HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1721  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 5:16 AM
SacTownKing916's Avatar
SacTownKing916 SacTownKing916 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by POGO View Post
Very doubtful Saca can find anyone to take out CalPers. More likely scenario is that CalPers forces Saca out and brings in a developer that can contribute equity in a big way and can get it done.

Maybe Lend Lease (Bovis' parent company)

How bout Rob McGuire (one of the former owners of the kings - Big LA developer)

Or Shorenstein from SF.

Trump? No way. This isn't even close to anything Trump would touch.

We don't even know if the project still pencils out at the prices that they have already sold units for. They may choose to put the whole project into bankruptcy, reject all the sales contracts and start over at higher prices. Not likely becuz they would piss off their existing customers who probably wouldn't buy again, but it is one option.

Anything could happen, but its not likely that Saca will continue without some major squeezedown of his equity share..
Well according to Brandon's source CALPERS is out. So if he is right then what your saying is impossible, has already tooken place.

Last edited by SacTownKing916; Feb 18, 2007 at 8:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1722  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 8:27 AM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
^I guess we'll just have to see what happens, but I have 100% confidence in my source and he's 100% confident that CALPERS is soon on their way out. Either way, we should know the result in the not too distant future...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1723  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 8:39 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California & Texas
Posts: 17,878
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
As I said, with costs continuing to escalate, it's becoming less likley to pencil out...

Saca's best chance is to bring in a partner who is as committed to (his own vision of Sacramento)... Like Alex Spanos......

It's all specualtion...

Although i hope you all turn out to be right, I wont hold my breath that Saca can do this without a major equity partner.. A major equity partner who will be willing to invest in a project whose budget has gone up 50% and in very slow housing market.

Sounds very unlikely to me.
Spanos of course could do it, but I'd be very surprised. Unless he wants to get in the highrise market. He's a loyal Stockton guy, but hasnt tried anything there, but a sprawling 3,000 acre master planned community. I'd love to see him or Fritz Grupe do something in downtown Stockton. Spanos & Grupe built office buildings in Stockton outside of downtown....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1724  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 9:35 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 5,088
Saca has been a straight shooter about news concerning the Towers from the start...
he has not said anything that was not true or misleading to the media.
When things start to happen, they'll have to make it happen really fast
for john, I believe the Towers have to top out by May of next
year so that contracts signed with condo owners don't have the option
to bail out. Man, to do that at this stage, work would have to happen at the
site 16 to 18 hours a day. And because the foundation is not done ,floors
would have rise at a rate on 1.5 a week.

This will be real exciting once John bumps CalPERS off the project.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1725  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2007, 9:44 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Saca has been a straight shooter about news concerning the Towers from the start...
he has not said anything that was not true or misleading to the media.
When things start to happen, they'll have to make it happen really fast
for john, I believe the Towers have to top out by May of next
year so that contracts signed with condo owners don't have the option
to bail out. Man, to do that at this stage, work would have to happen at the
site 16 to 18 hours a day. And because the foundation is not done ,floors
would have rise at a rate on 1.5 a week.

This will be real exciting once John bumps CalPERS off the project.
My opinion is, if Towers buyers have stuck with the project through all this, then, they have confidence the project will get built. If it takes a few extra months than expected I don't think we'll see buyers leaving in droves. Plus, by the time the Towers start rising and making an impact on the skyline more people will have bought units...enough people that a dozen or so leaving will not have a huge impact on sales. One way or another, this will get built!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1726  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 6:15 PM
cozmoose's Avatar
cozmoose cozmoose is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 173
Intercontinental Hotels just announced they will sell off their 4 trophy assets in London, Paris, NYC, and Hong Kong. Intercontinental in Atlanta is also for sale, while the unit in Montreal is under discussion.
It is also reported that the IC is rumoured to be target of takeover from other firms.
IC's 2006 result shows 16% rise in operating profits but decline in market share.
http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2007/02/20/afx3443451.html

