[ChannelTwoNews]

I know there's been some discussion in the past of the site that the Scamrock was planned for, and that Hines had been involved with the site as of late. After stumbling across this page & the rendering included, I was wondering if anyone had additional info on it.

This post has been edited by ChannelTwoNews: Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 6:15 PM

[Trae]

Nice tower I must say.

[lockmat]

How did you stumble upon that? Nice find!

It seems as if all the buildings listed in their projects section is either already built or in the process of being built. Can anyone confirm that? If so, that's goooood.

I'm just waiting for Niche to say something like, "I won't deny that it's in the works."

Send this over to one of those skyscraper pages so they can count the floors.

edit: my estimate is that it's around or a little over 30 stories.

This post has been edited by lockmat: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 7:52 PM

[shasta]

lockmat, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 6:51pm, said:

How did you stumble upon that? Nice find!

It seems as if all the buildings listed in their projects section is either already built or in the process of being built. Can anyone confirm that? If so, that's goooood.

I'm just waiting for Niche to say something like, "I won't deny that it's in the works."

Send this over to one of those skyscraper pages so they can count the floors.

edit: my estimate is that it's around or a little over 30 stories.

What happened to the 60 story 'city center' design for that site??

[Trae]

Yeah I just thought about that. This tower is pretty damn short for Downtown (if it is around 30 stories).

[lockmat]

shasta, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 7:57pm, said:

What happened to the 60 story 'city center' design for that site??

My personal opinion is that it was never more than just a fantasy.

Trae, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 7:58pm, said:

Yeah I just thought about that. This tower is pretty damn short for Downtown (if it is around 30 stories).

Not so much. I thought discovery tower and others around it are about that height, aren't they?

[Trae]

Yeah, and I think Discovery Tower and Six Houston Center are too short for Downtown. They belong somewhere like Greenspoint, or the Energy Corridor. I think Discovery Tower gets the edge though, since it is 500 feet.

[editor]

Can someone post a map showing exactly where Block 69 is? This isn't San Jacinto-Rusk-Caroline-Walker block a 30-story tower connected to One Houston Center by a skywalk is planned?

[HtownWxBoy]

ChannelTwoNews, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 6:14pm, said:

I know there's been some discussion in the past of the site that the Scamrock was planned for, and that Hines had been involved with the site as of late. After stumbling across this page & the rendering included, I was wondering if anyone had additional info on it.

Me likey!!

[TheNiche]

Good find, Channel2. You just blew Hines' efforts at confidentiality out of the water.

Lockmat, I'll do more than not deny it; I'll confirm it. This is in the works. Moreover, your opinion that Houston City Centre was just somebody's wet dream is more or less accurate. Somebody was serious about it (albeit only for a very short while); that entity never owned the site or even had it under contract.

As for supertalls, steel has gotten expensive enough as to pretty much rule it out if there's any other alternative, and that site in particular would be challenged by inadquate parking.

[Trae]

Channel2, how the did you find this? Did you just stumble upon the architect's website? Are there any specs for the tower?

[ChannelTwoNews]

Trae, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 9:08pm, said:

Channel2, how the did you find this? Did you just stumble upon the architect's website? Are there any specs for the tower?

Easy, it's on the consulting engineer's website, in their portfolio for LEED Projects, wedged between MainPlace, DT & the Energy Center buildings. Putting the pieces together was pretty easy from there since that spot was mentioned by PAC in the MainPlace thread a while back and it was included in a Jones Lang LaSalle report from last year.

I originally went there just to see what they had on their other projects, since they've had banners up along the street at One Park Place & at HP lately.

This post has been edited by ChannelTwoNews: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 9:37 PM

[Triton]

This tower is certainly smaller than both Hines 47 and Discovery Tower.

Check out the square-footage:

Hines 47: 1,000,000 SF
Discovery Tower: 950,000 SF
Hines North Tower: 742,000 SF

[Trae]

I don't think Discovery Tower is that big.

[Triton]

Trae, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 9:53pm, said:

I don't think Discovery Tower is that big.

That does seem rather big, doesn't it? I don't know... that's what that website reported (the one that Channel2 posted).

[ChannelTwoNews]

Triton, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 10:38pm, said:

That does seem rather big, doesn't it? I don't know... that's what that website reported (the one that Channel2 posted).

Nah, I posted the official website on that thread and it says 872k SF.

EDIT: I checked the CBRE page again and it gives 931,209 SF as the total amount, but 871k for the rentable. Kinda missed that. oops.

