Thursday, May 05, 2011

Construction Update: La Valentina Station

After breaking ground nearly five months ago, La Valentina Station showing some real signs of progress. This $27 million project being financed by a combination of private, state and local funding and consists of 63 apartments and 18 townhouses. Completions slated for summer 2012.











































Rendering of finshed building

7 comments:

wburg said...

Works out to about $333,000 per unit, I see. Good to see the work underway.

Zwahlen Images said...

That's just as outrageous of a price tag as the 7th & H Street project. Without tax payers subsidizing this, none of these larger projects would be built downtown... a few small ones here and there but nothing of this size.

wburg, are you okay with the city picking winners and losers like this? I think it hurts the true market value of an area by helping artificially inflating prices when the true value is lower, thus causing other developers to shy away from proposing projects because they won’t pencil out with tax payer subsidies to make it profitable. It’s gotten to the point where nearly all projects need subsidies before breaking ground. This is not a healthy sign when asking other to also invest in an area but without a government handout.

wburg said...

How much do you think such units should costs, and on what experience or comparable projects do you base that estimate? I hope you don't fall for the fallacious idea that urban land should be worth less than suburban land for some reason? Central city land is worth more, based on where it is located.

The city picks "winners and losers" any time that any project is approved or declined. It's no different from what happens when a suburban real estate developer buys a chunk of farmland for $10,000 an acre and the city zones it residential, raising the value to $250,000 an acre. That magical act is what makes most suburban development possible--and part of why that new McMansion in Natomas or Loomis is so much cheaper than a mid-rise unit in Alkali Flat. It's not the only reason, of course--the difference in materials, the still-extant public subsidies that incentivize sprawl, etcetera--but it's a big chunk.

And speaking of "winners and losers," who picks the "winners and losers" of City Council, Mayor and County Supervisor elections?

Zwahlen Images said...

You missed my point, but that’s okay… most people will understand how I framed the argument. Approving a project and helping finance it are TWO totally different things. I bet costs for building will drop even more when state and local funding dry up. Subsidies have help create high artificial prices which was the point of my last post.

Anonymous said...

Another question adding to Zwhalen's - how much does property value factor into that price?

Understand building costs more in an urban zone, but could it be that property value in this area and further downtown is "out of whack?" With housing prices as high as they are (such as the planned Warren development, past projects et al), and the market not biting at that price, wouldn't that affect property value? Or just the scope of the project? Thanks for helping me understand...

wburg said...

So...increasing supply makes prices go up?

thesanjeeb said...

Really really hard to do such constructions...


Venieri