Will this news have any effect on potential site here in Sacto?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1727  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 6:59 PM
POGO POGO is offline
Mental Midget
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: North Highlands
Posts: 96
I would assume that the deal with InterContinental had a requirement for Saca to have obtained financing by a date certain and be under construction by another date certain with an easy escape for them if he did not hit those milestones. More than likely, they have already pulled out, but no one is talking about it because it further jeopardizes Saca's ability to pull all this together.
__________________
To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream: not only plan, but also believe. I believe I will have another beer.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1728  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 7:02 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Robbinsdale, MN
Posts: 1,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by POGO View Post
I would assume that the deal with InterContinental had a requirement for Saca to have obtained financing by a date certain and be under construction by another date certain with an easy escape for them if he did not hit those milestones. More than likely, they have already pulled out, but no one is talking about it because it further jeopardizes Saca's ability to pull all this together.
And you can make these assumptions how?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1729  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2007, 11:36 PM
foxmtbr's Avatar
foxmtbr foxmtbr is offline
Finger Lickin' Good.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,656
^ Because he's POGO. I would think that Brandon would have already hinted at something if this were the case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1730  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 7:15 AM
Phillip Phillip is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 562
Intercontinental is a relatively small chain, with only 18 hotels in the U.S. IC's website mentions two more hotels to open in the U.S. in 2008, in San Francisco (that will be the second Intercontinental in S.F.) and Paradise Valley, AZ, next to Scottsdale. No mention of any 2008 openings in Sacramento.

http://www.ichotelsgroup.com/h/d/ic/1/en/c/2/content/dec/ic/1/en/rlist/na.html

I don't think Intercontinental was a prospective investor in SacTowers. They were simply going to manage a hotel built and owned by someone else. Even if IC has decided against a Sacramento presence for now a hotel at SacTowers could be managed by some other brand, providing it gets built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1731  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 12:00 PM
bennywah's Avatar
bennywah bennywah is offline
Highrise
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 316
well the ic brand is a small chain, but intercontinetal owns the holiday inn brands, the crowne plaza brands, the candlewood suites brands and hotel indigos, and staybridge suites. they genereally franchise those brands out and manage some (I work for a franchise owned by sunstone) IHG is the coporate head of the other brands so intercontinetal isn't just the 18 hotels, just one brand of in the u.s, and over seas.

the sacramento intercontinetal was to be managed by ihg, but owned by saca, which is more than likely where some of his revenue stream would be coming from after the project was done, and in a few years once the hotel had built up its occupancy and the land where the hotel and condos sit has gone up in value sell the franchise to someone else, which then ask the question of does the homeowners association own the land the towers is on, or saca? if the home owners association was given title to the land then in effect they would also own the hotel per-se unless that portion of the property was to be owned by saca intrest, and cal-pers ect? Brandon, los lobos, anything in the contracts about that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1732  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2007, 1:45 PM
brandon12 brandon12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 998
The condo owners will not own the hotel portion of the project. The development is actually divided into about 5 parcels (public areas, condo units, parking, hotel, etc).
Also, IHG is the largest hotel company in the world in terms of number of rooms.

Last edited by brandon12; Feb 21, 2007 at 1:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1733  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 2:21 PM
urban_encounter's Avatar
urban_encounter urban_encounter is offline
“The Big EasyChair”
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 🌳🌴🌲 Sacramento 🌳 🌴🌲
Posts: 6,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandon12 View Post
^I guess we'll just have to see what happens, but I have 100% confidence in my source and he's 100% confident that CALPERS is soon on their way out. Either way, we should know the result in the not too distant future...
Brandon I hope your right.

I trust and respedct your opinion and feedback, so naturally I'll give your source the benefit of the doubt, (even with my persistent doubt that this can still financially pencil out)....

But honestly I'm trying to come up with one person, with that kind of money and clout who would step in an help get the Towers constructed???

I have no ideas at all...



Quote:
Originally Posted by innov8 View Post
Saca has been a straight shooter about news concerning the Towers from the start...
he has not said anything that was not true or misleading to the media.
When things start to happen, they'll have to make it happen really fast
for john, I believe the Towers have to top out by May of next
year so that contracts signed with condo owners don't have the option
to bail out. Man, to do that at this stage, work would have to happen at the
site 16 to 18 hours a day. And because the foundation is not done ,floors
would have rise at a rate on 1.5 a week.

This will be real exciting once John bumps CalPERS off the project.

Mike your 100% correct about John Saca and his honesty in regards to this project. He has never tried to misrepresent
the truth and even admitted when he had lost buyers.


One more thing......

Were construction allowed to continue at 301 CM (by Cal Pers releasing funds above those already contributed or above the estimated $25 million they've contributed so far), then it's entirely possible that with the rising of the structure, sales would have also have risen. It doesn't take an expert to know that whenever there's a work stoppage then sales suffer.

So it's not far off the mark to say that Cal Pers double handed tactics have hurt 301 CM's chances of success.. This may not be the best kind of investment for Cal Pers and it doesn't matter that it's being built in Sacramento. Had Cal Pers inevested in a highrise project in Chicago they wouldn't have had a tower 50% pre sold prior to construction either. You either pledge (as a partner) to see the construction through to it's compelttion or don't get into the game at all.

