition, e-mail the council and tell their friends about the project.
"What we really need is your support to move forward with this," Tuohy said at a Citizen Hotel reception featuring California wine, artisan cheeses and local produce. "It's about telling the city of Sacramento that this is very important and this is what we need and this is what you want."
Four teams — including the Sacramento Alliance Team — answered the city's request for proposals to redevelop the troubled K Street Mall blocks and submitted ideas in March. Last month, a selection committee created by the city recommended two other teams to develop those blocks. Those teams, led by developers David Taylor and Cyrus Youssefi, were also endorsed earlier this month by the Downtown Sacramento Partnership board, of which Blewett is president.
The proposal by Blewett's team was bigger and more complicated to finance, and may just need to be analyzed further, said Project Director J-E Paino of Rubicon Partners.
"We didn't present anything that we think is pie in the sky and that we can't deliver," he added.
The partners chose to anchor their proposal with a food and agricultural complex because they believe it could kick-start downtown's revitalization — bringing 1 million annual visitors to Sacramento, the largest city in the Central Valley and the center of the country's largest agricultural economy, they said.
"People come here for food and wine, as well as scenery," Tuohy said. "We have the opportunity to write our own script about what is agri-tourism, California-style."
The roughly $30 million Boqueria would include a 25,000-square-foot ground floor with a farmers' market that would tentatively operate from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily and open onto K Street via large, rolling doors; a wine-tasting room; an Italian coffee bar; eight food carts; exhibit space and an academic demo restaurant. A 10,000-square-foot mezzanine would include a kitchen theater, deli and more exhibit space.
The proposal was developed to meet the city's request for something "catalyic," which could entertain and bring people from the suburbs, while also turning the city's negative image as a "dusty cow town" into a positive image as the center of the farm-to-plate movement, Blewett said.
"What we came up with is the concept of healthy lifestyle ... centered around food and wine," he said.
Other partners include Pete Thompson of Rubicon, Steve Eggert and Pete Geremia of St. Anton Partners, and Dan Corfee and Craig Zarro of Preferred Capital Advisors.
The Boqueria is proposed to be built on currently vacant city-owned land and owned by a public/private cooperative. Construction would be financed by federal and state money, as well as substantial investment from California farmers and landowners, one of the wealthiest groups in the state, Paino said.
The structure could be finished by 2013. The team also proposed an office building, from 150,000 to 300,000 square feet, for agricultural-oriented tenants such as produce associations and statewide groups. The building, called the California World Food and Agriculture Center, could be built across the alley at Eighth and L streets, or be attached to the Boqueria following negotiations with the owners of two other buildings on K Street, he said.
The proposal's first phase in the 700 block calls for 213 alley-facing artist live/work units that would cost $1,000 a month for 1,200 square feet and 60,000 square feet of retail, including a brewery and blues bar. Work could begin immediately and be finished by late 2012 or early 2013. Financing would include the city's $20 million land donation and $20 million in redevelopment bond money, Paino said.
The second-phase office building would be finished a year later. A hotel has also been proposed for a third phase, but that would be put off until the economy improves, he added.
People at the meeting included foodies, farm and tourism representatives, city planners and UC Davis food science representatives.
A food and wine center collecting the best of the region and the state in one place would help California farmers, said Dan Best, who organizes most of Sacramento's farmers' markets.
"This is the center of the garden of Eden of food production," he said. "Why don't we have a center that showcases that?"
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
First: With a construction cost of $1200 per square foot, how is a low-overhead use like a farmer's market going to pay the rent? If it will not, who will provide the subsidy needed to keep the place open? If the overhead gets too odious in the long run, how long before it gets replaced with something less idealistic that pays more rent?
Did they provide information about the entire project (estimated to require about $100 million in subsidy) or did they just focus on the Boqueria and the first quarter of the project--which, while it requires less subsidy than the luxury condo towers and Bob Leach style hotel on the other block, still costs considerably more than the D&S proposal for the 700 block?
