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

[arod74]

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 dont think it would take that long with the matrix process now in place, the advance stage of the foundation work, all the enviro reports done, and no demo as long as a new design uses the same general footprint. With CIM's know how and Calper's purse strings I dont see why they couldn't start as quickly as next year...

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by 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.

one tower is better than none at all...

[Scooby]

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.

Imagine living in the River Tower and being subjected to the daily, long-term noise and dirt that would come with building the Sierra Tower at a later date. That would be horrible.

[foxmtbr]

^ During the day while people are at work?

[goldcntry]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Imagine living in the River Tower and being subjected to the daily, long-term noise and dirt that would come with building the Sierra Tower at a later date. That would be horrible.

While I agree that the later construction is not ideal, next-door construction of high-rises happens all the time in other dense cities such as New York and L.A. In Miami this is fairly common to say nothing for Las Vegas. While staying a week in Minneapolis, I stayed directly across the street from where they were building the then new Target Tower. I can't say that I ever noticed/heard the daytime construction unless I was outside the building or on my balcony, and then only during the day. Night work was restricted to interiors as percribed by the city of Minneapolis. I'm not sure how much of an impact delaying the additional tower would have on current residents. The noisiest (in my opinion) construction work would have already been done; mainly the pile driving. If its the only way to get the towers built, why not?

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Imagine living in the River Tower and being subjected to the daily, long-term noise and dirt that would come with building the Sierra Tower at a later date. That would be horrible.

While it may be horrible. It happens all the time at projects throughout the country.

[peanut gallery]

I've lived through that a couple of times, except it was office towers going up next to the towers I worked in. You barely notice the noise, and watching the process can be riveting.

[urban_encounter]

Cal Pers wasn't the probelm with the project.

The problem was the $200 million (50%) rise in construction costs.
This started out as a $400 million project, which quickly grew into a $600 million project.

Seeing costs spiral out of control, there was simply no logical justification for Cal Pers to grant Saca's request for additional funds above their $100 million commitment.

Releasing more money to Saca (above the $25 million Cal Pers had released), would have been fruitless, knowing that the project needed addtional capital to move forward, (above the $100 million commitment).

Cal Pers simply had no choice but to gain control of the project and it's rising budget.

Equity partners invest for the purpose of making money, not to break even or end up on the short end of the stick.

To my knowledge, 301 Mission and Rincon Hill in San Francisco haven't seen the same kind of astronomical rise in contruction costs; nor have Aqua, Trump Tower and One Museum Park here in Chicago (to name a few). So while labor and construction costs have risen, it certainly doesn't explain or justfiy the
continually rising cost estimates for the 301 CM.

I suspect (and this is a hunch) John Saca's inexperience played a huge part in 301 Capitol Mall's troubles.

I also suspect that's why nobody appears too eager to join Saca as his new equity partner. Costs being out of control combined with his inexperience in residential highrise construction, doesn't make this an attractive investment.

Cal Pers has the $$$, while CIM has both the $$$ and experience to make this project exciting (and a reality).

At the very least (shoud they decide to move forward), it will bring some much needed stability to the project, and without a doubt contribute to the
revitalization of DT Sacramento.

[travis bickle]

I suspect (and this is a hunch) John Saca's inexperience played a huge part in 301 Capitol Mall's troubles.

I also suspect that's why nobody appears too eager to join Saca as his new equity partner. Costs being out of control combined with his inexperience in residential highrise construction, doesn't make this an attractive investment.

I think you are dead-on here. Saca's utter lack of high-rise experience undoubtedly contributed to this project's failure. But I think that had there not been a change in calpers personnel, that solutions would have been found that could have allowed Saca to keep some interest (he'd long ago given up making any money) and kept the project moving forward.

Sales were good and the obligation to members would have been completely met.

Instead - we have a complete disaster. A disaster that smells like it had to do with more that just P/L. It smells personal.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

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.

snefoc, I nearly forgot; here is your 30 story building. (And it's residential not office)


(photo courtesy of enigma)

[snfenoc]

That, over 800 J?? I'll take it!! Can I get just a little bit of office?

Oh, Urban, you ain't off the hook for your response to my last post. I've just been "busy" for the past few days. Expect a nice 369 paragraph essay within the next 24-48 hours . Get your reading glasses ready, sugit.


Oh, and my name is not snefoc. Get it right, Ubrna.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by snfenoc

That, over 800 J?? I'll take it!! Can I get just a little bit of office?

Good so we're in agreement

Originally Posted by snfenoc

Oh, Urban, you ain't off the hook for your response to my last post. I've just been "busy" for the past few days. Expect a nice 369 paragraph essay within the next 24-48 hours...

