The final touches are being taken care of at the new La Valentine apartments and judging by their Facebook page, they have a steady flow of new tenants moving in too.  This $27 million project has 81 units of affordable housing adjacent to the Alkali Flat/La Valentina light rail station. La Valentina Apartments - 429 12th Street, Sacramento, California 95814 innov8 William Burg comment-72179 2012-08-10T19:36:27Z 2012-08-10T19:36:27Z What is the market rate for new construction in a central city neighborhood of similar size and scale? William Burg 2012-08-10T19:36:27Z cogmeyer comment-72176 2012-08-10T17:59:11Z 2012-08-10T17:59:11Z Nobody is complaining about the density. The complaint is that the cost is far above market rates, and since the project uses significant taxpayer funding I would say it deserves scrutiny. Reverse commutes are not unlikely since Sacramento city has failed miserably to compete for desirable jobs. Traffic on my daily commute out to Folsom is often as bad as the "normal" commute going the other way. And light rail is a non-option for anybody in the productive class who might want to see their kids before bedtime, as it takes 3-5 times longer even with light rail stations nearby. cogmeyer 2012-08-10T17:59:11Z Tony Sheppard comment-72170 2012-08-10T06:21:54Z 2012-08-10T06:21:54Z There's a cost for density, for sure, but density also has it's advantages. These tenants will all live right on top of the lightrail tracks and won't be clogging Hwy's 50 and 80 and spewing 10-50 miles worth of fumes in a daily commute (unless they do some kind of reverse commute to Folsom or Vacaville, which seems unlikely). And they can get to work around town without competing with commuters for garage space. You've got 81 units worth of property tax payments being made via rent checks on a very small footprint compared to a fourplex or some other relatively low density, multi-unit housing. It's not the cheapest upfront, but it does have long term economic and environmental benefits. Tony Sheppard 2012-08-10T06:21:54Z William Burg comment-72157 2012-08-09T19:57:11Z 2012-08-09T19:57:11Z The dingbats and the Victorians definitely have their appeal and uses--it is generally cheaper (and always greener) to fix up an old building than to demolish it and replace it with a new one. The fact that many have stood for a century or more says all that is necessary about their seismic stability. Even the unlovable buildings of mid-century construction (like dingbats and tilt-ups) are generally cheaper, allowing new, creative businesses and cultural uses to flourish--every event at the recent LAUNCH festival took place in either an adaptively-reused old building or an actual historic landmark! The dingbat apartments are a valuable part of central city housing stock because they provide reasonable rents and population density throughout our historic central city neighborhoods, allowing those who can't afford a Victorian or Bungalow to live among them at a reasonable price. But in the long run, we'll need a lot more housing alongside the supply we already have! Projects like La Valentina have value because they fill long-vacant lots that would otherwise provide no housing, other than the tents and shanties of those who couldn't afford to move to the "low-cost" housing in underwater subdivisions on the suburban fringe. New infill is a necessary component of urban repair, and it doesn't happen automatically, nor does the "free market" fill in when there is so much subsidy for outward suburban sprawl. William Burg 2012-08-09T19:57:11Z Jeremy comment-72151 2012-08-09T18:36:23Z 2012-08-09T18:36:23Z By De-Gentrification do you mean we should of just left it to Loaves and Fishes to finish what they started? We could have shanties (really low subsidies and they are green) and crazies runnin' up and down infecting 12th street even more than it already is. Would that be a better solution? I don't have a problem with my tax dollars going to create this project. I do have a problem with blight and bad Architecture. Especially in a corridor such as this. There are plenty of drafty dingbats and Victorians for those who appreciate that sort of housing. These vintage types of structures would not make it through the building department of today's standards. In contrast there should be accessible, efficient, safe, seismically sound and attractive housing/ mixed use that add to this wonderful City not diminish it. Jeremy 2012-08-09T18:36:23Z William Burg comment-72143 2012-08-09T14:08:45Z 2012-08-09T14:08:45Z The intent is not to "diss" the dingbat but to clarify the difference between the price of older housing stock and new construction. I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree about the need for low/mid-income housing, and the idea that the people who move into those units will never earn an extra dollar--the income range for the apartments at La Valentina will vary from $20K to $60K a year. Unlike the stereotyped assumption that this housing is solely for those on public assistance, it also means a place for working folks, or people like Sergio's friend who moved in last month. There is plenty of vacant housing "around" Sacramento--but not all that much within Sacramento's downtown core. That is one of the issues housing like this is meant to address. I realize some don't recognize that need and don't want their taxes to pay for it, but don't agree with their conclusion. William Burg 2012-08-09T14:08:45Z cogmeyer comment-72118 2012-08-09T04:51:17Z 2012-08-09T04:51:17Z I am probably about the same age as you, so you will not get horseless carriage anecdotes from me. I have no reason to doubt that this project was built with the best windows, insulation, HVAC, foundation, interior and architects that money could buy, and is much better in every regard than the units on T Street. The problem is that the free-market value of low-income housing is about 25% the cost of this SHRA Taj Mahal. You can diss the "dingbats" on T St, but that is the kind of housing where hundreds of thousands of Sacramentans live. Spending $27M for 81 families is ridiculous by any measure. To top it off, you will now fill these rent controlled units with tenants whose cardinal motivation is