Sacramento Proposal/Approval/Construction Thread - III - Page 303

LandofFrost · #**6041** Posted **Feb 3, 2016, 11:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan#1

Can't say I'm thrilled with this

http://www.sactownmag.com/Blog/2016/Mass...itol-Mall-could-end-up-as-citys-tallest/

Awesome ... so instead of two towers of condos we are getting 100 rental spaces..

BillSimmons · #**6042** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 12:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Awesome ... so instead of two towers of condos we are getting 100 rental spaces..

That's what happens when we leave things up to the good ol' State of California!

Ryan@CU · #**6043** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

I wonder what impact this will have on the Vanir tower?

Yeah, are there any updates on that?

I hated this at first, but seeing it from the other side changes my opinion. I suppose it's not that bad...much better than the Kings hotel under construction.

Is it cheaper to make these box on box looking buildings? I see it all over Los Angeles.

LandofFrost · #**6044** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 12:50 AM**

A birdy told me that the Sacramento Commons towers may be dead? Was all that fight with the preservation group pointless? Can anyone confirm?

The leasing office seems to be hinting at this.

Majin · #**6045** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 1:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

A birdy told me that the Sacramento Commons towers may be dead? Was all that fight with the preservation group pointless? Can anyone confirm?

The leasing office seems to be hinting at this.

How? They just had a article indicating that they should be starting construction of the midrises by the end of the year. Really disappointing if they are dead, and for what reason could they be?

enigma99a · #**6046** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 2:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LandofFrost

Awesome ... so instead of two towers of condos we are getting 100 rental spaces..

What are other cities like SF and San Diego doing for home ownership? Are all residential towers rentals?

The stacked box look is definitely a fad right now and personally doesn't look that great. And 420' just continues the lawn mower effect. This needs to be at least 500ft. Add another 80ft of Residential. Also the top residential portion would look a lot better if it were taller

ltsmotorsport · #**6047** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 6:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma99a

The stacked box look is definitely a fad right now and personally doesn't look that great. And 420' just continues the lawn mower effect. This needs to be at least 500ft. Add another 80ft of Residential. Also the top residential portion would look a lot better if it were taller

All of this. The stacked boxes look is an ugly fad that either speaks to architectural laziness or the more likely scenario of developers trying to maximize profit with large floor plates and "interesting massing".

And Sac Commons is not dead. It is moving through the city as it would any other project. Their is too much money to be made with mid-rise apartments (this phase) to throw away all the money spent on application fees for this phase and the PUD that planned out the whole super block.

wburg · #**6048** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 4:07 PM**

I think LandOfFrost was referring to the plan for high-rise towers on the site, not the mid-rise buildings that were recently put forward. It sounds like Kennedy Wilson is joining the chorus of local builders who are very eager to build mid-rise residential, consider high-rise buildings still too expensive for the Sacramento market. Although the impression I got is that KW was planning this as a project that would not build out for as long as 20 years--so you might see highrise towers on the eastern half of the site in 2030-2035. So the low-rise garden apartments on that half may get a 15-20 year stay of execution, at least.

spoonman · #**6049** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by enigma99a

What are other cities like SF and San Diego doing for home ownership? Are all residential towers rentals?

The stacked box look is definitely a fad right now and personally doesn't look that great. And 420' just continues the lawn mower effect. This needs to be at least 500ft. Add another 80ft of Residential. Also the top residential portion would look a lot better if it were taller

Most new towers in San Diego over the last few years have been rentals. We are just now starting to see the re-emergence of condo towers with a some starting construction. My guess is it will be a mix for the next couple of years in SD.

CastleScott · #**6050** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 7:51 PM**

Wish this could have more of a cool postmodern design with maybe a pointed top, a tower of say 550 ft would be awesome!!

enigma99a · #**6051** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 9:11 PM**

Could be worse I guess...

innov8 · #**6052** Posted **Feb 4, 2016, 9:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

I wonder what impact this will have on the Vanir tower?

