HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #2401  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 3:43 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by aufbau View Post
395 units sold? yeah, what a risky market Sacramento is

But at least he's young and resilient, I'm sure he'll still leave a significant mark on our skyline. Just not as soon and where we would have liked.


hopefully whatever he builds isnt the metropolitan, cuz in all honesty, its looks average at best
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2402  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:13 PM
TowerDistrict's Avatar
TowerDistrict TowerDistrict is offline
my posse's on broadway
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: in an LPCA occupied zone
Posts: 1,600
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugit View Post
Saca isn't spending time licking his wounds. He said his family is planning a 40-story mixed use high-rise on property it owns at 10th and J Streets.
i figured that. noone with an ounce of pride would bury their head in the sand after such a tough loss. shit... if Saca could take every deposit from the Towers, and put them into the Metropolitan, that project would already be sold out.

__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------

Last edited by TowerDistrict; Jun 13, 2007 at 4:18 PM. Reason: added photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2403  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:16 PM
Trojan's Avatar
Trojan Trojan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 224
How can all of these luxury tower projects be built in Chicago or Miami with rising construction costs, but not here? Is it just the banks not loaning money or were there not enough people signed up for the Towers?

And then why is the Rincon Hill Tower being built so fast when it is the equivelant kind of project to the Towers?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2404  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:32 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
I bit of details in this article and some quotes from CIM...looks like Aura is picking up some extra sales

Sounds like CIMs Watrerview in DC is going to be somewhat of a model they are looking at with twin buildings. One office building and one hotel and condo building.

Not a fan of the look, but I'm sure they wont' look the same, esp since it looks like the site in DC is MUCH bigger.

http://www.waterviewresidences.com/
_________________________________

Towers can't dig out of hole
CalPERS buys out developer, sees new project downtown.
By Jon Ortiz - Bee Staff Writer

It's just a hole in the ground near the Sacramento River right now. But to get an idea of what might be built where John Saca tried and failed to erect two 53-story high-rises, look 2,700 miles east to the banks of the Potomac.

That's where CIM Group, the Los Angeles development firm commissioned to revive the dormant Towers construction site at Third Street and Capitol Mall, has built Waterview, a twin-towered hotel, office and condominium complex outside Washington, D.C.

CIM officials say they view that building as the type they'll construct on what is now a barren downtown Sacramento site covered in dirt and weeds and the remnants of construction that barely had the chance to begin.


On Tuesday, the California Public Employees' Retirement System, an early investor in developer Saca's dream, said it had bought out his interest in the struggling project.

The announcement ends a proposal that was at once hailed as visionary and dismissed as oversized. But even as the Towers sparked controversy, it renewed interest in downtown living and gave rise to rival condominium projects. One competitor said Tuesday that the Towers' demise has already helped his business.

Condo market experts say Saca's failure to build the Towers symbolizes the rough waters builders face.

"The big markets -- Miami, San Diego, places like that -- have units in foreclosure and projects in the pipeline going away," said Bruce Slaton, president of sacramentocondos.com, which tracks the local condo market. "It's a tough cycle right now."

CIM principal John Given said his firm will take a "fresh look" at the site, "but not lose the ultimate vision that Saca had" for a mixed-use tower.

"It is a very important location for Sacramento's development," Given said. "We envision planning the site so that it can have an office building and a hotel-condo building. And Waterview is a good example."


Many in the local commercial real estate community applauded Saca's vision when he announced the building nearly three years ago. But they questioned whether the Towers, which promised a 230-room four-star hotel, condos with room service and a fitness center, was overreaching in Sacramento. And they wondered whether Saca, a strip-mall builder with no high-rise development experience, could pull it off.

Still, the idea caught on with other developers, including Craig Nassi, the Denver-based developer behind the Aura high-rise condo tower proposed for 601 Capitol Mall, just a few blocks from the Towers site.

