Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site

[Pistola916]

Originally Posted by ozone

agree 100%
It's true that great skylines do not ensure a great downtown. New Orleans is a good example of a city that for it's size and fame has a pretty dull skyline (even duller in person) and yet, of course, it's anything but dull. Sacramento does not need skyscapers to have a exciting downtown, however, IMO we need them for psychological reasons. I don't know of too many cities where the residents have as poor of civic image as they do here in Sacramento.

I totally agree. When looking at the perception of a city, they look at two area's, the airport and the size of it's downtown skyline, at least that's the way I used to look at it. I would be happy to see 500 foot towers and I'm sure it will happen someday, but midrise projects like the new Marriott, 1801 L, L street lofts, and 800J are very important too, and if CIM/Calpers goes with a smaller version like 400-450 foot tower, although I worry about the new design than the height, that is absolutely fine.

[ozone]

For fear of being called a wimp by snfenoc I'll say while I would prefer a skyscaper at 301 I don't think it has to a skyscaper. But I think some public-esque structure like a new performing arts hall designed by someone like Frank Gehry would be just as cool. There I said it..I don't care if a skyscaper at this site gets built..just make me proud to call Sacramento home. Just for the record I love skyscapers -duh..(I've lived in a skyscaper apt. for a short time while I was Asia).

[enigma99a]

Dan Visnich had it right.. that lot would be perfect for a 3-4 story building!

“If you have that building there, it’s going to do what John Saca said — it’s going to divert the eye,” Visnich says. “It’s going to be the attraction. It’s going to take away from the Capitol. And nothing should be that high to do that. It shouldn’t be higher than the building that is there now.”

AMEN

[urban_encounter]

I'm glad that those of you preferring a hole in the ground at 301 Capitol Mall, instead of a high density quality development (regardless of it's final height and development team) aren't in the position to make the decision.

With vision like that, Downtown Sacramento would end up taking much longer to realize the dream of a vibrant downtown.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I'm glad that those of you preferring a hole in the ground at 301 Capitol Mall, instead of a high density quality development (regardless of it's final height and development team) aren't in the position to make the decision.

With vision like that, Downtown Sacramento would end up taking much longer to realize the dream of a vibrant downtown.

I agree with you, urban. How could someone let a hole in the ground sit untouched, potentially for years to come just because you want to add height to the skyline? There are plenty of other places where a tower this height could be built. There will be other opportunities. This wasn't our time to break into the skyscraper big(ger) leagues. In the scheme of things, it's not important. What's important is that people WILL live downtown and create a vibrancy we don't currently have. It just might not happen as fast or as drastically as we would have liked.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Sacramento is not a small town. It is more than capable of supporting a few big projects. Despite the current market, Sacramento’s down town is gaining momentum. Large numbers of people have spoken, and they are saying, “We want high rise living.” True, the market sucks now, but it won’t always suck. Economics 101: Markets are Cyclical. Successful operations enter the market at the right time.

Weren't you the person who said that Sacramento is an untested market when expressing your skepticism of the Towers chances, in the earlier days of this project?

Originally Posted by snfenoc

I know there are these magical other places for high rises to be built (this is what some people said when 800 J supplanted Metro Place), but show me one that has as much going for it as 301. Go ahead. I am waiting… By the way, if there are other places for high rises to be built, then there are other places to build your precious little 800 J-style pieces of crap. Leave 301 alone.

From the same person who once said not to 'take this suff so seriously'?? (which by the way was solid advice). It appears that you might just be taking 301 CM's difficulties, a little too personal. I can understand people feeling that way who purchased a home there, but for everyone else who keep saying that they would rather see a hole in the ground than anything less in grandeur than 301CM, it just sounds odd and doesn't ring of the conversations I've had with more than a couple of forumers.

What’s wrong with waiting?
If the market is the reason why the Towers did not materialize, please, explain why it would be so terrible for CIM/CalPERS to say, “Let’s wait a few years and see if the market improves.”

The market isn't the reason why the Towers didn't materialize. The reason the Towers didn't materialize is because John Saca was forced to return to Cal Pers to request additional capital. Seeing that estimated construction costs had risen from $400 million to $600 million (a 50% rise mind you) is why construction was brought to a halt. Any equity partner would have put the breaks on this project as fast as costs seemed to rise. And why exactly did they rise? Rincon Hill and 301 Mission in SF don't seem plagued by the same astronomical rise in construction costs. Perhaps Cal Pers simply didn't like where the project was going (cost wise) and decided they needed some accountability for their investment.