I'm not sure why the estimated cost of construction contiues to rise for 301 CM. I do undernstand Cal Pers needing accountability and considering whether they should contribute more $$$ above the $100 million origionally pledged. But they are a partner on this project, and when they pledged to be a partner they also made a promise to the city of Sacaramento.. I would think that they would be conscience of the fact that holding funds back would negatively effect sales of the Towers and also cast doubt on the project from potential lenders...???

Cal Pers should have never gotten involved in the first place, (even though I personally felt that they were a perfect fit for Saca), it's now obvious that they aren't the most reliable business partner.
__________________
Sacramento

Last edited by urban_encounter; Feb 22, 2007 at 2:50 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1734  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 3:07 PM
dcox20 dcox20 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 50
Aside from the process of re-permitting... is there any great reason that this thing has to be concrete construction? is that just for earthquake preparedness?

seeing that other steel building rising so fast I wonder why not just go through a few months of re-permitting and begin construction? you would be able to make up the lost time with the speed of completion and bring costs down at the same time. it's not like Sac has ever been in major EQ danger.

thoughts?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1735  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 5:34 PM
Los_Lobo's Avatar
Los_Lobo Los_Lobo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dixon, CA (Sacramento ??)
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcox20 View Post
Aside from the process of re-permitting... is there any great reason that this thing has to be concrete construction? is that just for earthquake preparedness?

seeing that other steel building rising so fast I wonder why not just go through a few months of re-permitting and begin construction? you would be able to make up the lost time with the speed of completion and bring costs down at the same time. it's not like Sac has ever been in major EQ danger.

thoughts?
The Sac Business Journal did a story on the all-concrete construction of The Towers awhile back. From what I remember, it said:

1) Concrete construction is used more often in condos because it's a better sound barrier between units.
2) Concrete allows shorter distances between floors (10' vs 13' for steel).
3) I'm pretty sure the article also said construction goes faster with concrete as opposed to steel.

I'll look for the article.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1736  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 6:07 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 Los_Lobo
2) Concrete allows shorter distances between floors (10' vs 13' for steel).
that would make the towers pretty close to 800' high.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1737  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 6:48 PM
Sacdelicious's Avatar
Sacdelicious Sacdelicious is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Harlem, NYC
Posts: 132
We infact, are not quite out of the earthquake threat (though no where near the bay area). I posted this a while ago, from Dept. of Conservation website:

LIKE THE REST OF THE STATE, SACRAMENTO MUST BE PREPARED

SACRAMENTO – Before the 54-story Towers on Capitol Mall soar into Sacramento’s skyline, pilings will be driven deep into the ground to ensure the buildings’ earthquake stability. Like many of Sacramento’s structures, these $500 million, 615-foot behemoths will need to be built to withstand the effects of a strong earthquake along any large faults near the capital city.

While Sacramento doesn’t face the same level of earthquake threat as the San Francisco Bay Area or the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area, it has felt the effects of earthquakes past. How Sacramento, with its relatively new big-city skyline, will fare in the next Northern California temblor is unknown. In fact, structural engineers sometimes refer to the “Sacramento problem” when discussing how tall buildings will respond in earthquakes.
“Sacramento doesn’t have any known faults running under it,” said State Geologist Dr. John Parrish, who heads the California Geological Survey (CGS), a branch of the Department of Conservation. “However, there are major faults near enough that give us a couple of significant earthquake concerns. One concern is the potential impact of liquefaction, particularly on the levees that surround much of the community. The second is the performance of high-rise buildings during strong ground shaking.”

Liquefaction occurs when the grains of poorly consolidated, sandy soils are shaken apart and the ground water is squeezed into the open spaces between the grains. That forms a substance much like quicksand that no longer has the strength to support buildings or other heavy structures. Liquefied soil can allow the ground to crack and move, resulting in damage to structures such as buildings and levees, buried pipelines and utilities.

"We're in an area where much of the soil is sedimentary river deposits, and there's a high water table because we're near the confluence of two rivers,” said CGS Supervising Engineering Geologist Charles Real. “Those are two of the major ingredients that create liquefaction.

