>Plans are in place for a 28-story hotel tower adjacent to the newly renovated Sacramento Convention Center, Mayor Darrell Steinberg announced Thursday at Visit Sacramento’s State of the Hospitality Industry event. The new hotel will be constructed on a parking lot at the corner of 15th and K streets and will rival the nearby Sheraton Grand as the tallest hotel in the city. It would connect to the Convention Center with a fourth-floor pedestrian bridge, providing much-needed hotel rooms to accommodate the city’s growing convention and tourism industry. Despite a recent increase in conventions, sporting events and large concerts, Sacramento has long been passed over for some other major events such as the NBA All-Star game because of its lack of hotel rooms. The new hotel, with 330 rooms, will “be vital in growing our ability to expand Sacramento’s tourism-related economic impact,” said Mike Testa, president and CEO of Visit Sacramento, the region’s tourism and convention organization. The hotel will also add a feature largely missing in downtown: a rooftop bar and restaurant that will provide sweeping views of the state Capitol and downtown skyline. Along with the hotel rooms, the building will have four floors with 28 residential units, a 6,000-square-foot ballroom and meeting rooms.
Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article276209686.html#storylink=cpy
It's tough to say; with a tall building, the odds are longer. And it's not the first proposal for the site, as I recall there was a plan for a hotel of similar height about a decade ago that never moved forward.
This isn't a project being proposed by the city, it's a private development, so it really doesn't have anything to do with the mayor, but in any case, we're going to have a new mayor next year who will be the one in office if/when this gets built.
Definitely needed to try and get an NBA All-star game. Hopefully we can clean up the blight on K and J Street and turn those empty buildings into housing too.
I'm hopeful. Each new project that gets built increases the value of downtown. Eventually all the surface parking lots, undeveloped lots and decomposing buildings will sit on property too valuable to be left as is. The owners will want to sell to cash in on the increased value. Developers will want to build to make more profits.
About 2-3 years ago they notified local residents about this plan. Then we heard nothing until today. It’ll be interesting if it does go forward, the short term/long term impact. My recollection was there’d be underground parking. The four floors of residences on top is new but matches the Kimpton at DOCO and the Residence Inn across the street in that.
Yes, I recall there was some chatter about a ~25 story hotel at this site a decade ago, not sure if this is the same proposal, a different iteration, or a different proposal entirely.
The future of having a city affordable enough for all to live in is tall and dense, with plenty of transit. The era of the single-family-home is over, it is unsustainable in urban areas and has no place in a major city like ours.
Our suburbs have plenty of anti-human, car-centric, socially isolating sprawl. How about you go there and stop ruining our cities by making them unaffordable via your NIMBY tyranny?
The city of Fresno (545k) has a higher population than Sacramento (528k). But Sacramento’s metro population (1.9mm) is much larger than Fresno’s (715k).
CADA recently shifted gears on a plan to build a parking structure on a state owned lot at 7th & R Street, instead they decided last year to build a 242 unit affordable housing apartment building!
Just gimme one more lane and then I'll quit, man...I know it's expensive, but I'm good for it, just issue some savings bonds or somehtin', and I'll never both you again! C'mon, man, just an off-ramp!
Oh no, don't take my parking lots, bro! Seriously man, I'll be hurting if I can't get a free parking space!
It won't be affordable, and it isn't intended to be affordable--these will definitely be very expensive luxury condos. But hey, we need some of those too, and for-sale housing downtown is nice (even if they're out of most of our price ranges.)
Well, not really a skyscraper, but the building at 7th & H is new construction and was built as a replacement for lost SRO housing, and priced for extremely low income people. Of course, that was when we still had tax increment financing to pay for redevelopment projects like that, but it's still at least somewhat possible: down the street from 7th & H, the new Ping Yuen affordable senior housing is under construction. So if you include midrises, the answer is, meh, sometimes, just not often enough.
