Tag Cloud
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Photo tour of Maydestone Building renovation
by Brandon Darnell, published on November 17, 2010 at 6:15 PM
Storyline: Local Business
Loading images
The century-old Maydestone building at the corner of 15th and J streets is scheduled to open in spring or summer to provide 32 apartments to working-wage tenants.
“We broke ground a couple of months ago,” said Bay Miry of D&S Development. “We’re building it in four phases of eight units.”
The building has four floors for housing and a basement, which will serve as a common area with an exercise room, office spaces and a common kitchen.
All units are fully contained with their own kitchens and bathrooms as well.
“I’m most excited about two things,” Miry said. “First, we are rehabilitating a major eyesore in a very prominent location. Second, it provides more workforce housing to Midtown and downtown.”
Much of the building’s historical character is being preserved, including the above mosaic at the main entrance.
According to Miry, historic pull-out beds are being preserved and incorporated into some of the remodeled units.
Corner units are the bigger ones, coming in closer to the 850-square-foot size. Smaller units begin at 400 square feet, and Miry said monthly rents will range from $700-$1,100.
Rooms will be accessed through the interior hallway on each floor.
An all-metal exterior staircase will allow for the building to be accessed by the rear as well as the front.
Some of the details of the approximately $8 million project are still being hashed out, and in the above photo, co-owner Steve Lebastchi (right) discusses construction-related issues with contractors.
The above photo shows the basement, which will house the common area and amenities.
Brandon Darnell is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Many friends lived in this building and the place was spectacular - even when it wasn't shiny. Rehab - not demoltion is the best form of economic development in that it creates more jobs per dollar spent than new construction and it is the greenest choice. Buildings do not ask to be mistreated. We have too many examples of owners who have no business owning buildings like this. If you can't take care of it, don't own it. Structures of this caliber deserve respect and good maintenance. Very glad to see it come back to life. As I recall, Midtown Monthly ran a story on this recently as well.
The majority of the funding came from high risk loans out of city redevelopment funds.
Even if we were to agree on the shaky prospect of a budget constrained city being in the mortgage business, we certainly need to question whether this is the most cost effective way to house workers.
The challenge is that the it is relatively high priced real estate for moderate income housing. The resulting poor ROI forces along 55 year repayment terms which ties up redevelopment funds that could otherwise be used elsewhere.
Simply put, a use with a better payback (hotel, condo, offices) might keep more money in the redevelopment pool, while 32 small apartments could be acquired elsewhere in the city for a much lower cost per square foot.
It's not the worst venture the SHRA has embarked on, but is a pretty typical example of the pitfalls of central planning.
BTW your "real people" comment seems to imply that people only count under a certain income level. What a great new way to classify and segregate people... much more efficient than the old methods (racial stereotyping, family provenance, geographical origin, religion).
Could you please let us know at what income people stop being "real" anymore? And once someone crosses that threshold, can they ever come back?
The central city has a massive jobs/residents imbalance. About 100,000 people commute into downtown Sacramento every day--but only about 30,000 people live there. Assuming that everyone living in the central city, including retirees, the disabled, and children, had a job, we still have a jobs/residents ratio of over 3:1. These jobs range from very high-paying positions to minimum-wage jobs.
Those 100,000 commuters take public roads or public transit, and maintenance of roads and transit has real consequence costs to taxpayers. If some of those people can live in the central city, minimizing their commutes (and thus their impact on roadways and traffic, during commute hours and otherwise) the public is saved that expense. But there are other benefits--the presence of residents in the central cities makes those neighborhoods safer and more pleasant for residents and visitors, and makes the central city a more attractive place. That encourages tourism, investment, and business.
Rents of $700-1000 a month are intended for people making between about $10-20 an hour, so not necessarily minimum-wage workers, but entry-level office workers or retail supervisors, or even restaurant/bar/nightclub staff who make a lot of tips.
If they live in the central city so close to their jobs, they have less need of a car--and can save that expense entirely if they choose to do so. The lot in back of the building provides some parking, but not enough for all residents (although there is a by-the-month rental garage right next door.) Because the neighborhood is so close to neighborhood amenities, workplaces, and public transit, and is in the most walkable and bikeable part of the city, it is far more feasible to get by without a car.
There is already quite a bit of luxury housing in the central city--mid-rise condos at 15th and L and 17th and L, and assorted other places throughout the central city. They aren't selling very well, but projects that were more affordable and accessible have proven much more successful in attracting tenants. Commercial properties are also facing a glut of oversupply, and hotels are also a market that has had trouble maintaining capacity, let alone needing room for expansion. There is demand for affordable workforce housing in the central city, and if the free market can't compete because suburban housing is too highly subsidized, the public sector can provide support that meets that need and also pursues other city objectives.