Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 49

kenratboy · #**961** Posted **Oct 13, 2006, 1:09 AM**

mechanico:

Yes. In California, or even the whole West Coast, housing prices has been climbing since...ummmm...care to tell me when they have NOT been going up in general?

If you are going to own a home for more than 5, 10 years, I think the odds of not making money are slim to none. Since the end of WWII, the state has been growing and prices have gone up and up. I just don't expect to see anything slow that down. It is harder and more expensive to get new land and build, so existing homes have a huge advantage because they are there and ready to go.

Yes, there will be slumps or flat areas, but you are not going to see things just deflate and never come back.

mechanico · #**962** Posted **Oct 13, 2006, 1:38 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy

If you are going to own a home for more than 5, 10 years, I think the odds of not making money are slim to none.

^absolutely but.....

My parents are trying to sell their house right now. They bought their current home 15 years ago and want to retire. They were asking for over $1 million. Even small percentage reductions,5-10%, hit hard. They don't want to wait. It's just depressing as a portion of their retirement is disappearing. Oh, well.

sugit · #**963** Posted **Oct 13, 2006, 2:35 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenratboy

If you are going to own a home for more than 5, 10 years, I think the odds of not making money are slim to none.

Ditto. The flip selling we have been seeing is going to be very hard, or even non exsistent for the next few years, unless you doing a major rehading to a dumb.

Also:
Looks like the Intercontinental is going to get that 11M. From what I have read though, if a city is really going to "invest" redevelopment dollars, hotels generally have the high pay back period, and in the long haul make the city much more money. It says the "pay back" period is less than 1 and 1/2 years (if you look at the project as a whole) Solid Investment considering after that time period that is money in the cities coffers.

The benefits listed in the staff report are pretty stagering for the entire Towers project in the form of taxes and jobs. It even mentions that with completion of The Towers, it can provide an additional 40M in tax increment bond capacity.

Only part that sucks is that it's 11M less for anything else on that list of projects via for money.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006 Council Meeting
(Redevelopment Agency) Intercontinental Hotel Project
Location: 301 Capitol Mall, Central Business District (District 1)

Recommendation: Adopt a Redevelopment Agency Resolution adopting the CEQA finding of the City of Sacramento for the Towers on Capitol Mall project, which includes review of the proposed project; and 2) approving the proposed business terms for the project located at 301 Capitol Mall, including a loan of $11 million from Merged downtown tax increment funds for incorporation in an Owner Participation Agreement to be brought back to the Agency for approval consideration.

Staff Report

POGO · #**964** Posted **Oct 13, 2006, 4:05 AM**

Anyone know why Turner is not working on this project any more?

innov8 · #**965** Posted **Oct 13, 2006, 4:53 AM**

Where did you hear that Pogo? At the site next to the trailer
there is a sign that says Turner construction. At least there
was one last week. Tell us more Pogo.

innov8 · #**966** Posted **Oct 14, 2006, 3:46 AM**

mechanico · #**967** Posted **Oct 14, 2006, 4:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by POGO

Anyone know why Turner is not working on this project any more?

You can't just leave us hanging. Where did you hear that.

joninsac · #**968** Posted **Oct 14, 2006, 7:20 PM**

From the Portland Cement Association Executive Report of 3-13-06 (emphasis added)

http://www.cement.org/exec/03-13-06.htm

Sacramento Sheds Small-Town Status
Long dwarfed by the Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego metro areas, California's capital of Sacramento shows signs of changing its rural image and its skyline with a cluster of high-rise buildings.

Groundbreaking is scheduled this spring for the Towers on Capitol Mall, which are 20 stories higher than Sacramento's current tallest building. The 53-story mixed-use development with twin towers will include a 230-room luxury hotel, 800 condo units, and 70,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space. The development team of John Saca and MulvannyG2 Architecture (Seattle) plan additional high-rise projects in Sacramento, including a 35-story retail/condo and 22-story retail/condo/loft complex.

Webcor Builders and Turner Construction will build the cast-in-place concrete structures, which feature post-tensioned floor systems and concrete shear walls. PCA's Attila Beres worked with structural designers Magnusson-Klemencic (Seattle), Miyamoto Intl. (Sacramento), and Shuhaibar Engineers (San Francisco), the firm conducting a peer review of the design.

The article is a little old, so some things may have changed since it was first published. But if Turner dropped out, I think we definitely would have heard about it by now.

Walk2Work · #**969** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 2:48 AM**

The entry way looks a bit Las Vegas oversized to me. What do you guys thing. I figure they could tone it down a little even while keeping the scale roughly the same.

brandon12 · #**970** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 2:55 AM**

^I think I've always kinda agreed with that, at least to a certain extent. I've never been too crazy about the way the steps and water feature were designed.

urban_encounter · #**971** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 2:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walk2Work

The entry way looks a bit Las Vegas oversized to me. What do you guys thing. I figure they could tone it down a little even while keeping the scale roughly the same.

The podium was origionally going to be 12 stories, but was reduced significantly due to suggestions by the Design Review and Presevation Board.

I actually like the entrance podium; though admittedly it may really stand out seeing as how it is at the very west end of Capitol Mall.

