H-Town Man
-
Posts
4,971 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by H-Town Man
-
-
19 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
Yep. We might now be seeing why they are moving and why they wanted new-build rather than utililzing some of the widely-available space all over downtown and uptown Dallas -- They wanted bigger floor plates for what is largely going to be back-office space.
Are you sure that they want 40,000 SF floor plates? Very strange to build back-office space in the most expensive submarket in the city where land values are so high. Also very strange that they would move all their downtown workers from Class A space typical of a CBD to back-office space on large floorplates. As to why they want new build rather than some of the existing vacant space in central Dallas, most of which is from the 70's-80's, I'd say that is pretty easy and follows the trend we've seen of well-heeled companies preferring new space over 80's vintage.
-
1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:
I provided the links several posts up. FWIW. the site plan will probably have to be tweaked to allow for an office building with something like 40,000 square foot (or more) floor plates. No, this late-breaking information was not on the site plan. I just became aware of this information late last night and watched the council meeting recording this morning to confirm it.
http://dallasmetropolis.com/dfwu/download/file.php?id=3671&mode=view
The first link didn't work for me and I am blocked on the second one, I guess because I am not part of the dallasmetropolis forum. 40,000 SF floor plates would be huge, typical of back office space. Most office towers are in the 20,000 to 25,000 SF range. Their current office at Trammell Crow Center has 24,124 SF floor plates.
-
53 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
So you started out telling us single-tenant office buildings are "exceedingly unusual", full stop, to "fairly rare in downtown areas". Just wanted to clarify. 😉
As I said above, I'm using the renderings, the site plans, knowledge of what the developer has said, knowledge of the central Dallas market and knowledge of office development in general, oh, and also very important, knowledge of the excitability of the DMN reporter, to say that the DMN reporter was wrong.
I said it would be "exceedingly unusual" for an anchor tenant to be the only tenant in an office tower, which is different from saying that single-tenant office buildings in any location whatsoever are exceedingly unusual. The word "tower" in my post, and the fact that we were talking about a downtown location, are important context. You then quoted a bunch of examples of single-tenant office buildings, almost all of which were suburban buildings: "State Farm, Liberty Mutual, ConocoPhillips, Marathon, Occidental in The Woodlands, Hess, come to mind)." The "come to mind" was a nice touch, since the list was probably the product of furious googling, like most of what you post on this forum. But I should go easy on you, since it probably didn't even occur to you that suburban vs. downtown location made a difference in likely tenancy.
I've asked you already to give us a link to a site plan if you have in fact seen one. Can you link the site plan for us please?
27 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:New information: During the presentation to and questions and answers with the Dallas City Council on Thursday, the representative from the City's Office of Economic Development (the ones who negotiated the deal with Goldmans Sachs), referring to the Goldman Sachs building said that "this building is somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 to 20 stories."
Was this information not already on the site plan that you've seen? Why didn't you mention it before?
-
2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
Like I said, and you seem to now kinda sorta acknowledge, single-tenant office buildings are not exceedingly rare. 😉
I base the conclusion it will not be an 80-story office building on a combination of what the developer has shared (which has zero indication of an office building anywhere near that size) and knowledge of the Dallas office market and office space/buildings in general. An 80-story office building would probably be at at or near 2.5 million square feet of office space or more; certainly above 2 Million. (A tenant like G-S is likely to want bigger floor plates - for example, their Jersey City building is only 42 stories tall and has 1.5 Million square feet.) With G-S taking 800,000 square feet, that's another 1.2 - 1.7 million square feet (possibly more) dropped on an already wildly oversupplied office market (downtown/uptown Dallas has more than 11.5 million square feet of office space available, and that doesn't even count Deep Ellum, which adds another 3/4 million).
(And see the links added to my prior response).
Single-tenant office buildings are fairly rare in downtown areas, which is what we're talking about. The three examples I named in downtown Houston illustrate that point, unless there is just a ton of others I'm forgetting.
