Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 135

Web · #**2681** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 2:07 AM**

Has Nassi been in town since he couldnt get any money on aura????

I think he is the shadiest developer since ummmm Moe ooops neither has finished anything......re denver

Also Davis was recalled for a 10 billion dollar deficit.......Arnolds could be more this coming year.....I sense cuts at all level of state gov, so Maybe they dont need new office space at all. Impeach Arnold!

travis bickle · #**2682** Posted **Dec 12, 2007, 2:08 AM**

removed

ozone · #**2683** Posted **Dec 14, 2007, 6:54 PM**

I've seen R.E. Graswich 'in action' during the whole arena deal thing and he seemed like a nice guy. But I couldn't figure him out. It really seems he doesn't want Sacramento to grow-up but I think it's more like he's one of these pathethic people who's only reason for living to be a contrarian-regardless of the issue. He's got his own hang ups and obviously he finds enough like minded people in this town to have an audience.

TWAK · #**2684** Posted **Dec 16, 2007, 9:10 AM**

what about just 1 tower, lets say 600-700 feet near the same design as one of the old proposed towers. I'm sure CIM has enough engineering knowhow to work it out at that sight, they wouldn't have to worry so much about filling up 2 towers like saca did.

TowerDistrict · #**2685** Posted **Dec 17, 2007, 11:05 PM**

Photo panorama will mask high-rise condo that wasn't
By Bob Shallit - [email protected]
Last Updated 5:47 am PST Monday, December 17, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D3

Developer CIM Group has come up with colorful camouflage for that gaping hole in the ground it inherited at Third Street and Capitol Mall.

It's planning to circle the construction site with a fence that incorporates 28 oversized news photos, taken by Sacramento Bee photographers.

"We want it to tell the story of Sacramento visually," says John Given, an exec with Hollywood-based CIM, which is in partnership to develop the site with CalPERS. The state's giant pension plan became sole owner after John Saca's plans for a high-rise condo there fell apart.

The fence is primarily designed to protect the foundation work previously completed by Saca's crews. The photographs? "They'll make it look good. … There are a lot of expectations about that site," Given says.

The photos – ranging from eight to 12 feet high – will wrap the site's corners in 70-foot-long segments. They depict "community festivals, fireworks, bike riders … the diversity of Sacramento," says Scott Rose of Runyon Saltzman & Einhorn, which dreamed up the idea for CIM. The photographs were provided courtesy of The Bee as a public service.

The photos will be affixed to plywood and treated to resist weather and graffiti. The rest of the perimeter will be enclosed by a vine-covered, chain-link fence, which should be in place by early January.

How long will it stay up?

Until construction is completed on whatever project CIM and CalPERS ultimately decide to build there, Rose says.

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

NoNewArena_ at 7:44 AM PST Monday, December 17, 2007 wrote:

INNOV8, looks like you nailed this one! Adding vine to the fence though, makes the fence more like a permanent fixture than something that will come down in a few years.

2 out of 4 people found this comment helpful

mechanico · #**2686** Posted **Dec 18, 2007, 5:05 PM**

For those that want a residential tower this mothballing is a good thing.

reggiesquared · #**2687** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 6:55 PM**

Houston is a higher priority for good ol Pers...

http://www.globest.com/news/1082_1082/houston/167822-1.html

And why not? Texas is the last man standing since their prices never really ran up very high during the housing bubble.

TowerDistrict · #**2688** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 7:00 PM**

lol @ $75 million tower... Is it made from gingerbread?

Majin · #**2689** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 7:38 PM**

Over 1/2 a billion dollars to build a tower here and $75 million to build a tower in Houston.

That just doesn't make any sense.

innov8 · #**2690** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 8:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

lol @ $75 million tower... Is it made from gingerbread?

And to think in April of last year it was only going to cost $60 million. Here's a
link to the Houston proposal. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=128641

Looks like allot of stucco for the exterior.

sugit · #**2691** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 8:49 PM**

Just looking at 500M versus 75M doesn't mean anything.