This post has been edited by ChannelTwoNews: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:53 PM

[pm91]

this will look great being in close proximity to Mainplace and the older part of downtown that it will look amazing. kind of like if Heritage Plaza wasn't there, Wells Fargo probably wouldn't look as nice. this will make both buildings compliment each other like Heritage Plaza and Wells Fargo.

This post has been edited by pm91: Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:59 PM

[roadrunner]

This will fill a huge whole in Main Street. Once again, I hope this has street level retail. Still no confirmation if Main Place does.

However, I must admit that I was hoping this block would be filled by a residential tower ever since the Shamrock plans were released.

[The Great Hizzy!]

It appears that the proposed dimensions of this unnamed Hines Tower is about 75% of that for Main Place. So we can roughly expect something around 35 stories and between 450 - 480 feet if it comes to fruition.

The bigger issue is that it has decent height and will fill in a prominent void at a high-profile intersection (Texas @ Main).

::Fingers crossed::

[KinkaidAlum]

To be honest, I am not loving this tower. It's a big glass box that MIGHT signal the end of the Texas Tower. I would hate to lose the Texas Tower. I've always held out hope that a residential conversion or hotel conversion would take place there.

Also, I had always hoped that residential would go on this site to compliment the Rice Loft Apts, Capitol Lofts, Hogg Palace, and St Germaine that are in close promximity.

That said, I am all for anything going up in this spot. Let's hope there's enough demand for office space to fill Hines' first tower. Too bad KBR couldn't have been lured to one of these new towers. Their bland 3 story office park around a lake is LAME.

[NewMND]

I love when I log into HAIF like any normal day, and suddenly there is a new downtown tower proposal, it rocks my face off. Anyways, for that location, I think the height is fine, considering it's basically behind Chase Tower. I'd prefer that side of downtown, the more eastern part, to have building more in that 500ft range. Now the west side, and especially the Gateway tract, that's where I want to see building built tall!

[lockmat]

This powerpoint presentation from Frank Muller at Texas A&M (Real Estate Center) had this building in his slides. Page 17. Apparently it was given in February.

Presentation: http://recenter.tamu...FrankMuller.pdf
Real Estate Center: http://recenter.tamu.edu/speeches/1 (scroll down to find the powerpoint link, listed under his name)

[Jax]

It's a larger rendering too and gives us a better idea of the height.

[roadrunner]

KinkaidAlum, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 12:55am, said:

To be honest, I am not loving this tower. It's a big glass box that MIGHT signal the end of the Texas Tower. I would hate to lose the Texas Tower. I've always held out hope that a residential conversion or hotel conversion would take place there.

Also, I had always hoped that residential would go on this site to compliment the Rice Loft Apts, Capitol Lofts, Hogg Palace, and St Germaine that are in close promximity.

That said, I am all for anything going up in this spot. Let's hope there's enough demand for office space to fill Hines' first tower. Too bad KBR couldn't have been lured to one of these new towers. Their bland 3 story office park around a lake is LAME.

These are pretty much my thoughts. This looks like a bland Westchase tower thrown into a prime block in a great downtown location. I don't think we are really in a position to complain about filling in surface lots downtown with 30+ story towers, but I'm not that excited about this.

[lockmat]

roadrunner, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 9:06am, said:

These are pretty much my thoughts. This looks like a bland Westchase tower thrown into a prime block in a great downtown location. I don't think we are really in a position to complain about filling in surface lots downtown with 30+ story towers, but I'm not that excited about this.

It looks like it's in an L-shape. Besides having 90-degree angles, where else have we seen something like this in Houston @ 30+ stories tall?

ChannelTwoNews, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 9:36pm, said:

I originally went there just to see what they had on their other projects, since they've had banners up along the street at One Park Place & at HP lately.

Got any other links to companies involved in this kind of stuff that we/I could snoop around in?

[roadrunner]

lockmat, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 9:10am, said:

It looks like it's in an L-shape. Besides having 90-degree angles, where else have we seen something like this in Houston @ 30+ stories tall?

Westchase has similar buildings in the 20-30 story range. Same with Greenspoint. It just looks like a suburban office building - boxy glass.

[lockmat]

roadrunner, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 9:12am, said:

Westchase has similar buildings in the 20-30 story range. Same with Greenspoint. It just looks like a suburban office building - boxy glass.

I've only been by westchase once, but greenspoint doesn't have any that look like this. Yes, it's square, but it's not a box either. I get what you're saying, I just disagree that it's "typical."