I'm fairly certain people on this forum have already made up their minds about this project one way or the other. .

I think enough people here also recognize that a hole in the ground at 301 CM for an unknown amount of time, (probably years) would have a far greater negative impact on downtown Sacramento's renaissance, than anything Cal Pers and CIM could propose.

But this debate is about more than skyscrapers.

What good is an elevated skyline in Sacramento if the downtown area rolls up the sidewalks at 5:00 o'clock? Is that what revitalization is about?? Having a good skyline so that people driving from the San Francisco Bay Area will marvel at the Sacramento skyline??

On the other hand, visitors will respect vibrant streets, good restaurants, shopping, entertainment and entertainment venues (to include sporting venues). People remember academic institutions, the arts, transportation infrastructure. More people moving downtown means more of the above, (and yes when the market will support it, as you have suggested in the past) taller proposals will come.

Vibrant cities are made on the ground, not from a distant freeway view.

I'll end this with a question.............

Is it worth it to let the IMAX, Pyramid and who knows how many other establishments risk going out of business or perhaps let the Downtown Plaza languish indefinitely just to preserve a hole in the ground, in the hopes that somebody will come in and build something in the next 15 to 20 years???

Downtown Sacramento needs more high density housing; there's no debating that fact. Without it, the amenities will not follow and those that are there are at risk for going out of business.

[Phillip]

Originally Posted by travis bickle

But I think that had there not been a change in calpers personnel, that solutions would have been found that could have allowed Saca to keep some interest (he'd long ago given up making any money) and kept the project moving forward.

I'm not a CalPERS insider and my comments are purely speculative.

Is it possible the "change in calpers personnel" happened specifically to extricate CalPERS from Sac Towers? That they hired new people with a mandate to get CalPERS out? If CalPERS board was committed to Sac Towers wouldn't they have made clear to all candidates that getting Sac Towers done was an important part of the job they were applying for?

I can't imagine one newly hired employee by himself convincing CalPERS to quit SacTowers if CalPERS leadership wasn't already oriented that way.

Btw, I've been enjoying your posts here, travis bickle. Welcome to the board.

[econgrad]

Hey Urban, I like what you have posted! There is one thing I do not understand, if you or anyone else can help. How does Saca's in-experience with building high-rises/skyscrapers effect the towers? Meaning, how does one get experience, and what mistakes can a developer make (IE Saca) because of his inexperience? OR better yet, can you or someone else give me (and everyone else) some concrete and non-speculative examples of mistakes Saca made? Just curious.

I have been trying to find these answers myself, I keep waiting for a good article explaining all this in detail somewhere. I wish I wrote for Sactown Magazine...lol!

[travis bickle]

Originally Posted by Phillip

I'm not a CalPERS insider and my comments are purely speculative.

Is it possible the "change in calpers personnel" happened specifically to extricate CalPERS from Sac Towers? That they hired new people with a mandate to get CalPERS out? If CalPERS board was committed to Sac Towers wouldn't they have made clear to all candidates that getting Sac Towers done was an important part of the job they were applying for?

I can't imagine one newly hired employee by himself convincing CalPERS to quit SacTowers if CalPERS leadership wasn't already oriented that way.

Btw, I've been enjoying your posts here, travis bickle. Welcome to the board.

Not a problem at all Phillip. We're here to have fun and discuss downtown. Let's hope calpers and CIM have the vision - and cash - to pull off a masterpiece on Capitol mall.

[kryptos]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

snefoc, I nearly forgot; here is your 30 story building. (And it's residential not office)


(photo courtesy of enigma)

something looks a lil bit funny on this scaled down version...

i think its the now over-sized entry...they need to scale it down by half

[POGO]

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

I suspect (and this is a hunch) John Saca's inexperience played a huge part in 301 Capitol Mall's troubles.

I also suspect that's why nobody appears too eager to join Saca as his new equity partner. Costs being out of control combined with his inexperience in residential highrise construction, doesn't make this an attractive investment.

AMEN.

[urban_encounter]

Originally Posted by kryptos

something looks a lil bit funny on this scaled down version...

i think its the now over-sized entry...they need to scale it down by half

The model doesn't show the significantly scaled down podium..

Origionally the podium was going to be 12 stories, then 10 and they finally agreed upon 8 (if memory serves me correctly).

[ozone]

I talked with a women today who had put down a deposit on the Towers and all she wanted to know if she could get it back. She's over it.

[brandon12]

^that doesn't surprise me at all. I imagine most buyers agree with her.