Secondly if CIM and Cal Pers decide that they can make money now or (in Cal Pers case break even), and come forward with a quality proposal, what's wrong with that? And who said it would look anything like 800 J street (which by the way replaced yet another hole in the ground with 225 lofts.) It's just pure speculation to say that a proposal would look like 800 J..

As far as the Sacramento housing market, I still believe that having pre sold nearly 50% of the units prior to construction represented strong sales for the Towers. However even if Saca had triggered the DB loan (which he didn't), the project was still in financial trouble.

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Conversely, explain why it would be better to go the safe route and build something we will all regret a decade down the road.

Why would anybody regret having a high density project? People living downtown spend money on food, entertainment, shopping and property taxes (for those who are home owners).. Not certain how much a hole in the ground contributes to the DT economy and vibrancy?

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Are you so impatient to fill a hole (Ha, ha, ha! I just said, "Fill a hole") that you are willing to settle?

Who said anything about being "willing to settle"? What I said is that before people start voicing their preference that 301 CM remain undeveloped (blighting Capitol Mall), that maybe a better idea might be to show a little patience until CIM reports back to Cal Pers, as whether or not a project can pencil out.. Nobody to the best of my knowledge has any clue what they will propose (if they propose anything).

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Why not wait for a “quality” “dense” project that also includes one or more high rises? A certain know-it-all forumer () said if CIM/CalPERS chose to wait, the site would sit empty for 15 years and a 30-story office building would be built on it.

No snfenoc, i can't predict the future (sorry i can't help you with those lottery numbers) but I do have a solid grasp of DT Sacramento's history. I think I've already cited enough examples to prove my point about projects that go unbuilt. 15 years for 500 Capitol Mall, 20 (+) years for 621 Capitol Mall (just to name a couple).

Originally Posted by snfenoc

First of all, I will take a 30-story office building over 800 J’s cousin any time –even if I have to wait 15 years for it.

Again (and thankfully) you wont be the one making the decision.

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Sure, there would be an ugly hole in the ground for awhile (I thought this had nothing to do with image and aesthetics – only “quality” and “density” matter, right urban?), but only for awhile.

Actually it has everything to do with image. As I stated earlier (which you evidently missed) a hole in the ground for 5 (+) years can do terrible damage to the image of that part of downtown... Nothing says 'closed for business' like a big hole in the ground or empty storefronts and buildings.

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Besides, a hole in the ground = potential. What if, a few years ago, the guy who owned the old Wells Fargo building decided that nothing was happening, nothing would happen, and he should simply remodel and move in some lobbying firm? Would we have a new 25-story building going up at 500 CM?

Not the best example on your part, but really it wouldn't have mattered if Tskakopoulos (or Wells Fargo) would have remodeled after Wells Fargo moved across the street. They still could have knocked it down and put up a larger tower. It would certainly have been better than letting it sit empty on Capitol Mall for 15 years like they did. The California Medical Association recently remodeled their HQ building at 12th and J, but that hasn't stopped them from looking at the possibilty of tearing it down and joining up with Mo Mohanna to build the CGT. (Granted the idea that Mo MoHanna will build anything is comical; but the CMA isn't so concerned about their rehab, that they would stand in the way of progress)...

By your logic the city should prevent empty storefronts on the K street Mall from being remodeled or rehabed. Why not wait until something really grand comes along in (say) 15 years??? After all, one and two story retail pads can go anywhere in the downtown area. If they allow something to be built or rehabbed, it might prevent a really tall building from being built there one day.

Originally Posted by snfenoc

What if the City lost its mettle and decided to turn Lot A into a 7-story apartment building? Would we have the US Bank Tower and the possibility of Aura?

I'm not a fan of parking lots anyway, but for the record, Lot A was a two story city owned parking garage and the city has never had a problem with bulldozing apartment buildings for the sake of what they see as progress.

Or haven't you ever heard of the Merrium apartments?

[Sacto]

Originally Posted by neuhickman79

I agree with you, urban. How could someone let a hole in the ground sit untouched, potentially for years to come just because you want to add height to the skyline? There are plenty of other places where a tower this height could be built. There will be other opportunities. This wasn't our time to break into the skyscraper big(ger) leagues. In the scheme of things, it's not important. What's important is that people WILL live downtown and create a vibrancy we don't currently have. It just might not happen as fast or as drastically as we would have liked.