At first, Saca successfully lined up financial backers for his plans. CalPERS committed $100 million of the projected $500 million cost. Deutsche Bank, the Germany-based multinational, agreed to loan him $350 million if he hit certain condo sales targets.

The city kicked in an $11 million subsidy for hotel furnishings and fixtures that Saca would be able to tap once the project was built.

Sales of the condos, which ranged from $368,000 to more than a $1 million, began in 2005, with Saca eventually taking deposits of 10 percent down on 402 of the Towers' 804 units. In a press release Tuesday, he said he will immediately refund that money. Saca could not be reached for additional comment.

Betty Ford, who put $130,375 down on a 48th-floor unit and two parking spaces priced at $1,307,654, said she's not worried about her money.

"It's in a trust," said Ford, a director at a local medical clinic. "But I was really excited about living downtown with all the Towers' amenities."

By the time Saca broke ground last summer, the Towers had drawn national attention, but it quickly fell victim to soaring construction costs, running more than $70 million over budget by the fall.

Meanwhile, a soft housing market and competition from nearby housing projects slowed condo sales.

Construction work stopped in January after CalPERS, which already had spent $25 million, said it would spend no more. Unpaid debt piled up. Contractors filed $13 million in liens against the Towers, claiming they hadn't been paid.

The parcel, the site of the former Sacramento Union newspaper, became little more than a fenced-in hole with hundreds of concrete pilings chopped off at ground level.

CIM's Givens said cleanup will start "within a couple of months." The building eventually proposed will incorporate the existing foundation work.

CalPERS could have cut its losses and walked away, but decided to invest more after careful analysis, the fund's officials said.

Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo welcomed CalPERS' move.

"As a gateway to the city, this site is critical and is a great opportunity to do downtown housing," Fargo said through a spokeswoman. "I'm glad PERS is still interested, and we look forward to working with them."

CalPERS declined to disclose what it is paying to take over the project. Ted Eliopoulos, the fund's senior investment officer, said in a prepared statement that CIM will "resolve issues" with outstanding creditors, finish the first phase of site preparation and come up with an alternate project in about 18 months.

Joseph Mohamed Sr., a Sacramento investor who owns a $22 million mortgage on the Towers construction site, said Thursday he has not been in contact with CalPERS or CIM.

"I haven't heard anything from them. I would assume when they're ready they will buy me out," he said.

Mohamed was among those who bought a residential unit in the project.

One competitor said Towers' failure already has boosted his project.

"We actually got 16 calls today to reserve units from people who lost their deals," Aura condo developer Nassi said in an e-mail.


Nassi did not answer questions about when his project would break ground. Aura reportedly has stalled over construction financing problems.

Sacramento Assistant City Manager John Dangberg said the hotel money earmarked for the Towers would be "reallocated to other projects," particularly those on J,K and L streets.

"If CIM brings (its) project forward and can prove that there's a financial gap, we would consider it," Dangberg said. "That's another discussion for another day."


In a letter to Towers buyers, Saca vowed to continue his push.

Following a "Dear Fellow Visionaries" salutation, he wrote: "I have not and will not abandon my vision or efforts to build a high rise in Downtown Sacramento. ... I give my commitment that very soon I will present to you another high rise project that will make our shared dream ... into a reality."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2405  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:42 PM
joninsac joninsac is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 688
Waterview's hotel/condo tower is 29 stories, and the office tower is 24 stories, so it sounds like we could get something like one of the original Lot A proposals. I don't see why it has to take 18 months to come up with an alternate project, unless that's just CalPERS' way of saying that they're going to wait until the housing market improves.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2406  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:48 PM
kryptos's Avatar
kryptos kryptos is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 252
Quote:
Originally Posted by TowerDistrict View Post
i figured that. noone with an ounce of pride would bury their head in the sand after such a tough loss. shit... if Saca could take every deposit from the Towers, and put them into the Metropolitan, that project would already be sold out.

that is a boring design....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2407  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:52 PM
BrianSac's Avatar
BrianSac BrianSac is offline
CHACUN SON GOÛT
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,646
Quote:
Originally Posted by petescafe View Post
Waterview looks bland enough for Sacramento.

