STORYLINE Central City Neighborhoods

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

The K Street Plan: Local, Green, Historic and Affordable

by William Burg, published on July 1, 2010 at 11:09 PM

1 of 25
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 25
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

Disclaimer: This article is my opinion, given as a central city resident and board member of the Sacramento Old City Association. I am not an employee of any of the firms involved, nor the city of Sacramento. I am enthusiastic about this project because it represents the best combination of historic preservation, new development, downtown infill, fiscal responsibility, and promotion of local business, culture, and heritage.

In December 2009, the city of Sacramento asked local developers for plans to revitalize the 700 and 800 blocks of K Street. The project area occupies about one city block, around 2.5 acres, on two half-block lots. Four teams submitted proposals, and a five-member committee met three times to review the responses and select a recommendation to the city council. Their recommendation was based on experience, quality of vision and concept, relationship to local goals, proposed tenants, financial feasibility and delivery schedule. Based on these criteria, the committee chose elements of two proposals: the Promenade on K, proposed by D&S and CFY Development, for the 700 block, and a proposal by David Taylor, CIM, Zeiden Properties and Domus Development for the 800 block.

The Recommended Plan

The proposal for the 700 block includes 136 apartments along the alley side of K Street in a new mid-rise structure, with underground parking at Sacramento’s original street level. The apartments range from 450 to 1200 square feet, studios to 2-bedrooms. 37,840 feet of retail will occupy the ground floor of the existing structures on K Street. The front 90 feet of each building will be retained, and the two landmark buildings on the block retained entirely. The second floor of the historic buildings will also become apartments, and the building basements will be retained for storage or retail use. Because the 700 block has abundant street space, outdoor patios and kiosks will surround the walkway on K Street, creating an expansive outdoor room adjacent to the newly-remodeled St. Rose of Lima Park.

The 800 block will include new buildings on the corner of 8th & K and 8th & L, and the historic Bel-Vue Apartments will be restored and returned to residential use, a total of 110 market rate and mixed-income units, including three-bedroom units intended for families. Parking will be accessed via the alley and L Street, and will not be visible from the street. All buildings will have ground-floor retail, totaling 32,530 square feet. This project team is also considering acquiring the historic Kress and Montgomery Ward buildings, for conversion to mixed-use residential, but because these buildings were outside the project scope (the city does not own them) they were not included in the proposal.

Keep It Local

The proposal for the 700 block includes Letters of Intent from retailers interested in participation. Rather than seeking chain or out-of-town tenants, the D&S proposal sought local businesses. These include popular local eateries, like Old Soul Coffee, who plans a French bistro and wine bar, or Kru, who plans a ramen/yakitori restaurant and sake bar. Three of these potential tenants (Crepeville, Shady Lady and and Burgers & Brew) each plan live music venues in addition to a restaurant and bar. The Shady Lady letter points out Sacramento’s lack of mid-sized music venues, and suggests that this project could fill the glaring need for venues larger than small Midtown bars but smaller than the Memorial Auditorium or Crest Theatre. But it’s not all about music and drinks; the owner of “Top This” Frozen Yogurt wants to create a late-night dessert diner, adding cakes, pies and sundaes to their product mix. Rima Boutique and Muse Salon want to open boutiques selling clothing, accessories and artwork. Specifics on the 800 block’s retail mix were not available, but their team includes Z Gallerie’s Joe Zeiden, who has extensive experience bringing retail to downtowns throughout the state. Because all of these businesses can also operate during daytime business hours, they are useful to the tens of thousands of downtown commuters for lunch, daytime shopping, or after-work dining and entertainment.

Local business is complemented by the local residences included in the project. Affordable housing means employees of a yogurt shop or boutique can live in a nearby unit instead of commuting to work from the suburbs, and downtown office workers can walk from office to home, utilizing local retail options in their own neighborhood. Housing directly above K Street on the second floor, and along the alley, means greater safety through “eyes on the street,” complemented by evening activity in restaurant patios and street vendor kiosks. Many of K Street’s problems take place on vacant, disused properties where there are no residents or tenants. Bringing more housing and late-night business back to K Street means more safety by design. In many ways, this plan is a larger, more ambitious version of D&S’s recent success at 14th and R Street, where a dark, unused warehouse was turned into 12 residential units and a row of eateries and mixed retail, using a historic building, local businesses, and green design.

Keeping it Green on K Street

“Green” is a word that gets used a lot, so much that the meaning is sometimes obscured. This proposal for K Street is green in several important ways. It proposes using green and sustainable methods, plus solar and wind power generation on rooftops. Both blocks include green roofs as inner courtyards for tenant use. Adding downtown housing and the units’ proximity to transit means less driving and consumption of gasoline. Restoration of the existing buildings, instead of demolition, saves those buildings’ embodied energy, uses less energy than new construction, and reduces the load on our landfills.

This project is located at the nexus of both existing Light Rail lines and the Green Line to Richards Boulevard now under construction, with local bus access on both side streets. Recent changes allowing bikes on K Street, and proposed additional bike parking on the street and in the buildings, encourages biking to and from the project. Enhancing the streetscape, adding dense residential and greater security by design promotes walking and transit use. Project residents who work nearby, instead of in distant suburbs, won’t have to drive to work, and won’t have to go far for entertainment or dining.

“The greenest building is one that’s already built” is an old adage of the preservation community. Construction of a new building requires tremendous energy, an amount equal to decades’ worth of the building’s annual energy consumption. Old buildings, especially those built prior to 1940, were built when energy was more expensive, and were designed for more efficient use of energy. They are generally built of durable materials like brick, stone, and old-growth timber. They required less energy to create than high-energy materials like concrete and steel. Their energy cost has long since been paid. Demolition of old buildings is also energy-intensive, and sends most of those irreplaceable building materials to landfills, where they are joined by new buildings’ construction wastes (which makes up about half the contents of our landfills!) Saving old buildings is about more than aesthetics; it is the greener, cleaner and less wasteful choice.

Restoring K Street’s Legacy

K Street has been the heart of Sacramento since the Gold Rush, and it has played many roles over time. Younger people know it as the home of Light Rail and the Downtown Plaza mall, those in middle age remember the old pedestrian mall with its “tank traps” and fountains, and the older generation recalls the era of cruising K Street in hot rods in the 1950s and 60s. But all of these eras took place while K Street was in decline, and represent desperate efforts to bring suburban visitors back downtown. The era of K Street’s greatest vitality was during the early 20th century through the 1940s.

American downtowns boomed during this time, and Sacramento was no exception. K Street was a shopping street, home to every department store in town, with small specialty shops ranging from herbalists to bookstores. It was also a place for entertainment, including theater, vaudeville, movies, dining, live music, and dancing, although even then it was not Sacramento’s only entertainment district. It was also a place that thousands of Sacramentans called home, living in apartments above retail storefronts. These included modest rooms with a bath down the hall for working people, efficiency apartments for middle-class professionals, and elegant “palace hotels” for wealthy businessmen and legislators who wanted close access to the capital and the city’s financial district. Public transit reached through the city and the region, bringing visitors to K Street, but many called it home.

Teenagers and adults walked downtown on summer evenings, enjoying the respite from the heat, knowing that even at midnight, something was happening on K Street. Because people were always there, it was a safe place to visit. In the mid-20th century, this changed as suburbs grew, shopping centers and malls appeared, and redevelopment emptied the central city. Highways intended to bring people back downtown only made the central city easier to leave, and expensive redevelopment plans brought a few visitors during the day but the city still emptied at night. Sacramento’s legacy as an urban place was ignored, suppressed, and almost forgotten.

This project brings K Street back using a proven method: provide an experience and a place that cannot be duplicated anywhere else in the region. Residential options and transit means that the automobile takes a back seat—you can have a car and live here, but you don’t need one. Unique entertainment and local retail means that shopping and dining and music is different than what you find in any suburban shopping center. Preservation of historic buildings means that K Street’s true history as a vibrant, urban place is apparent to visitor and resident alike, not simulating the past in Disney style, but using the lessons of the past to shape Sacramento’s urban future.