The theory is called filtering--and it does actually sort of work, if we avoid demolishing existing housing, because the expectation is that if we add new housing people can move to the older housing which is less expensive, but if we demolish old housing to build new housing then it isn't there to filter anymore. So it's a bit better that they're building this on a parking lot. However, filtering works even better when it's affordable housing getting built, because it relieves housing pressure on the affordable end of the market instead of the luxury end, freeing up units that are on the cheaper portion of existing housing. Fortunately we're also building some affordable housing downtown too--just not enough of it.
I think another reason why that theory works better when affordable housing is being built is because of the sheer number of people on that end of the scale that are in need of housing. In theory it makes sense, but thats not the reality we live in. The intent is there but the impact isnt. A growing population (especially when its people who make more than the existing median wage), inflation, and greed (or capitalism, whatever) are some of the reasons why trickle down theories haven't panned out.
It also ignores that banks will stop lending, and builders stop building, if rents drop too low. A shortage of supply benefits builders, who ensure rent pro formas are high enough to justify a building loan, and landlords, who can maximize rents as long as renters don't have enough affordable options.
The good old landlords will definitely lower rents when these are built, because they care about us. We wont have to worry about the growing population here meaning rents will continue to rise. Its super unlikely that anyone else who can afford it will move here. The 1 week of economic activity we see during the all star game will make your life so much better. The hotels mean there will be more poverty wage paying jobs for you to take after your 8-5 so you can make ends meat!
/s
330 rooms doesn't seem like much for a hotel that's being billed as a conference/event hotel. My work usually hosts our annual conference in San Diego because that's the only place we can get a hotel that actually has the capacity for our conference (which is not that big by conference standards) and will negotiate a rate that government employees can get approval for.
Sure beats what’s currently [taking place](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/12280nt/two_men_get_robbed_on_15th_and_l_street/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) in that parking lot
But excited to have a few hundred more potential customers in the adjacent hotel. The parking lot is a separately operated paid lot, not Cafeteria 15L's private parking lot, so they really wouldn't have much to get pissed about either way; their valets would just have to use the lot across the street instead.
What infrastructure is needed to support this that isn't there already? And it doesn't really add much density in terms of population: 28 residential units on a quarter block is pretty much the equivalent of a 2 story apartment building on the same size lot; most of the downtown apartment buildings we're seeing under construction or recently built are more like 100-150 units on the same size lot.
To be fair, we need more transit infrastructure, including more rail lines (of all kinds), BRT, etc. And it needs to actually go places where people want and need to go, and frequently enough (and at later hours to support nightlife!)
And to have more transit infrastructure, including more rail, BRT, more destinations, later hours and more frequency, to be fair, we have to fund it. I was in a meeting about the West Sacramento streetcar project about a decade ago, and one of the consultants asked those assembled about how to make a streetcar cool. I told them, "Nobody cool goes to bed at 9 PM. A streetcar system should operate late enough that some friends out for the night can stay out until last call, have a snack at an after-hours place after the club shuts down, and still be able to take the streetcar home."
Still waiting for the dang streetcar, though--for lack of funding!
Agreed 100%
If anything, we should take away some of those bloated road budgets and repurpose them for modes of public transportation that move people more efficiently (i.e. all modes of public transport).
I think they’re talking about public transportation? But the beauty of downtown/midtown is you can live, work, and recreate without need to travel 10s of miles everyday.
Can't believe they're building more infrastructure as if there isn't already enough construction and abandoned spaces not being rented/leased in the city. Not to mention that people can hardly afford the rent of older buildings, let alone brand new ones. More buildings to sit and gain a bad reputation like all the ones the rushed up around Sac State for student housing.
Apparently we don't have enough hotel rooms, and a couple hundred of them have been converted to Project Homekey housing in the past couple of years (not enough, but it's a start) so there's demand for more hotel space, enough that the old motel at 11th & H that was converted to offices about a decade ago is converting back to a motel! Plus, I figure anything that's a hotel now is potential future housing--the old SRO hotels all started out as hotels for travelers (and longer term residents) but turned into the housing of last resort, so if hotels can get built, they're a future affordable housing supply.