I hope it's more distinct than that.
I second that....if it has to be height-challenged, then at least make it distinctive. geesh!

Waterview is anything but "iconic", and that San Jose project sucks too!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2408  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 4:56 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,079
I don't understand why the Metropolitan is even being talked about at this
point. I mean really, I bet it's at least several years out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2409  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 5:41 PM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Can someone explain more what an "iconic" building is? Seveal people have mentioned that whatever gets built at 301CM needs to be iconic.

Iconic...I think of the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Sears Tower, World Trade Center(rip)...maybe 8 or 10 others buildings around the U.S. Buildings so distinctive they're instantly recognizable.

Sometimes I think "iconic" is being used here as a code word for "very tall". (Not every time or by every user.)

Are there any iconic buildings in Sacramento now? Can a 20 story building be iconic? A project can be "very good" without beinc iconic, yes?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2410  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 6:01 PM
Sactorleans's Avatar
Sactorleans Sactorleans is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Midtown Sacramento
Posts: 39
I remain optimistic that CalPERS can create a product that will be well received. I look at their own headquarters building as an impressive example of a good architectural design. I think that building is impressive for its scope because it has a lot of nice architectural features, modern amenities, and fits in well with its surrounding.

There is a nice slideshow of the HQ available on this website:

http://www.construction.com/GreenSou...ag_calpers.asp

Although, the CalPERS HQ is not a highrise, so it is not a direct comparison. I would like to believe that CalPERS intends to put a great product forward, and if the building were to surpass at least 40 floors combined with a good architectural design fitting for the location, the way they were able to with their HQ, I think they could approach a design that may meet that 'iconic' stature.

Last edited by Sactorleans; Jun 13, 2007 at 6:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2411  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 6:10 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillip View Post
Can someone explain more what an "iconic" building is? Seveal people have mentioned that whatever gets built at 301CM needs to be iconic.

Iconic...I think of the Empire State Building, Chrysler Building, Sears Tower, World Trade Center(rip)...maybe 8 or 10 others buildings around the U.S. Buildings so distinctive they're instantly recognizable.

Sometimes I think "iconic" is being used here as a code word for "very tall". (Not every time or by every user.)

Are there any iconic buildings in Sacramento now? Can a 20 story building be iconic? A project can be "very good" without beinc iconic, yes?
I use it to mean a representation of what Sacramento is and what it hopes to be: A growing city reaching ever higher. A city for which another blah 12 storey state warehouse is no longer acceptable. Certainly the Capitol qualifies as iconic. When it was built - 231' was considered reaching for the stars in the valley. That kind of height no longer qualifies in 2007. I'm sorry that your "iconic" repertoire only includes eight to ten buildings, but my list isn't quite so limited. Not all of mine are tall - Guggenheim, Disney Hall - and if they want to build something of that spectacular quality at 301, I'm all for it.

But at this point in Sacramento’s maturity, I think something like a 700' version of the Shanghai World Financial Center would better serve the "iconic" purpose.

Does that answer your question Phillip?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2412  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 6:43 PM
SacTownAndy's Avatar
SacTownAndy SacTownAndy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The Bridge District, West Sacramento, CA
Posts: 1,262
One thing I noticed on the Waterview rendering is that it says, "buildings not to scale". I just thought that was a little odd.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2413  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:25 PM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Quote:
Originally Posted by travis bickle View Post
I use it to mean a representation of what Sacramento is and what it hopes to be: A growing city reaching ever higher. A city for which another blah 12 storey state warehouse is no longer acceptable. Certainly the Capitol qualifies as iconic. When it was built - 231' was considered reaching for the stars in the valley. That kind of height no longer qualifies in 2007. I'm sorry that your "iconic" repertoire only includes eight to ten buildings, but my list isn't quite so limited. Not all of mine are tall - Guggenheim, Disney Hall - and if they want to build something of that spectacular quality at 301, I'm all for it.