So you're basically using the rendering to say that the DMN reporter was wrong when he said that the office building could be up to 80 stories. That's fine. Just wanted to clarify.
-
2 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
I think you are failing to notice how many single-tenant building leases are out there, in both suburban and urban situations. Goldman Sachs West Street, Manhattan. Goldman Sachs Jersey City. Hess downtown Houston. Chevron downtown Houston (initially leased the entirety of 1400 Smith before buying it 5 years later).
Having said that, I have no interest in chasing down a rabbit hole of whether or not G-S will be the sole tenant. It's little more than a hunch that this will be a single-tenant building; it is entirely possible it will have some room for others, thus also allowing for expansion room for Goldman Sachs. What it will not be is 80 stories of office space.
Like I said, multi-tenancy is normal for downtown office buildings, single-tenancy is much more common in suburban corporate campuses. The Chevron and Hess buildings are about the only single-tenant buildings I can think of in downtown Houston, besides government buildings. Hilcorp is another.
Please confirm if you have other info on this besides just the unlabeled rendering in the article. You seem positive this won't be 80 stories.
-
37 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
I think you exaggerate the unusualness of single-tenant office buildings, especially in DFW, it seems (State Farm and Liberty Mutual come to mind; I'm sure there are plenty more). It's also noteworthy that on more than one occasion Goldman Sachs has been the sole tenant in new office buildings it leases. And it's certainly not unusual at all for companies to want to have a building or campus to themselves. The examples of that are practically endless.
I think you are failing to distinguish between what is normal for suburban corporate campuses (single-tenancy) and what is normal for downtown office buildings (multi-tenancy). Goldman Sachs is currently the anchor tenant at the Trammell Crow Center, where they have 200,000 SF in a building of 1.2 million SF. Although it is possible that they could want a single-tenant building, it is also quite possible (if not likely) that they would have a situation similar to their current one of being the anchor tenant in a larger building.
When you say "site plans released by the developer," do you mean the rendering? A site plan typically shows building footprints within a site boundary. If you know of a site plan, can you link it?
-
51 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
FWIW, there is no indication (and it is highly unlikely) that the Goldman Sachs Tower will be anywhere near 80 stories. Hunt's marketing material for the entire development includes a pretty rendering of an 80+ story tower that would be hotel/residential, along with another residential tower and several office buildings. The Goldmans Sachs deal approved yesterday only involves one of the proposed office buildings. As mentioned, Goldman Sachs is to lease 800,000 square feet, so more likely something in the range of 40 stories, if that. There has been no timeline given for any of the other buildings in the development. The 80+ story hotel/residential tower seems pretty unlikely to happen any time soon. (And the timeline for the Goldman Sachs building only requires the shell and core of the building be completed by December 31, 2027.)
What I read (and I am paywall-blocked from the whole article) said "offices with as many as 80 floors." Your guess of a 40-story tower with 800,000 SF for Goldman Sachs assumes that they would be the only tenant in the tower, which is exceedingly unusual. Typically an anchor tenant takes 25% to 50% of a tower, although there are no hard and set rules. Other tenants will want to be in the same tower as Goldman Sachs, including those that do business with them, those that are drawn to the prestige of their name, and those who simply want to be in Dallas' newest highrise. If a lender or equity partner sees Goldman Sachs taking 800k SF, they wouldn't bat an eyelash at signing on to a much larger building.
-
Hunt Realty Investments is planning an 11-acre development called North End, located between Victory and the Woodall Rogers freeway. The development will include office, hotel, and residential towers, with the tallest office tower potentially anchored by an 800,000 SF lease to Goldman Sachs. The tower could rise as high as 80 stories. Kohn Pederson Fox has drawn initial plans for the development. Dallas City Council approved $18 million in incentives for Goldman Sachs yesterday, which is choosing between Dallas and a few other cities for the new office, although Dallas already has their second-largest office after New York. Most of the employees for the new office would come from that office.
