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

[foxmtbr]

^ I agree. We certainly need the midrise housing like 800J, but not on this site. The end of Capitol Mall needs a major project, not some little loft project. There are plenty of other places in the city for that kind of development.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by SacTownAndy

I see where you're coming from Urban, but my thought on it all is that there are many more ample sites around DT and MT that are more suitable for a mid-rise residential project than here. I'm more concerned with the site rather than the project. Meaning, that in my opinion that site is key for a large catalyst project and deserves nothing less. Skyscraper or not, an 800J-ish type development there would be a huge opportunity lost (as opposed to what that site could dictate) and somewhat out of place. Again, just my personal opinion.

I respect your opinion Andy, but I would only take the other side of the coin. Meaning there are plenty of opportunies outside the Capitol View Corridor for a taller tower when and if market conditions permit.

I guess what I'm also saying is don't throw the bay out with the bath water.

A hole at the foot of California's Capitol Mall will sit undeveloped for the next 15 years and those of us (like yourself) who understand how things work in Sacramento, know it.

We all want to see a 600 foot tower (or taller). But the market will not support it right now. The banks aren't even willing to back Aura and it's 65-70% pre sold.

I would also just advise people to wait and see what Cal Pers and CIM come propose (that is if they can make it work at all). Again my first question (that I always ask) is, (what will it do to contribute to the vibrancy of DT Sacramento?I've always said that I don't care if a building is a low, mid or high rise, so long as it's high density. If CIM and Cal Pers can do that at 301 CM with a quality project (regardless of the height), I'll support it 100%.

[foxmtbr]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I respect your opinion Andy, but I would only take the other side of the coin. Meaning there are plenty of opportunies outside the Capitol View Corridor for a taller tower when and if market conditions permit.

Good point. I suppose I didn't really think about it that way before. We should just wait and see what CIM proposes before criticizing.

[snfenoc]

Gee, it sure is easy for somone living in Chicago to suggest we should accept any "quality" high-density project that comes along .

[bennywah]

down here in San Diego, they started small with getting people to live in downtown and creating a destination retail establishment (horton plaza) and revitalizing the gas lamp before moving into 300-400-500 foot towers, sac has old sac which could be turned into a community with history residents and nightlife, we all know downtown plaza and k st need work badly. In reality those things som mid rise development to bring residents to the business core will bring about the conditions to build taller and bigger, putting residentail of any kind on cap mall will probably be the catylist to get dt plaza moving and really get k st going.

San Diego doesn't have any towers over 500 ft thanks to the airport that wont be going anywhere for at least 20 yrs and our downtown is getting to be really vibrant with lots of 20-30 story towers and clubs and restraunts so you dont need tall to be better or vibrant, at least when Sacramento can support a tall tower it can be built there unlike here, so besides 500 cap mall sitting vacant, and lot a, hell the former 301 was vacant for quite some time too, if a hole sat there as well than add onto the time the union building was vacant, thats a long time folks.

We all want tall and iconinic but vibrancy and life in a downtown are as if not more important, and usually the parts of a city that are vibrant dont have a ton of high rises around, but rather character and residents involved in their community, I'd love to see something grand, and tall at the gateway to my home city, but I'd rather be able to come home and see a vibrant fun lively city more.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Gee, it sure is easy for somone living in Chicago to suggest we should accept any "quality" high-density project that comes along .

Although i know that your somewhat kidding, in all honesty everyone in Sac knows that I've been a huge proponent of high density housing for years and more recently as long as i've been on the forum. I'm naturally disappointed that the Towers wont be built in their current design since it represented a wonderful opportunity to put 800+ residential units on one block. But I'm not willing to say that a hole in the ground is better than a low or mid rise (high density)residential building at 301 CM; when the goal is to bring in additional housing, more retail and entertainment to the downtown area.


Also I don't want anyone to think that I believe that Sacramento has to accept anything that is proposed by CIM/CalPers. Though I don't think that it makes any sense to oppose a project simply because people would prefer a skyscraper. That makes about as much sense as those who argue against a building, just because it's a skyscraper. I'm simply saying wait and see what's proposed.

There will be opportunities to debate any design elements, in design review.

[botoxic]

Originally Posted by ozone

I mean we expected to go from virtually nothing to the tallest condos on the West Coast?

*with the exceptions of two little projects already U/C in San Fran - Millennium Tower and One Rincon Hill

[ltsmotorsport]

Thanks for all the info, vicinsac.

