Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

Boy that truly is hideous. Absolutely appallingly hideous.

Have more points to make but I'll just leave it at that for now.

Where do you see a rendering?

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by Majin

Where do you see a rendering?

Didn't realize the Bee didn't have the rendering. See the Biz Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...of-marshall-hotel-plan-to-transform.html

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Mr. Ozo

Didn't realize the Bee didn't have the rendering. See the Biz Journal.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...of-marshall-hotel-plan-to-transform.html

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

[jbradway]

Originally Posted by Majin

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

I'm guessing they have to go over the top of the existing Marshall in order to make the project make sense. Long before the arena, the opportunity to do this project as a hotel renovation within it's own original footprint and height just never got off the ground. And now with the arena, it really doesn't make financial sense to see this as a Hotel Berry 2.0 project.

So in recent years this has brought the building over the building approach using the disposable Jade building. It's not ideal, but it gets this project off the ground finally.

My input would be to reduce the amount of building over the top of the Marshall by half and convert the roof space freed up to an outdoor space for dining, bar or even a small pool. Then increase the height of the new structure up to 15-20 floors. Although I don't like the light color facade on the new building. I think something more contemporary with a lot of glass. It should embrace a contrast rather than try to disappear through blah color and design.

A secondary idea would be to expand the current Marshall footprint to cover over the Jade property and replicate the same ornate brick design and then build five new floors on top of the expanded building using the same style. Basically a new building using the existing facade and expand the same design. Probably bends the intent of the historical status. But possible if the expanded floors and foot print stay true and reuse the existing facade.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Majin

That doesn't look that bad, just needs more height.

Scaled down from 17 to 10

[Pistola916]

I realize the Marshall is a historic landmark. Are developers permitted to paint over the historic structure to match the color of the new building? I'm not liking the two-tone colors at all.

Other than that and maybe a few more floors, for a budget hotel, the design is OK.

[Mr. Ozo]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

Are developers permitted to paint over the historic structure to match the color of the new building?

How about they design the new building to match the old building instead of painting over historic brick?

The new building looks like it belongs in Natomas or Laguna as rendered, not as part of a landmark structure.

[wburg]

Painting over brick is generally not a good idea. Personally I'd like to see something more like the WAL on R Street, which combines the existing historic building with new construction on the side, which uses the old building for architectural cues but does not slavishly mimic the historic style, and can reflect a lot more modern style in its architecture. Because it is downtown, rather than on the R Street corridor, the new adjacent construction can certainly go a lot taller--a more vertical building would provide more space and maybe make it less necessary to build over the roof of the Marshall. One article mentioned using the current roof of the Marshall as a rooftop deck, which makes a lot of sense--it's a steel-framed building. A lot of buildings of that era had them (high-story views of K Street show a lot of rooftop pergolas where people could hang out on the roof) so it might already be strong enough for a deck.

[snfenoc]

According to the article in the Business Journal, the building would have a rooftop deck over part of the Marshall property.

I think it's a given that constructing a 10-story structure is less expensive than constructing a 20-story structure. (Unless, of course, the 10-story structure is a government project.) That fact likely influenced the decision to integrate the Marshall's facade into what seems like a new, mid-rise building.

One thing I'd like to see, and probably isn't cost-prohibitive, is better integration between the new facade and the Marshall facade. I'm not sure I like that line of glass. They might has well have joined the two with duct tape.

[wburg]

Assuming all else is equal, a 20 story building would cost more than a 10 story building--but keep in mind that the 20 story building not intruding on the Marshall would have half the footprint of the 10 story building, so the total cubic footage is about the same. In terms of expenses for high-rise construction, the big expenses come with buildings higher than 7-8 stories, which means steel construction instead of things like wood on a concrete podium, more elevators, emergency access etcetera, which would all be just as triggered on a 10 story building. 20 stories means the building would have that much more verticality, and thus market appeal, for the residential units (better view of the river and skyline) and profile for the hotel. Alternately, they could also build into the stub of Kayak Alley behind the building, which is blocked by the arena and practice facility anyhow--will it be needed for arena access? Could they expand the footprint of the building north to the back wall of the building at 7th & K?

[Mr. Ozo]

The alley is going to be a driveway into the parking structure under the practice facility.

Although you could build over it and still leave room for a driveway if you got the rights from the city.

[ltsmotorsport]

The Bee has an article on the Vanir Tower now as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html


The Biz Journal also had a nice write up and picture gallery of the Cannery Place Apartments in Township 9.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...ery-place-apartments-first.html?page=all

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

The Bee has an article on the Vanir Tower now as well.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html


The Biz Journal also had a nice write up and picture gallery of the Cannery Place Apartments in Township 9.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/ne...ery-place-apartments-first.html?page=all

Both very exciting projects! Sacramento is on the precipice of something amazing...you can feel it (even 2 time zones away!)

[Pistola916]

The Vanir Tower has a revised rendering. It is pretty sweet.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html

[Majin]

This is great and all, don't get me wrong, you guys know I love skyscrapers But where the hell are the residential developments?

The CDB really needs a lot more residents to truly create a "all hours" CDB with lots of retail, grocery stores, and non-weekend entertainment downtown.

[snfenoc]

One way to add residents to the central city is add jobs to the central city. I'm not sure if Vanir plans on expanding its operations here (in terms of jobs), but one thing Sacramento needs is a stronger, larger corporate base.

[Majin]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

One way to add residents to the central city is add jobs to the central city. I'm not sure if Vanir plans on expanding its operations here (in terms of jobs), but one thing Sacramento needs is a stronger, larger corporate base.

Isn't that simple, right now there is already a huge imbalance in the CDB of jobs to residents. Why would adding even more jobs improve the situation?

[aufbau]

Originally Posted by Pistola916

The Vanir Tower has a revised rendering. It is pretty sweet.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article4268965.html

Thank Goodness. There are enough vintage late 80s/early 90s high-rises in Sacramento. We're not far enough in the future for a revival of that style.
Could someone post photos? I hit that stupid Sacbee paywall.

[snfenoc]

Originally Posted by Majin

Isn't that simple, right now there is already a huge imbalance in the CDB of jobs to residents. Why would adding even more jobs improve the situation?

Let's say for every 10 CBD jobs, 2 of them will live in the city and 8 will live in the burbs. If an office building ADDS 1000 jobs, 200 of those will live in the city...that's more demand for housing. It may not be the amount you want, but it is more. Of course, one thing to watch out for is the good old game of "musical buildings". I want to see new office buildings add jobs to the CBD, not simply empty out others in competition. Currently, Vanir has offices in North Sac and elsewhere. If this project brings those offices together within the CBD, it has just added jobs to the CBD and some of those jobs may want to live in the city. I know there are big "ifs" here, but I don't see any reason to be pessimistic at this point, in this case.

The culture is changing - younger people are interested in living in the city. Likely, most CBD jobs are government workers. I would guess a large portion of those workers are middle-aged and have suburban inclinations. As they retire and a new, urban-inclined generation replaces them, you may just see the imbalance level off a bit.

Also, building a residential tower may not be economically feasible. But building smaller residential structures seems to be. You ask where the hell are the residential developments? I ask, have you been paying attention these past few years? We have had quite a few...just no high rises, and that is fine with me.

[sacamenna kid]

Looks to me like they're talking about demolishing one of the few classical facades left on J Street to build the Vanir. Isn't that bank landmarked?