But at this point in Sacramento’s maturity, I think something like a 700' version of the Shanghai World Financial Center would better serve the "iconic" purpose.

Does that answer your question Phillip?
Well yes, it gives me one person's opionion of what's iconic. I don't expect everyone here will agree on the definition. But it's helpful to have the term discussed since so many are using the word "iconic" here and nobody was describing what they meant by it.

My personal reaction to the pics of the CIM projects in San Jose and Washington DC is that something like those would fit in very well in downtown Sacramento. But some dismiss those designs as not iconic.

I was wondering if people disliked those other CIM projects because of their particular design and another twin tower highrise of similar scale but different design would be acceptable? Or does ANYTHING less than 40 stories fail the "iconic" test? Since you consider the Guggenheim and Disney Hall iconic I guess you fall on the side that it doesn't HAVE to be tall to be memorable and distinctive.

As for "a representation of what Sacramento is and what it hopes to be: A growing city reaching every higher" I wonder if that's a view most Sacramentans hold. Personally, it really doesn't matter to me whether downtown Sac ever gets buildings taller than what's there now. Having taller buildings doesn't ruin Sacramento for me. But they don't make me think better of the place either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2414  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:35 PM
Schmoe's Avatar
Schmoe Schmoe is offline
NIMBY Hater
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 1,057
Agreed. Iconic does not mean tall. But it does mean that it will be a project that people in the future will be able to identify Sacramento by. Otherwise, it would not be an icon. So I have hopes that it will be unique or distinctive in some way. A regular highrise really doesn't fit that description. Buildings of the design and scope of an Epic would truly be iconic.

I have a feeling that whatever it proposed for the site will not be iconic at all. If it looks like Waterview, then it will be nothing more than the status quo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2415  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:36 PM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
From the Bee article posted by sugit:

Quote:
Joseph Mohamed Sr., a Sacramento investor who owns a $22 million mortgage on the Towers construction site, said Thursday he has not been in contact with CalPERS or CIM.

"I haven't heard anything from them. I would assume when they're ready they will buy me out," he said.
How can CalPERS have control of 301CM if they haven't spoken with the person who owns the land?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2416  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:41 PM
otnemarcaS's Avatar
otnemarcaS otnemarcaS is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 395
No matter how we slice and dissect this, The Towers were such a gorgeous looking building in stature, height and aesthetics. No matter what CIM proposes, it will never match what could have been. Let's just hope it's, at a minimum, a 35 to 40 story highrise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2417  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 7:56 PM
travis bickle travis bickle is offline
silly slackergeek
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 470
Quote:
Personally, it really doesn't matter to me whether downtown Sac ever gets buildings taller than what's there now. Having taller buildings doesn't ruin Sacramento for me. But they don't make me think better of the place either.
Judging by so many of your posts here, that is hardly a surprise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2418  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 8:24 PM
JeffZurn's Avatar
JeffZurn JeffZurn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 126
I agree Sacramento definitely needs some added height to its current skyline. I cannot remember who said it but they said it looks like Sacramento was ran over with a lawn mower. I think that is a great analogy, but as for the towers, it will always be what it could have been, just like Metroplace. Lets just hope it is taller then the 423FT that we are right now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2419  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 8:59 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
I hope CIM proposes something at least 500 ft. That would be a decent way to open the door to new heights for future developments.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2420  
Old Posted Jun 13, 2007, 9:56 PM
TheDerek's Avatar
TheDerek TheDerek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 70
hopefully all this wont be work wasted

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...69154643093812

btw, this is just a guess, but wouldn't the fact that the project is 30mil or whatever in the hole force CalPERS to build something taller than "average"

I could be wrong but I think it would be hard to make that 30 mil back on a 10 story building...

Last edited by TheDerek; Jun 13, 2007 at 10:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West > Sacramento Area
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:13 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.