-
3
-
1
-
-
I hear residents will get a copy of "Why I Live at the P.O."
-
I like Lake Flato, but this architecture is just too horizontal, too compressed. I know, I know, the University of St. Thomas campus is similarly horizontal and compressed, as is the Menil. Why do I love UST but am not excited about this? I don't know. Maybe it's the brick. A traditional material should have a more traditional design. This reminds me of those buildings from the 50's that you used to see on your college campus and think, "When are they going to tear that stuff down?"
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:
💯. This is how politics works--it's not that complicated to understand. The County was in the driver's seat for this. Ergo the blame--to the extent anyone wishes to blame anyone--lies with the County.
Hopefully your saying so will resonate with others.
But the County suit gets nowhere without the White House. I blame:
1. County
2. White House
3. City
4. Sheila
5. TxDOT, for being inflexible
-
3 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:
Well, I mean, the lawsuit had to be framed that way as that was the legal basis for the lawsuit, i.e., the lawsuit was against the State of Texas for violating terms of the Civil Rights Act that it is obligated to follow to receive any federal monies.
But, from a political perspective, I can appreciate how the George Floyd murder and attendant racial awareness protests were a likely major influence on the political approach. My conclusion remains the same--the approach was misguided and not very politically astute.
The above said, once the County sued the State and asked the DoT to intervene on the basis of noncompliance with the Civil Rights Act, I'm not sure what the DoT could've done--they have an obligation to at least investigate and respond. And, even if they didn't, the project would've likely been put on hold as the legal process played out, no matter what Joe Biden directed the DoT to do. Not to mention, if the administration declared "full steam ahead," I think that would've left the project vulnerable to further lawsuits, which would have led to even further delays with the parties potentially way further apart.
As it stands now (again, as far as I can tell), they're at the table and negotiating a settlement.
That is not to say that the project would be underway now had the County not sued, as multiple other organizations and individuals had standing to file a lawsuit on the same grounds, and I'd say that would've been pretty likely given how the project became a political "hot potato" overnight.
This is pretty simple stuff (albeit admittedly frustrating for many to comprehend as it is pure politics).
Anyone have any idea what the Mattress Guy is saying these days? He was against the project the last time I heard, and he has hand-picked the Republican Party's challenger to Lina.
I generally agree with you up to the point where you say that if the County hadn't sued, somebody else would have. The County suing is a pretty big deal. I also seem to recall Sylvester Turner being involved in some way. I doubt the County sues if he takes a strong stand in favor.
As for Biden & Co., they are going to follow the lead of local politicians if the politicians are Democrat. If the County is against something and the City is "leading from behind" with the County, the White House delivers the kibosh. If the lawsuit is just from some ragtag coalition but local Democrat politicians are saying, "No, we need this project to happen or it's our necks," the White House doesn't get involved.
-
5 minutes ago, mattyt36 said:
If it wasn't abundantly clear from my original post, I'm not proposing to blame George W Bush for anything (at least, not related to Houston transportation infrastructure).
Happy to learn. Please expand.
Well, after George Floyd happened, any public works project that could remotely be construed as racist became a political fireball. The framing of the argument that brought the lawsuit on, as I remember it, was that it "disproportionately impacts minorities." In a post-George Floyd world, that meant the project was dead.
-
13 hours ago, mattyt36 said:
OK, then George W Bush was responsible for killing the University Line, I guess, not John Culberson. C'mon, give me a break.
Tell me where I'm wrong on any of this:
-Someone, somewhere, my theory is some Democratic political operative thought that this was some "winning issue" and created this Stop NHHIP group as some sort of political grassroots organization--my best guess is it was thought this could be spun off into other political grassroots organizations and events to ensure Harris County continued to get "bluer." It was totally misguided and stupid politics. They had no plan, at least that I can see. God knows what they told people when they knocked on doors. And God knows who funded it all. This project had been in review for more than a decade and there had been very, very little vocalized opposition, why, because except for a few, everyone could see quite clearly that there was no comparison between this project and the early freeway projects. In fact, stating that is quite the insult to the ones who had to live through it before.