The Vanir Tower needs to line up about 200,000SF of pre-leased tenants before
banks will lend money and this tower needs 400,000SF. Combined, these two
might suffocate each other and neither gets built... kinda like what happen to
Aura and Towers competing to pre-sell condos to meet the banks minimum.
Vanir Tower has not started the entitlement process or applied for any permits
with the city since they originally filed with the city in November 14' and then
withdraw weeks later. This tells to me that after proposing the tower 15
months ago they have not pre-leased the minimum square footage to move forward.
It took 621 Capitol Mall 6 years to pre-lease 50% of the tower before ground broke
and that was after they reduced the floor count from 31 to 25.

CAGeoNerd · #**6053** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 2:02 AM**

Ugh, this is so, so disappointing.

I do not like this "stacking" style of buildings, there is too much negative space. It's like they saw the building going up next to the arena and said "Hey! Let's just do the same thing!" In the end it's good that we are getting another high rise and filling up that glaring hole... BUT...

It's not big enough, not iconic enough for the most prized piece of land in downtown, and does not do enough to provide residential ownership downtown. Please revise the design, please go higher!

Pistola916 · #**6054** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 2:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAGeoNerd

Ugh, this is so, so disappointing.

I do not like this "stacking" style of buildings, there is too much negative space. It's like they saw the building going up next to the arena and said "Hey! Let's just do the same thing!" In the end it's good that we are getting another high rise and filling up that glaring hole... BUT...

It's not big enough, not iconic enough for the most prized piece of land in downtown, and does not do enough to provide residential ownership downtown. Please revise the design, please go higher!

The DoCo tower doesn't bother me as much, if at all, because it's a design new to Sacramento. But more than one stack, ship cargo-style high-rise is more than my liking.

Fortunately, the tower is not in the approved stage. It will get a redesign (for better or worst).

enigma99a · #**6055** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 4:19 AM**

Now that I have had some time to think about this, I think it absolutely cannot be built as shown in this drawing. This thing is fugly and bulky. Absolutely worst case for this spot. I can't imagine looking at every shot of capitol mall and seeing this thing. I woud rather see two slender 450 towers or one large 500' that's NOT inspired by shipping containers

ltsmotorsport · #**6056** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 4:49 AM**

Couldn't agree more. This design is awful.

And just in case anyone was questioning what Gensler can do, they have potential/serious talent. Look at this great addition to the Ritz/JW in LA that was just announced.

enigma99a · #**6057** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 5:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Couldn't agree more. This design is awful.

And just in case anyone was questioning what Gensler can do, they have potential/serious talent. Look at this great addition to the Ritz/JW in LA that was just announced.

Now that looks really good. I'd gladly take one of those. Did an intern at Gensler draw ours up?

Also get the trees off the towers... I think an indoor garden is OK but that's about it. Sure, the kings tower has them but it was less and we probably don't want all our towers looking like that. It looks overgrown

Korey · #**6058** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 6:36 PM**

Even just a super simple half block rectangular prism covered on all sides with good glass (kinda like the LA Live example above) would be better than this proposal. Maybe a cutout or two for mid and upper floor atriums/common decks.

NickB1967 · #**6059** Posted **Feb 5, 2016, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan#1

Can't say I'm thrilled with this

http://www.sactownmag.com/Blog/2016/Mass...itol-Mall-could-end-up-as-citys-tallest/

From the article:
"The block is best known as the site where developer John Saca proposed two 53-story towers in 2006. CalPERS was Saca’s partner on the deal until it fell apart in 2007. The new tower will rise only about a block away from the new Golden 1 Center."

Wait--given all the pile driving they did for the foundations of the two towers, wouldn't it be easier to just build the two towers?

enigma99a · #**6060** Posted **Feb 6, 2016, 12:50 AM**

haha good article

http://persquaremile.com/2013/03/07/trees-dont-like-it-up-there/

Quote:

It turns out architects have been doing the same thing, just with trees. Want to make a skyscraper look trendy and sustainable? Put a tree on it. Or better yet, dozens. Many high-concept skyscraper proposals are festooned with trees. On the rooftop, on terraces, in nooks and crannies, on absurdly large balconies. Basically anywhere horizontal and high off the ground