Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 133

Pistola916 · #**2641** Posted **Dec 8, 2007, 7:57 PM**

Courtesy of KOVR 13.

New Plans for Downtown Sacramento Eyesore.

Reporting
Kris Pickel SACRAMENTO (CBS13) ― It's not the prettiest thing to look at; an eyesore on the Capitol Mall.

Construction began 18 months ago. But since developer John Sacas plans to build these two 50 story luxury condo towers fell through, the question has been what will happen to this big hole in the ground?

We've learned the months of pile driving endured by downtown workers will not go to waste.

New plans are not set in concrete but include two towers, office space instead of condos, and the buildings are not quite so grandiose. They plan to be 30 or 40 stories, instead of the original plan of 50 stories. While opinions are split on what people would like to see, the developer plans to put any projects on hold for at least 18 months, giving the economy time to recover.

While the site sits in limbo, a contractor is spending two million dollars to make the parcel easy on the eye, and preserve it for the future development.

Grass is being grown to prevent dirt from sliding back into the pit. A tasteful new fence will camouflage the dormant construction. New sidewalks will reopen the area to pedestrians, and a lane of traffic that had been closed around construction is already reopened.

The new developer is the CIM Group. They are behind a lot of high rise properties; some are just office space, others are just residential and quite a few are a mixture of both.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If this plan is true, then this sucks. We won't reach 500 feet nor will it be residential.

sugit · #**2642** Posted **Dec 8, 2007, 8:22 PM**

500 feet might not happen, but we would probably still be looking at a new tallest. If it's more toward the 40 story side than the 30 story though, we could hit 500.

The part that would really suck is if there was no housing or hotel uses, and the retail is scaled back to typical office serving retail stuff.

PLus, with 500 and 621 u/c and Meridan II going to DR in a few weeks (I saw a sign on the site yesterday)..I don't see how more office space would fill right now..or in the near future.

Pistola916 · #**2643** Posted **Dec 8, 2007, 9:04 PM**

I'm kind of worried about the design of the towers than the height at this point, a la, 621.

cozmoose · #**2644** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 12:39 AM**

Sacramento's new nickname should be the "Lawnmower City."

Seriously, is there another city in this country that has invisible ceiling like Sacramento's 400ft barrier?

You would think there would be at least one developer out there risking just a bit more to build a 500 feet building and lay claim to tallest in Sacramento. Surely, having that title would grab lot of attention and higher rate?

Does the cost escalate suddenly (exponentially???) when building go past 400 ft? geez...all I ask is one lousy 500 footer...which barely qualifies as a skyscraper in other cities.

So thats it. This is my Christmas wish! Make it happen CIM!!!

leftopolis · #**2645** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 1:52 AM**

I don't see what the problem is--frankly, this is great news. The new developer is pumping in $$ for it to not be an eyesore and to preserve amd utilize the work that has been done. While perhaps a bit disappointing that further construction has not commenced presently, it's entirely within reason that a new project wouldn't begin for 12-18 months. As for the 30-40 stories--also good news. A CIM condo project nearing competion in downtown San Jose(which I linked to a page or so back), is 22 stories and 87 meters. If one does the math, a version of this same building which went to 33 stories--would top out @ around 130 meters, easily becoming a new tallest for Sacramento.

snfenoc · #**2646** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 3:00 AM**

A 30-40 story residential tower could be 300-450 feet. A 30-40 office tower could be 425-560 feet. In terms of height, you gotta love office towers. BUT, in terms of life, you gotta love residential towers. I was hoping one tower would be office (to satisfy the height lover in me) and the other would be residential (to satisfy the life lover in me) - either that, or a mix of both in each tower. I hope CIM considers at least some residential units (50-100), but I doubt it. Too bad, because Crapitol Mall could use some residential.

DALINSAC · #**2647** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 5:39 AM**

[QUOTE=sugit The part that would really suck is if there was no housing or hotel uses, and the retail is scaled back to typical office serving retail stuff.

According to a news report on TV this morning, that's all it's going to be. Just another office building. No retail or residential. CM is already that boring.

sugit · #**2648** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 6:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DALINSAC

[According to a news report on TV this morning, that's all it's going to be. Just another office building. No retail or residential. CM is already that boring.

If that is the case, I would consider going from two life pumping 53-story mixed use buildings with that many housing and hotel units and high quality retail to nothing more than an office building one of the biggest disappointment in recent downtown Sacramento history.

I will say though, I can't see the city approving anything that does not include at least ground floor retail. There may not be housing, but retail will be there.

friedpez · #**2649** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 6:06 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozmoose

Seriously, is there another city in this country that has invisible ceiling like Sacramento's 400ft barrier?

I think San Diego has a similar issue, and so did Vancouver, BC until recently...

But I wouldn't freak out about 301 CM yet. That was a pretty short article, and it basically said serious work won't restart for another 18 months. That's enough time to reconsider plans and throw in some housing/mixed uses, pending economic conditions. Plus, I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who'll put pressure on both CIM and the City to include housing in the project.