Putting the “Fun” in Funding Sources

In these cost-conscious times, many criticize the use of public subsidy for downtown reinvestment. However, when compared to the costs of subsidized suburban sprawl, subsidizing downtown infill levels the playing field. The “free-market” solution would mean allowing downtown Sacramento to decay entirely, until property values became lower than undeveloped rural land—a nightmare scenario. However, those calling for frugality have a valid point. City resources are limited, and any project on K Street must make the best use of public funds.

For this project, the city provides the land and existing buildings on the site. The recommended project utilizes the buildings, instead of demolishing them, making use of these valuable resources. For the 800 block, the project team has asked to use $16 million in funds that were set aside for a future redevelopment project by David Taylor’s company, and about $6 million in local, state and federal funds for the south half of the 800 block, including rehabilitation of the Bel-Vue. On the 700 block, the project team asks for two $8 million loans, one forgivable upon completion of the project, and one that would be repaid with interest.

One consideration when cities fund public projects is local benefit. Construction projects create jobs, but not all construction projects create the same number of jobs. New construction projects spend about half on materials and half on labor. Rehab of existing buildings spends closer to two-thirds on labor and one-third on materials, because fewer materials are needed and rehab is more labor-intensive. This means more local jobs per public dollar spent. Those dollars directly benefit the local economy, because workers spend the money they earn in their community. Materials for preservation rehab also tend to come from local sources, rather than materials from outside the community, so more of the construction costs also benefit the local economy.

Really Good, But Not Perfect

While the project has many strengths, there are some weaknesses. Downtown Sacramento lacks a grocery store. Existing corner markets and drugstores have limited options, and farmer’s markets do not operate in winter, creating “food deserts” for downtown residents. The closest market is Safeway, accessible by light rail, but downtown needs a more complete neighborhood market offering fresh meat and produce. The development team should consider a market as part of this project.

While transit is close by, service ends after 9 PM, making transit useless for late-night visitors. While transit budgets are outside the scope of the project, better public transportation would complement a transit-oriented project like this.

Finally, while developer David Taylor is well-known for his ability to complete a project, his projects are often criticized as being architecturally conservative and plain. The 800 block plan includes only volume sketches, not detailed renderings, so we do not know how it will look. Similarly, the 700 block’s new residential units must measure up architecturally to the historic buildings they will complement. The eclectic existing architecture of K Street, from Gold Rush brick to Art Deco terra cotta to 21st century high-rise steel and glass, means an unlimited palette for a talented architect.

On July 13, Sacramento’s City Council is scheduled to select a project for K Street. The recommended project is an excellent choice for Sacramento. It embodies and builds upon our city’s history and culture, promotes local business, and brings more housing across all income levels to K Street at a reasonable cost.
 

For more details about each of the four proposals for K Street, check the city of Sacramento's website:

www.cityofsacramento.org/econdev/development-projects/700KStDevelopmentProjectConcepts.cfm

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  July 1, 2010 | 11:30 PM
Thank you for a well written and detailed explanation of why the recommended plan is the right fit for K Street. The synergy of all the elements you cite will bring the long awaited realization of the vision this community set forth in 2005. This plan is the best for K Street as it bring together all the right pieces to make K Street work for this city - not some disney like fake representation of what some developer thinks is right for us. .
5 3
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 2:14 AM
Great analysis. You did a fantastic job hitting on the strengths of the Taylor and D&S proposals. Easier to understand why the Selection Committee and DSP recommended them. And having two teams instead of one hedges the City's risk effectively.
6 3
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 9:31 AM
No matter how the reporter spins it...these two projects could have been pulled from a dusty shelf in SHRA. They are 'safe' and as usual have no vision and certainly do little more than fill in space.
4 5
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 4:46 PM
I admit, I am unfamiliar with any past SHRA projects that resemble this. Could you please give some examples?
2 0
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 7:24 PM
Hey William I will give you an example of how SHRA has screwed up K Street - They have already spent OVER $200 MILLION OF OUR TAX DOLLARS to "revitalize" K Street - and IT FAILED -

Now SHRA wants to double down with FREE MONEY

There is no competition for the proposed projects - the determination was made long before the RFP was issued - NOTHING is decided in the open in Sacramento, EVERYTHING is decided in closed door meetings - The dog and pony show they are going through is for the mere appearance of a public process -

David Taylor will get the project.

1 5
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 9:53 AM
So would the recommended proposals suddenly qualify as "visionary" if they proposed 8 highrises and professional baseball, football, and basketball facilities with 5 billion in necessay subsidy? No spinning here. To me, what made this article effective was it's analytical and very practical approach to assesing which proposals were the best out of a group of teams who all possess excellent track records.
6 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 10:07 AM
This is the least inspiring proposal for K Street yet, and it will do vary little to improve this part of downtown. If the city invests in this proposal, it will prove once again that David Taylor and the city have a "special relationship" that can only be had by city council kick backs. How many projects doe's Taylor get to do that include city subsidies? This guy is making a killing. I bet William Burg is also getting something out of this.
5 4
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 2:37 PM
I'd take that bet Ms Trapper.

Pigs will fly before Bill Burg gets in cahoots with Mr Taylor, or ANY developer for that matter. He has one, demonstrated, consistent, public passion for making Sacramento better. While I'm at it, so has Mr. Taylor, and so has D&S-CFY, and so has Kipp Blewett.

These folks have all put their butts on the line investing in downtown. Your achitectural sensibilities may not approve of their work but they're "in the arena" as Teddy Roosevelt liked to say...not on the sidelines casting aspersions about character.

Sorry, you insulted the integrity of some of my friends. Rant out.
6 4
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 4:58 PM
Every team under consideration has been the recipient of some kind of city subsidy in the past. Rubicon got around $8 million for the Citizen Hotel, Saca was supposed to get $11 million for Capitol Towers before it went under, D&S got funds to fix up the Maydestone (which is underway, btw) and so on. I think it's pretty safe to assume that one of the factors under consideration was experience delivering public-funded projects like this one.

As to what I'm getting out of this, financially, nothing. But what I hope to get out of it is a cool project that fixes up a big chunk of historic buildings that desperately need repair, more downtown residential options for my friends who want to move to the central city, more mid-sized music venues for acts that currently have to play at the Boardwalk in Orangevale (and thus think that is downtown Sacramento) because there aren't enough venues of sizes in between Old Ironsides and the Memorial, and a safer, more interesting stretch of K Street. I also hope it will catalyze more preservation efforts in the other historic buildings nearby, and construction efforts on nearby vacant lots.
7 3
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 5:29 PM
LOL LOL LOTFLMAO @ RichardRich -- oh that’s a good one! "These folks have all put their butts on the line investing in downtown..."

Hey Richey Rich - Taylor and the Greeks have gotten very fat and wealthy off the backs of the tax payers of Sacramento - Most if not all of their projects were subsidized and guaranteed by the tax payers - that’s not "putting their butts on the line.." They have become BILLIONAIRES by having friends in high places, willing to hand them whatever projects they want - probably in exchange for large campaign contributions - Those of us in the know call this what it is, "Bid Steering" a crime and corruption.