-Lina misplayed her hand and sued the State, thinking it was somehow a political winner, or she could somehow reprogram the funds, despite the City trying to intervene.
-The County asked the DoT to intervene, should be no surprise that a new administration, I don't believe even more than a week old, sided with the local government in this case, which was led by an "up-and-comer" in the Democratic Party where "up-and-comers" are few and far between. Should they have done a little more research? Absolutely. Boneheaded political move? It will probably work out that way, at least for Lina and certainly won't win any points for the Democrats in Houston, but when all is said and done, the DoT deciding to intervene pending further review versus choosing not to and leaving itself open to future Civil Rights lawsuits after being requested to do so by the County may end up saving time (and the project) in the long run--seriously, you must realize this. Was Biden even consulted on it? C'mon. Should he have been? Um, I think we should all hope the President focuses on the much bigger fish to fry, and delegating these things to a cabinet member is entirely understandable, and we shouldn't be surprised by his decision (at least I'm not). Ill-informed, sure. But what's done is done and it's all about saving face now.
-The lawsuit has not been dismissed or settled, no? The parties appear to be negotiating a settlement. Maybe I’m wrong. I haven’t read about here or in the Houston Chronicle, although as far as the latter goes it doesn’t surprise me as I don’t think even Dug Begley has a full appreciation of what’s going on.
So, I ask you again, where did this all start?
George W. Bush did not appoint John Culberson. In fact, I think he once brokered a meeting at the White House between Kay Bailey Hutchison and Tom DeLay, when DeLay was trying to use congressional power to kill the original Main Street line while it was under construction and Hutchison was trying to talk some sense into him and protect the city. Bush generally came down on Hutchison's side and the result of the meeting was to calm DeLay down and let the project go on. I am just going from memory on this and could have a detail or two wrong.
I also think you're missing the biggest ingredient in galvanizing all of these politicians into stopping the NHHIP: George Floyd.
-
1 minute ago, editor said:
Completely pointless trivia: Driving a 1980 Volkswagen Rabbit at 55MPH on I-80 westbound in western Pennsylvania, at the top of the last big hill before Ohio, if you throw it into neutral at the start of the song, you will coast across the border into Ohio right at the big crescendo.
This is what we did for entertainment before the internet.
And then the situation deteriorated...
-
4
-
-
57 minutes ago, editor said:
It's so strange to see a golf course as part of any new development. Over the last ten years, there have been dozens and dozens of articles in the real estate press about the death of golf course. They cater to a rapidly shrinking demographic, and many of them are being converted into housing because they're wasted space and terrible for the environment.
It must be because they just have so much land there and it will take a decade to develop it all. So what do you do that takes up a lot of land and brings in at least a little revenue? Otherwise you just leave it sitting and who knows what starts occupying it.
-
On 6/18/2022 at 6:16 PM, houstontexasjack said:
🎶The reflex is a lonely child, who’s waiting by the park. The reflex is in charge of finding treasure in the dark!🎶
I never knew what the second sentence of that was. Thank you.
-
35 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:
But it bears repeating: Pete Buttigieg. Sheila Jackson Lee. Joe Biden.
No Lina?
-
On 6/12/2022 at 8:44 PM, MaxConcrete said:
Even though that Metro document is recent, it is not consistent with recent information from TxDOT and H-GAC.