TWAK · #**2650** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 7:08 AM**

hell I don't care, I just want to see more towers. beggars cant be choosers. I guess it would be neat to have a condo tower but there is no way in hell I could afford to live in one....or go to some upscale eatery inside.

ltsmotorsport · #**2651** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 10:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by friedpez

But I wouldn't freak out about 301 CM yet. That was a pretty short article, and it basically said serious work won't restart for another 18 months. That's enough time to reconsider plans and throw in some housing/mixed uses, pending economic conditions. Plus, I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who'll put pressure on both CIM and the City to include housing in the project.

Very true. Still a lot of time for plans to change.

Sugit is right on too. The city WILL NOT approve anything that doesn't have at least some GFR space.

innov8 · #**2652** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TWAK

hell I don't care, I just want to see more towers. beggars cant be choosers. I guess it would be neat to have a condo tower but there is no way in hell I could afford to live in one....or go to some upscale eatery inside.

That's a weird reason on why condos should or should not be included,
because you can't afford to live in one right now? I'm sure most of us here
can't afford to buy one but it's still important that housing start going in
somewhere along Capitol Mall. The big picture is that this city deserves better

TWAK · #**2653** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 9:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8

That's a weird reason on why condos should or should not be included,
because you can't afford to live in one right now? I'm sure most of us here
can't afford to buy one but it's still important that housing start going in
somewhere along Capitol Mall. The big picture is that this city deserves better

I'm just saying I could never afford it. I do want something there... I just hate it to always see these great proposals just go down the drain.

urban_encounter · #**2654** Posted **Dec 9, 2007, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cozmoose

Sacramento's new nickname should be the "Lawnmower City."

Seriously, is there another city in this country that has invisible ceiling like Sacramento's 400ft barrier?

Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, San Antonio to name a few... Maybe not all top off at 400'(+/-), but certainly cities with modest skylines in terms of height.

ozone · #**2655** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 2:08 AM**

I think the city should not let the developers get off without including some housing. Leave it to CalPERS to screw us.

urban_encounter · #**2656** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 5:01 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

I think the city should not let the developers get off without including some housing. Leave it to CalPERS to screw us.

Why don't you wait and see what's proposed??

creamcityleo79 · #**2657** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 5:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Why don't you wait and see what's proposed??

Seriously...we're a year and a half out and already that good ol' Sacramento negativity is rearing its ugly head!

urban_encounter · #**2658** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 6:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugit

500 feet might not happen, but we would probably still be looking at a new tallest. If it's more toward the 40 story side than the 30 story though, we could hit 500..

Very true..

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugit

PLus, with 500 and 621 u/c and Meridan II going to DR in a few weeks (I saw a sign on the site yesterday)..I don't see how more office space would fill right now..or in the near future.

I agree. Where are these tenants supposed to come from, unless they're thinking 5 to 7 years out?

quevinh · #**2659** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Phoenix, Portland, Salt Lake City, Oakland, San Jose, San Diego, San Antonio to name a few... Maybe not all top off at 400'(+/-), but certainly cities with modest skylines in terms of height.

I know in the case of Salt Lake City there is an "unwritten" height restriction at around 400 feet to prevent blocking any views of the Utah capitol building on the hill (I think it may also have something to do with the fact that the Mormon Church office building just happens to be 400 feet tall and big downtown buildings would dwarf the LDS temple and complex).

In San Jose the height restrictions are imposed by the FAA due to the proximity to the airport. Buildings there can be no taller than 360 feet in the southern end of downtown with the heights tapering down to 160 feet in the north end closer to the airport.

I agree with cozmoose. Why is it that Sacramento's buildings all seem to be EXACTLY the same height? 500 and 601 Capitol Mall, the two major buildings now under construction both have have top design features that would "pop out" a lot more if the buildings were even SLIGHTLY higher than the surrounding buildings. What prevented Taylor or Tsakapolous from adding a few more floors?

innov8 · #**2660** Posted **Dec 10, 2007, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by quevinh

I agree with cozmoose. Why is it that Sacramento's buildings all seem to be EXACTLY the same height? 500 and 601 Capitol Mall, the two major buildings now under construction both have have top design features that would "pop out" a lot more if the buildings were even SLIGHTLY higher than the surrounding buildings. What prevented Taylor or Tsakapolous from adding a few more floors?

Probably because the market place for new tenets downtown is not big
enough to build a tower any larger. Back in 1999 621CM was first proposed
at 31 floors and over 500ft., but for seven years the tower could not find
enough tenets to fill the needed requirement of leased space required by banks
before money is released to build. So the project was down sized to make it
more likely the project could meet the needed lease number which I think is 30% or 50%.

500CM is a different case. This tower is being built on speculation and I think
80% of the of the costs are being paid by the developer Angelo G Tsakopoulos.
Because he’s paying for most of it himself, he’s not beholden to rules other
developers have to meet with banks. When they started working on the
foundation 7 or 8 months ago there were no tenets signed up to fill the tower.
The towers costing $115 million.