^ I second that.

[travis bickle]

It's great to have a forum like this where we can discuss and debate the various views regarding the 301 site. But I'm with the group that says a spectacular site - and that's what 301 CM is - demands more than just an "anywhere" project. Whatever is built there, we're stuck with forever. We must demand that this spectacular site has a project worthy of the location. It's a one-of-a-kind site and it needs a one-of-a-kind project.

That doesn't man it has to be a thousand feet tall (although that'd be great), but it does have to be unique, it does have to be extraordinary. This is the gateway to a great city and the project must reflect that.

I agree that we must hold judgment until we see what calpers/CIM come up with. But we do not have to let them think that ordinary is acceptable. The state - meaning calpers here - are experts at the ordinary and that's why our concerns are well justified.

A typically boring 20 story office built on the cheap that will suck the life out of CM's slow, but steady, reawakening will set back the recent progress 20 years. Getting something built there now - if the present parties live down to expectation - is not worth it.

The market is not why the Towers failed. One person at calpers is why it failed. Better to take the short term pain with an empty lot for a few years that the long term misery of another state-approved street killer on Capitol Mall.

[foxmtbr]

If CalPERS and CIM propose a good-sized tower, I'm fine with that. It doesn't need to be 54 floors, but it certainly should be at least 30 or 40. I just don't want to see some small 10 story loft project take up such a quintessential piece of land that has such great potential. We'll just have to wait and see whether they propose a decent project of a decent height.

[fatchocolatecow]

Completely agree Travis.


We should certainly be patient and see what CalPERS/CIM come up with. They may come up with a nice proposal that properly utilizes the unique location of the site, but I'm not optimistic. For a site like 301CM, we should also be patient with the market and not settle for a project that is a "good enough for now" solution. I agree with Urban that a hole in the ground isn't the best image for the city, but how long would we have to live with it - 15 years max as he suggests? I think this is way longer than it would actually be (Sacramento is not the same town it has been in the past, despite the recent bad news), but it is still a lot shorter than the 30+ years we would have to live with whatever CalPERS/CIM decide to build.

[JeffZurn]

Are we certain that Cal-Pers is not going to keep the towers the way they are. Even though they say they will scale them back, couldn’t that mean scale back the hotel, kitchen, bathrooms ect. If they get a new design for the whole project won’t that mean at a minimum 2 to 3 years before the project would start for construction?

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by JeffZurn

Are we certain that Cal-Pers is not going to keep the towers the way they are. Even though they say they will scale them back, couldn’t that mean scale back the hotel, kitchen, bathrooms ect. If they get a new design for the whole project won’t that mean at a minimum 2 to 3 years before the project would start for construction?

I would gleefully accept a single tower of the original design fronting Capitol Mall with an appropriate plaza and low-mid rise retail/housing/hotel on the rest of the block or selling half of the block to an office/hotel developer or any combination of the above.

They sold plenty of units and, although I'm sure we'd lose some, I think enough present owners would go to the single tower to make it a go.

But that requires creative thinking and an advocate at calpers and there is no reason to think calpers possesses either of those now.

[foxmtbr]

^^That would be my prefered way to handle this. I'd love to just see the River Tower built (although I'd, of course, be fine with the other) with an altered base to meet the ground better.



Hell, this design would even allow for the second tower to be built later. I think this is possibly the best option for CalPERS at this point.

[innov8]

A single tower was the original plan... anybody hanging out at the roof top pool
would get pleanty of sun without the second tower.

[friedpez]

I also think they should just proceed with the original plans. Build River Tower now, Sierra Tower in a few years.

[downtownserg89]

Originally Posted by innov8

anybody hanging out at the roof top pool
would get plenty of sun without the second tower.

i agree!

[mechanico]

Originally Posted by innov8

A single tower was the original plan... anybody hanging out at the roof top pool
would get pleanty of sun without the second tower.

This group really sticks with it.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by friedpez

I also think they should just proceed with the original plans. Build River Tower now, Sierra Tower in a few years.

I believe that's what the plan is if John gets the ball back in his court and CalPERS
decide that nothing they propose pencils out. CalPERS has to spend
$35 million to pay off the debt and $22 million to purchase the land.
Before they are even out of the ground the project would be $57 million in the hole.

[sugit]

Isn't it 22M for the land and 13M leins for a total of 35M? I swore I thought the 35M was everything all togeter.

[innov8]

You know what your right... $35 million in the hole.