Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Phillip]

And while we're talking crime....WEHT the 18 or 19 year old kid they arrested in San Diego for the arson at 800K? Seems like six months or more since a very brief story in the Bee announcing the arrest and nothing since.

The article said he was a San Diego resident and was arrested in San Diego. But no explanation of his connection to Sacramento, how he got here, how he got back, any possible moetive.

[ltsmotorsport]

Originally Posted by innov8

The Marriott at 15th & L Street is open but not finished open.

Looks a little different from when I snuck in there one night during construction.

And I agree with you guys about your feelings on the Citizen. Vandalization is one of the most disrespectful acts I can think of.

[JeffZurn]

Good pics Motorsport, this is a nice looking building, wish it was a little bit taller. Is it the top 3 floors that are condos?

[wburg]

Originally Posted by Phillip

I'm soooo happy to hear this. Chop off his hands!

That graffiti is still up and it's painful to see on one of my favorite buildings in Sacramento. I still don't understand how he could have inked so much without anyone noticing. It's on three sides of the building and on multiple floors. It looks like it would have taken an hour or more to do all that damage. Even if it was 3 or 4am I'm surprised someone driving up J Street didn't notice a guy leaning out a high window and spraypainting.

And can someone reassure me that the Citizen is still more or less on track? The last couple times I've walked past, including today, I didn't see any obvious construction activity in progress.

Just up the street I noticed 800J's first retail tenant is finally open---Eyes on J Optometry store. We all should go buy some new glasses.

yeah, all of the former ground-floor retail tenants have finished their move: the mailbox place and Goodie Tuchews are over on L Street at 11th, and Eyes on J opened up a month or so ago.

I think that things like this egregious vandalism is definitely common ground between high-rise fans and preservationists: I think we'd all like to see this guy (as well as the Mohanna arsonist) seriously spanked.

[innov8]

Sacramento: Cathedral Square (25 floors) 290’
233 Condominiums/Mixed-Use
Located at 11th & J Street
Developer: St. Anton Investments, LLC.
Architect: Kwan Henmi
Building Height: 264’ Spire increases height to 290
Building Square Footage: 473,260 gross
328 Parking Spaces
Special permit to allow structure to exceed Capitol View Protection area.

Goes before Design Review Committee July 20th. These are some new rendering
with some changes that were recommended by the Design Review Committee in June.















I have also created a new thread on the project under highrise proposals.

[ltsmotorsport]

They weren't my photos Jeff. They're all thanks to Innov8.

[reggiesquared]

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is too expensive to build or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built?

[ozone]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never leave the paper stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.

[ozone]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never get pass the "planned/approved" stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.

[jsf8278]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

I wouldn't say it "looks like 🞵🞵🞵," but its also nothing to shout home about.

[robw340]

Originally Posted by reggiesquared

I'm sorry but this building looks like 🞵🞵🞵. Looks like a love child between the Sheraton down the street and a housing project in NY.

I actually saw some similar buildings in the Belltown area of Seattle -and they're new ....they dont look that bad once built...i'm all for anything being built on J street, specially residential.

[foxmtbr]

I think it'll look nice. These kinds of projects usually turn out to look pretty good, as robw340 said he saw in Seattle.

[slaiguy]

It may not be as spectacular as say Aura but anything that adds residents downtown and livens the place up is welcome. Also, it is way better than what is there now.

[wburg]

This was approved by Planning, they didn't like the needle on top (it is strictly ornamental, and was put there because someone on Design Review wanted an architectural element on top) but otherwise they were okay with the look of the building other than some small details. The building looks good at the base, in that it's visually interesting and not a big wall o' glass. Lots of articulation at the ground level, which makes an effort to recognize the historic pattern fo J Street. Finishes at the ground are stone, brick and things other than stucco. Apparently it goes back to Design Review, although I'm not sure why, before final approval.

The alley wall/parking structure will reuse brick from the historic buildings to be demolished. I would have liked to see some of the bay windows along that wall reconstructed, but they did make an effort to make it more than a blank wall.

It's not a monster eye-popper, but it's not supposed to be: what seems to be appearing in the neighborhood is a vocabulary of prosaic tall buildings. Not every building needs to be a bold architectural statement, although it's nice if they look good. This one, at least from the rendering, seems to look good at the ground level (where most people will be interacting with it) and the high patios mean that the residents can come outside, at least a little bit. Besides, with neighbors like the Cathedral, the Elks and 926 J, maybe it's better to go for simple.

[TowerDistrict]

The rendering doesn't show reflections and shine from the glass and everything is shown in a flat, matte illustrative sort of way. I don't think this building will give you a kink in your neck from gazing upwards, but I think the finished product will show some nice material contrast with the new and reused brick, plaster, aluminum, glass and stone. I don't think this building will look like the Marriott - there's a lot more going on there.

What I don't like: it's short and fat.

What I do like: it's downtown residential, relative mid-range product, great chance of being built, and a great location.

[reggiesquared]

Originally Posted by ozone

Maybe it's not the Taj Mahal but what would you rather have: A beautiful rendering of a building that is so expensive it will never get pass the "planned/approved" stage or a satisfactory but not outstanding design that will actually get built? At this point I just want to see one residential tower get built.

Ugly doesn't unnecessarily mean its cheap to build nor does good design mean expensive to build. I find it unimaginative. Will people live in it? Probably. Would I be proud of it if i were the developer looking at the $$ bottom line, most likely. But I agree with others, nothing to write home about. It will take up some airspace downtown and look like a standard block. Good for downtown pedestrian traffic but bad architecturally speaking. I guess I don't like the "i can live with it" attitude with something so permanent.

[sugit]

Double Post

[sugit]

I've always loved the ground levels detail of this building, I think it's easily the strongest point, which I find important. I saw a ton of buildings like this in Vancouver last time I was there. The finished products look good.

Also, even with approvals we still won't see this breakground until next year . I've had my name on the wait list for this place since 2004 when the announced it so I keep in contact with a person over at St Anton. I spoke to them about 5 or 6 months ago and the timeline at that time was 20 months with engineering design and permits. So that puts groundbreaking around fall of next year. I'll ping them again once they receive design approval next week to see if there is any update or even something on demo starting.

Looks like the contractor on the project is Harbison-Mahony-Higgins Builders.

[Sacto]

The design looks ok even though it can be better.