I have to agree with some of you guys where I'd rather see the lot sit empty for a few years than some unispiring, run-of-the-mill midrise go up. It's Capitol Mall for cying out loud. Nothing should be half-assed on the avenue leading up to the seat of government in CA.

[BrianSac]

I think a Mel's drive-in hamburger joint would be our best option for 301 Capitol Mall. Lots of neon and girls in hot pants and roller skates.

Streetcar Drag races down Capitol Mall would liven up the place too.

We should put up a big neon sign at 3rd and Capitol, "The Littlest Big City in the World".

[econgrad]

End of a dream | THE ISSUE: Developer’s plans to build twin 53-story condo towers have completely fallen apart
OUR POSITION: City needs to withdraw its $10 million commitment and redirect it to other projects

Is a project over when the developer says it is? Or should elected officials exercise their own judgment, in concert with city staff, and revisit promises
made to a developer and his high-profile project that’s not about to happen?
It would be hard to find someone in Sacramento who wasn’t enamored at some point with the audacity, the scope, the outsized vision for The Towers, a pair of 53-story condominium buildings envisioned for Capitol Mall. The proposed development included a high-class hotel. Developer John Saca created an excitement not found often in the region. Recently, after months of difficult negotiations with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Saca reached a separation agreement with the public pension giant. CalPERS had invested $25 million of its $100 million commitment to the $500 million-plus project. Saca was to pay his first installment last Friday. He
didn’t make the payment he recently negotiated. The project is also about $35 million in debt, with money owed to contractors, who ceased work early this year, and to the owner of the land. The loan to buy the land is in default.
Now, CalPERS could assume control and develop a much smaller project. CalPERS has reportedly brought in the CIM Group, developer of a seven-story
loft project at 9th and J streets, to determine if a scaleddown version makes sense. But the deal, at least under Saca’s direction and vision, is effectively dead. Certainly, the condominium development would generate incredible property-tax revenue for the city, but too many questions remain — including who would build it, the size of the project and when it would be completed.
It’s time the city closes the books on The Towers, withdraws its $10 million commitment and redirects the money to other redevelopment projects in downtown that desperately need it.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

Thanks for all the info, vicinsac.

I have to agree with some of you guys where I'd rather see the lot sit empty for a few years than some unispiring, run-of-the-mill midrise go up. It's Capitol Mall for cying out loud. Nothing should be half-assed on the avenue leading up to the seat of government in CA.

Who said CIM and Cal Pers were going to construct something "half assed"?


Honestly, when I read some of the comments (especially from the ol' time forumers) holding to this belief that a hole in the ground at Capitol Mall is preferable; it certainly doesn't sound like the people that I've come to know and doesn't ring of the many conversations that some of us have shared.

There are small, mid and even large cities that have beautiful skylines and have boring downtowns... Is that what people now want? 301 Capitol Mall isn't the last site in Sacramento available for a skyscraper. So then why are people wanting to see a hole remain at 301 CM for the next 10 to 15 years instead of showing a little patience to see what Cal Pers and CIM come back with? To quote you Mike this is "Capitol Mall for cying out loud." Is there anyone on this board who actually believes that another developer besides Cal Pers or CIM will show an interest in this site within the next couple of years? If so you need to give John Saca their telephone number. They're just not out there folks.

Sacramento needs more residential housing downtown. That's the only thing that will bring in more retail, more galleries, more entertainment venues.

A hole in the ground is like turning off the lights and telling people your not open for business. It looks like blight and contributes to an areas image problems...

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by econgrad

End of a dream | THE ISSUE: Developer’s plans to build twin 53-story condo towers have completely fallen apart
OUR POSITION: City needs to withdraw its $10 million commitment and redirect it to other projects

Is a project over when the developer says it is? Or should elected officials exercise their own judgment, in concert with city staff, and revisit promises
made to a developer and his high-profile project that’s not about to happen?
It would be hard to find someone in Sacramento who wasn’t enamored at some point with the audacity, the scope, the outsized vision for The Towers, a pair of 53-story condominium buildings envisioned for Capitol Mall. The proposed development included a high-class hotel. Developer John Saca created an excitement not found often in the region. Recently, after months of difficult negotiations with the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, Saca reached a separation agreement with the public pension giant. CalPERS had invested $25 million of its $100 million commitment to the $500 million-plus project. Saca was to pay his first installment last Friday. He
didn’t make the payment he recently negotiated. The project is also about $35 million in debt, with money owed to contractors, who ceased work early this year, and to the owner of the land. The loan to buy the land is in default.
Now, CalPERS could assume control and develop a much smaller project. CalPERS has reportedly brought in the CIM Group, developer of a seven-story
loft project at 9th and J streets, to determine if a scaleddown version makes sense. But the deal, at least under Saca’s direction and vision, is effectively dead. Certainly, the condominium development would generate incredible property-tax revenue for the city, but too many questions remain — including who would build it, the size of the project and when it would be completed.
It’s time the city closes the books on The Towers, withdraws its $10 million commitment and redirects the money to other redevelopment projects in downtown that desperately need it.

econograd, is this your own commentary or that of a publication???

