Sacramento: 301 Capitol Mall: A New Plan for The Towers Site - Page 102

Brotha_Lynch · #**2021** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

And to be honest i think the project may look just as attractive if they were to construct one Tower at 54 stories and scaled back the second tower to 45 or 40 floors... Something (as some of you may recall) that was suggested as an alternative by the city, during the design phase.
..

But I wanted to tell everyone I have twin towers in my city

Oh well, it seems like no matter how hard they chop off the second tower, it'll still be taller than anything in Sacramento

urban_encounter · #**2022** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brotha_Lynch

But I wanted to tell everyone I have twin towers in my city

Oh well, it seems like no matter how hard they chop off the second tower, it'll still be taller than anything in Sacramento

You can go ahead and tell everyone that your city has twin towers...

I think it's the Department of Health Services..

I forgot what the towers are called...

Sacto · #**2023** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:13 PM**

This is interesting. What happened to this project?

urban_encounter · #**2024** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:31 PM**

Since i've never done this, (and i'm bored) I thought i would see if i could shorten one tower to give an idea of what it might look like..

Here's what I came up with....(Please no crtique of my cut and paste...)

Tower Two reduced by a few floors..

Personally I don't think it looks bad at all.........

joninsac · #**2025** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:36 PM**

^^Arco Park ran out of money, and was abandoned when a pro baseball team failed to come to Sacramento. I worked at Arco Arena for the first few years of its existence and remember watching Arco Park being built and thinking how cool it was going to be to have a real stadium in Sacramento. Then one day the construction just stopped and never started again. A year or so after construction stopped, Arco Park had filled up with rainwater and people started referring to it as Lake Lukenbill. It was a sad sight.

Sacto · #**2026** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:45 PM**

^ That looks OK to me.

Sacto · #**2027** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by joninsac

^^Arco Park ran out of money, and was abandoned when a pro baseball team failed to come to Sacramento. I worked at Arco Arena for the first few years of its existence and remember watching Arco Park being built and thinking how cool it was going to be to have a real stadium in Sacramento. Then one day the construction just stopped and never started again. A year or so after construction stopped, Arco Park had filled up with rainwater and people started referring to it as Lake Lukenbill. It was a sad sight.

Dang it!

urban_encounter · #**2028** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:51 PM**

still experimenting..

urban_encounter · #**2029** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 5:53 PM**

Personally i like it better stepped than as two twin towers...

It allows the city skyline to gradually climb and just looks more graceful..

Grimnebulin · #**2030** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 6:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by urban_encounter

Personally i like it better stepped than as two twin towers...

It allows the city skyline to gradually climb and just looks more graceful..

I really do think the difference in height looks great visually. Make one tower 60 stories, keep the other 53/54.

innov8 · #**2031** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 6:47 PM**

Ah, geeze. IMO it looks awful... and I'm not talking about your work Jim.
I'd rather see one tower go up and another later than the staggered look

foxmtbr · #**2032** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 6:49 PM**

^^ I agree. If they're going to separate the heights so there are, say, 90 floors total, do 60 and 30, not 50 and 40. A large difference with a taller tallest would look better than a slight difference in my opinion.

But I also agree with innov8 here, I'd much rather wait for equal towers than have different ones sooner.

ozone · #**2033** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 7:28 PM**

Ok so (half-joking) why doesn't he make the tower on Capitol Mall 26 floors and keep the other one at 53 floors. That way the CM tower will be about the same height as the new US Bank building down the street and make it not as menacing to the poor old capitol.

BTW I've forgotten which tower is supposed to house the hotel. I assume the 3rd Street one.

Actually I don't care if one of the towers is reduced as long as the damn thing gets built! Something is better than a hole for 10 years. However it would mess up the overall design a lot.

foxmtbr · #**2034** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 7:46 PM**

I'd rather he just chop off the CM-facing tower and build it 5-10 years later, when the market demands it.

urban_encounter · #**2035** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grimnebulin

I really do think the difference in height looks great visually. Make one tower 60 stories, keep the other 53/54.

Good idea........

I could live with that...

urban_encounter · #**2036** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by innov8

Ah, geeze. IMO it looks awful... and I'm not talking about your work Jim.

Thanks Mike.

I still have a slim chance of becoming an architect then???

urban_encounter · #**2037** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ozone

Ok so (half-joking) why doesn't he make the tower on Capitol Mall 26 floors and keep the other one at 53 floors. That way the CM tower will be about the same height as the new US Bank building down the street and make it not as menacing to the poor old capitol.

BTW I've forgotten which tower is supposed to house the hotel. I assume the 3rd Street one.

Tower #1 (3rd street as you noted) will have the hotel..

urban_encounter · #**2038** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:24 PM**

Two pictures for SacTown forumers....

#1 Here's a sign that you can expect to be seeing on the side of the Towers (when they resume construction)..

#2 And for those who cling to the belief that selling nearly 50% of a building before the foundation is even poured doesn't represent strong sales numbers...

Chicago..

slaiguy · #**2039** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:37 PM**

Regarding Arco Park.... was there a baseball team comming and then they backed out at the last minute?

urban_encounter · #**2040** Posted **Apr 21, 2007, 8:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by slaiguy

Regarding Arco Park.... was there a baseball team comming and then they backed out at the last minute?

Actually the Raiders were the first team interested. Arco Park was initially supposed to be a multipurpose Stadium to host both baseball and the NFL..
In fact Al Davis had input as to the early design.. Then when the Raiders backed away from Sacramento's $50 miilion franchise relocation offer, the stadium was again redesigned for MLB (to be expandable for the NFL)...

Greg Lukenbill was also banking (literally) on the SF Giants relocating to Tampa/St. Petersberg, increasing Sacramento's chances to lure another team to Northern California. In fact Greg Lukenbill donated to the campaign against a new San Francisco baseball park, as Bob Lurie struggled to get a stadium approved by voters at the polls.

BTW welcome to the forum slaiguy