Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 141

Web · #**2801** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 1:57 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThatDarnSacramentan

Guys, the Towers weren't canceled because of the economy. They were canceled because John Saca, the developer, done goofed: he screwed up.

agreed.

and whats up with his new store and rentals on fulton.......signs been up for months still in old little building to the north

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2802** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 2:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Web

agreed.

and whats up with his new store and rentals on fulton.......signs been up for months still in old little building to the north

I wouldn't know, I'm hardly ever out at Fulton. John Saca makes me want to scream and jam my Swiss Army knife right through my punching bag. Sure, I wasn't that huge a fan of the design of the Towers, but they were still a big deal to me! They gave me hope for Sacramento.

ltsmotorsport · #**2803** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 6:55 AM**

I really wouldn't place so much of the blame on Saca. He couldn't get the construction loan from Comerica, and then got together with CalPers. So yes, CalPers wasn't a good decision, but the Towers didn't get built because of Saca's lack of trying. He did everything he could, except no one would front the construction money to get the project above street level.

What is a Rivercat? · #**2804** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 4:29 PM**

This is surely a stupid question but what makes one a "developer"? Isn't it really little more than being a fundraiser for buildings?

Mr. Ozo · #**2805** Posted **Sep 21, 2010, 4:40 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ltsmotorsport

He did everything he could, except no one would front the construction money to get the project above street level.

Uh, so maybe he should have thought of that before he raised the block and dug a trench. It's this type of thinking why we have so many vacant lots in Downtown Sacramento. It's crazy to think we almost made the same mistake on K and L street. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed.

ltsmotorsport · #**2806** Posted **Sep 22, 2010, 5:46 PM**

I know it seems stupid, but this is the normal way of construction. There's usually two loans in construction projects (although the terms for them escape me at the moment). Now he may have jumped the gun a little in starting site prep and pilings (I believe with his own money, but not 100% on that), but he also needed to do that to get people confident in the project and sign up to buy; unfortunately, Saca fell just short of the bank's astronomically high goal.

You also have to remember what 2006 was like. The country as a whole thought (ignorantly) that this housing boom would continue for another decade and projects would be flowing in. Since this was the first project even remotely of it's kind in the region, the bank required a 50% pre-sale requirement; really unheard of. The Towers also had to compete with Aura just a few blocks away. Ultimately, The Towers pre-sold almost 45% of its units; close, but still not good enough for the bank. By the time the time limit was reached to get to that 50% mark, 2007 and the bubble bursting was well on it's way, so there was really no hope for it after that.

I really thing that if the Towers and Aura weren't in direct competition, one of the two would be standing tall on Capitol Mall right now.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2807** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 1:42 AM**

Of the two, I'd much prefer the Towers instead of Aura. Daniel Libeskind really shouldn't do high-rises. They try too hard to cut away from the norm and look futuristic. He's a geometric Gehry (I love Gehry: if we got a tower like Beekman Place in New York, I'd cry with joy).

KingsFan#1 · #**2808** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 3:35 AM**

You gotta be kidding me, Aura would have looked awesome. It might not have fit in perfectly with the city's 90's style skyline, but that building would have won so many awards. And besides, we really needed something taller than Wells Fargo Center, and now it'll be another ten years before something taller than WFC is even proposed

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2809** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 3:41 AM**

I'll concede that Aura was actually a decent high-rise design, but I hated it being right next to US Bank. To me, it would've looked just as awkward as the Sheraton being right next to the California Dental Association. It certainly would've won awards, but they should've built that or something along those lines on top of those abandoned buildings at 10th and J or on top of those smaller abandoned buildings. I think that when a tower does get built next to US Bank (thus ruining my perfect sunset views from the top), it should fit in with the rest of the Mall.

ltsmotorsport · #**2810** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 6:32 AM**

^Awkward? I like that dense block with 1201K, Esquire, and the Sheraton. Aura and 621 (US Bank) would have been great block mates.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2811** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 2:58 PM**

To each their own, I guess.