TxDOT published this update on May 26
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2022/0526/7c.pdf
The project remains on hold by FHWA, and TxDOT is authorized for limited pre-construction work on sections 3A, 3B and 3C. See page 5 of document above. If the FHWA hold is released this month (which appears unlikely), earliest possible starts are
3A: 2024 (not 2023 shown in the Metro document)
3B: 2025 (not 2024 shown in the Metro document)According to the recent H-GAC STIP update (link below), these are the ONLY projects scheduled to start before 2026. All other work is removed from the STIP (which covers four fiscal years 2023-2026), see page 15. In a presentation that was given for the STIP (but I can't find online), they mentioned that the next project after 3A and 3B would be 3C1 (Interchange at I-45 and I-10 northwest side of downtown), with the earliest possible start in 2028.
As long as the FHWA hold in in place, the delays will become longer. The only work that might begin construction within 5 years is I-69 in midtown.
Wow. What a kibosh they put on this. I'm not even going to say who. Everybody knows who.
-
3 minutes ago, aachor said:
I guess it depends on how one defines "successful." If you define it as creating an cozy welcoming atmosphere similar to a quaint European town with cute little bistros and cafes and a mime on the corner, then no, these examples are not "successful."
But if you define "successful" as functional for the purpose of allowing pedestrian and automotive traffic to safely traverse the area while providing access to mixed-used development including retail, then the examples I provides are successes (except I can't comment on La Défense). As far as I've experienced, East Asian cities in particular often do vertically separate pedestrian, rail, and automotive traffic along major thoroughfares in their denser urban cores, and they are highly functional, safe, and easy to navigate on foot.
When it comes to urban development, I think we should stop romanticizing the past and consider what works best given current realities. Houston has a reputation for repeatedly bulldozing its history to allow space for new development. Given that the cost of living is low, and the opportunities for low and middle-class residents are unmatched, I embrace the bulldozer.
Quaint European town? I will give as examples London, New York, and Tokyo - the three financial capitals of the world. All have plenty of successful walking areas, all have plenty of regulations on development, and all have, in their most desirable neighborhoods, a minimum of different levels.
If we're citing Houston, I think that proves my point even better. Look at the part of downtown where property values are highest and new development is happening. It's the historic district! Look where the skybridges are - Houston Center, Allen Center, Cullen Center. Do people want to be there? Are new highrises going up there? Aren't the owners of those centers (e.g. Brookfield) trying desperately to make the street more appealing? It's the "quaint" area that hasn't been bulldozed where Hines is building new highrises and relocating their hq so that they can attract talent.
Sorry aachor, even the powers that be in Houston are learning from the past and abandoning the bulldozer. Don't be sad, you had a good run. You'll always have the 70's. 😁
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, jmitch94 said:
Unless a single developer owns a whole neighborhood, this is unfortunately how things get built. Also most “great streets,” whatever that exactly means, are older and are occupied by buildings that have no need to get hundreds of people across a street to an exact destination on a regular basis.
Lots of untruth in this post. There are all kinds of ways for the city to shape how development happens, such as the TOD guidelines that have been mentioned on this thread.
"No need to get hundreds of people across a street to an exact destination"? Most of the cities that have been cited as good models on here have way, way, way more people crossing the street than are crossing Fannin Street right now, and they're doing it without skybridges. There is no reason for skybridges on Fannin. They create an inhuman, BladeRunner-esque, corporate feeling wherever they exist.
-
1 hour ago, aachor said:
Also, I'm pretty sure that nearly the entirety of Paris' La Défense district is built with pedestrian traffic elevated above automotive and rail traffic. Though, I've never been there.
No one likes La Defense except viewing it from a distance and the fact that there are not such elevated walkways in the parts of Paris where everyone likes to go proves my point. Note that I said, "successfully." You named a bunch of places that are either not successful (like downtown Houston) or are not the part of the city that is really desirable (London). If San Francisco has one elevated transit center but does not allow elevated walkways elsewhere, that doesn't really tell me that San Francisco thinks these things are a good idea, that just tells me that there must have been some practical reason why the transit center had to be elevated, such as getting buses onto the Bay Bridge.
If you are trying this hard not to see my point, there is no way I am going to convince you.