[roadrunner]

lockmat, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 9:16am, said:

I've only been by westchase once, but greenspoint doesn't have any that look like this. Yes, it's square, but it's not a box either. I get what you're saying, I just disagree that it's "typical."

Like I said, I'm not going to complain about this. The only things that bother me are that it isn't residential and that it looks boring compared to Main Place (which isn't really fair since Main Place looks fantastic).

[lockmat]

roadrunner, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 9:23am, said:

Like I said, I'm not going to complain about this. The only things that bother me are that it isn't residential and that it looks boring compared to Main Place (which isn't really fair since Main Place looks fantastic).

Maybe this will help spur future residential development. Look at it that way?

[BigSky]

In regards to the old CityCentre Building...I received confirmation that it was a little more than a wetdream...I might be telling soemthing that people already know, but it did involve the Madrian Oriental, Residential component and office component, but I heard that it went bust when they couldn't close on any major corporation signing a lease for the office component.

Anyway, I guess this will do for know, but I wish the CityCentre concept would have come to life...There are many open blocks around Discovery Green and Houston Pavilions so I am holding out hope for another Residential project to come online once OnePark Place sells out.

[swtsig]

NewMND, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 6:40am, said:

I love when I log into HAIF like any normal day, and suddenly there is a new downtown tower proposal, it rocks my face off. Anyways, for that location, I think the height is fine, considering it's basically behind Chase Tower. I'd prefer that side of downtown, the more eastern part, to have building more in that 500ft range. Now the west side, and especially the Gateway tract, that's where I want to see building built tall!

the current renderings of the gateway building (5 allen center) would be a stellar addition to downtown's skyline. i dont have any confirmation on whether or not it's gonna happen, but somebody gave me a "90% chance" that it gets built. better than nothing.

if we could get Discovery Tower, MainPlace, 6 Houston Center, Hines North, and 5 Allen Center all built w/in the next 5 years.... i'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

[lockmat]

editor, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 8:38pm, said:

Can someone post a map showing exactly where Block 69 is? This isn't San Jacinto-Rusk-Caroline-Walker block a 30-story tower connected to One Houston Center by a skywalk is planned?

score! http://www.houstondo...Block%20Map.PDF

this should go on the wiki

[King Owl]

swtsig, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 10:48am, said:

the current renderings of the gateway building (5 allen center) would be a stellar addition to downtown's skyline. i dont have any confirmation on whether or not it's gonna happen, but somebody gave me a "90% chance" that it gets built. better than nothing.

if we could get Discovery Tower, MainPlace, 6 Houston Center, Hines North, and 5 Allen Center all built w/in the next 5 years.... i'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

What does the gateway building rendering look like? Hopefully it has a lighting element at the top. I'd also like to see an "Atlanta-style" cheat on the height by doing the build-up or crown on top

[shasta]

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

[rsb320]

pm91, on Tuesday, May 6th, 2008 @ 10:58pm, said:

this will look great being in close proximity to Mainplace and the older part of downtown that it will look amazing. kind of like if Heritage Plaza wasn't there, Wells Fargo probably wouldn't look as nice. this will make both buildings compliment each other like Heritage Plaza and Wells Fargo.

I don't agree. I think it's too much glass around all of that stone. It appears that this building is facing south (Saint Germain/Flying Saucer) and is on the block east of Main between Texas and Capitol. I like the design of the building, but on the fence regarding the design for this locale. This is the Market/Historic District, after all.

This post has been edited by rsb320: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 3:52 PM

[sevfiv]

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.
http://maps.google.c...&...mp;t=h&z=18

[Trae]

shasta, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 10:25am, said:

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

I agree completely.

[jayshoota]

sevfiv, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 11:24am, said:

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.
http://maps.google.c...&...mp;t=h&z=18

I'll fourth the questioning of the location BUT I am sure glad that something is happening on this lot. I drive by it everyday and just think of the possibilities. One of the best locations in downtown.

[Jax]

I'm not crazy about the design, but the location is awesome and it better have retail at the very least...

[shasta]

jayshoota, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 12:08pm, said:

I'll fourth the questioning of the location BUT I am sure glad that something is happening on this lot. I drive by it everyday and just think of the possibilities. One of the best locations in downtown.

Historically speaking, the intersection of Texas and Main IS the best availaible lot in downtown.