If what we want is a farmer's market, why not put it in a currently vacant space? Why not put it in the Westfield mall, or the ground floor of the Renaissance Tower, or just set it up as a permanent and full-time feature of the K Street pedestrian mall? It would be inexpensive, unique, serve the same purpose, and would enliven the street a lot more than bringing back automobiles.
This sort of "demolish everything and build something shiny and fashionable" approach has been used in downtown Sacramento for the past 50-60 years. It is the main reason why our waterfront is so vacant (we demolished most of the waterfront to make room for shiny new I-5), Capitol Mall is so quiet (we demolished a neighborhood that was on its way to becoming the west coast's answer to Bourbon Street for a shiny new Capitol Mall) and did the same thing to our Chinatown and K Street shopping district.
These projects always seem to age badly--sacrificing the classic for passing fads that end up looking worse than the things they replaced within a few years. Meanwhile, projects all over downtown and Midtown that make use of historic buildings (rehab, reuse, integration with new architecture instead of demolition) are becoming the city's centerpieces.
This sort of approach (the developer whose project wasn't chosen asking for further study) seems like a delaying tactic--the same kind that "Mo" Mohanna used back in 2005 which resulted in the last plan for the 700/800 block being scuttled. I think we have had enough study.
The Montgomery Ward is a California Register listed building constructed in 1936 in a Colonial Revival commercial style and considered a flagship of the Ward's chain at the time of construction--it was their first store with in-store air conditioning!
The Greyhound depot, another 1930s building, is one of the only examples of early Streamline Moderne in our downtown. It was identified as a "priority structure" by our original historic preservation program in the mid-1970s, although it, along with a lot of other older buildings around K Street vanished off the city's list of landmarks when the city preservation list was re-done about 10 years ago. The depot features Gladding-McBean tile (the same sort found on the Citizen Hotel) and inlay floors, and a streamlined design that was used across the country at Greyhound depots to reflect their streamlined buses. They're a rare type of building, and other cities have found good uses for them, like Washington DC--who integrated the building into a brand-new project.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/army_arch/1920154985/
MD Moore: I like the project recommended by the city of Sacramento--a combination of the D&S and David Taylor projects. It calls for new residential, office and commercial on the 800 block, including restoration of the Bel-Vue, and on the 700 block, restoration of the front 90 feet of the buildings with a residential tower (kind of like that Greyhound depot plan) behind it. I'm planning on posting a story about it in more detail, but it is based around local retailers like Old Soul, Burgers & Brew and Shady Lady, with three mid-sized music venues, late-night dessert, and retail clothing sales.
Here's an older Sacpress article about the recommended project:
http://www.sacramentopress.com/headline/30570/K_Street_developers_endorsed
I'll provide more detail in a future story.
The "historical ramifications" comes down to one project that wastes the historic buildings on the site and a project that makes them an integral part of the appeal and value of the site. It takes more creativity and imagination to incorporate a historic building into a new project, but the benefits to the project are obvious, as we can see by the large number of successful and vibrant preservation projects elsewhere in the central city. A historic building should be seen as a prize to a new project, not an obstacle to be brushed aside (at considerable expense, I might add.)
Tourists (and residents) need something to do when downtown, and shopping in chain stores gets old quickly. Tourists and local employees alike would embrace a Boqueria--a place to buy local food, eat in local restaurants or just enjoy people-watching. To keep our downtown lively and safe, we need people there after 4 pm (that is when many downtown businesses close because the state workers go home). We need buzz about downtown!
Midtown attracts visitors from the suburbs and downtown could do the same. In addition, downtown has convenient parking garages (which midtown is lacking) to accomodate suburban folks who are accustomed to plentiful parking.
As for the architectural heritage, we should keep what we can keep, but remember that crumbling buiildings and fenced-off lots (the current status), are not a heritage to be proud of.
