HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. Welcome!

You are currently browsing as a guest. Register with the SkyscraperPage Forum and join this growing community of skyscraper enthusiasts. Registering has benefits such as fewer ads, the ability to post messages, private messaging and more.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2007, 9:41 PM
creamcityleo79's Avatar
creamcityleo79 creamcityleo79 is offline
Urbangeopolitiphile
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 1,505
A pic I found on flickr.com from user hollielg of the Triangle Project in West Sac:
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 6:21 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868
Taken last week from the top of the current US Bank Tower.





More... http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=116795&page=6
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 7:25 PM
JeffZurn's Avatar
JeffZurn JeffZurn is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 126
Great shots Innov8! So it looks like they still have 2 more floors to go?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 9:47 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868
Thanks Jeff

They have made alot of progress since Friday when I took the shots. It looks
like one more floor plus a mechanical floor rising up another 40 feet +/-.
It appears as if the last floors is designed to be a meeting room floor because
it's got really high ceilings, maybe 25'. To get an idea from the close up above,
the tower has risen up three more tower crane sections and has bow or curve
at the top for it's final height.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2007, 10:25 PM
goldcntry's Avatar
goldcntry goldcntry is offline
West bench livin'
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taylorsville, UT
Posts: 763
I took a walk at lunch yesterday when I looked out the window and saw the intersting angles taking shape on top. As soon as I get the pics tweeked, I'll post 'em here.


__________________
My new mantra: Principles over politics; Faith over religion.
Something I wish we could all agree on...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 29, 2007, 4:22 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
Towers on fast track in West Sac
By Bob Shallit - Bee Columnist
Published 12:00 am PDT Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Story appeared in BUSINESS section, Page D1




Six high-rises will soon be popping into view in West Sacramento. And no, they're not condos. They're huge concrete silos, the tallest topping out at 222 feet. Located along the Port of Sacramento's shipping channel, the silos will store bulk cement that's shipped here and then trucked to local construction sites. Putting a new mark on West Sacramento's skyline, they'll loom larger than the former Money Store building and the state Capitol.

But what's really amazing is how fast these structures are going to zoom into sight. Construction on the Cemex USA project is scheduled to start Sept. 10 and be finished in two weeks. "It will be continuous pour (of concrete), 24 hours a day," says Port Manager Mike Luken, referring to the super-fast construction process. The six silos will go up simultaneously. Circular forms - 60 feet in diameter - will be filled with concrete, then slipped upward as the wall sets. They'll rise about 10 feet a day, until reaching their peak of 162 feet. The central silo, which has a loading elevator in its core, will climb an additional 60 feet.

The long-planned project relocates and expands Cemex's current location, which is served by a rail spur going through West Sac's Triangle area near Raley Field. The area is destined for parks, residences and offices, so the spur had to go. Thus the relocation, funded with $16.5 million from the West Sac Redevelopment Agency and Triangle property owners.

Cemex is spending at least $54 million more to build what a spokeswoman calls a "state-of-the-art" cement terminal, with eventual plans for aggregate storage and concrete mixing. Once the six silos are completed in October, the Cemex facility will be capable of handling 1.25 million tons of cement, generating about $1.25 million in annual revenue for the port.

The Cemex relocation removes a key obstacle to development of the Triangle - and generates needed port revenue. "A win-win," says West Sacramento Redevelopment Director Val Toppenberg.



__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Sep 24, 2007, 5:14 AM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868




Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 3:26 AM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
The image looks like the northeast corner of the Triangle.




Proposed other side of the Triangle SW:





Both images were found on a Portland architecture firm's website--GBD Architects.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Sep 26, 2007, 11:49 PM
Quest Quest is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Any info when they going to start all this construction in West Sac?


Last edited by Quest; Sep 27, 2007 at 12:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 4:39 AM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
I think the hotel stuff that Ramos is proposing is a bit off into the future. The proposals on the other side, I believe, were what was talked about in some of the articles above and are dependant on landing some of the state RFPs. I think there is one for the California Highway Patrol and one of the Department of Water and Resources. Both of those projects would be operational within 24 - 30 months. If either of those go, the site could develop organically over the next 5 or 6 years. If neither happen, then it seems like a long wait.

The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is tough. I found it curious that either of the high-rise towers were taken seriously at all considering there is no precedent for that kind of living anywhere in Sacramento (is there?). Most places do baby steps to figure these kind of projects out and then ramp up the scale over a decade or so. Just seemed like pie in the sky dreams from an outside observer's point of view.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 4:14 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 awg View Post
The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is
tough. I found it curious that either of the high-rise towers were taken
seriously at all considering there is no precedent for that kind of living
anywhere in Sacramento (is there?). Most places do baby steps to figure
these kind of projects out and then ramp up the scale over a decade or so.
Just seemed like pie in the sky dreams from an outside observer's point
of view.
And it seems pie in the sky now, considering neither got built. But all of us
are blue in the face from reiterating the fact that around 600 of the 1,200
units sold without any construction.

The more logical baby steps you mention are definitely in the works with
the Triangle area in West Sac, the Docks, the Railyards and dozens of other
infill projects throughout the central city area of Sacramento. But it's tough
times for residential, both urban and suburban, all over the country. So
noone is in a huge rush to launch any large scale project.
__________________
---------------------------------------------------------------
Map of recent Sacramento developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 5:02 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,125
quest: Those are concept drawings, not an illustration of a project in the pipeline. Expect the West Sacramento streetcar to start running in the next 4-5 years, then development will follow. A lot of it will probably look like the projects already sprouting around the I Street Bridge: LJ Urban has a lot of projects in that neighborhood that are more like the urban infill going into midtown Sacramento than anything skyscrapery. What happens next depends on a lot of variables: Will the streetcar project be successful, and spur further development? Will an influx of new residents help the Washington/Broderick/Bryte neighborhoods supersede their bad reputation? Will future leadership follow in the same pattern as Chris Cabaldon, who might be setting his sights on higher political aspirations? Will more bridges be built over the river? Will continuing development in Sacramento drive adjacent land values high enough to spur the kind of construction in the concept drawing?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Sep 27, 2007, 5:09 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,745
It's the CHP HQ going out where their training facility is currently? That's east of I-8 I 0 and no where near the downtown riverfront.