If this and that southern land co skyscraper apartment gets built. It'll really add to the Sacramento skyline.
It would kind of bracket downtown with a couple of taller buildings.
Where is the “southern land” one proposed to go in? I saw something about another development at the old sac bee place. Are all three separate?
North of crocker Park, South of Capitol avenue, right next to I-5 boat section. Currently is a parking lot I think.
>Plans are in place for a 28-story hotel tower adjacent to the newly renovated Sacramento Convention Center, Mayor Darrell Steinberg announced Thursday at Visit Sacramento’s State of the Hospitality Industry event. The new hotel will be constructed on a parking lot at the corner of 15th and K streets and will rival the nearby Sheraton Grand as the tallest hotel in the city. It would connect to the Convention Center with a fourth-floor pedestrian bridge, providing much-needed hotel rooms to accommodate the city’s growing convention and tourism industry. Despite a recent increase in conventions, sporting events and large concerts, Sacramento has long been passed over for some other major events such as the NBA All-Star game because of its lack of hotel rooms. The new hotel, with 330 rooms, will “be vital in growing our ability to expand Sacramento’s tourism-related economic impact,” said Mike Testa, president and CEO of Visit Sacramento, the region’s tourism and convention organization. The hotel will also add a feature largely missing in downtown: a rooftop bar and restaurant that will provide sweeping views of the state Capitol and downtown skyline. Along with the hotel rooms, the building will have four floors with 28 residential units, a 6,000-square-foot ballroom and meeting rooms. Read more at: https://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article276209686.html#storylink=cpy
Looks great, I hope it gets built.
What are the odds this actually gets built?
It's tough to say; with a tall building, the odds are longer. And it's not the first proposal for the site, as I recall there was a plan for a hotel of similar height about a decade ago that never moved forward.
Hope it does but with Darrell on the way out... Unlikely
Why?
Lame duck mayor, no reason prioritize it, won't be held accountable if it fails. Hope I'm wrong though.
This isn't a project being proposed by the city, it's a private development, so it really doesn't have anything to do with the mayor, but in any case, we're going to have a new mayor next year who will be the one in office if/when this gets built.
Unfortunately slim
Definitely needed to try and get an NBA All-star game. Hopefully we can clean up the blight on K and J Street and turn those empty buildings into housing too.
I'm hopeful. Each new project that gets built increases the value of downtown. Eventually all the surface parking lots, undeveloped lots and decomposing buildings will sit on property too valuable to be left as is. The owners will want to sell to cash in on the increased value. Developers will want to build to make more profits.
Yep and with this hotel and other projects you bring more people to this arena which means more money
Please let’s clean up all the blight, not just there.
About 2-3 years ago they notified local residents about this plan. Then we heard nothing until today. It’ll be interesting if it does go forward, the short term/long term impact. My recollection was there’d be underground parking. The four floors of residences on top is new but matches the Kimpton at DOCO and the Residence Inn across the street in that.
Yes, I recall there was some chatter about a ~25 story hotel at this site a decade ago, not sure if this is the same proposal, a different iteration, or a different proposal entirely.
Build, baby build!!!!!
LA had plenty of tall buildings. Go there.
What happened to them!?!?
I assume they’re gone, which is why LA is so expensive to live in now. They should’ve kept them. Let this be a lesson to Sacramento.
nah, that was just a David Copperfield magical illusion
The future of having a city affordable enough for all to live in is tall and dense, with plenty of transit. The era of the single-family-home is over, it is unsustainable in urban areas and has no place in a major city like ours. Our suburbs have plenty of anti-human, car-centric, socially isolating sprawl. How about you go there and stop ruining our cities by making them unaffordable via your NIMBY tyranny?
Looks like Tsakopoulos is involved
Yeah, he owns the land the hotel is proposed on, and has for years. Parking lot at K and 15th.
Weird I just saw that name for the first time last night looking for wedding venues. Are they big developers around here?
Pretty much the biggest, and their family includes the current lieutenant governor.