Forget that developing in CA is said to also be more expensive than more places in the US to build and we don't know about materials..that 75M tower is only 25 stories and The Tower was over 2M square feet in size, this building doesn't look even close that

..of course it's going to cost a shit load less.

TowerDistrict · #**2692** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 8:54 PM**

even Aura was over $100 Million more than that!! has there been any word on a
total cost for Cathedral Square or the Metro?

I'm too lazy to look it up now, but that would prolly be a more accurate comparison.

sugit · #**2693** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 9:09 PM**

I haven't seen anything on Cathedral Square or the Metro, but even those two seem to be much bigger buildings.

Majin · #**2694** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 10:12 PM**

How tall can you build here for $75 million? 5 floors?

TowerDistrict · #**2695** Posted **Jan 30, 2008, 10:19 PM**

you can stack up two conference centers in a Roseville hotel. haha

wburg · #**2696** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 1:21 AM**

High land prices are why people build high-rises in the first place. The comparsion I recall from the 1980s was that a plot of land in Tokyo the size of a piece of notebook paper was $100,000...which is probably a laughably cheap price today. Which is pretty much why Tokyo looks like Tokyo, I guess, that and the number of bombs we dropped on them in World War II.

brandon12 · #**2697** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 1:43 AM**

I know you're just making a point, but after a 15-year japanese depression, it's probably worth about the same amount (net of exchange-rate effect).

that being said, if we take a sheet of paper to be 2/3s of a 1sf and if we have a plot of land that's just 100sf (10 x 10), that price would come out to be $15M. I literally and figuratively can't buy that. A 10,000sf building site would cost $1.5B, with a B. There's no way. Is there?! 10,000sf would seem like a tiny site for an office tower, 20,000sf would be more realistic. that would only cost $3Billion...

SacUrbnPlnr · #**2698** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon12

I know you're just making a point, but after a 15-year japanese depression, it's probably worth about the same amount (net of exchange-rate effect).

that being said, if we take a sheet of paper to be 2/3s of a 1sf and if we have a plot of land that's just 100sf (10 x 10), that price would come out to be $15M. I literally and figuratively can't buy that. A 10,000sf building site would cost $1.5B, with a B. There's no way. Is there?! 10,000sf would seem like a tiny site for an office tower, 20,000sf would be more realistic. that would only cost $3Billion...

If you to talk to developers of high density urban projects in Sacramento, they will likely tell you that among the factors driving cost and affecting financial feasibility in the Sacramento market are:

1. Land costs--very high in the central city area, in particular
2. Infrastructure costs
3. Labor costs--we compete with the Bay area for construction labor
4. CEQA/Permit process--this can add one to three years to the process compared to communities in states that have few or no environmental or planning laws and little public participation

Also keep in mind that rents/lease rates/prices that can be charged in the Sacramento market are generally less than in the Bay Area, despite our high development costs. This further impacts the financial feasibilty of high density urban projects.

BrianSac · #**2699** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 2:18 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacUrbnPlnr

If you to talk to developers of high density urban projects in Sacramento, they will likely tell you that among the factors driving cost and affecting financial feasibility in the Sacramento market are:

1. Land costs--very high in the central city area, in particular
2. Infrastructure costs
3. Labor costs--we compete with the Bay area for construction labor
4. CEQA/Permit process--this can add one to three years to the process compared to communities in states that have few or no environmental or planning laws and little public participation

Also keep in mind that rents/lease rates/prices that can be charged in the Sacramento market are generally less than in the Bay Area, despite our high development costs. This further impacts the financial feasibilty of high density urban projects.

I was only aware of #4 above. But all the other reasons explain why Sacramento is a particularly difficult market to build in.....

wburg · #**2700** Posted **Jan 31, 2008, 7:38 AM**

How do land costs and infrastructure costs compare with other urban centers, especially within the region?

#4 is not a situation unique to Sacramento: CEQA is a statewide law (and there are comparable laws in many other states.) So isn't this no less an issue in other California cities?

I suppose it takes longer to get things approved here than in, say, Utah (whose idea of acceptable land use includes being a dumping ground for toxic soil) or other states we used to drop atomic bombs on, but how many states with big cities have such low levels of regulation?