If you build it, they will come. What's been said about baseball diamonds in Iowa is now being said for downtown Sacramento's future retail market, according to a retail consultancy firm that has just finished a study of the J-K-L corridor. In this case, "they" represent 72 percent of the greater Sacramento area's 1.65 million population: "urban chic" Sacramentans who own homes in the central city; young, child-free metrorenters; "in style" suburbanites who love the gritty city; long-time re... Suzanne mauik 2009-11-21T18:05:14Z 2009-11-21T18:05:14Z

In response to savedmidtown: I am a member of the retail consultant team, and also attended the K Street Dialogue in October. What was said by my colleague from DC was precisely the OPPOSITE of what you wrote above (K Street needs "more quasi-big box stores"). She discussed the need for downtown Sacramento to have a mix of local, independent retailers (apparel stores, tabletop, gifts, wine bars, tea houses, etc) in order to provide an experience that is entirely distinct from what suburban options offer. I'm sorry that this did not come through clearly. As to your point about the urban landscape: one of the strengths of the downtown core is its numerous, varied buildings of a scale that welcomes pedestrians - we absolutely don't advocate they be demolished. We spent many months on this project, getting to know the area through firsthand observation and interviews with a multitude of stakeholders; this combined with an assessment of data points formed the basis for our conclusions and recommendations. Kelly Kost, Downtown Works

mauik 2009-11-21T18:05:14Z William Burg 2009-11-21T17:09:05Z 2009-11-21T17:09:05Z

"Oh I don't believe CADA has any units in the JKL area." Maybe that's the answer...if CADA took over some of the city-owned but vacant residential units (like the Berry or the Bel-Vue) there might actually be people living in them. CADA has a good track record as a housing operator, and considering many of their upcoming projects are market-rate, they will need more low-income housing to maintain their mandate. I certainly do not want to see K Street vacant. I was just unconvinced with this story as presented; hopefully the full report will answer my remaining questions more fully.

William Burg 2009-11-21T17:09:05Z savemidtown 2009-11-20T04:43:12Z 2009-11-20T04:43:12Z

If the author of this story is characterizing the consultants study correctly, City of Sac Economic Development staff will use it as justification to demolish what few historic structures are left leaving us a barren boring uninspired urban landscape. I attended the Urban Design Alliance Dialogue on K Street in October and one of the primary consultants who contributed to the report cited in this article was one of the presenters. She was very misguided in her assessment of what K Street needs. She cited it needs more quasi-big box stores. Please NO! She is based in DC and makes her living selling snake oil masked as original research. She used a model (ie: insert city name here) based approach - a formula if you will. Anyone familiar with economic models knows that models are only approximations of reality not actual reality & always fall short.

savemidtown 2009-11-20T04:43:12Z Dale Kooyman 2009-11-20T01:07:47Z 2009-11-20T01:07:47Z

How the rail yards and Township are built will determine if that population will be downtown customers. If retail is small and other businesses replicate what is in Midtown to serve residents, then the large downtown retail and other businesses will benefit. But if the plans create another downtown Plaza type retail, then those businesses will siphon off the customers from downtown. That is what is happening now in the night club business--little happens in downtown because Midtown is the place to go. Make downtown JKL real places to go and they will come.

Dale Kooyman 2009-11-20T01:07:47Z Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T23:15:56Z 2009-11-19T23:15:56Z

As Danielle Biller mentions above, about 18,000 residents are reported within a one-mile radius of 9th and J streets, according to data collected by a commercial real estate information provider.

Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T23:15:56Z Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T21:09:35Z 2009-11-19T21:09:35Z

Downtown Works presented an executive summary of the draft report Wednesday. The report will be made available to the DSP in December and is scheduled to be voted on by the DSP board at its next board meeting at 8 a.m. Dec. 16 at the Citizen Hotel. The public is welcome at DSP board meetings. DSP is now working on its list of recommendations, which will be proposed to the board at the same time. DSP officials said they will seek consensus on the report and the organization's priorities, then get into the process of implementing the plan. Half of the 103 retail spaces don't meet the bare minimum standards expected by quality retailers as defined by the consultants. While only 12 percent are considered currently desirable enough to keep, another 38 percent would need varying amounts of help to be considered desirable for the vision presented by Downtown Works, said consultant Midge McCauley. The area includes 700 single-residency occupancy units and 220 market-rate housing units.

Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T21:09:35Z Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T18:41:23Z 2009-11-19T18:41:23Z

Bill Burg is correct: there are people living in 700 single-residency occupancy units, according to the presenters.

Suzanne Hurt 2009-11-19T18:41:23Z William Burg 2009-11-19T18:38:53Z 2009-11-19T18:38:53Z

Danielle: "Desirable enough to keep" was not my phraseology but that written in the article above. If these terms were not used by the consultant or the report, then the fault lies with the writer of the article, as do other errors of fact like the claim that there are "700 single-residency occupancy hotels" downtown when what they mean is approximately 700 SRO hotel beds (not all of which are occupied, not due to lack of demand but because the facilities were closed by the owner.) So perhaps it is the writer of this article that should receive the criticism, not the writer of the report--although if it was the same set of consultants who gave the presentation at the Crest Theatre last month, I was less than dazzled by that. If the report is based on the idea that the existing building inventory should be reused rather than replaced, that was not delivered by the writer of this story--if it was in error, I stand corrected and would encourage the writer to review the report, because her statements imply that the report describes the physical plant of K Street as "shabby and dated," implying that it needs physical replacement. When the writer of the story described only 12% of K Street businesses as "desirable enough to keep," it gives the impression that only that 12% is worth keeping at all--not 12% high scoring and 38% with potential but needing improvement...but I still wonder about the 50% of existing businesses on K Street that the consultant considers not worth keeping. Adaptive reuse, restoration grants for historic facades, and incentives for independent businesses all sound like great ideas, and I'd like to hear more about those. edit: I contacted the above-mentioned DSP staffer directly, and she clarified some discrepancies between the presentation given by the consultant and the writer's story. The 18,000 people figure refers to those living within 1 mile of the CBD, not the population of the CBD or the central city. The 12% figure refers only to those who received an "excellent" rating on a five-point scale, not the only businesses "desirable enough to keep."

William Burg 2009-11-19T18:38:53Z Zen 2009-11-19T18:00:36Z 2009-11-19T18:00:36Z

Bill. I too question the numbers of residents indicated in the article. I wonder what boundaries they are referencing. The connection to the 18,000 and the SRO units and market rate units don't add up. Considering the entire Central City has around 35,000 people. I don't think, based on the quote, that the consultant recommended mall type, nationally branded retail but rather new up and coming retailers and start ups. Many other now flurishing areas around the country took the same approach and over the years and have done well. Old Pasedena and Pearl District come to mind. I think the 12 percent of retainable retail businesses is low,but the point is that very few of the current retailers fit the vision that the larger community wants for the Downtown core. Just because they are independent does not mean that they are desirable places to shop or dine. I do agree that if Sacramento wants to put people in downtown after hours and make it a destination it is going to take a major facelift of the properties and streetscape to do so. Bill, I know you believe that a building's function and use matter more but the skin matters just as much. Any market study will show that if you want to be a destination and draw regional shopper that attract many market segments, the place needs to be aesthetically pleasing. I am not saying that the buildings use is less of a factor rather that architecture and good urban design is just as important. Downtown does not even come close in generating a positive perception for use or form. I did not get the perspective that the recommendations lead to demolition of old buildings to build skyscrapers. Don't worry Bill, once the railyards really kicks off , the ability to recruit retailers to JKL will make it hard to get anything in the core. Downtown plaza will fully fail, K Street will not look any better, and the DSP, City, and community will start another plan for this area. We just come to the realization that K Street is a business district and move efforts to areas like J Street, L Street, and the River. That's my two cents. Oh I don't believe CADA has any units in the JKL area.