2 3
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 5:37 PM
@ TRAPPER - I agree no doubt Burg is in cahoots with Taylor - some call it “guerilla” or "viral” marketing. I’ve long wondered, does Burg get a check for being SHRA/Taylors "community based” PR guy?
3 4
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 11:12 PM
Where is this "cahoots" you speak of?
3 0
REPLY
edited on  July 3, 2010 | 5:12 AM
One of the many reasons I like the committee and DSP recommendation is that it allows for two of the teams to work on revitalizing K St at the same time. And once both are completed, there would be an influx of 300-400 people living there plus several dozen new retailers. That is a very solid impact to finally kickstart the K St Renaissance. And with the least amount of subsidy request. And frankly, I don't see the City underwriting a near $15 million parking bond or giving $3.5 million in permit fee waivers like the Rubicon proposal seeks. A farmers market should be in an existing building or in empty Downtown Plaza. Especially since a major Ferry Building type farmers market is part of the Railyards project already. Finally, all the historic buildings should be preserved and their character both retained and appreciated.
4 2
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 1:29 PM
So quick to criticize these proposals. Have you ever been to the 14th and R block that D&S did? They had that place re-done, all the retail spaces filled, which led to selling just about all the lofts, all in less time than it would take for you to actually think of a plan you consider "visionary."
5 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 2:40 PM
Both D+S and David Taylor have great track records and Sacramento owes Taylor a lot for what he's done on K Street. In addition there is no question D+S and Taylor are qualified teams. But . . .
The City has invested $42M to purchase the land for which they are looking for a Development Partner. Are 256 units and retail uses that will compete with Midtown, R-Street, and East Sac a good Return On Investment?
Including the land, the total subsidy to the D+S/Taylor project totals nearly $80M. That's over $300,000 per residential unit!
And now the City has no more land to do something that could actually change K Street. All the resources will be exhausted.
We will have filled the holes, but at a very high price. Is that what we want?
4 5
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 5:10 PM
Josh, that assumes that there is no value to the nearly 70,000 square feet of retail that is also part of the project. The retail, and the planned uses, complement work already completed and ongoing on K Street.

I don't buy the idea that this project would compete with Midtown or other neighborhoods at all. if that was the case, then we would have seen Midtown business drop off when the D&S project at 14th and R opened. Instead, it has catalyzed with other projects in the area (both new construction and rehab projects like Hot Italian.) It also implies that Midtown business should have dropped off when Grange, Cosmopolitan, and other recent downtown projects opened. This has not been the case--Midtown is still booming. Besides, if this project competes with Midtown, then wouldn't your employer's project (or any other project) compete with Midtown too? Are you suggesting that we're better off leaving the 700 block vacant?

There are elements of competition at work, though. The market for living, entertainment and dining in Sacramento's central city is growing, especially as interest in central cities continues to grow. But funding and support for major, high-risk city projects is limited...and supporting "Hero Project" level ideas like the Boqueria risks taking away money and energy from much larger development projects like Township 9, the Railyards, Crystal Dairy, Crystal Ice/Ice Blocks, CADA Lofts, etcetera.
4 3
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 6:40 PM
We are filling holes that WERE CREATED by SHRA in the first place!

K Street is in shambles ONLY BECAUSE of SHRA has forcibly taken private property at gunpoint away from the owners and will now GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE to their cronies -

WHAT A SCAM

WAKE UP SHEEPLE.
2 5
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 6:31 PM
Your 300k per unit calculation is inaccurate. Why would you take the total requested subsidy and divide by the total # of housing units without factoring in the over 70,000 sq ft of retail space? And why not put a farmers market in an existing vacant building or in a half vacant Downtown Plaza rather than in prime land?
5 1
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 6:41 PM
Because farmers markets do not go indoors
1 4
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 7:31 PM
...except for the farmer's market building at 13th and J Street, or the Ferry Building in San Francisco, and so on...
4 2
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 7:25 PM
we are not San Francisco and we do not have the Ferry building on the water - other than that you mean
2 4
REPLY
edited on  July 2, 2010 | 7:37 PM
Jim...to repeat...the "Farmer's Market" building, at 13th and J Street, currently part of the Sheraton, was constructed as an indoor farmer's market, here in Sacramento.

Oh yeah, one other San Francisco example--for a while, there was a farmer's market inside the "Metreon" mall in San Francisco.

Incidentally, the Ferry Building was not originally a farmer's market--it was, obviously, a ferry terminal. It was repurposed after the Embarcadero Freeway came down, as part of a revitalization of San Francisco's waterfront including the Market Street historic streetcar line.

Now, we don't have a Ferry Building, but we do have a set of large, open, beautifully historic Southern Pacific Shops buildings--and a few years ago, an event was held in the "Paint Shop" (the Shops building closest to the Amtrak depot and the heart of downtown) that showed what a cool farmer's market building it would make!
5 2
REPLY
July 10, 2010 | 12:06 AM
There also was a glass enclosed Farmer's Market at Alhambra and S Street.
0 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 12:39 AM
Great discussion. This is what makes Sacramento Great. Let's continue to make it even better.

A few comments:

1 Burg, I just want to agree with you in principal that one of Sacramento's great assets is it's history. Our history needs to be respected, but also added to. None of the Historical buildings that are on the RFQ land were the original structures. There were buildings prior to them. We can learn from the Europeans here as they have learned to combine the old and new in remarkable ways, honoring the past but also building for the needs of the future.

2. Burg you also mentioned that "Midtown is booming". That may have been the case 2 or 3 years ago. But many retailers and restaurateurs are honestly struggling. And certainly there are other areas, Broadway and Del Paso Rd for example, that have really been hit hard, in part due to Midtown's success and growth. My point is we need to create a different retail environment that draws regionally, ie a 60 mile radius vs a 5 mile radius, so as not to cannibalize from other existing neighborhoods.

3. The two proposals I described in my earlier post have nearly the same amount of retail (55,000 and 65,000). So the question is do we want 256 residential units on 3 land sites or 213 residential units on 1 land site, reserving 2 land sites to do something else? Half the Cost, Half the Land, Same Size. That's one of the important choices.

4. Again on the retail - we have to build retail that draws from the region (60 mile radius vs 5 mile radius). Besides Midtown etc there already exists 400,000+ SF of retail in The Downtown Plaza and K Street. Most of it is struggling. So we must introduce retail that has its own character, is unique, and draws from a larger area at all times of the day.

5. The locations of the Boqueria is important. As its function as a 7 day a week farmer's market with ethnic food stands, wine bar, kosher deli, Italian coffee bar, etc it will need to be accessible to the 100,000 office workers who are downtown every day and be an additional magnet for the weekend tourists who visit the Capitol, Old Sac, etc. The Railyards location is simply too far away to be viable. It is nearly a 25 min walk from the Capitol to the Railyard Depot, One Way.

6. The Boqueria is much more than just a farmer's market. Burg is correct that it is unsustainable and too expensive if that is it's only function. In addition to a market it is a communication/education venue for CA's $40B Ag Industry. When dignitaries are in town from out of state or out of country (for ex. China, Japan, etc) they can conveniently learn about the 400 commodities CA grows, 80 of which we are world leaders in, think almonds, avocados, etc. Each of these 400 commodities have a Growers Association that communicates on behalf of their commodity. These groups highly value a 'showcase' of their produce. Teaching youngsters the benefits of healthy eating is something Kaiser is interested in communicating in the Boqueria. 4th graders who already come to the Capitol in bus loads will have the opportunity to swing thru the Boqueria and learn about healthy, sustainable eating and its effect on their health and well being. Future great chefs will be train in the Demonstration kitchen, learning how to make incredible entree's from the fresh food in the market. Finally Agri-tourism and Farm to the Plate are major Sacramento selling points when the Convention folks talk to groups about visiting and holding events downtown. It is already helping to fill our airport, restaurants, hotels, etc and the Boqueria will increase our chances of landing larger and more frequent groups.
So it is a Farmer's Market, but it also a Communication & Education Tool, and a Additional Unique Convention Space, not to mention an additional Tourist Draw. It helps Sacramento distinguish itself from LA, SF, etc. As local sustainable food and health concerns become increasing relevant The Boqueria's role and function grows. This 'holistic' model is sustainable for years after the Boqueria is built.
There is incredible support for it from the Private and State Food & Ag communities, as well as from UCD, Farm Bureau, Tourism Dept, and Convention and Visitors Bureau.
It is much more than what we all visit on Sunday mornings under the WX freeway.