“The only missing ingredient for liquefaction here is earthquake shaking, and that's why mapping Sacramento for the hazard of liquefaction hasn't been as high a priority as mapping other areas. The likelihood of damaging earthquake shaking here is not as high as it is for the Bay Area, but Sacramento has experienced shaking in the past. If San Francisco had another large earthquake, something of 1906 proportions, we can't say with certainty what that would do to Sacramento. There's a lot of development pushing up against our levees, and there are concerns about how well many of those old levees would hold up in a large earthquake."

Real heads the Seismic Hazards Zonation Program for CGS. The program has produced more than 100 regulatory maps covering the Bay Area and Southern California. The maps show zones where there’s a relatively higher potential for liquefaction and landslides during large earthquakes.

“We know that liquefaction can occur at a considerable distance from an earthquake's epicenter; look at what happened in San Francisco’s Marina District during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake,” Real said. "Earthquakes produce waves of energy. We’ve learned that although the rapid violent vibrations die out as you move farther away from an earthquake's epicenter, the lower frequency seismic waves travel farther and can affect high-rise structures. Although less violent, shaking from long period waves lasts longer and can still cause sandy saturated soils to liquefy.

“Certainly the 1906 San Francisco earthquake was felt in Sacramento, and the 1892 Winters earthquake, which was estimated to be magnitude 6.6, damaged the Capitol and other buildings here. There hasn't been a large earthquake centered near Sacramento since the construction of high-rise buildings. So the question of how our tall buildings, as well as our levees, would react is an important one.”

As the Supervising Geologist for CGS’ Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP), Dr. Anthony Shakal works closely with the engineering community in the development of building codes and construction practices. The nearly 1,000 recording stations that SMIP has placed around the state – including a handful in Sacramento at the Capitol and Cal-EPA building -- record how structures such as buildings, bridges and dams respond to ground shaking.

“In structural engineering, they refer to the ‘Sacramento problem,’ ” Shakal said. “What happens when you combine tall buildings, deep valley sedimentary soil, and a large earthquake at a distance? For high-rises here in Sacramento, the earthquake underfoot isn’t as much a concern as the earthquake in the next county or two counties away because of those long seismic waves.”

Shakal pointed out that during the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, centered more than 100 miles away from Sacramento just north of Santa Cruz, Department of Conservation personnel located in the Resources Building in downtown Sacramento felt significant shaking. In 1992, DOC employees on the upper floors of the 28-story Renaissance Tower (now known as 801 K Street) reported noticeable swaying after a magnitude 7.2 earthquake over 200 hundred miles away offshore of Humboldt County.

Several faults thought capable of producing large earthquakes are within 60 miles of Sacramento: the Calaveras, Hayward, Greenville, Concord-Green Valley and the Foothills system.

The giant Towers on Capitol Mall are being built under the Uniform Building Code. The code addresses a building’s response to seismic shaking, and varies depending on the building’s height. Strong motion recordings, like those made by Shakal’s group, directly establish the formulas used in design for a building’s period – the amount of time in takes to sway back and forth in its natural condition.

“We can estimate what the building’s motion will be before the first piles are driven,” Shakal said. “If you’re in a house in Sacramento, you might not feel the motion from an earthquake on the Calaveras or Hayward fault. But if you were way up in a skyscraper, you’d almost certainly feel it.”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1738  
Old Posted Feb 22, 2007, 8:14 PM
ltsmotorsport's Avatar
ltsmotorsport ltsmotorsport is offline
Here we stAy
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Parkway Pauper
Posts: 7,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by urban_encounter View Post
the city of Sacaramento...
Freudian slip?
__________________
Riding out the crazy train
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1739  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2007, 12:12 AM
bennywah's Avatar
bennywah bennywah is offline
Highrise
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: San Diego
Posts: 316
Almost all residential high rise structures built around the world are concrete construction, its a lower cost to build, the material is more rigid than steel so theres less movement, as los lobos pointed out it has better sound insulation ect. The negatives are its harder to change layouts becuase you interfere with the buildings integrity after its built, takes longer to construct, and column lengths and spans are shorter than those of steel buildings, hence why most office construction which needs more flexibilty and a quicker build out use steel.

one thing some california office construction doesn't use, since it tends to be more rare here, is the use of concrete cores which slow the construction of high rise office buildings. comcast center in philly bofa in nyc built quick but slower than the progress of a 621, or other all steel buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1740  
Old Posted Feb 23, 2007, 12:28 AM
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
Aura is using a concrete core i believe. i thought it was for fire and other disaster safety precautions. i think they were talking about 3 feet thick concrete wall surrounding the staircase, that runs from the ground to the roof.

i presume that won't build so quick, will it?

here.. found the link to the story originally posted by innov8.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 6:39 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.