nativehoustonion Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Exactly, we should be proud with this office tower. Everybody just wait for the final design. We have been waiting for years, so cheer! It will make a major impact on our skyline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 What was this thread about? Oh, yeah, Chevron tower. Is it possible that the boring rendering we've seen is not the final but only an initial design? Exactly, we should be proud with this office tower. Everybody just wait for the final design. We have been waiting for years, so cheer! It will make a major impact on our skyline.i mentioned it a few pages back so you might of missed it, but if you look at the renderings, they do absolutely no justice for 1500 Louisiana or 1400 Smith Street. those towers are beautiful. even if this ends up being the final design (i know everyone was hoping for a flashy signature building) im sure it will look much better in person than in the renderings, just like the rest of Chevrons downtown campus. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Funny how this "era of the boring glass box" phenomena only seems to apply to new construction in HOUSTON and not cities like New York or Chicago. image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg Lets get real here, its not like people aren't designing and building visually striking and unique architecture anymore. It's only the developers who want to cheap out and go "cost effective" that are building the boring glass boxes, which basically goes along with what you explained, in a nutshell. Well, that's not entirely correct. All but one of the buildings you pointed out was heartily panned by architecture critics both amateur and professional. And to imply that other cities aren't building glass boxes is incorrect. EVERY city is doing glass boxes these days because they're cheap and you get the most bang for your buck. When the economy recovers on a global scale, that's when people will start to get fancy. To illustrate my point the way you illustrated yours: Skyscrapers completed in Chicago this year: The Coast - glass box 500 LSD - glass box K2 - concrete box Skyscrapers currently under construction in Chicago: 111 West Wacker - glass box Loyola Tower - glass box 71 East Lake - glass box AMLI River North - concrete box Optima Center - glass box Hubbard place - Glass and concrete rounded box Loews Hotel - Glass box River Point - Not quite box! Thanks, Hines! 212 West Illinois - Glass box Catalyst - Glass box with weird colors Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago - Glass box East-West University Vertical campus - Glass box Skyscrapers planned to start in 2013-2014 in Chicago: Wolf Point West - Glass box - Thanks for nothing, Hines! 200 North Michigan - Glass box Northwestern Memorial unnamed laboratory tower - glass box PD70-2-O - Glass bo 601 West Jackson - Glass box 601 West Monroe - Glass triangle Atrium Village - concrete boxes Jewel Tower - concrete box (being revised into a glass box) Old Saint Patrick's Tower - glass box Gateway Phase II - half glass half concrete box 301 South Wacker - Three glass boxes Amtrak Tower - Glass cylinder 400 West Randolph - Glass box Chicago+LaSalle - Half glass half concrete box 765 West Adams - Concrete box 1333 South Wabash - Glass box 108 North Jefferson - Glass box Yet another McCormick Place hotel - concrete box 900ish South State - Glass box I think you can see the trend here. It's not about aesthetics. I talk to architects every week who moan that they wish they could be more creative, especially in their American projects. But it's all about money. Architects build what their clients want. Right now, for the most part, that's glass boxes. There as an article I read the other day about Energy Corridor IV (I think that was the name) in Houston. There as a passing mention in the article that the building was being built on spec. On behalf of the rest of North America, allow me to say, "Oh, holy crap, Houston!" You people should be so proud that you have an economy that supports building ANYTHING on spec these days. It's virtually unheard of elsewhere on the continent. Roll up your sleeves, reach over your heads and give yourselves a well-deserved pat on the back. The rest of us admire you greatly for that. (And if you want to know anything else about buildings in Chicago, visit HAIF's sister sites: Chicago Architecture Info, and The Chicago Architecture Blog. 60,000 readers can't be wrong!) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 Oh, and I forgot to mention -- keep this thread ON TOPIC. No more tit-for-tat. I'm getting tired of deleting messages that amount to little more than schoolyard spats. Try to converse like adults. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister X Posted July 13, 2013 Share Posted July 13, 2013 I bet a lot of people will be very happy with this tower after it's built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 And to imply that other cities aren't building glass boxes is incorrect.I think you missed my point. I wasnt trying to imply that other cities arent building glass boxes, im sure theyre being built in record numbers everywhere, I know they are in Houston lol. I was really countering what someone else had said that implied EVERY SINGLE NEW BUILDING BUILT POST 2008 ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE HAS TO BE A GLASS BOX. While the numbers might not be great, I was just pointing out that some buildings are still being designed "outside the box" and that even though these glass boxes are the norm now, it's not like people arent building, or cant build anything other than a boring glass box, the pics I posted were just examples of that. Other cities are still producing skyscrapers that are far from "glass boxes", I wish Houston could too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 Oh, and I forgot to mention -- keep this thread ON TOPIC. No more tit-for-tat. I'm getting tired of deleting messages that amount to little more than schoolyard spats. Try to converse like adults.Thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted July 14, 2013 Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) deleted Edited