Pike Place is a good example of how historic preservation adds to the appeal of a space--instead of bulldozing Pike Place, they preserved it. Although the dirty little secret of Pike Place is that, because agriculture in northern Washington isn't nearly what it is in California, their public market is a subsidized amenity. We have closer access to agricultural resources--if we were to make use of an existing building or other space for a public market instead of a new building, a public market could break even or even be profitable.
What about building a downtown that functions for people who live and work downtown?
One reason for Midtown's success is that made up of a patchwork of thriving residential neighborhoods. The people who live and work there care for the place.
This project has potential in that it could add vital services and a place to buy food for those who choose to live downtown. But I do fear that the language used to promote the project is all about drive in and drive out. It is that mentality and that built the Westfield shopping center, America Live!, and has stalled several developments over the years.
I will point out that these examples are all very different in terms of their histories, how they function today, and their usefulness to local residents.
I think some scrutiny of each project is in order. What makes them successful? Who are their primary customers and what is it about the location or the tourism market in that city that makes it work?
Vancouver, Seattle and San Francisco have large tourism industries. That is one thing they all share in common. Each city also has large numbers of urban residents who lived there prior to the construction of "the draw." And each project is more unique than it is a reference to the other.
Sacramento does deserve a project that shows off our food and local culture and I hope we build one that thrives. I think we need to figure out how something like this works and why it works in that location and in our city. Personally, I hope a lot of thought is given to the surrounding neighborhood. I hope we support it and surround it with the infrastructure and the residents it takes to make it a success. And I hope we make sure financing is assured.
What do the developers of the Railyards, who also plan a public market in their project, think about this project? Are they worried it will draw off energy, interest and public funds from their project, already several years in the making, for a project that is just barely on the drawing board?
The Crocker's new addition, in my opinion, is a shining (literally!) example of how the new can compliment the old.
As to a building's condition, many of the buildings under consideration were still occupied until vacated by SHRA, and some are still in use, so we're not talking about long-abandoned buildings or burnt-out hulks. Buildings "way back when" are often better constructed than modern construction--they were built of brick, old-growth timber, stone, steel, and other materials meant to last, with craftsmanship that is nearly impossible to replicate today without great expense. Rehabbing an old building isn't necessarily cheap--but it is almost invariably cheaper than new construction of comparable quality. Building cheap stucco garbage is less expensive, but I assume that's not the sort of thing we want to see in the heart of downtown.
Considering that last weekend, 1500 people paid $20-25 to tour Land Park's "Mid-Century Modern" homes (more would have gone but the event sold out!), built between about 1950 and the mid-1960s, there is definitely interest in historic architecture of the early and middle 20th century.
It's interesting how the Boqueria and AuthentiCity plan is getting shot at for being Bold and Too Expensive.
A few questions to consider:
•The teams bringing the Boqueria and AuthentiCity forward, what is their track record? Are these projects and their size/scope a reach for this team?
Rubicon-$400M + 5M SF Developed
St Anton-5,000 apartments units Owned & Managed
Preferred Capital-$4.5B (yes Billion) of Equity & Debt Sourced
•If Bold is expensive and requires an acheivable, yet complicated financial plan, is it not worth considering?
•If a "parking bond" has been used successfully in Rockville MD, San Diego, Old Pasadena, and is being considered in other parts of Sacramento, is it an option we should diregard?
•Out of curiosity can anyone describe how a "parking bond" works?
We should also not disregard a parking bond - although we should be careful how we spend money that is not in hand (and money that is).
I have no clue how the bond works and share your interest!
Now for more opinion: One of the big problems with these kinds of discussions is that we are trying to fill a hole. Does Sacramento deserve more unique venues like this concept? Yes! But for a moment separate the concept from the location. Might there be a better location? Might the concept look different without tons of public financing? Years after the developer has left will the project sill be sustainable?