7. For the reasons mentioned above location is critical - the Boqueria must be near Capitol.

8. Knapp referred to SHRA. In the past they have primarily been involved in building very low, low, and moderate affordable housing, of which there are now over 700 units, and 300+ coming online in existing projects (7th +H, Hotel Barry) downtown vs only 250+ workforce housing. We need more workforce housing downtown. Workforce meaning individuals or couples making between $35-55K/yr.

Look forward to your thoughts.
4 4
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 3:42 AM
Combining old with the new is what makes the D&S/CFY proposal for the 700 block the most attractive. It retains the historic character of the existing buildings by not proposing to demo them. Rubicon proposes demolition. D&S/CFY proposes adding a new structure to the back middle section of the block which yields 136 workforce housing moderate units (not low or very low income units). Taylor's proposal for the Bell Vue does not propose any demo as well. From a preservation aspect, the proposals recommended by the Selection Committee and DSP are more appealing.

I respectfully disagree on the status of the Midtown retail industry. Over the past couple years, Midtown has continued its renaissance. Places like Hot Italian, Chicago Fire, Red Lotus, Shady Lady, De Vere's, Burgers & Brew, Magpie, and others have opened and are doing very well. Further, the DSP studies done on what K St needed for retail concluded that locally operated boutique businesses will be the key driving force in K St gaining a unique identity and successfully being revitalized. That said, a locally operated business can easily draw from greater than a 5 mile radius and that seems to be the intent of businesses like Shady Lady wanting to do a live music venue at the 700 block.

You are still inaccurate on the total subsidy request by not including the retail of the Taylor and D&S/CFY proposals. Based off actual numbers presented by City Staff, the D&S/CFY requested subsidy for 700 block is far less per unit than what Rubicon seeks for the same block. Rubicon is seeking over $33 million. That includes a highly uncertain $14.45 million parking bond and $3.5 million in permit fee waivers. D&S/CFY is seeking $16 million with $8 million of that to be paid back. While the Rubicon proposal does have 77 more housing units, the D&S/CFY proposal has about 11,000 sq ft more retail. Assuming Rubicon in some way can even get the full $33 million they need for the 700 block, does over $17 million in additional subsidy justify demolishing historic buildings for 77 more apartments but 11,000 sq ft less retail? Plus, D&S/CFY have already given the City evidence of equity and a construction commitment letter. And on the 800 block, Taylor already has over $20 million solely at his disposal. There is obviously a reason the Selection Committee and DSP made the choice they did. They had all the facts and all the numbers. And the idea of having 2 teams was appealing to them because it hedges the City's risk.
5 2
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 7:49 AM
The issue of those buildings not being "the original structures" misses the point of historic preservation entirely. Going by that specious argument, Rubicon shouldn't have bothered restoring the Citizen, as it was not the original structure on the site either. It's not about what was there first, but what is there now. European nations tend to have very strict laws about historic preservation, far stricter than ours. And your project doesn't "combine old and new," it wipes the old away entirely. The recommended project, however, does combine old and new. Nobody is saying "don't build anything new," nor is anyone saying "never demolish anything"--even the selected project means the demolition of old buildings (the Feldhusen Building and La Rosa/Sam's Hof Brau.) But it does a far better job of actually using historic buildings as part of the project. New uses in old buildings.

First you claim Midtown is struggling, then you claim other neighborhoods are suffering because of Midtown's success and growth in the same paragraph? Everyone is having a rough time these days, for bigger reasons than Midtown's growth. Midtown is a regional draw, but a project like this helps create something different than Midtown--it becomes part of a more clearly designated entertainment destination, AND a dense, urban residential neighborhood. We have a resource that is unique in the region--a real, urban downtown. Wiping away our downtown to build another one is a foolish exercise.

As to the number of units, It's not just about sheer numbers here. Historic buildings have value, and these ones certainly do. There's the environmental value, their aesthetic value, and the greater economic benefit of rehab vs. demolition/reconstruction. Historic neighborhoods have their own value, one you are totally discounting, and that value is lost when buildings are demolished.

The Railyards will be accessible via the Green Line, currently under construction, and the Gold Line, currently operating. Both put visitors one block from the Railyards and two blocks from Old Sacramento.

camille7444: You mentioned "DSP": Was this project endorsed by the Downtown Sacramento Partnership?
3 3
REPLY
edited on  July 3, 2010 | 6:10 AM
I'll take it one step further as to be as factual as possible. Lets say Rubicon in some highly unlikely way is able to get the $14.45 million parking bond and the $3.5 million permit fee waiver. And we even get really conservative and not count the parking bond as "subsidy" since it will be paid back if ever obtained. Similarly, the D&S/CFY request for $8 million low interest loan we also would not consider "subsidy". The difference in requested subsidy, even when looked at very conservatively, is still extremely significant at $8 million versus $18.6 million. Is almost $11 million in additional subsidy justifiable for 77 more housing units but 11,000 sq ft of less retail space on the 700 Block? To a proposal with uncertainties in its financing to begin with? And for a proposal that also includes a farmers market for the 800 block where Taylor has over $20 million at his sole disposal with the City already? $11 million or $17 million more on 700 and even more on 800 since Taylor already has money set aside. However you look at it, the numbers just don't make sense to go with the Rubicon proposal.
4 2
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 9:24 AM
The DSP board formally made the same recommendation as the Selection Committee and chose the Taylor proposal for the 800 block and D&S/CFY proposal for the 700 block. This was after a lengthy review process that included multiple meetings and presentations of the proposals in front of both the DSP Board and DSP Executive Committee and DSP Strategic Task Force.
3 1
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 9:57 AM
Thanks--I didn't know that Downtown Sacramento Partnership had formally endorsed the project.
4 1
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 11:16 AM
Camille,
Assuming for a moment that your numbers are correct, this is how the math works out (not including the cost of the land - D+S/Taylor uses more land than Rubicon)

D+S/Taylor
$8M + $20M = $28M subsidy
136+55 = 191 units
$146,000 per unit

Rubicon
$18.6M subsidy
213 units
$87,323 per unit
2 3
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 12:15 PM
Once again, this is like claiming a Lincoln Navigator gets better mileage than a Smart based on one-quarter of a sawn-off Lincoln Navigator. Show us the numbers of the whole project, not an edited quarter of it.
2 2
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 11:32 AM
This is a great article, and very interesting wall conversation.

I'm not as familiar with the details of these proposals, but what I can say having spent 10 years living and working in Sacramento is that I would love to visit this promenade on k street if it was to be built. I like the intimacy and local appeal. These other proposals seem too cold to me, not to mention unrealistic. I feel like the Rubicon proposal has a little-brother complex and wants to compete with the big city via a huge over the top circus show. But I think embracing our history and character will make a project like promenade on k street successful. What we need to 'envision' is a project that empowers Sacramento and its local people.
5 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 12:16 PM
Thanks for putting what I am thinking far more succinctly--the recommended project seems far more authentic, while the "Authenti-City" plan just seems so contrived.
3 2
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 11:39 AM
Have any of you been inside the Bel-Vue or any of the 700 Block structures?
They do not look like the Citizen did prior to its renovation.
At the Citizen only the exterior facade's and lobbies were maintained. Everything else was gutted and rebuilt, including several of the structural floors, and all the windows, etc.
Looking at the Citizen from a Cost perspective it would have been much more cost effective to have rebuilt the entire building from scratch. The uncertainties and unforeseen issues of restoration make it very costly. These projects often run well over budget, just ask CFY on D+S's team who did the Globe Mills project.

To clarify Rubicon is proposing to restore the Historical Store fronts of the Bel Vue and 700 block. There is nothing of historical significance (such as marble lobbies or metal staircases) on the building's interiors like there was at the Citizen.


Parking bonds have been used successfully for decades in other cities who have redeveloped there urban cores, such as San Diego, Old Pasadena, and Rockville MD. Even the Sacramento City Manager's office is currently exploring it's use in other parts of the City. It success has been due to it not needing City Subsidy to operate. It is not a City Subsidy!