[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.

[urban_encounter]

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.

True and there are other examples; San Antonio and Austin don't have very impressive sklylines and really neither does Portland. But they have fairly attractive downtowns. Washington D.C., New Orleans (as you mentioned) are another example.

I never quite understand why Sacramentans have such a poor self image.
Uproot that city and put it in just about any other location and it would probably have a better self image. Sacramento is a wonderful city, (that I still love). It has character, charm and a relaxed pace. It's a much more attractive place to live than a host cities, of equal and in some cases larger size.

But like i said, (taking emotion out of the debate) a hole in the ground at 301 CM would not be in the best long or short term interest of Sacramento. The central city needs more housing options. It need more high density projects like 800 J or Aura (still waiting) or the Towers. More people living downtown will mean more people shopping, catching a show, eating, visintg a gallery or museum. Then as more people see that Sacramento is a wonderful place to live and visit, more people will decide they want to live downtown. More developers take notice and then (when the market is able to support it) you will see taller residential towers, being proposed, financed and constructed. But the bottom line is Sacramento's housing market is still down. Banks do not appear willing to gamble on such large projects in Sacramento at this time.

So repeating an earlier cliche' "let's not throw the bay out with the bath water".

It's doubtful that we'll see anyting approaching the size and scope of the Towers in Sacramento for many years. But that doesn't mean that there wont be projects scaled that can work in DT Sacramento. Projects that will bring a lot of people downtown to live, work, play, shop and eat and projects that will elevate Sacramento's skyline in both height and density.

[innov8]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I never quite understand why Sacramentans have such a poor self image.
Uproot that city and put it in just about any other location and it would probably have a better self image. Sacramento is a wonderful city, (that I still love). It has character, charm and a relaxed pace. It's a much more attractive place to live than a host cities, of equal and in some cases larger size.

But like i said, (taking emotion out of the debate) a hole in the ground at 301 CM would not be in the best long or short term interest of Sacramento. The central city needs more housing options. It need more high density projects like 800 J or Aura (still waiting) or the Towers. More people living downtown will mean more people shopping, catching a show, eating, visintg a gallery or museum. Then as more people see that Sacramento is a wonderful place to live and visit, more people will decide they want to live downtown. More developers take notice and then (when the market is able to support it) you will see taller residential towers, being proposed, financed and constructed. But the bottom line is Sacramento's housing market is still down. Banks do not appear willing to gamble on such large projects in Sacramento at this time.

I think the image comes from being the fourth in line behind three other great
cities LA, SF, SD, and then Sac. Sacramento rarely gets the love it deserves
in the press or by what people from those other cities say about our city.
I know it doe’s not matter, but to many it does. I for one don't care what
others say... just about every time I come back home from visiting any of
those other cities I'm always glad that I live here instead of there (except
SD sometimes ) Our local paper doe's not do us any justice either in
getting the population to be proud of what we do have. Anyway, Sacramento
is like the youngest child with three older bothers and sisters that always
have the spotlight and the only time Sac. gets it is when state budget
issues are being sorted out.

Also, I'll still take the hole in the ground if the Towers can't happen. I sure
hope CIM can't come up with a plan that pencils out.

[Phillip]

If no bank is willing to finance 53-story towers in Sacramento now why would they do it five years from now? Nobody can say with confidence that in five years condo prices will be higher than now or construction prices lower.

I vote for building the housing that can be built now. If Sacramento later proves able to support projects of Towers size there are other blocks where those can be built.

[econgrad]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

econograd, is this your own commentary or that of a publication???

I guess I forgot to put that the previous post by me is from the Sacramento Business Journal. Issue Date: June 1st, 2007. Page 15, Opinion section. Article is the first one at the top. Editorial.

The Titanic and crying emoticon are my input.

