lockmat Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Doesn't look like he is flipping it. This flyer says it will be a 125-unit tower https://www.hfflp.com/GetDocument.aspx?ID=102795&FN=Midway+Walmart+Flyer.pdf&DT=1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Even better news Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Sweeet! This could wind up being pretty tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted September 26, 2014 Author Share Posted September 26, 2014 Cosmo is 80 units. Astoria is 75.So either this is a wide project, very tall or about the same height as the others with much smaller units. If the latter, it would probably be a rental. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Cosmo is 80 units. Astoria is 75.So either this is a wide project, very tall or about the same height as the others with much smaller units. If the latter, it would probably be a rental.That link said Astoria has 53 units? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Cosmo is 80 units. Astoria is 75.So either this is a wide project, very tall or about the same height as the others with much smaller units. If the latter, it would probably be a rental.#16 in your link says it's a condo tower. I believe Randall Davis only builds condos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted September 26, 2014 Author Share Posted September 26, 2014 #16 in your link says is a condo tower. I believe Randall Davis only builds condos.Oops you're right, duh.Which plot Did he get? They're all about the same size right? They're all a pretty decent footprint I thnk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 He got the front left, looking from San felipe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Some of the information in the brochure looked a bit dated, and there were odd errors throughout (Giorgio Barlenghi?). I'm curious that HFF had to push that hard to get a partner for a development with a Wal-Mart and a Marriott onsite. But some of the proposals intrigued me. The two separate office towers proposed on Post Oak Boulevard, none of which are in the database? Awfully quiet promotion for two buildings, each exceeding 300,000 sf in space. I also see the Apache Tower is advertised as 900,000 sf of development; that's bigger than the Capitol Tower downtown, and that's 35 stories. The Randall Davis residential property is on the same block as the Skyhouse; I think one's going to top out before the other starts, and the individual units in the Davis property will be smaller than the units in the Cosmo or the Belfiore. Also, where's the Westcreek property map? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 The plot doesn't seem that big. The Randall Davis condo tower could be quite tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 The plot doesn't seem that big. The Randall Davis condo tower could be quite tall.I don't recall it being any bigger than the sky house plot. There was a plot layout on one of the first pages in the thread I believe..But if they have a big detached parking garage it might only be in the 20 story range like SH? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 26, 2014 Share Posted September 26, 2014 Office tower, multifamily mid-rise, townhomes, etc projected for Westcreek. Westcreek Complex Plans Unfold, Two More Tracts for Sale: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/blog/breaking-ground/2014/01/westcreek-complex-plans-unfold-two-more-tracts-for.html Never mind.. Randy's tract is plot D, and it is a bit bigger than SkyHouses plot, so this will have a little room to sprawl 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Never mind.. Randy's tract is plot D, and it is a bit bigger than SkyHouses plot, so this will have a little room to sprawl au contraire: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2014/09/29/exclusive-new-luxury-condominium-high-rise-planned.html Davis is building his high-rise on a little less than half of the 1.8-acre parcel he purchased. He plans to sell off the remaining 45,000 square feet to other developers. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 au contraire: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2014/09/29/exclusive-new-luxury-condominium-high-rise-planned.htmlgreat news!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 That could get a little cramped. We'll see what gets wedged onto that unused acre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted September 29, 2014 Author Share Posted September 29, 2014 Good it's on a small parcel, sad it's not 125 units as the flyer stated. I'll take it.Looking forward to the design Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many. I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning. I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice of materials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully. I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a point where we begin to think about aesthetics. I don't think Randall has any. Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 (edited) Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many.I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning.I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice ofmaterials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully.I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a pointwhere we begin to think about aesthetics.I don't think Randall has any.Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.You don't like the Astoria, or the old Titan proposal? Randy was responsible for renovating the Rice Hotel into residential..At least he does something different and it doesn't look like every other high rise. I think an RD design is better than another similar ZC residential design. Edited September 29, 2014 by cloud713 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 85-100 units on such a small parcel should make for a fairly high tower. The Astoria has 75 units and measures in at 28 stories. I think we'd see something at least 30 stories high. I recall the two-story McDonald's on Post Oak had to be demolished and the new McDonald's built at its current site to accommodate the Astoria. It was not that big a plate. Does anyone know if 1.8 acres is larger or smaller than the parcel accommodating the Astoria? If smaller, we might see something 35 stories+ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Just throwing this out there:1.8 acres is 78,408 square feet, or (roughly) the size of a downtown or midtown block (depending on whether you include sidewalk ROW etc in the calculation) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortune Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many.I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning.I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice ofmaterials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully.I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a pointwhere we begin to think about aesthetics.I don't think Randall has any.Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.I completely agree. Of course the renderings of his buildings look nice but the end product not so much. I mean look at how the Cosmopolitan turned out. Looked good on paper not so much in real life. Titan looked great but it was never built. The jury is still out on Astoria the renderings are amazing but will the tower turn out the same ? Just have to wait and see. But I think it will end up being a disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 Maybe I'm the only one but I think three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are two too many.I was sad to hear this and had hoped he was selling this tract to someone who might do something stunning.I don't like his style and think they have a real cheap poorly designed look. I don't like his choice ofmaterials, details or the colors of his exteriors. I don't think they will age very gracefully.I know its all about infill and high rises for the most part, but there has to be a pointwhere we begin to think about aesthetics.I don't think Randall has any.Thats just my opinion and I'm sticking with it.I agree with most of this, except I would say that three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are three too many. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota79 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I agree with most of this, except I would say that three Randall Davis buildings in such close proximity are three too many.I concur. Let's bet on how ugly and cheap looking it could be? He absolutely is the lowest common denominator on looks, materials and design. What he does get, unfortunately, is location location location. As we say "dammit it all". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I see nothing wrong with the Cosmo besides the bland beige garage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota79 Posted September 29, 2014 Share Posted September 29, 2014 I see nothing wrong with the Cosmo besides the bland beige garage.The top ends abrubtly, in my opinion. If it had a spire or something it would have been a big improvement. That being said, there is a clear market for his stuff - not much I can add to that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I have mentioned my dislike for his design of new developments.I have praised his early projects that he won the gold brick award for and I think every one of those were done very well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 It's a good sign for H-town on here when we can argue about not wanting another development 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 No, I don't think that anyone on here is against development. I would love to see a mixed use tower on that site, maybe with a W, but just by another developer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 I see nothing wrong with the Cosmo besides the bland beige garage. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play? That garage is massive. It simply cannot be discounted. I might dislike the Cosmo less if it were in a different setting but I hate how it destroys how well Four Oaks and Four Leafs (Twin Penii) worked together. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeRichardson Posted September 30, 2014 Share Posted September 30, 2014 It looks like there is a net gain in residential units (when you consider the new Davis Proj. + SkyHouse River Oaks) when compared to the old apartments on that same land. This is a net improvement for the area. Westcreek Ln is really a residential street, it has been for over 35 years now. River Oaks District was a net reduction in residential units. It looks like these other developments should make up for that loss, with a fair margin. Hopefully, maybe, one of the TBA projects will consider some upper-middle income units instead of going all out total luxury. So many middle of the road units are going/will be going away without replacement - eventually, the market will bear the consequences. 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.