To clarify what I meant with Midtown. It has been very successful, but is experiencing some headwinds at the moment related to the economy. And it's success has been at the expense of Broadway and Del Paso.
K Street must stand on it's own, it already has plenty of retail, it needs the likes of a Boqueria, Knitting Factory (think House of Blues), and Hall of Fame, which will attract $'s from beyond the reach of Midtown's customer base.
3 4
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 12:13 PM
Yes, I have been inside the Bel-Vue and pretty much all of the 700 block structures. There is a Chinese restaurant inside the Bel-Vue still in operation. The interior of the Bel-Vue has a really great curved wooden stairway and other architectural features that would be lost. The 700 block includes remnants of the old "Underground Sidewalk" street walls, foundations and floors and interiors dating from the 1870s to the 1930s. A full "cut & gut" of the building is expensive--restoration of the buildings as they stand now is less expensive that replacement with buildings of equal quality. Replacement with cheap, cruddy buildings is less expensive--I certainly hope that's not what Rubicon has in mind.

I think you're confusing "historic" with "elaborate." A building doesn't have to be richly inlaid with exotic materials to be historic. Buildings associated with working people can be historic too, and can provide the best examples for how to rebuild a downtown for working people. But they are typically the biggest targets for demolition because they aren't high-profile buildings. The Bel-Vue was built as apartments for moderate-income people, with a market and retail shops at the ground floor. The upper floors of much of the 700 block were part of the Flagstone Hotel, again with ground floor retail. They're the model for the type of city we're trying to rebuild, in place of the playgrounds for commuting suburban dwellers that have failed for decades on K Street.

Leaving the front facade of a building and demolishing the rest, called "facadism" (or, sometimes, "facadomy") is not preservation. Calling it historic preservation is a bit like calling cutting someone's head off and sticking it in a jar of formaldehyde "first aid." And, again, part of the value of old buildings is the embodied energy of the old building--demolishing it takes energy, rebuilding it takes energy, the replacement material takes energy (all of which adds up to energy equivalent to decades' worth of energy use during the building's lifespan) and both the old building and new construction waste strains the local landfill.

As to CFY's experience with historic rehab projects, the fact that they are fully behind this project even after the cost overruns on Globe Mills speaks volumes about their level of commitment to preservation projects. It's also a far simpler situation--instead of converting a poured concrete mill to residential use, this project plans to turn mixed-use buildings back into mixed-use buildings. It's also simpler than turning a 15-story office building into a hotel.

I have been thinking about that "60 mile radius" comment--it really seems like the "regional draw" idea is based around the old K Street Mall/Downtown Plaza model of a place for suburban residents to visit, then return home to the suburbs--a Disneyland of sorts, not a functional neighborhood. It's basically a suburban plan, built on a suburban development model (ignore/bulldoze what is there, build new to suit your model, invent a "past" to suit the perceived market need.) I like the recommended plan because it is an urban plan built on an urban model--utilize and enhance what is there, build around it, bring it back to life instead of killing it off and building a Disney-fied copy. Downtown Partnership's endorsement suggests that they realize this and agree with the assessment. Now, Midtown also draws suburban visitors--but it is the combination of suburban visitors and downtown residents, in a place that functions as a neighborhood, in a functioning historic neighborhood (not a facadomized replica), that makes Midtown work.

Parking bonds are a city subsidy. The city takes the financial risk, income that would have gone to the city pays off the bond with interest, and the developer gets the money.

The Knitting Factory idea bothers me (yes, I know what the Knitting Factory is.) When presented at the initial four-plan meeting, it was claimed that it would compete with the Sleep Train ampitheater in Marysville. This makes no sense, because it is planned as a 2000 capacity hall, while Sleep Train is an 18500 capacity hall. It WOULD, however, compete with the Crest, the Community Center, and Memorial Auditorium, halls in a similar size range. The real need for downtown entertainment venues is in the 300-500 person range (shows that currently go to the Boardwalk in Orangevale, or skip the region entirely and go to the Bay Area) and the recommended plan includes at least one--and possibly three!

Knitting Factory has had its share of criticism for moving away from its original experimental roots, and several have recently closed down. It also represents an example of the "if it's from Sacramento, it isn't any good" mentality--calling in an outside chain business instead of turning to a local promoter or venue. The California Hall of Fame already exists as part of the California Museum on O Street, which people can already visit today.
5 2
REPLY
edited on  July 3, 2010 | 12:58 PM
J-E Paino, with all due respect, the financing and subsidy request is much more complex than what you are indicating. According to the City Staff June 9th Presentation to the DSP Board:

D&S/CFY 700 Block
136 units
37,480 sq ft retail
$16 million total subsidy ($8 million to be paid back as low interest loan)
$117,650 per unit

Rubicon 700 Block
213 units (77 more than D&S/CFY proposal)
27,000 sq ft Retail (10,480 sq ft less than D&S/CFY proposal)
$33.6 million total subsidy ($15 million of which is an uncertain parking bond subsidy)
$157,750 per unit

*So comparing the 700 Block proposals, the Rubicon plan asks for $17.6 million more subsidy, or $40,100 more subsidy per unit, and has 10,480 sq ft less retail. And does not preserve the history.

Taylor 800 Block (North & South)
120 units
32,530 sq ft Retail
Total Subsidy: $6.18 milion
Plus, and this is key, $16 million in MOPA funds already set aside specifically for use on future Taylor projects. In other words, per previous completed Taylor projects, City has this money allocated just for use on Taylor projects.

Rubicon 800 Block (North & South)
Now this is where Rubicon financing gets complicated and must be looked at closely...
$36 million in "Public Sources" not clearly identified yet for the 800 North Boqueria farmers market
$29.86 million in total subsidy for the 800 Block South Bell Vue portion
$10.28 million of that $29.86 million in the form of another uncertain parking bond subsidy.
Does not preserve the Bell Vue and proposes its demolition
Proposes delivery of the 800 Block North & South as a later phase 3 by Dec 2014 and Dec 2015.

*So comparing the 800 block proposals, Taylor proposes a total subsidy of $6.18 million with use of $16 million City must use for Taylor at some point versus Rubicon's $65.86 million in subsidy. Plus an overall subsidy of $107 million for "all four phases" which includes properties currently owned by Mo Mohanna and Benvenuti among others. And of that $107 million?...$65.93 million in uncertain parking bond subsidy the City has no capacity to underwrite. And millions more in permit fee waivers from a depleted building dept currently under audit and major scrutiny. And no evidence of Rubicon equity nor an identified construction lender like the D&S/CFY proposal produced for the 700 block.

This information is all based off the City presentation at several DSP and public meetings.
3 1
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 10:11 AM
Camille, it may help you to read Michael Zwahlen's summary of Rubicon's financial plan from his LivingInUrbanSac Blog

Below's a funding outline for the proposed AuthentiCity and Boqueria California Plan.

By summarizing Rubicon’s project into two financial columns (equity & public funding) the city staff oversimplified Rubicon’s funding strategy. This led the city staff unfortunately to inaccurately represent what Rubicon’s ‘Financial Ask’ of the City is. Rubicon is not asking for $100 M in City funding. In fact, Rubicon’s 700 Block-Only proposal uses half the City Funding that the city staff’s committee recommendation uses to achieve the Same Size project in the Same Time frame.

Rubicon knows the City has but $80M remaining for redevelopment on K Street: $40M of land value (the purchase price of the 700/800 land), $20M of available funds, and $20M of MOPA Funds (ear-marked for David Taylor). Rubicon’s approach is to conservatively leverage this $60M City Investment to create as many jobs, residential units, unique trips, sales tax and real estate tax dollars as possible.

This is not so different than when someone has $20,000 and wants to buy a house. She can buy a smaller house that will cost her $20,000 or the house that is a better fit for $80,000. In order to buy the larger house she leverages (adds additional resources) to the $20,000 to accumulate the $80,000 necessary to buy the larger house. In other words she leverages her available funds to get more.