[musicman]

sevfiv, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 11:24am, said:

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.
http://maps.google.c...&...mp;t=h&z=18

i think this is the listing with a property address of 609 main. between 2007 and 2008 appraised value has gone up 3.3 mil. ouch.

This post has been edited by musicman: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM

[KinkaidAlum]

If the building is indeed L shaped, then I am assuming it is being built around The Texas Tower. That is potentially good news but I would think the chances of the Texas Tower ever becoming residential would be slim to none if an office building was built around it. A hotel still might be a possibility.

I HATE that the City Centre concept has faded away. A Mandarin Oriental with a residential component, offices, and retail would have been excellent for that lot. It also appeared that the tower portion was set back and built atop a wider base. That's a more respectful way to build in a "historic" area. This new proposal is essentially just a blobby office tower pinched into a L shaped lot.

[TheNiche]

shasta, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 10:25am, said:

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

Downtown's office market is doing so well that rents have shot upward. Land prices have gone up, reflecting the higher and better economic use, and in so doing, made it effectively impossible to develop residential unless it is paired as condos within a five-star hotel...but even those are tricky to pull off, and they are ultimately relatively few in number.

In the mean time, Kirby Lofts is just about empty, almost entirely foreclosed upon. And even Randall Davis had difficulty selling units in St. Germain at an acceptable pace. Why do we need more units when we have so much difficulty filling the ones we've got? More importantly, if the mixed-residential visions were failures, why should we so vehemently adhere to a concept that won't fly? Why make the same mistakes time and time again? The vacant lot certainly isn't contributing to economic vitality.

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is with office space. In terms of the sheer density of people that it can accomodate, nothing adds to daytime population like an office building. Moreover, if you watch apartment absorption trends inside the loop at all, they very closely mirror downtown office employment. The more people work downtown, the more people live in the city, the tighter the apartment market gets, the higher the rents, go, and the more apartments get built.

No two ways about it, this is good news!

This post has been edited by TheNiche: Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM

[musicman]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 2:30pm, said:

In the mean time, Kirby Lofts is just about empty, almost entirely foreclosed upon. And even Randall Davis had difficulty selling units in St. Germain at an acceptable pace. Why do we need more units when we have so much difficulty filling the ones we've got?

bingo.

[rsb320]

I don't care that it's an office building; I just don't think the design fits that location.

[TheNiche]

rsb320, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 3:09pm, said:

I don't care that it's an office building; I just don't think the design fits that location.

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

[rsb320]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 3:22pm, said:

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

Anything will be better than a hole in the ground with a fence around it.

[KinkaidAlum]

Comparing the St Germaine + Kirby Lofts to anything that would have been attached to a Mandarin Oriental is laughable.

Two completely different markets.

[RedScare]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 3:22pm, said:

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

It does to me, as well. And, just to throw in my $0.02, a proposal to build a several hundred million dollar tax producing building in the Central Business District is not only not a HUGE loss, it isn't a loss at all, but rather a gain for the city in general, and downtown specifically. With new residential construction occurring immediately south and east of downtown, it is in no danger of withering away. For upwards of 25,000 residents, downtown attractions and amenities are no more than a railstop or $4.00 cab ride away....cheaper than valet parking.

I've read all of the same new urbanism articles that you all have, filled with all of the trendy buzzwords. The fact is, none of this hoped for residential development in downtown will be attainable for 95% or more of the population. And, if you can't live in it, who cares what is inside it? Amenities located in downtown, such as the theatres, stadiums, parks and convention centers....all things that draw consumers looking to be entertained....are going to put far more feet on the ground for people watching than a couple of 200 unit condo towers with 1.5 persons residing in each unit. Think about that. 600 rich people who you'll never see, versus 43,000 Astros fans, 18,500 Rockets fans, 5,000 convention attendees or 3,000 concert goers....and possibly 20,000 soccer fans. ALL of these events flood downtown with consumers. Rich condo owners do not. For proof, check out that WFAA "Victory Cam" that constantly shows the empty Victory Plaza....EXCEPT when American Airlines Center is in use.

[TheNiche]

KinkaidAlum, on Wednesday, May 7th, 2008 @ 3:29pm, said:

Comparing the St Germaine + Kirby Lofts to anything that would have been attached to a Mandarin Oriental is laughable.

Two completely different markets.

Yep, well that idea didn't exactly fly, and like I had already said, if any kind of new-build residential can work, that'd have been it. Why do you think that Hines (or anybody) ought to continue persuing a concept that couldn't even pass the sniff test?