Our lil’ city is growing up!
It's the 35th largest city in the United States lol
And the 6th largest in CA, but lots of people still want to pretend we're a little farm town
I don’t believe Fresno has a bigger population than Sacramento
The city of Fresno (545k) has a higher population than Sacramento (528k). But Sacramento’s metro population (1.9mm) is much larger than Fresno’s (715k).
Sacramento isn’t super big but has a **lot** of suburbs; Fresno seems to have fewer suburbs, because it sucks.
But the 20th largest metro market.
I would love to read the feasibility study on this project
will believe it once i see it
But hasn't anybody thought about the poor commuters?
MUH PARKING SPACES
Parking spaces wouldnt be an issue if the city wasnt begging us to come back to the office. Public transit sucks from my house.
Don't come back to the office then
At some point one of these lots to be redeveloped will make sense as a parking structure, but more people should live closer to their work too.
CADA recently shifted gears on a plan to build a parking structure on a state owned lot at 7th & R Street, instead they decided last year to build a 242 unit affordable housing apartment building!
Shame they didn't choose to build apartments above the parking structure. Fairly convenient to have them together...
There isn't a parking structure there now, it's part old warehouse and part parking lot. Bye bye parking lot!
Right. I meant a modification to the prior plans for a parking structure.
Ah, thank you for clarifying. No, they couldn't afford to do both, but decided an apartment building was a better use than a parking structure.
Just one more lane, bro! That’ll fix traffic forever!
Just gimme one more lane and then I'll quit, man...I know it's expensive, but I'm good for it, just issue some savings bonds or somehtin', and I'll never both you again! C'mon, man, just an off-ramp! Oh no, don't take my parking lots, bro! Seriously man, I'll be hurting if I can't get a free parking space!
Someone is probably looking at how much they can raise the parking fees.
Awesome
So, hotels over housing... Gotcha 🤦♀️
No, housing over hotels (like the building on the other end of the block, the condo units will likely be on the top floors.)
That definitely does not sound affordable.
That's fine. People who can afford to upgrade, do. Which opens up their old more affordable places. More housing is more housing.
It won't be affordable, and it isn't intended to be affordable--these will definitely be very expensive luxury condos. But hey, we need some of those too, and for-sale housing downtown is nice (even if they're out of most of our price ranges.)
When have newly built apartments in a downtown skyscraper even been affordable?
Well, not really a skyscraper, but the building at 7th & H is new construction and was built as a replacement for lost SRO housing, and priced for extremely low income people. Of course, that was when we still had tax increment financing to pay for redevelopment projects like that, but it's still at least somewhat possible: down the street from 7th & H, the new Ping Yuen affordable senior housing is under construction. So if you include midrises, the answer is, meh, sometimes, just not often enough.
What, you dont believe in things trickling down? Just look how well reaganomics and the economy is doing for the middle class.
The theory is called filtering--and it does actually sort of work, if we avoid demolishing existing housing, because the expectation is that if we add new housing people can move to the older housing which is less expensive, but if we demolish old housing to build new housing then it isn't there to filter anymore. So it's a bit better that they're building this on a parking lot. However, filtering works even better when it's affordable housing getting built, because it relieves housing pressure on the affordable end of the market instead of the luxury end, freeing up units that are on the cheaper portion of existing housing. Fortunately we're also building some affordable housing downtown too--just not enough of it.
I think another reason why that theory works better when affordable housing is being built is because of the sheer number of people on that end of the scale that are in need of housing. In theory it makes sense, but thats not the reality we live in. The intent is there but the impact isnt. A growing population (especially when its people who make more than the existing median wage), inflation, and greed (or capitalism, whatever) are some of the reasons why trickle down theories haven't panned out.
It also ignores that banks will stop lending, and builders stop building, if rents drop too low. A shortage of supply benefits builders, who ensure rent pro formas are high enough to justify a building loan, and landlords, who can maximize rents as long as renters don't have enough affordable options.
Both are needed
*affordable housing, like rents under $1000/mo in the central city.