Personally, I like the sound of that courthouse at 301, as long as it's a good modern design that helps complete the semi-canyon feel of the Mall. I'm also glad that, while we're not seeing many (if any) high-rise renders or projects for the city, we're seeing more smaller, dense projects, like The Warren.

KingsFan#1 · #**2812** Posted **Sep 23, 2010, 10:04 PM**

I disagree, 301 is a spot that needs to have something huge, because it's in the middle of town, and right along the freeway. The lot once proposed for the towers needs something that is at least half as grand

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2813** Posted **Sep 24, 2010, 5:05 AM**

I hate to say this, but I disagree with you. 301 isn't the place to put the tallest building in the city. To me, the best place to put the tallest would be somewhere between Wells Fargo and Sheraton, between I and N Streets. I've seen the skyline from many angles, and we need to fill in the gaps between the Mall skyline and the J Street skyline (both of which have their own noticeable gaps). I think what you're describing would be like the Devon Tower effect. Devon Tower will be the tallest in Oklahoma City when it's done, and it's right on the edge of their downtown. Personally, with the tallest building, you want to have good height in all directions around it so it's built up to from most angles. That's actually one reason why I dislike the Federal Courthouse: I'm sure you've seen it going south on I-5 from Arco. It's just . . . there.

KingsFan#1 · #**2814** Posted **Sep 24, 2010, 10:26 PM**

Well, I have to agree on the courthouse, but with 301, we will also have all the west-sac development, and possibly some development on lot 200 or the docks, and besides, I'm not saying it has to be the tallest building, just something taller than WFC, and cool looking

Orlando · #**2815** Posted **Sep 24, 2010, 10:44 PM**

Okay, did anyone seriously believe that Sacramento could support even one 53 story skyscraper!?! The developers were way out of reality proposing this!

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2816** Posted **Sep 24, 2010, 11:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan#1

Well, I have to agree on the courthouse, but with 301, we will also have all the west-sac development, and possibly some development on lot 200 or the docks, and besides, I'm not saying it has to be the tallest building, just something taller than WFC, and cool looking

Well, there's the problem right there. Wells Fargo is the tallest right now. Whatever's taller than that becomes the tallest automatically. We need to fill in the gaps in the skyline, because right now, we have two strips: Capital Mall and J Street. I can think of plenty of spots on L, K, and J Streets that would be ripe for redevelopment, even if it's to add density instead of height. We've got two big red cranes in Midtown: let's get some cranes going Downtown. Honestly, if I were a developer with a project for this city, one of the first things I'd do is go out and take pictures from all angles, and then figure out the placing for my project within those angles.

KingsFan#1 · #**2817** Posted **Sep 25, 2010, 4:19 PM**

You'd seriously develop stuff to fill the skyline? 301 is currently the center of offices for the city, so developing there would be more reasonable than just filling in skyline gaps, and if it were the tallest, people could see it from all angles.

ThatDarnSacramentan · #**2818** Posted **Sep 25, 2010, 5:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingsFan#1

You'd seriously develop stuff to fill the skyline? 301 is currently the center of offices for the city, so developing there would be more reasonable than just filling in skyline gaps, and if it were the tallest, people could see it from all angles.

I'm just saying that as a photographer and a citizen. Of course, in the real world, that wouldn't work at all because it's about the bottom line. I could see 301 being the tallest for the city, but if it's gonna be the tallest, it has to be a quality design, something worthy of being the tallest.

Korey · #**2819** Posted **Sep 27, 2010, 5:03 AM**

I'm slightly glad they weren't built, it wouldn't have "fit" well with the current skyline (maybe with Aura, Metropolitan and a couple others) and the design wasn't outstanding enough to put in that space, in my opinion.

enigma99a · #**2820** Posted **Oct 23, 2010, 7:35 AM**

Quote:

I'm slightly glad they weren't built, it wouldn't have "fit" well with the current skyline (maybe with Aura, Metropolitan and a couple others) and the design wasn't outstanding enough to put in that space, in my opinion.

Yes I agree.. I like the lawnmower effect too