[ltsmotorsport]

Sure there are other blocks where a 'towers' project could be built, but 301 CM is still the best site. Obviously we still have yet to see what CalPers is gonna do, with or without CIM, but if it's anything less then the scope and magnitude of the towers, it is half assed. The amount of residents, quality retail and hotel would be immeasurable. The project would've been a first of it's kind anywhere in CA outside the coastal cities, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work in the long term.

What I don't get is that some of you guys are giving up on this idea of development when we saw it come so close to getting above ground. Just because the amount of units sold fell short of some arbitrary number, we should give up on this kind of developement? When times get tough, you gotta fight, not give up.

/end rant

[snfenoc]

You wimps disgust and disappoint me . This is called skyscraperpage.com. Please, register your opinions elsewhere. How about pussybuildings.com?

First of all, let me say I am making assumptions here. I cannot be sure what CIM/CalPERS will propose. Yes, I can pretty much guarantee that if a project is submitted, it won’t have the grandeur of twin 53-story skyscrapers, which is actually just fine with me. I would have no issue with two 35-story towers. A 50-story residential tower and a 25 story office tower (or the other way around) would be wonderful. How about single 50-story tower on one half of the block, and a mid-rise on the other half? Splitting the block in two and doing a single tower (30, 40, 50 stories, whatever) now, and then waiting for a future opportunity to build on the other half also works for me (although with the excavation and pile driving basically done, I think this would be a difficult method to employ). Basically, there are a number of scenarios I would support, and none of them have to match Saca’s vision. However, I don’t want to see a project that is so cheapened, so compromised and so diminished that it reeks of settling for the safest, easiest and quickest bet. An 800 J style project would be settling. Two 15-story buildings would be settling (although a butt-load better than an 800 J style project). Why? First of all, this is not Wankerville, Tennessee. Second of all, the site screams, “Make me into a grand project!!”

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. Saca had terrible timing, and surprise, surprise, the Towers failed. There was nothing uniquely “Sacramento” about the failure. In fact, many other late-coming projects died around the nation. I really hope CIM/CalPERS understands this. Despite what some may think, big projects are not out of scale or inappropriate for Sacramento.

The site we are talking about (301 CM) is not just any old piece of land. It’s at the foot of Capitol Mall, it’s an entire block and the prep work is done. 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.

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.” Conversely, explain why it would be better to go the safe route and build something we will all regret a decade down the road. Are you so impatient to fill a hole (Ha, ha, ha! I just said, "Fill a hole") that you are willing to settle? 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. 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. Second, I hope he PM’s me tomorrow’s lottery numbers, because, evidently, he knows the future. Honestly, it is possible the site would be empty for 15 years. Then again, it is possible the site would be empty for only 1 year. It’s certainly attractive to potential developers: It’s ready to accept just about anything, so whoever develops the land won’t exactly have to start from scratch. In addition, the City is more accepting of and accommodating to development than it was in the past. If one combines those factors with an increasing demand for upward development and improved market conditions in the next 2-5 years (possibly), it’s hard to conclude the site would sit empty for 15 years. 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. 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? Maybe not. 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? Maybe not. Good things come to those who wait. If CIM/CalPERS cannot “pencil out” a development for 301 that at least makes an attempt at being grand, then I think they should wait. Come on people. Don't be so short-sighted!

Finally, let me say that my opposition to a project would amount to pissy comments on this forum, a pissy email or two sent to CIM/CalPERS, flipping off the construction workers (and the building once it’s done) and crying myself to sleep every night for two years. I am not saying the City should block the proposal. I am not saying I would sue. I am not saying I would handcuff myself to one of piles and go on a hunger strike. I respect the right of CalPERS to do what it wants. This is CalPERS’ project now. It’s the Head Honcho, the Big Cheese, the Main Man, the Big Enchilada, the Grandito Burrito……………………………………… CalPERS is the Numero Uno; unfortunately, its record shows we may end up with a big, steaming pile of Numero Dos.

[enigma99a]

Originally Posted by Phillip

If no bank is willing to finance 53-story towers in Sacramento now why would they do it five years from now? Nobody can say with confidence that in five years condo prices will be higher than now or construction prices lower.

I vote for building the housing that can be built now. If Sacramento later proves able to support projects of Towers size there are other blocks where those can be built.

Banks are willing to finance in Sacramento, but finding equity partners is very difficult. Everyone sees Sac as a little hick town and nothing can be done over 25 floors. I think it will take someone with a ton of cash and can virtually bankroll a 54 story project and set the market up for the future as it WILL be extremely successful.

I vote no for building on 301CM less than what was proposed by Saca. There are still PLENTY of other lots left to build projects on that need infill.