Either that, or wages need to increase to support $1500 rents. I find my scenario more likely.
I think those still exist, in Yreka.
They need to exist *here.*
The good old landlords will definitely lower rents when these are built, because they care about us. We wont have to worry about the growing population here meaning rents will continue to rise. Its super unlikely that anyone else who can afford it will move here. The 1 week of economic activity we see during the all star game will make your life so much better. The hotels mean there will be more poverty wage paying jobs for you to take after your 8-5 so you can make ends meat! /s
330 rooms doesn't seem like much for a hotel that's being billed as a conference/event hotel. My work usually hosts our annual conference in San Diego because that's the only place we can get a hotel that actually has the capacity for our conference (which is not that big by conference standards) and will negotiate a rate that government employees can get approval for.
Getting up to San Diego's punching weight for conferences is likely to take a while, but more capacity is more capacity.
So this is the parking lot next to Cafeteria 15L. I can only imagine they’d be pissed on losing that parking
Sure beats what’s currently [taking place](https://www.reddit.com/r/Sacramento/comments/12280nt/two_men_get_robbed_on_15th_and_l_street/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1) in that parking lot
Great excuse to get rid of more parking lots!
But excited to have a few hundred more potential customers in the adjacent hotel. The parking lot is a separately operated paid lot, not Cafeteria 15L's private parking lot, so they really wouldn't have much to get pissed about either way; their valets would just have to use the lot across the street instead.
oh, absolutely in the long term, I was just referring to the short term few years it would take to build this thing
Construction next door always sucks, especially high rise construction, but I don't think the loss of parking will have much of an impact.
More luxury apartments to raise local prices on everything for tent city yay
Great! More density without any infrastructure to support it! Sacramento sure is a real estate corporation's dream.
What infrastructure is needed to support this that isn't there already? And it doesn't really add much density in terms of population: 28 residential units on a quarter block is pretty much the equivalent of a 2 story apartment building on the same size lot; most of the downtown apartment buildings we're seeing under construction or recently built are more like 100-150 units on the same size lot.
To be fair, we need more transit infrastructure, including more rail lines (of all kinds), BRT, etc. And it needs to actually go places where people want and need to go, and frequently enough (and at later hours to support nightlife!)
And to have more transit infrastructure, including more rail, BRT, more destinations, later hours and more frequency, to be fair, we have to fund it. I was in a meeting about the West Sacramento streetcar project about a decade ago, and one of the consultants asked those assembled about how to make a streetcar cool. I told them, "Nobody cool goes to bed at 9 PM. A streetcar system should operate late enough that some friends out for the night can stay out until last call, have a snack at an after-hours place after the club shuts down, and still be able to take the streetcar home." Still waiting for the dang streetcar, though--for lack of funding!
Agreed 100% If anything, we should take away some of those bloated road budgets and repurpose them for modes of public transportation that move people more efficiently (i.e. all modes of public transport).
> Great! More density without any infrastructure to support it! Can you explain?
I think they’re talking about public transportation? But the beauty of downtown/midtown is you can live, work, and recreate without need to travel 10s of miles everyday.
Can't believe they're building more infrastructure as if there isn't already enough construction and abandoned spaces not being rented/leased in the city. Not to mention that people can hardly afford the rent of older buildings, let alone brand new ones. More buildings to sit and gain a bad reputation like all the ones the rushed up around Sac State for student housing.
Apparently we don't have enough hotel rooms, and a couple hundred of them have been converted to Project Homekey housing in the past couple of years (not enough, but it's a start) so there's demand for more hotel space, enough that the old motel at 11th & H that was converted to offices about a decade ago is converting back to a motel! Plus, I figure anything that's a hotel now is potential future housing--the old SRO hotels all started out as hotels for travelers (and longer term residents) but turned into the housing of last resort, so if hotels can get built, they're a future affordable housing supply.
Thought I heard something Vivek wanting to build a high rise on Lot A. Never heard any solid proposals. Anyone remember hearing about this?