-
I sure hope they've got their construction loan rate locked in or this just got a lot harder to finance.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, aachor said:
Just too throw my two cents in with the unpopular opinion: I think skybridges and elevated crosswalks are good and that we need more of them.
Houston is not a dense little European city where the streets were laid out at a time when people were still pooping in fields. Houston is a modern American city where the streets were designed to facilitate the automobile. Automobiles will always be the primary mode of transportation.
However, if a city wants to encourage walking (which has many urban-planning benefits), a good way to do that is keep foot traffic somewhat separate from automotive traffic. The Medical Center has many skybridges, and I wish there were more. I think it would be ideal if there were a complete network of them connecting every major institution and every garage. Not only would they increase pedestrian safety, they'd allow people to walk between buildings in air-conditioning.
As it is, there are still many hospital staff who wander into traffic on Holcombe, Fannin, and Main to cross the road. All three of these major roads are very heavily trafficked, especially around the 7a and 7p shift changes, and they all have very long lights. I worry for the safety of the the many hundreds of hospital workers that jaywalk these busy roads when they are in a rush. Automotive traffic gets very heavy and drivers (especially those from out of town) have their hands full just navigating. It seems that additional elevated walkways and skybridges, especially across busily crossed streets (E.g. between TMC Braeswood Garage and MDA) would help both pedestrian and automotive traffic navigate the space more safely.
The denser areas of the city, especially the downtown and med center, are dense because the built environment has moved beyond the two-dimensional plane of the earth, and has expanded upward into the third dimension. I think these dense areas need three-dimensional thinking when it comes to handling traffic as well. Otherwise, as buildings grow vertically, congestion on our two-dimensional streets increases exponentially.
This is the engineer's mentality that has guided growth in Houston for most of the past century. Anything involving technology is good. Anything new is better than anything old. Older cities don't have anything to teach us. Three dimensions is better than two dimensions.
Even a smart engineer, instead of these abstract platitudes, would say, "Let's look at what works." The empirical approach. Which cities and neighborhoods do people want to visit? Which ones attract strong demand as shown in rising property values? Does anyone want to visit the medical center who isn't sick or visiting a sick person? Are these "three-dimensional" neighborhoods where pedestrians circulate in multiple planes successful anywhere in the world? Wasn't that kind of a failed 70's experiment, with most examples of it slowly becoming dismantled (see Houston Center) in favor of the two-dimensional paradigm?
13 hours ago, arche_757 said:@H-Town Man, @houstontexasjack, I can certainly see what both of you are saying. I don’t think this is such a big deal, but that’s my opinion, and you each are entitled to your own.
I think what should be discussed is codifying development guidelines for the Museum District. That would be advantageous for all, but we know that’s not likely. At least not any real toothy codes that would force any future development to plan better for its locale.
@H-Town Man I honestly do not consider the area literally past two blocks north of Binz to be the Museum District. To me the district is about 2 blocks each side of Binz, and the “L” at Montrose for a couple blocks. Hopefully this can be expanded through thoughtful development, and some gentle guidance from the City. That’s my opinion.
Yes, I think the way forward at this point, for anyone having a vision for the Museum District, is to look at the TOD regulations, which encompass the commercial portion of this neighborhood. Probably a topic for another thread. I think I've convinced whoever I was able to convince on this one, probably not many people.
-
2
-
1
-
TMC Helix Park: Texas Medical Center Bio Research Campus
in Going Up!
Posted
This article may shed some light. I waited to post it so as not to rain on the parade or be accused of undue pessimism. After ten years of heady growth, the biotech sector is now contracting rather than expanding, with one index of biotech stocks showing a 48% decline from two years ago and many companies struggling to survive. The upswing in interest rates the last couple years chased investors out of biotech as it did tech in general. Probably not the time to be a new, unproven biotech city trying to capture some of the overflow from the core biotech centers.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/layoffs-and-shutdowns-hit-biotech-industry-in-u-turn-ffdf14eb?page=3