There are plans to build something similar in the now bankrupt Railyards. How does one affect the other? Which is more likely to succeed?
These are the tough questions I think we all grapple with. That does not mean that I am for or against a project like this, but I like to be skeptical and open a wider discussion.
I suppose more people might be comfortable with bold if so many of this town's other "bold" projects weren't in bankruptcy court right now, or on hold due to the national crisis chilling the housing and money markets. Pouring effort into this project is likely to kill off others while still being risky on its own--which means even more unfilled holes in the ground, plus the new ones caused by demolition of our landmarks.
Near as I can tell, it works like this: The city underwrites a bond, and gives the money to the developer now. The bond, plus interest, is repaid via parking revenues that would have otherwise gone to the city. Essentially, the city borrows from its own future income (plus interest) to give to a developer.
So it's a bit like someone asking you to give them money, but you don't have the money so you cash-advance your credit card. Then, you pay off the card and interest over time, and end up paying more than if you had the money to give them in the first place.
Does that sound about right to you?
and Mr Burg - i believe the City requested that Rubicon come up with a proposal that is on Agency only land. So when I say Bold i don't only mean the size but the ideas - bringing people downtown without cannibalizing midtown and east sac dining and entertainment options. Bold as in creating more jobs, a bigger sales and real estate tax base. Bold as in bringing civic amenities- Boqueria, Hall of Fame, Center for Sacramento History to K Street. Bold in thinking. No Dangerous, just Courageous.
Bold as a bank robbery.
The concept of this Boqueria may sound appealing on paper, but where do we see a farmers market of that size open for seven days a week for extended hours? This plan calls for a main attraction of the site to lay empty and dark at night. We need more eyes on K street in the evening hours, not just for a couple hours post work.
And to demolish a large portion of these historically valued buildings is so upsetting. We need to empower downtown Sacramento through these buildings with such rich history. What's made San Diego, Portland and other cities so successful in its revitalization is preserving their historical buildings!
I believe that D&S Development has the best proposal of the 4. They have a plan that flows together the best concepts to make a thriving downtown node all of Sacramento can benefit from. With mixed use and a good balance of residential and commercial, they plan to preserve the buildings in most of their entirety, unlike this proposal. I hope to see the City approve D&S Development's project.
Just wondering, does the City Council, just approve these proposals, or can they tell someone who is submitting a proposal to make some changes... Does the City Council have some kind of developer liaison that could help make recommendations to the projects?
And yes, someone gets the money...the question is, who gets it, and how much--and who pays for it?
Has anyone ever brought that up? Bringing a UC to Downtown. I went to college in Worcester, MA and there were at least 6 colleges and universities within a few sq. miles... just a thought...
Personally, I'd love to see a UC in downtown Sacramento, or a consolidated campus for all the various small scattered campuses and satellite campuses, or relocate Academy of Art College from Natomas to downtown. There are many things to consider. But that's a more complex issue, and would probably require more space than this little 2.5 acre space.
The monkeys in City hall should not approve ANY K Street plan that uses public money. Taxpayers have already been forced AT GUNPOINT to spend HUNDREDS of MILLIONS on that rat hole - only to see complete failure...the dark gray dungeon called Westfield Mall is a disaster - all of the empty lots and boarded up buildings are a direct result of government intervention.
In this case, the government will steal our money and GIVE it to campaign contributors/cronies who control our corrupt city council.
David Taylor and the Greek Developer Mob have gotten very very wealthy of the backs of tax payers - these subsidies need to stop.
This how this Sacramento works: The Democrats control the City Council and County Board of Supervisors - and SHRA - They use SHRA as a giant ATM to give the Greek Developer Mob and David Taylor et. al., hundreds of millions in public money - In return these Insider corporate welfare types give tens of millions to the Democratic Party - This is called campaign finance money laundering - The taxpayers are being forced at gunpoint to support the Democratic Party.
It's quite a scam they have going on here in River City.