"The office market seems very strong in Sacramento but the residential is tough."

As the recent Bee's article indicated and others have said the central city is different from the suburbs. The very fact that there was no precedent for highrise living anywhere in Sacramento is what made it seem that much more viable. It's unfortunate that the players and timing was such that they did not get off the ground. However, as far as I can tell there's still a lot of people who are wanting to move into the central city. Their demise actually helped, or will help, a lot of smaller infill projects u/c or planned. So in a way it

Sacramento has a few older midrise apartments (10-15 floors) so it's not that big a jump in scale. The one thing these towers did do is show that the public is very accepting of a larger scale. I know many will disagree with me but I believe downtown needs a little more sprucing up and few more smaller infill projects before it's ready to build 30-50 story highrise condos.
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 1:33 AM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
Quote:
It's the CHP HQ going out where their training facility is currently? That's east of I-8 I 0 and no where near the downtown riverfront.
Has that been in the paper? I haven't read that. I was under the impression that there were a number of sites up for consideration and the State is evaluating them.

Quote:
The very fact that there was no precedent for highrise living anywhere in Sacramento is what made it seem that much more viable.
I'm not sure I follow that logic. The simple fact that something doesn't exist would lead most people to believe that there is a good reason for it. It takes the visionary to make the leap of faith. When they do and it works out, there is often a pile of money to be made as they now have the entire market to themselves and can charge essentially whatever they want. But a bank or lending institution will certainly disagree. They want to see successful examples of whatever is being proposed and if one doesn't exist, they get nervous.

Quote:
Sacramento has a few older midrise apartments (10-15 floors) so it's not that big a jump in scale.
Having worked on high rise buildings the last 4-5 years, that just simply is not the case. There is a huge difference between 150' and anything over 250'. Not just from the perception of the size of the building, but also the techincal requirements of building tall. If the design team hasn't done this before (architect, builder, and developer), there will be A LOT of challenges. It is different in a whole host of ways--plumbing, mechanical, structural loads, everything. Its simply not as easy as adding floors. Codes are cumbersome at that height and any inefficiency in the plan is now multiplied by such huge factors that it quickly becomes a financial disaster. In fact, that is why most high rise buildings are "boring" and stack so neatly all the way up.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 1:56 AM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,745
I think we are talking about two different things here. I'm not talking about the difference in building skyscrapers vs mid-rises I'm talking about people accepting and embrancing the highrise living.
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 3:34 AM
awg awg is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown PDX
Posts: 141
I think you are right... I misunderstood your direction about the scale being from the building side of it, not the living in it side of it. I don't think there is much of a difference between living at 100' above the street or 400' above the street (except the wind perhaps).

But there is a difference in cost between living in existing high-rise construction and new high-rise construction. I'm curious how many of the reservations for either of the proposed high-rises would have been converted to purchases. I know that where I'm at, the average cost of a home in the city is around $300k. A new, nice condo in downtown would run someone from $350k - $600k (and up to the millions). So there is probably a premium, but an affordable one.

What is the average suburban house in Sacramento? I would think either of those high rises would have started in the $700 a sq ft range and with little precedent for condo living, most buyers would expect 1200-1400 sf units = $840,000 - $980,000. (and at that, they would think those were dinky)

Aside from the inexperience of developing these kinds of buildings, I wonder if another pitfall was simply the cost of the units vs the cost of suburban houses. Having to find 1200 buyers that are willing to spend upwards of $1,000,000 for 1400 sf when they can buy a 3000 sf house for half of that was undoubtedly no small feat in itself.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 7:27 PM
innov8's Avatar
innov8 innov8 is offline
Kodachrome
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: livinginurbansac.blogspot
Posts: 4,868
Yesterday evening I was driving west to Davis through W. Sac and noticed
the six concrete silos that they are building along the Port of Sacramento's
shipping channel. I guess they are constructing them 24 hours a day, so that night
on the way back over the Yolo Causeway I could see the work site all lit up.
They look to be at about the halfway point of 160'. The top of the silos
are lit in a circler pattern.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 9:12 PM
ozone's Avatar
ozone ozone is offline
Top Retributor
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Golden Capitol
Posts: 1,745
awg I think you hit on the main reason why highrise living does not YET appeal to many people here in Sacramento. I've heard so many people simply scoff at the price of these lofts or condos and then say "I can buy a whole house for that price".
__________________
Wait, what?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 9:23 PM
wburg's Avatar
wburg wburg is offline
Hindrance to Development
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,125
Well, they're right--and they can buy a whole house within walking distance of places where these condo buildings will go.

I suppose I could ask you, what are your arguments in favor of embracing high-rise living?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Sep 28, 2007, 9:24 PM
sugit sugit is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: DT Sacramento
Posts: 3,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozone View Post
I've heard so many people simply scoff at the price of these lofts or condos and then say "I can buy a whole house for that price".
I've heard that more than my fair share too. In that sense, it seems it might take a new generation to overcome that "whole house" in the burbs versus loft/condo thinking on a regional level.

Many peoples "value" of a residence is still tied up in size of house and yard. I value many other things other than size and yard (I don't have/want a yard). "Value" is subjective to everyone, and right now the majority of people still see "value" in terms of size of house and yard.
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:27 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.