Rubicon proposes safely leveraging the City’s resources so the City gets more without putting the City at financial risk by using methods the City itself is exploring on other projects and in other parts of town.

If one looks closer at Rubicon’s financing there are basically three categories of funding: Existing Public Funds, New Project Funds, and the Reinvestment of Project Generated Funds.

-The Existing Public Funds consist of the City’s available funds (described above).

-The New Project Funds consists of Rubicon’s Equity and Debt (Rubicon is investing more equity than the staff committee’s recommended project) and not City but Private, State, Federal and Parking funds. The Boqueria California is a perfect example of this. By partnering the City’s land with the State’s Food and Agriculture Industry its possible to create a Civic Amenity that draws potential visitors from through out the region, bringing tax dollars into the downtown without cannibalizing from other parts of Sacramento such as Midtown or the R St Corridor. Another way of saying this is Rubicon is leveraging the Land to attract an investment from the $40Billion/yr Food & Agriculture Industry and create something that otherwise could not be possible.

-Reinvestment of Project Generated Funds consists of funds created by the project that would not exist without the project. These are reinvested into the project.

Because its difficult to summarize Rubicon’s entire proposal into a few paragraphs, let’s compare Rubicon’s 700 Block-Only proposal side by side with the staff committee’s recommendation on all three blocks.

With Rubicon’s proposal Sacramento gets the Same Size project, in the Same Time frame, at Half The Cost and still reserves the opportunity to do something special on the 800 Blocks and still has the $20M of MOPA funds for future reinvestment. (click here for detailed comparison and background data) (link: http://boqueriaca.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Financial-Comparison-rev1.pdf)

SACRAMENTO GETS MORE w/ LESS IN RUBICON’S PROPOSAL
3 4
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 1:29 PM
If it's difficult to summarize Rubicon's entire proposal into a few paragraphs, try using a few more paragraphs instead of trying to hide major parts of the proposal. And if Camille reads Michael Zwahen's repost of your press release, they should also read my feedback comments.

...or, okay, hold on a second...are you saying that now Rubicon only wants to do the 700 block, which means the "Boqueria" plan is entirely scrubbed?
1 2
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 1:42 PM
wow! I'm gonna try your creative math and selective omission of facts with my mortgage lender and creditors and see how that goes.
3 0
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 5:10 PM
I've already read the financing summary on that blog. It's inaccurate and misleading. It's not an accurate analysis. That's why I posted financing & subsidy info straight from City Staff analysis & presentations.
2 0
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 10:43 AM
WBurg,
The staircase you mention is difficult to describe as historic. It maybe old, but that doesn't make it historic.
On the 700 Block the underground sidewalks which the City has recently worked to maintain would not be removed. Rubicon is in discussion with the Center for Sacramento History about opening up sections of these sidewalks to the public in conjunction with a space for the Center to display their archives to the public (they are currently in a difficult to find space off Richards Blvd).

You are incorrect on your assessment of the parking bonds. They are supported by the bond- created incremental increase in parking revenue and do not take $ out of the our City's General Fund.

You ought to visit the Knit in Reno, it's the hottest place in town. There you will see that it is very different than what does or could occur at the Crest, Memorial, or Community Theaters.

3 3
REPLY
edited on  July 4, 2010 | 1:50 PM
I described the staircase in the Bel-Vue as "really great," it is the Bel-Vue building itself that is a historic building. Tell you what, Josh--what do you think makes a building "historic" or not?

Oh yeah, in case you didn't know..the Bel-Vue and the 926 J Street building were both designed by the same architect!
3 2
REPLY
edited on  July 4, 2010 | 1:50 PM
I guess to the Chamber and Developer crowd the entire downtown is just "that old thing in my way" instead of a place that takes actual creativity and vision to restore and reinvent. And comparing us to Reno? Really? Wow that's a new one. At least in the old days we got Portland - also a not so good comparison but it beats Reno. How about we do what is right for SACRAMENTO. Besides the stuff Josh & Rubicon Partners is advocating for is chain based retail you can find in any new shiny shopping mall in the suburbs. The Bocaria is a red herring -& Knitting Factory (a chain) is cover for what they really want - a santized suburb (just like their suburban homes) downtown. What sets us apart is our uban core and destroying that means we have nothing better to offer than a suburb so why would regional residents bother to come here? And on the parking bond the bottom line is the city doesn't get the parking revenue. Yes it might pay for the development but the city doesn't get that money they would otherwise have from parking to pay for other vital services like code enforcement and cops. The city and her residents lose oh but the developers win - not a good trade off.
3 2
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 2:35 PM
Lisa, the Knitting Factory is not a chain, like wal-mart, mcdonald's or quizno's. It is more like Temple Coffee and Old Soul coffee. The Knitting Factory was founded in the Garment district of NYC. Recently they opened a series of West Coast venues. They are located in LA, Reno, Boise, and Spokane. The advantage of these locations is they can hire acts that are between the smaller venues (Crest) and larger (SleepTrain) and offer them a series of shows. Each of the Knit's locations are unique. They look for iconoclastic buildings at the heart of each of these cities. They've wanted to come to K Street for many years, and love the Men's Warehouse building.

On the parking bond, it is the incremental revenue that supports the bond. In other words it is the change in current revenue vs the future revenue that supports the bond. The City does not lose any of its current parking revenue.

The Boqueria is far from a Red Herring as it has tremendous support from the State Ag Industry (both on the private and policy side). This industry is very well capitalized and very much supportive of The Boqueria. Rubicon is not requesting any City Subsidy for the Boqueria.
2 2
REPLY
July 4, 2010 | 2:27 PM
W Burg
You are correct both buildings were designed by the same architect. He was the first State Architect of CA and designed the first structures at Saint Quentin State Prison in Marin. I can't recall his name at the moment.
The exterior of the Bel-Vue is truly unique and represents Sacramento's rich history-the building was built nearly 100 years ago and some rooms have good views of the Capitol, possibly why it was called Bel-Vue. The interior however is neither unique or representative of Sacramento's rich history. Other than possibly the floor plan nothing of the original interior building remains. Both the restaurant on the ground floor and the apartment on the 2+3rd floors have been rebuilt and renovated over time, removing the building's historic and architectural value. I'm all for keeping and showcasing Sacramento's best. The interior of the Bel-Vue and the 700 Block does not represent our best.
As in the Citizen let's combine the best of our past with the best of our future and continue Sacramento's rich legacy into the future.
2 2
REPLY
edited on  July 5, 2010 | 3:04 PM
Well, that's not really how historic preservation works (it's about the building as a whole, not selected portions of it.) It is how facadomy works, so I suppose it comes down to a difference of approach--and a difference between what's on the surface and what lies underneath. It also raises the question of how much of the exterior would even be retained in the facadomy plan--just the front wall? The alley side? The rear wall? The volume renderings suggest that a much taller, much larger building would be located on the site--the Bel-Vue facade would just be a sliver of it. It wouldn't even really count as a facade in such a situation--more of a grim mask at the street level, torn off and stuck on a larger building, out of scale and context.

"Bel-Vue" is not the original name--it was originally called the American Cash Apartments.
0 2
REPLY
July 5, 2010 | 7:21 PM
I think Rubicon is definitely restoring the L Street side and the portion that wraps into the alley. They are also exploring the Alley elevations. The Alley maybe incorporated into the Boqueria with the Boqueria glass roof extending over to the Bel-Vue, this maybe the case also with the wall of the Kress Buiding, if it is possible.
The upper levels would step back from the Bel-Vue's 3 Story elevation and then rise, leaving the elevations to stand out on their own.

Didn't know that about the name, thanks for that.
1 1
REPLY
July 5, 2010 | 9:26 PM
The Bel-Vue doesn't have an L Street side--the building on the corner is the Feldhusen building, with the parking garage and Sam's Hof Brau behind it on L street.
1 1
REPLY
July 6, 2010 | 10:08 AM
The best way to get a central city to thrive is not by drawing suburbanites and exurbanites downtown. It's by getting people to move downtown, live there, and stay there. The only way to do that is to make it desirable- safe and livable. The result would be a stable and genuine community driven by local needs and interests and not by developers' dreams of Disneyland for adults.