Zen 2009-11-19T18:00:36Z ClaremontD 2009-11-19T17:48:07Z 2009-11-19T17:48:07Z

Mr. Burg: I am dismayed to read your interpretation of the report as it seems that you have misunderstood many of the key elements almost to their opposite. While you are correct, the housing count (770/220) are units, not buildings or residents. It includes all of the residential units in the target area (JKL, 7th to 12th) so ‘yes’ on the Cortez and 800J, ‘no’ on the vacant Bel-vue, but ‘yes’ on Berry as there is every intent of having that remain a low-income residence. The 18,000 residents are within 1 mile radius of Downtown (9th & J). In regards to the 12% 'desirable enough to keep'. The measurement is not based on price point or even goods. It is based on basic elements like signage, store appearance, maintenance, merchandising, etc. the 12% are the high scoring stores, another 38% needed some improvement but would still be considered, to use your words, 'desirable enough to keep'. Midge McCauley has stated quite clearly that price point is not relevant in identifying viable retail. The measurement is simply based on quality. More to the point, the real alarm here is that out of 231 storefronts, approximately 10 are retail goods. Clearly the focus needs to be on increasing the number of options available to the consumer. As for the 'mall, just don't call it one' comment, the message to not focus on national chain stores could not have been more clear. If the suggestion is not to sell apparel, outdoor goods, shoes accessories, etc. What do you suggest should be sold? There are many different types of stores that sell 'apparel'. The differentiation here is not focusing solely on the ‘Gaps’, but to seek out local, regional and independent operators that have a quality business. Again, it comes back to quality and merchandising, not merchandise or price point. With such a small percent of current retail stores, there is no category that shouldn’t be considered. And finally, this is the first report that has actually stated that you don't need to blow up K Street and start over. It says… we have the market, we have the building inventory, we have the local talent… it wont take a big redevelopment to get started. How is that an ode to the 'skyscraper fairy'? I hope that this has clarified elements of the report for you and would be happy to discuss any items further. Danielle Biller, DSP

ClaremontD 2009-11-19T17:48:07Z Patrick J. 2009-11-19T17:39:07Z 2009-11-19T17:39:07Z

There isn't even 700 total buildings downtown in the area mentioned.

Patrick J. 2009-11-19T17:39:07Z William Burg 2009-11-19T05:59:16Z 2009-11-19T05:59:16Z

"About 18,000 people live downtown in 700 single-residency occupancy hotels and 220 market-rate housing units. There are about 10 SRO hotels downtown. I think you might mean 700 SRO hotel RESIDENTS total (the current figure is probably lower than that right now) not 700 hotels...that plus 220 market-rate housing units equals 970. Does that 220 market-rate housing units include the 800 J project, the CADA and senior apartments along I and J Street, the El Cortez apartments on 11th and K? Does it include properties that are held by the city in a vacant state, like the Bel-Vue Apartments or the Berry Hotel, or residential rental properties left vacant by the owners' inaction like the Wendell on J and 12th? And where does figure of 18,000 come from? It is far too high to represent the people in the roughly 1000 housing units adjacent to K Street, but too low to represent the population of the entire central city. Where did you get those numbers? "Only 10 percent of the 174 that are occupied are dedicated to selling retail goods. And out of 103 retail spaces that house restaurants, clubs or shops selling goods, Downtown Works identified only 12 percent as desirable enough to keep, she said." What criteria do they use for desirability? Do they seriously think that only a dozen of the 103 businesses on K Street are worth keeping? I can name more than that off the top of my head. It sounds like they consider anything that's not appealing to the particular high-end demographic (one that largely doesn't exist in the Sacramento region) "not worth keeping" even if there are people (like, say, the non-wealthy) that patronize those businesses. "Undesirable tenants could be phased out as their contracts come up. The retail mix needs much more variety, such as apparel, outdoor goods, shoes, accessories and home furnishings. The mix should be unique — not something already offered in shopping malls. Independent stores should be focused on first, and chains that aren't overly represented in the market should be considered later, she said." Last time I was in a mall, they sold stuff like apparel, outdoor goods, shoes, accessories and home furnishings. In other words, she is suggesting that K Street sell EXACTLY THE SAME STUFF THAT PEOPLE CAN BUY NOW IN A SUBURBAN SHOPPING MALL. In other words, she's suggesting a mall, but that we call it something different in order to try to convince people it isn't a mall. I suppose that the independent business thing is nice, but I'm also willing to bet that a lot of the tenants on K Street that she considers undesirable are independent businesses that don't meet her standards. We already tried building it--in the 1970s with the original mall, and in the 1990s with Downtown Plaza. PEOPLE DID NOT COME. This report sounds basically like a green light to demolish and re-build K Street AGAIN and expect a different result. These people are true believers in the Skyscraper Fairy, and they will sacrifice all that is worth saving about K Street (what little is left) at her mighty altar.

William Burg 2009-11-19T05:59:16Z