Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 61

POGO · #**1201** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 3:33 PM**

One Rincon Hill in SF shows 641'. The towers shows 615'. Why does all the press coverage keep claiming that the Towers are the tallest project on the West Coast?

POGO · #**1202** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 3:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by econgrad

I need to ask some questions:
Just because the real estate market is a buyers market for the next year and a half, what does that have to do with construction and downtown renewal? .

Because Saca is under time pressure to sell a given number of units. He reportedly must sell at least half of the units before his lender will lend. AND he has signed contracts with buyers (as reported by Brandon12 and Los Lobos) that require him to top out within two years of the effective date of the contracts, or they can back out. Assuming the effective date of the contracts was the 1st of June this year (?), he has to top out by June 2008 or risk losing the buyers he does have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by econgrad

Aren't buyers markets good for awhile, when people buy housing to sell later for more? (I am keeping this in basic terms). Is someone stating that the Towers won't be built because of lack of buyers as well? I guess I do not understand the points, yes we are in a buyers market and yes there is a slow down in sales, but where is the connection? These developers wouldn't wait to construct later during a market turn around because the cost continues to rise and rise, the more delay the higher the costs.

The connection is that the whole point of developing real estate for a developer is to make money. If the cost of construction exceeds that amount that you can sell your development for, you either lose money on the project, or you end up holding it until the market turns around. It costs money to hold real estate (interest, operating costs, contributions to homeowners assoc., etc.). In order to be able to hold, you have to have deep pockets to fund these costs.

sugit · #**1203** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POGO

One Rincon Hill in SF shows 641'. The towers shows 615'. Why does all the press coverage keep claiming that the Towers are the tallest project on the West Coast?

If you are referring to news outlets, I doubt they really know what is going on.

I know Saca was using tallest for a while when it was the tallest around before RH was jumped up in height, but recently I'm pretty sure I have been hearing him say "largest", which could be true since the project is over 2M SF. Not sure how big RH is, but in terms of total project size, I think 301CM is bigger. Largest doens't always just mean height.

POGO · #**1204** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:12 PM**

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&CONTENTID=71068&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

I think this article actually says "tallest" west of the Mississippi.

sugit · #**1205** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POGO

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&CONTENTID=71068&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

I think this article actually says "tallest" west of the Mississippi.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugit

If you are referring to news outlets, I doubt they really know what is going on.

This one says largest...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...nancial/f115818D21.DTL&feed=rss.business

Who cares!!!!!! You really don't like Saca do you...Sounds like you really do have a personal vendeta against him if you are trying to make a big deal about something like this.

econgrad · #**1206** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:37 PM**

Wait..let me get this right POGO, ummm...the whole point of developing real estate for a developer is to make money..OK I have written that down! whoo hoo thanks! Can I use that for my grad thesis?

BTW: Thanks for the other info about Saca.

innov8 · #**1207** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:45 PM**

pogo, your pathetic

I think your shelf life here has expired

kenratboy · #**1208** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 4:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by econgrad

^ Now that is effin cool!

Danm right it is! Awesome.

Majin · #**1209** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POGO

http://www.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=News&CONTENTID=71068&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm

I think this article actually says "tallest" west of the Mississippi.

LOL, What are you trying to prove here? Man you are getting desperate.

Yes some articles printed around the nation (which have absolutely zero to do with Saca himself or this project) get facts wrong. Whats your point?

And yes older article will list the towers are being the tallest because it was actually true up until recently.

Just leave the forum POGO, you are clearly running out of issues to run with if you are brining stuff like this up.

ltsmotorsport · #**1210** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 11:14 PM**

I thought the official height was up to 630' or had that not been totally confirmed? I need answers people!

enigma99a · #**1211** Posted **Nov 7, 2006, 11:29 PM**

^ I also thought they decided not go to an extra floor. So it would stay 615'/53?

mechanico · #**1212** Posted **Nov 8, 2006, 7:13 AM**

While downtown revitalization certainly took a hit with the Arena getting shot down I think it may be good for this project. The Sacbee has spent entirely to much time on Arena coverage and there is a strong public interest in revitalization. This project is suddenly in the spotlight and Saca has a chance to work the press.

innov8 · #**1213** Posted **Nov 8, 2006, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanico

This project is suddenly in the spotlight and Saca has a chance to work the press.

What do you mean suddenly... for the last two years since it was introduced
to the public it has had the spotlight. How would you propose Saca work the
press? I think he has done a great job up to now.

mechanico · #**1214** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 3:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8

What do you mean suddenly... for the last two years since it was introduced
to the public it has had the spotlight. How would you propose Saca work the
press? I think he has done a great job up to now.

All I meant was, the media and public were focused on the arena now other developements will get more attention.

brandon12 · #**1215** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 4:16 AM**

they were still pounding away at 6:30pm in the dark when I drove by tonight.

mechanico · #**1216** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 4:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

This is pure speculation on your part. There's no way to know what percentage of buyers are using "borrowed money" or equity.

Huge condo project sees sales slow down
Preselling of units in the Towers turns sluggish, along with housing market.
By Jon Ortiz - Bee Staff Writer

"Some people may have planned to use home equity to pay the deposit," Saca said. "A lot of people don't have that kind of cash laying around. But we expect the market to turn back in our favor soon." John Saca

brandon12 · #**1217** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 4:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mechanico

People are buying these condos with mostly borrowed money, and the money they do have is rapidly evaporating (equity in current home) .

c'mon Mechanico. You said people are buying these condos WITH MOSTLY BORROWED MONEY (equity).
Saca acknowledged that SOME people are buying with equity.
The Saca quote you cite doesn't prove your point AT ALL. Of course SOME PEOPLE are using equity. I doubt there's an 800 unit developement anywhere in the world that isn't being leveraged to some degree with buyer's equity in other real estate holdings. That's stating the obvious. But that's not what you said nor is it what Saca is quoted as saying. Try to keep it straight!

brandon12 · #**1218** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 4:51 AM**

I just noticed that on the Sacbee.com home section, there are three units for the Towers listed as "sales Pending".
that's good to see...

mechanico · #**1219** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 5:31 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandon12

c'mon Mechanico. You said people are buying these condos WITH MOSTLY BORROWED MONEY (equity).
Saca acknowledged that SOME people are buying with equity.
The Saca quote you cite doesn't prove your point AT ALL. Of course SOME PEOPLE are using equity. I doubt there's an 800 unit developement anywhere in the world that isn't being leveraged to some degree with buyer's equity in other real estate holdings. That's stating the obvious. But that's not what you said nor is it what Saca is quoted as saying. Try to keep it straight!

Sorry, I left out part of the quote. That was Sacas response to slowing sales.

Quote:

Saca's sales staff sold 279 units from May through July. August and September net sales slowed to 71 and 14 units respectively, Hanley Wood's figures show.

Higher interest rates and a softening home market may be holding back some buyers, Saca said.

"Some people may have planned to use home equity to pay the deposit," Saca said. "A lot of people don't have that kind of cash laying around. But we expect the market to turn back in our favor soon."

How is that so different from

"People are buying these condos with mostly borrowed money, and the money they do have is rapidly evaporating (equity in current home)."

brandon12 · #**1220** Posted **Nov 9, 2006, 5:43 AM**

well, the difference is that you cited an article in which Saca was quoted as saying SOME people have used equity to prove your point that MOST people have used equity. The difference may be lost on you, but the fact is that the former definitely DOES NOT PROVE the latter.
It may be little more than symantics, and it doesn't really matter anyway. The project will get built. You and I are just speculating on details that will seem long-forgotten in a few years when I'm gazing out on the horizon from my deck 450' above downtown...