As I've commented elsewhere in the Sacramento Press:

A city designed and executed by real estate and development interests, facilitated and promoted by the public sector (government) without community input, can never have a real sense of community.
1 0
REPLY
July 6, 2010 | 1:03 PM
Thomas,
I would add that along with the residential population being necessary to create a community downtown a successful urban core needs to draw tourists and convention attendees. Downtowns like SF and NYC are what they are because they are supported by residents, businesses, tourists, and convention goers. Downtown Sacramento does well with in the business category, average in the tourist and convention goer category, and poor in the resident category. All categories must be healthy for a downtown to be successful.
1 0
REPLY
July 6, 2010 | 5:56 PM
Mr. Wendel: In 2005, the city of Sacramento held a "charrette" followed by community input to figure out what to do on K Street. The end product was a provisional plan for the 700 and 800 block that preserved the existing buildings that was never carried out, due to an extended court battle and a fire that destroyed a quarter-block. The recommended plan by D&S and Taylor closely matches the plans and objectives, as outlined by city residents, the development community and the city. It also takes deliberate steps to promote security and safety by design--although, quite obviously, this will require followup by the city to make K Street a safe and attractive place.
2 1
REPLY
July 6, 2010 | 12:57 PM
W Burg - I meant the 8th St side. Thanks for the correction.
0 1
REPLY
July 6, 2010 | 5:52 PM
In other words, just the front wall--the standard "facadism" approach. Thanks for the clarification.
1 2
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 6:56 AM
No not just the front wall. The alley and 8th Street walls. You can call it whatever you like. The real issue again is what are we trying to accomplish? Are we embracing our past so tightly that it becomes an albatross, hindering us from realizing our potential. If Sacramento's forefathers had thought like that the Bel-Vue would never have been built in the first place.
It's nearly a unanimous opinion that we need alot of workforce housing downtown to turn downtown's fortunes around. Converting the Bel-Vue from it's current state of 28 residential units into 28 modernized units isn't enough to change the trend.
Our forefathers didn't think it would, why should we?
2 2
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 7:48 AM
What are we trying to accomplish? Well, in the case of this project, trying to fix up a city block without breaking the bank. The past approach of demolishing an old neighborhood entirely hasn't worked too well over the last 50 years. Fixing up the old buildings and inserting infill where necessary is an approach that works--it requires a little more creativity, and a little more appreciation for who we already are as a city vs. who we might want to be in our imaginations.

We are already basically "camping" on a couple of other blocks in the central city (10th & J, 11th & J, Railyards, Docks, 3rd and R, etc) waiting for the right time to build those high-rise condo towers, and in most cases those projects are already approved and entitled--this just adds another block of "real soon now" to the stack instead of taking action to fix up what we have and revitalizing in a simple and economical way. It's urban density and vitality--but at a human scale.

The Rubicon plan is not a sustainable plan--economically, socially, historically, it's just another money pit in a city where we already have too many.
0 2
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 11:27 AM
I'm sorry you feel the way you do
I think Sacramento has made some great strides in the last decade or so, especially downtown and in midtown. It's been tough, takes longer than expected, and is expensive.
I'm willing to wait to do the right thing vs hurrying up to do the half-right thing
2 3
REPLY
edited on  July 7, 2010 | 10:47 PM
The recommended plan is the right thing--it is really a plan years in the making, starting with the 2005 J-K-L charrette and the projects that followed it. Those plans were delayed for years by a property owner who wanted to build a shiny new skyscraper on the site, but when the plan came to council there was no clear way to finance it and there didn't appear to be sufficient demand for that project and the other hotel planned for K Street (speaking of which, how does your project's hotel fit into the same scenario?)

The D&S/Taylor plan fulfills those objectives, not by hurrying, but by doing what the city has been calling for, using proven models and available financing. It's a little less Hollywood, but it's a heck of a lot more Sacramento.

I'm a bit dismayed by the idea that preservation of historic buildings "hinder us from our potential." Those buildings, as an irreplaceable resource, represent our potential only when fully utilized, potential that would be wasted with their demolition. The idea that we should demolish them to make way for "progress" rings in my ears a lot like cries of "Drill Baby Drill" without regard for the consequences.

Speaking of which...if the Rubicon plan is supposed to attract visitors for about 60 miles, where will they park? Most of the region does not have sufficient public transit to bring many people. It sounds like parking fees are a big part of the plan (that $15 million parking bond) and you claim that parking will go up dramatically--so where does the parking structure go? What effect will this project have on traffic on downtown streets, on highways, etcetera? How does the plan address those issues, or does it address them at all? And how does a plan designed to generate so many more car trips call itself "sustainable"?

I suppose people could come visit via Amtrak, but if they do that, they could very easily visit a public market in the Railyards!
2 1
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 8:14 PM
I have been look at the Rubicon plan, and there are some more questions...how does Knitting Factory propose to fit a 2000 seat music venue in the building at 700 K Street? The building on the plans appears to be conjoined with its neighbor, measuring around 80x90 feet or roughly 7200 square feet. Divided by 2000, that's less than four square feet per person--not counting any space for kitchen, bar, storage, mechanicals, or stage. How does a 2000 capacity music venue fit into this small space?
1 1
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 8:40 PM
You guys can argue the numbers all you want, but to me, the staff-recommended plans by Taylor and D+S are, in a word, boring.

Same old rehashed, small, and uninspired thinking with cookie-cutter retail with residential above in wrapped in a plain paper box. That will not be enough to attract people to visit or open businesses or live downtown. It's just not good enough to kickstart downtown and give people a reason for wanting to be there.

Of the four, the only plan that has a chance of being a catalyst to revitalizing downtown and giving us a place we can be proud of, IMO, is the Rubicon plan. Unfortunately, the rest leave me yawning. Which is probably why the city is favoring them, all conspiracy and corruption theories aside.
2 2
REPLY
edited on  July 7, 2010 | 10:44 PM
Plans of similar scale, or smaller, are the hot spots of the central city--look at 14th and R, or 16th and L, or 16th and J, or 10th between J and K, or really just about all of the successful projects of the past few years. They're all based on rehab of existing historic buildings and infill that connects the existing urban fabric. The central city is already kickstarted--in terms of activity and street life, Tuesday nights these days look like Saturday nights did a decade ago, weekend nights look like Second Saturday did, and Second Saturday looks like a complete mob scene! Instead of projects intended to draw car-centric looky-loos, this project can help knit together the wounded urban fabric of downtown Sacramento through repair and infill, not wholesale destruction and replacement. That strategy has led to failure after failure over the past 50 years on K Street. People already want to be in the central city--property values in central city neighborhoods have suffered far less than new suburban developments, especially historic buildings. Downtown hasn't shared Midtown's success on corners where developers want to build skyscrapers someday, like 10th and J and 11th and J, and are letting the vacant properties where they want to build sit decaying while they wait for the 2005 housing market to happen again. The Rubicon plan makes the same assumptions--and will result in years of waiting while the buildings continue to decay--assuming they don't simply destroy them in anticipation of a payday that may never arrive. Instead, we can build a project that can start pretty much immediately, be done more quickly, and help knit the central city together.

The D&S and Taylor plans go beyond the Midtown model--they add a higher density of residential, across the economic spectrum/ The commercial component, far from "cookie-cutter" (no chain stores here!) is based on late-night activity that also draws a daytime crowd, and live music venues filling a major gap in the existing music scene.