to never earn an extra dollar ever again. The idea of needing to add more low-income housing around Sacramento is another empty myth. You can buy currently vacant houses all over Sacramento for under $100/sf. You could give the poor a house, throw in a car, and still spend half of what was dumped into the Valentino boondoggle. cogmeyer 2012-08-09T04:51:17Z William Burg comment-72109 2012-08-09T00:34:22Z 2012-08-09T00:34:22Z That $700K is before financing costs--so call it more like $200K a unit. They're all one-bedroom units, the La Valentina project is a mix of studios, 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units, mostly 2 and 3 bedrooms. LEED standards aren't a red herring when the units are so energy efficient the difference in utility bills will add up to millions over the building's life. The building age is applicable too--the building at 24th and T looks like one of those 1950s-60s "dingbat" apartments, pretty much the nadir of construction quality and energy efficiency. Fixing up a building of that era to comparable energy efficiency would be difficult--more difficult, in fact, than your 75 year old home, as pre-WWII homes were often more energy efficient than building from the postwar boom--only in the last decade or two have building standards risen to the point where they are comparable to prewar construction. So your 60 year old building, fully financed and with insulation/systems upgrades, would probably cost at least a quarter-million each, but it doesn't add a single unit to the overall number of central city housing units, nor does it substitute adequately for the two and three bedroom units included in this project. So, no, your example fails. Construction method also matters--the La Valentina project is a four-story project on a concrete podium, not a stick-built drywall/stucco two-story building. Higher-quality construction methods cost more. Building today also costs more than it used to--materials, labor, etcetera have all gone up since the 1950s. I'm sure you have plenty of anecdotes about how you used to be able to buy a candy bar for a nickel, but it's not the 1950s anymore, so no, the price of a 50+ year old building isn't directly comparable to brand new construction. William Burg 2012-08-09T00:34:22Z cogmeyer comment-72101 2012-08-08T21:10:47Z 2012-08-08T21:10:47Z William, if $650K is a "common manipulation", then please share your calculation of the per unit cost (including financing). I see an 8 unit complex at 2411 T Street for $700K. $88K per unit. No matter how you measure it, several times cheaper than the SHRA boondoggle units. LEED standards and age are complete red-herrings. I live in a 75 year old non-LEED home without any negative impact on my life, so why would this be unacceptable for low-income tenants? http://www.loopnet.com/xNet/MainSite/Listing/Search/SearchResults.aspx#/95816/Multifamily/For-Sale/c!ARUIBQAAAQ cogmeyer 2012-08-08T21:10:47Z William Burg comment-72095 2012-08-08T19:30:03Z 2012-08-08T19:30:03Z Yes, where are these $60K Midtown apartments? The cheapest things on Metrolist are two condos for $120K and $160K at 10th and P, for one-bedroom condos of about 350 and 550 square feet, in a 30 year old building. Comparing new construction built to high LEED standards to 30 year old two-story stucco condos is a bit out of whack. Powell uses a very common manipulation here of not including the retail space in the unit cost, artificially increasing the unit price. William Burg 2012-08-08T19:30:03Z Kevin Greene comment-72091 2012-08-08T17:47:43Z 2012-08-08T17:47:43Z While there were redevelopment dollars used in the project (a $3 million agency loan) the overwhelming source was low income housing tax equity (approx. $17.5 million) along with conventional financing, state grants, enviro remediation grants, etc. As a resident of the neighborhood (and someone who is now desperately searching for these $60k nice apartments) i applaud the work of SHRA and the developer who has a very successful track record building and managing these projects. Kevin Greene 2012-08-08T17:47:43Z Rhys02 comment-72072 2012-08-08T00:28:03Z 2012-08-08T00:28:03Z What is sad is this a a further de-gentrification of Alkali Flats. What the A F and other neighborhoods like Oak Park need is a BALANCED mix of housing. City staffers (many of them former staffers in SHRA) are all too happy to dump more below market rate housing in these struggling neighborhoods. They assume the neighborhoods should be grateful because something is being built. You will never get full service grocers and other retailers to move into a neighborhood when most of its residents are on some sort of subsidy. Get a good balance of market rate and subsidized housing and there will be plenty of places to shop..for everyone, including those for whom a restaurant is a treat only afforded once every couple of months. Rhys02 2012-08-08T00:28:03Z Craig Powell comment-72066 2012-08-07T22:29:24Z 2012-08-07T22:29:24Z The La Valentina apartments, a 81-unit project, had a $27 million project cost - representing a cost of $333,333 for each apartment unit built and a scandalous waste of taxpayer money. This project is Exhibit A for why redevelopment agencies were eliminated. Redevelopment agencies are simply incapable of controlling costs. Nice one-bedroom apartments in Midtown can be purchased for $60,000. This type of spending boondoggle has been repeated at SHRA projects all over town. The $27 million project cost, incidentally, does not include the future interest cost of servicing the SHRA debt incurred to build this project, which could push the total project cost to closer to $50 million or $650,000 per unit, paid for with downtown property taxes that would otherwise have flowed to local schools and city services such as police, fire and parks. RDA's: R.I.P. Craig Powell 2012-08-07T22:29:24Z Sergio Reyes comment-72054 2012-08-07T20:00:26Z 2012-08-07T20:00:26Z My friend moved in about a month ago. Awesome unit, great 3rd story view. A blessing for Alkali Flat, really. Sergio Reyes 2012-08-07T20:00:26Z Carlos Eliason comment-72042 2012-08-07T18:12:33Z 2012-08-07T18:12:33Z Nice to have great looking affordable housing like this! Carlos Eliason 2012-08-07T18:12:33Z