TowerDistrict · #**972** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 5:28 AM**

yeah it is a bit grandiose, but doesn't it function as an entrance to 800 condos, a 4 star hotel and a gym? i mean, it's not all for show right?

sactivity · #**973** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 4:28 PM**

I've always liked the archway, indifferent about the cascading waterfall (one on both sides would have been more symmetrical). But one thing's for sure -- I hate looking at a building and trying to figure out where the front door is. They've certainly made no mistake about this one !!!

p.s. Hi, everyone. I've missed you all !!!

northbay · #**974** Posted **Oct 16, 2006, 7:38 PM**

^ actually, i like the entryway except for the archway. it doesnt look right to me to have an arch like that in a modern building - unless they were going for a postmodern style look.

but im being nit-picky. all-in-all, the building is well designed and will be a good fit for sactown. i agree with sactivity and towerdistrict that a building like this should have a big entrance. if u want ppl to use the building, u gotta make it easy 4 them to access.

mechanico · #**975** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 3:53 PM**

He got the $11 million.

http://www.sacbee.com/142/story/41474.html

sugit · #**976** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 4:44 PM**

As the article says, good investment by the city. Future tax flow into city coffers is well worth it.

POGO · #**977** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 5:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugit

As the article says, good investment by the city. Future tax flow into city coffers is well worth it.

Seems like a pure giveaway of public funds to me. The project is already under construction, so the decision to proceed with the project was not dependent on this subsidy. The deal with the hotel was already announced, so Intercontinental was coming whether or not the city put up the money. The money should have been used to jump start some other project that would not happen without the subsidy. Looks like just a pure gift from the City of Sacramento to Saca and CalPERS. Just continues to show how stupid these politicians are when it comes to business.

sugit · #**978** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 5:25 PM**

I diagree. If the city is going to make more money than they are "giving away" how is that a bad deal for the city? I don't care who is getting the money.

Anytime someone wants to provide an income sourse of that level year in return for 11M upfront, they should take it. If the city is really going to use redevelopment money as a true investment, this is how is should be used in terms of getting a real ROI.

Just because the hotel was announced, doesn't mean they can't pull out. If there was a real chance of them not coming, this is a good move. Having the IC brings a whole new level of travelers that weren't coming to Sacramento before.

If the hotel level would have been lowered, it could have fallen into the same business traveler category that Sacramento has plenty of already in the form of Marriott, Sheraton, Hyatt, ect. Being in the IC reservation system will bring more people to Sacramento that may not have come before. Similar to the affect being the JDV system will have.

Quote:

The money should have been used to jump start some other project that would not happen without the subsidy

This is the only part that sucks..less money for other things.

TowerDistrict · #**979** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 5:43 PM**

so Pogo.. so you would prefer the city turn it's back on a development with more expectation and anticipation than a railayrds arena? you must be a real savvy businessman, Pogo. you seem to know just how to compensate for a $100 million budget gap in a project currently under construction.

and i suppose you would know what then to do after Saca bit the bullet on those costs and was not able to carry through with the Metropolitan and 800 K Street towers?

i will never understand why people view these situations as the city versus developer. what makes you think that this is not a mutually beneficial project?

POGO · #**980** Posted **Oct 18, 2006, 6:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TowerDistrict

so Pogo.. so you would prefer the city turn it's back on a development with more expectation and anticipation than a railayrds arena? you must be a real savvy businessman, Pogo. you seem to know just how to compensate for a $100 million budget gap in a project currently under construction.

and i suppose you would know what then to do after Saca bit the bullet on those costs and was not able to carry through with the Metropolitan and 800 K Street towers?

i will never understand why people view these situations as the city versus developer. what makes you think that this is not a mutually beneficial project?

Tower - Are you suggesting that the Towers project has a $100 million budget gap? Where did you hear this? If this is true, why is it being built? No I am not suggesting the City turn its back. What I am saying is that the City should only invest its funds, correction give them away, when the project is a no go without them. Once the decision has been made to go, what additional benefit does the City receive?

If the IC was threatening to pull out without the gift, OK. But I never heard or read anywhere that the IC involvement was in jeopardy at all. In fact, Saca has touted it as though it is a sure thing.

I never said this is City vs Developer. I am suggesting that the politicians are stewards of taxpayer money. And as a taxpayer, I want them to use it wisely. I accept the fact that sometimes redevelopment funds are necessary to jump start development, which will hopefully lead to more tax generation in the form of increased economic activity. The Hyatt was a good example of that. The hotel would not have been built without the City's participation. But for this project, I don't see any additional return to the City that would not have occurred without the gift. Saca already went ahead, bought the land, hired the designers, got CalPERS to put up money, got his financing, sold condos, and signed a health club and a hotel without the gift. The City's giveaway of this money has not stimulated a single bit of additional economic activity on this project in my mind.

If the reason that the City gave away this money was because Saca is losing money on the project, that is wrong. If he is losing money, it's not the government's role to bail him out. That's the risk of being a developer, you can win big and you can lose big. But the government is not supposed to be his deep pocketed sugar daddy to bail him out when the market changes or if he makes a bad move or a bad financial decision. This is a pure and simple gift of public funds to a developer that all these politicians hope will contribute big bucks to their re-election campaigns.