I suppose it's not exciting enough for people who really, really love skyscrapers, even if they aren't economically feasible. As to how the projects actually look, none of these plans have detailed renderings yet. Rubicon's plan is based on a couple of scribbly sketches of part of the plan, and volume-only renderings for the tall towers (which are short on detail in other ways, like what demand they supposedly fill and how much public subsidy they require.) The only thing we know about are the historic buildings themselves, which the Rubicon plan will pretty much brush aside, or treat as a minor decoration, assuming that they survive the demolition of the rest of the building.
1 2
REPLY
edited on  July 7, 2010 | 11:28 PM
There are key fundamental questions that have been raised throughout these comments that have conveniently neglected to be answered. If we are going to have a discussion then lets really have a discussion.... I'm very interested to see answers these questions...

1) How does the Rubicon intend to obtain a $15 million parking bond from the City when the City has no capacity to issue this?
2) How does Rubicon justify having over $17 million additional subsidy request for the 700 Block for just 77 more units while have approx 11,000 sq ft LESS retail when compared to recommended D&S/CFY proposal?
3) How does Rubicon justify the City not taking advantage of $20 million in MOPA funds already set aside for Taylor only projects for the 800 block?
4) How does Rubicon expect to obtain over $100 million in total subsidy for its "grand vision"?
5) Of that over $100 million, how does Rubicon expect to obtain about $67 million in parking bond permits when, again, the City, simply cannot issue?
6) How does Rubicon expect to obtain over $5 million in permit fee waivers for the two blocks from a Building Dept under so much scrutiny?
7) How does Rubicon justify not fully preserving the existing historic buildings like the recommended proposals have?
8) Why has the RFQ process changed? It was originally setup to where just a recommendation would be made by the Selection Committee? Why was the process expanded and by who?
9) What does it say that both the Selection Committee and Downtown Sacramento Partnership have both recommended the D&S/CFY and Taylor proposals? Why did they?
10) How does Rubicon intend to gain control of the surrounding properties that are included in their proposal? Especially when they are owned by Mo Mohanna and Benvenuti?
11) Why not put a farmers market in the open Downtown Plaza instead?
12) Has Rubicon given evidence of equity or any commitment letters from any lenders?
13) How does Rubicon expect to get financing for the hotel portion of their "grand vision" when two other hotel proposals on K St have so recently failed?

Lets see answers to each of these questions Rubicon before asking us as the public to even begin to believe in you, your proposal, and even think about committing anything close to the amount of subsidy you are seeking.
2 2
REPLY
July 8, 2010 | 7:58 AM
#8 is a key point--ordinarily, a selection committee of professionals provides a recommendation that is forwarded to the council. In this case, an ad-hoc committee of city council members has been inserted into the regular flow of work, Why is that?
1 0
REPLY
July 7, 2010 | 11:02 PM
JKL CHARETTES-
In Rubicon's proposal they state that someone from their team has been to virtually EVERY Charette over the last several years regarding the JKL Corridor.
They also state that the overwhelming sentiment of these Charettes was a call for:
-High Density Housing over Retail
-Civic Amenities and Entertainment
-A Comprehensive Plan
-Remove Blight

It's hard to argue that any of the other proposals responded as strongly to the Charette guidelines.


PARKING-
Alot of people have said that there is not enough parking downtown and that new parking structures are needed. The City hired Walker Parking Consultants in 2006 to do a study for a new parking garage at 9th and L. Their conclusion was that there was not enough demand during off-peak hours (peak hours being between 10am and 2pm) to warrant any new parking structures downtown. Furthermore they said that until additional residential, entertainment, and retail amenities existed downtown there would be no need for additional parking structures.
Downtown does not currently have a parking problem!
A parking problem downtown would be a good problem.
In summary there is an abundant supply of parking downtown - over 3,000 stalls under Westfield that never fill up, public and private parking garages are everywhere on both sides of K Street. They do fill up during peak business hours, but otherwise (during evenings and weekends) sit virtually empty.
So there is plenty of parking capacity to bring hundreds of thousands of visitors a year into the K Street corridor to visit the Boqueria, Knitting Factory, and Hall of Fame from 60 miles away.

Furthermore, its a misconception that paying for parking will detract customers. It's been found (in Old Pasadena, San Diego, Rockville MD, and many other cities) that customers will pay for CONVENIENCE. (currently if you buy something at Westfield you can have your parking ticket validated)

KNITTING FACTORY-
Take a look at the 2nd and 3rd floor plans in addition to the 1st floor plan and you'll see that there is
-a small entrance on the ground floor, the first floor is primarily a restaurant and bar
-the stage and backstage area with seating area are on the second floor
-and there is a mezzanine level to accommodate the balance of the seating
over 25,000 SF in total
This arrangement creates a very intimate setting where everyone is close to the musicians, and not too close to each other.
1 1
REPLY
edited on  July 8, 2010 | 7:56 AM
The JKL charrette produced several proposals--one was pretty much as grandiose as the Rubicon plan, involving multiple blocks, demo of historic buildings, many properties not city owned, residential luxury condos, etcetera. It was rejected as too expensive, even during the heady days at the height of the housing boom. If a plan like this was rejected as too expensive during the biggest boom in generations, how can it be anything but a failure in the current (and projected) market?

All of the other proposals respond to the old JKL guidelines. You're also leaving out another priority--preservation of the historic buildings. Excusing demolition by breaking out the magic word "blight" is nonsense--"blighted" doesn't really mean anything, it was created as an excuse to knock down neighborhoods and has been misused ever since.

As to parking: Your parking assumption is based on the idea that Westfield's parking will never fill up. Their parking is available now because Westfield's mall doesn't have enough tenants. Is part of this plan contingent on Westfield remaining one-third vacant, and that another project's parking will always be available? Where will the purported new residents park, or visitors to the hotel? Will residents at the high-end luxury lofts planned for the 800 block be expected to park 2 blocks away in the Westfield lot? Oh yeah--if you park under Westfield, you can only have your parking validated if you spend money at Westfield. If Rubicon isn't willing to provide any on-site parking, are they willing to pay Westfield for the right to validate their parking?

And it's not just about parking spaces--it's about additional vehicle miles, additional load on highways and public streets, additional gasoline consumption and resulting pollution. That doesn't sound very green or sustainable for me, and it will make auto traffic and air quality worse through adjacent neighborhoods.

The main concert floor in the three-story Knitting Factory plan is still only about 8000 square feet. That's still not enough for a 2000 person capacity music hall.
0 0
REPLY
July 8, 2010 | 6:19 AM
Architectural Drawings of the 2nd Floor with Mezzanine can be found at http://boqueriaca.com/?page_id=254
0 0
REPLY
July 8, 2010 | 8:21 AM
Wow, I just realized something after going through City Staff's powerpoint presentation slides from the various meeting the past month. The approx $67 million in subsidy request in the Rubicon proposal in the form of parking bonds (somehow to be underwritten by the City) are IN ADDITION to the over $100 million in total subsidy request (Not part of as previously thought!). That $67 million is assumed to be part of Rubicon's equity! This financing plan is ludicrous.
1 0
REPLY
July 8, 2010 | 7:54 PM
camille: Where did you see that? It's an interesting point, but it isn't mentioned in the copy of a city powerpoint I have--but that copy only includes the portions of the project that were supposed to take place on city property (in other words, only half of the project) adding up to $100 million.

Any clue where the rest of the information can be found? Rubicon's website is more style than substance...
0 0
REPLY
July 13, 2010 | 1:18 PM
As a resident, I see this project's Achilles' heel is the lack of a small-scale supermarket like Trader Joe's. In terms of the requisite *pieces* of the project, the Sacramento Alliance Team has this proposal beat. On the funding, you definitely have a point! Yikes! But that's not a good enough reason for me to support less of a project that doesn't meet my needs at the concept stage. I'd rather support the Boqueria and then hold Rubicon and Co. to the fire relative to securing private capital from their partners (like the California farmers' association).

Also, are the numbers really believable other either side? They can easily be cooked to support either project.
0 0
REPLY
July 14, 2010 | 12:42 PM
Actually, D&S does plan to add a medium-sized neighborhood market to the project--they just had not identified a specific tenant by the time they submitted the proposal.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background