July 14, 2013 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 City Veto of Abatement Could Hinder $12M State Grant to Chevron The Houston City Council could veto a $12 million state grant to help Chevron build a 50-story tower downtown if it fails to add some city money to the pot. Few on the council appear inclined to vote down a $2.7 million tax abatement for the oil and gas giant, but some have questioned the wisdom of the proposal, noting Chevron long has had plans for the tract at 1600 Louisiana. Program rules for the Texas Enterprise Fund, an economic development tool run by Gov. Rick Perry's office, from which the $12 million would be drawn, require a local match. Perry spokesman Rich Parsons said a City Council rejection would not automatically torpedo the deal, however. Precisely what Houston would need to do to satisfy its role is unclear. The only written guidelines are on a state website, stating deals require "community involvement … primarily in the form of local economic incentive offers."Chevron, which reported a first-quarter profit of $6.2 billion, announced it would buy the tract at 1600 Louisiana - next door to the former Enron towers, which the firm also owns - five years ago, saying the purchase would allow "flexibility and options for the future." The Texas Enterprise Fund also requires the company receiving the funds to be considering whether to invest in Texas or another state. Chevron stated it was deciding between California or Houston, Parsons said.Chevron, which has said it plans to create 1,700 new jobs in Houston over the next eight years, said it considered other locations for those positions. "We evaluated a number of factors - including the potential for incentives - in the decision to locate them in Houston and build new office space to accommodate this growth," Chevron spokesman Russell Johnson said in an email Thursday. Other factors, he said, included "the availability and quality of space, economics, and the locations of businesses that these jobs would support." http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/City-veto-of-abatement-could-hinder-12M-state-4673789.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moore713 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/City-veto-of-abatement-could-hinder-12M-state-4673789.php Houston gets a new skyscapper the area get a upgrade, and addiontion 1700 jobs are added that downtown needs given the loss it about to take when exxon packs up and moves to the woodlands.. I just can not understand what the hell somes memeber on that board could be thinking ?? Edited July 19, 2013 by Moore713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Owl Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) City Council should use this as leverage to get some better aesthetics on the building... Maybe a decorative crown or something. It's going to be a very visible, long lasting contribution to our skyline -- make it look better, please. Edited July 19, 2013 by King Owl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Stone Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) You mean like this decorative crown? Would you really want city council members making design by committee decisions on aesthetics on high profile buildings in downtown Houston? Yes make it better, but better to who? The guy who approved this beauty...? Careful what you wish for. At least what Chevron is currently proposing won't hurt downtown. When you see the effects of high profile ugly it makes you realize that there are worse things than boring. Edited July 19, 2013 by Hugh Stone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moore713 Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 City Council should use this as leverage to get some better aesthetics on the building... Maybe a decorative crown or something. It's going to be a very visible, long lasting contribution to our skyline -- make it look better, please. I dont want there input on anything image related.. they have no sense of style.. if they got there way it would be a another brown box, as they rave about how amazing it is... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 $126.10 is what Chevron stock is trading at today. They are FLUSH with billions in cash. The city and state are not. Maybe that is what some of the council members are thinking? I want a shiny new tower as much as the next guy but corporate welfare is beyond outrageous. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchCity Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) But what's the tax rate on a $250,000,000+ building? They'll, in all likelihood, pay more than the $14,700,000 in tax rebates that they are getting, at least over a few years(5-10) and then the city and state profit for the remaining life of the building. That's not even including the taxes gained from the 1,700 high paying jobs Chevron will create(they'll probably have nice size houses who cares about the Feds). I also think it is a good example for other companies looking to build in Houston that the city and state want them here.Edit: The city council approved a $1,000,000 tax rebate for a freaking Costco in KATY. Outside city limits. And they are questioning if they should give a MUCH bigger project just a little more?! I'm holding back obscenities for their incompetence. Edited July 19, 2013 by ClutchCity 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 The city's portion of tax (assuming the building ended up on the roll at $250 million) would be a little under $3M per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 What residential tax break did I get from the city when I purchased a tear down, employed dozens of people, and spent tons of cash in local stores to fix her up? None. In fact, my taxes skyrocketed once the project was complete. Sure, it's a drop in the ocean compared to Chevron, but so is my income compared to CVX's. Having tax codes and laws and then constantly breaking them is just stupid policy. Either someone else has to pay more or we wend up with crappy schools, Third World roads, busting water and sewer pipes, closed city pools, etc... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Owl Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 You mean like this decorative crown? Would you really want city council members making design by committee decisions on aesthetics on high profile buildings in downtown Houston? Yes make it better, but better to who? The guy who approved this beauty...? Careful what you wish for. At least what Chevron is currently proposing won't hurt downtown. When you see the effects of high profile ugly it makes you realize that there are worse things than boring. How exactly did you make the logic leap from my post to assume that I would want city council to be making the design by committee decisions? Talk about a logic fail on your part. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 The city's portion of tax (assuming the building ended up on the roll at $250 million) would be a little under $3M per year.taxable will be much closer to $450M than $250M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Stone Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 (edited) How exactly did you make the logic leap from my post to assume that I would want city council to be making the design by committee decisions? Talk about a logic fail on your part. You're right, I guess I should have assumed your post was directed at God when you said "make it better". So, if not the city council or God - who then? Chevron? I think they already made their aesthetic decisions. Maybe the citizens of Houston should get to vote for a tall building design Czar so that we don't get any more boring buildings or cheap crowns. No need getting huffy. I'm just trying to understand the logistics of how the downtown skyline can be made "better". Edited July 19, 2013 by Hugh Stone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 Sorry if this is somewhat or fully redundant, but here is a list of amenities being considered for the new building:Seating areas / benches Outdoor dining tables Covered patio / casual seating Green space & landscaping Recreation & exercise facilities Celebration event facilities (crawfish boil, BBQ ) Bicycle racks / storage Wireless / power access Smoking facilitiesWater featuresCommunity herb gardenSculpturesObservation deckAmbient music / nature soundsOutdoor digital displayDry cleaningComputer loungeGeneral store / pantryMotherhood roomsHair salon / barberMassage roomsShoe repair / shoe shine / tailorSitting / reading quiet roomOn-site credit unionBookstoreOn-site bankAfter-hours dining / servicePharmacyTake-home / frozen mealsPrimary care / family practice physicianGarage carwash / tire repairOptometristEmployee concierge (general errands)PC / phone repairPack and ship I have no idea on which ones will be accessible to the public. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 I'm sure most haifers are most interested in the outdoor digital displays. But will they be seen by the public or just chevron employees and what will they be displaying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted July 19, 2013 Share Posted July 19, 2013 ...nature sounds? ...ribit.....ribit...Kawwww! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted July 21, 2013 Share Posted July 21, 2013 ...nature sounds? ...ribit.....ribit...Kawwww!Mine would have been more mundane. .. like "nature call" sounds.That's what I get for speed reading through the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 You mean like this decorative crown? Would you really want city council members making design by committee decisions on aesthetics on high profile buildings in downtown Houston? Yes make it better, but better to who? The guy who approved this beauty...? Careful what you wish for. At least what Chevron is currently proposing won't hurt downtown. When you see the effects of high profile ugly it makes you realize that there are worse things than boring. makes one a little sick to see it up close like that. what the hell is it? it's so stupid looking. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Stone Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It's a decorative crown put on by someone who wanted this building to 'stand out'. I guess they achieved their objective. This tower has received plenty of attention. Not the kind anyone wanted. Given a choice between ugly and boring, I'll take boring. Boring does less damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownproud Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It's not my cup of tea, but it's a lot better than if they had just made the top of the glass middle section flush with the two stucco sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted July 22, 2013 Share Posted July 22, 2013 It all comes down to a matter of taste. I don't think that our downtown/highrise cluster lends itself to this kind of "show". Could any of us imagine our skyline with a couple dozen Texaco style oddities. I actually think the Texaco building works in the skyline. It evokes a "front door" type strcture with an embelishment over the entrance...in this case a Mayan pyramid "likeness" rather than a colonial eagle. Anyway...a touch of embellishment in the right location can work...but let's not overdue. I happen to believe that the proposed Chevon building is the right approach for the campus and our skyline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 By johnme on SSP 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted July 23, 2013 Share Posted July 23, 2013 It's a decorative crown put on by someone who wanted this building to 'stand out'. I guess they achieved their objective. This tower has received plenty of attention. Not the kind anyone wanted. Given a choice between ugly and boring, I'll take boring. Boring does less damage.You keep talking about the damage that this building has caused, but other than offending your own personal taste, exactly what "damage" are you talking about? That area is thriving, so it hasn't exactly driven away new construction. I agree that politicians shouldn't make design decisions, but I'm not aware of any political input on the design of the MH building either.So, other than making sure that everyone knows that you don't like the MH building, I'm not sure what your point is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.