Hess Tower: Office Skyscraper At 1501 McKinney St.

[Subdude]

The native style is the dominant style; I use the term loosely, but you get the idea. That it is coincidental has nothing to do with it.

I'm not going to beat it to death, but "native" does imply geographical origin. In any event, even though a lot of downtown skyscrapers happened to be built back then, I would much prefer something up-to-date instead of tired 1970s retro.

[lockmat]

I'm not going to beat it to death, but "native" does imply geographical origin. In any event, even though a lot of downtown skyscrapers happened to be built back then, I would much prefer something up-to-date instead of tired 1970s retro.

Yeah, I see no problem mixing it up. It's not like we haven't already.

[Jonah]

Although I would have had the small grocery facing the park instead of the opposite side of the building.

I agree, I was hoping the grocer would have faced the park and they could have had sidewalk seating. With the entrance to the building facing the Park Shops. That seems like it would have made more sense to me. Oh well, still excited about all of the development happening on this side of town. Now we just need a few mid rise residential buildings to fill in a few of those empty blocks around MMP and Toyota Center. I really think once Houston Pavilions, One Park Place, & Discovery Green get closer to completion sometime next year, we're going to start to hear more residential buildings announced. At least I hope.

[TheNiche]

I'm not going to beat it to death, but "native" does imply geographical origin. In any event, even though a lot of downtown skyscrapers happened to be built back then, I would much prefer something up-to-date instead of tired 1970s retro.

I'd be with you all the way if I thought that we could get something that isn't a gawd-awful throwback to some style that never existed in Houston and is in fact one big homage on the skyline to something that we never were and never will be. ...but I have little confidence in the current strand of architects to come up with something original on such a large scale without making it gaudy, like the Memorial Hermann tower at I-10 & Gessner.

[nmainguy]

What "sleek native style"? Since when does downtown have anything that could be considered a "native style"? A bunch of skyscapers that happened to be designed in the late 1970s-early 1980s doesn't constitute a native style, it just indicates a historical coincidence.

We have no "native style." We have a group of buildings that you could plop down in any large city. Few were ever exceptional; Pennzoil, The Menil and Transco come to mind as exceptions. Houston builds on the cheap-although really good architecture doesn't always require alot of money. Knowing Houston's provincial background, I'm not expecting anything more imaginative than One Houston Center.

[dbigtex56]

The uncertain height of the building seems like an impediment to good design. Stretching a building from 30 to 50 stories can wreak havoc with proportions.

[TheNiche]

Knowing Houston's provincial background, I'm not expecting anything more imaginative than One Houston Center.

I'd be elated if it were. Anything is better than cheap unimaginative faux-architecture IMO.

[nmainguy]

The uncertain height of the building seems like an impediment to good design. Stretching a building from 30 to 50 stories can wreak havoc with proportions.

Exactly. Imagine Pennzoil at 60 floors or a widened Transco. Conversly, a shortened Wells Fargo or removing one of the Flemish row houses from BOA woud make them look cartoonish as well.

I'd be elated if it were. Anything is better than cheap unimaginative faux-architecture IMO.

Actually many things are better than a dull and cheap One Houston and cheap unimaginative faux-architecture. Any Aggie can copy that. Why settle for the mundane?

[TheNiche]

Actually many things are better than a dull and cheap One Houston and cheap unimaginative faux-architecture. Any Aggie can copy that. Why settle for the mundane?

On this, I agree. Unfortunately it is neither up to you or myself to design what will be. And given the choice, I'll take a glass and steel box over a faux-something without hesitation. ...but I expect the latter.

[Highway6]

Why settle for the mundane?

Because ultimately the architect must surrender to the tastes (or lack of) and pocketbook of the developer.

[lockmat]

Because ultimately the architect must surrender to the tastes (or lack of) and pocketbook of the developer.

So what would it take for a developer to go along with some architecture that is really worth it? Someone who has integrity, lots of money, a love for the city, a love for architecture, for beauty?

With money being the bottom line, it must be hard.

[TheNiche]

So what would it take for a developer to go along with some architecture that is really worth it? Someone who has integrity, lots of money, a love for the city, a love for architecture, for beauty?

With money being the bottom line, it must be hard.

Yes, to all of the above.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Houston's native style: glass and more glass. It's HOT out there!

Actually, I really do think colorful glass, although not unique to Houston, seems to be a more prevalent design element with regard to DT's highrises--at least, where the newest towers are concerned.

[sevfiv]

So what would it take for a developer to go along with some architecture that is really worth it? Someone who has integrity, lots of money, a love for the city, a love for architecture, for beauty?

With money being the bottom line, it must be hard.

indeed - only a passionate and industrious few can pull it off

unfortunately, alot of our cityscape goes down the toilet with those that do not fit the above descriptions

Edited March 28, 2007 by sevfiv

[Subdude]

The fact that the tower (if it ends up getting built) will be on spec will make it even harder to get anything other than an unimaginative design. It increases the incentive to build something as generic as possible so potential tenants aren't alarmed. The uncertainty over the number of floors tells you right off the bat that economics are the driving factor here, not aesthetics. We are most likely to see something resembling downtown's latest additions: 1000 Main and 5 Houston Center.

[TheNiche]

The fact that the tower (if it ends up getting built) will be on spec will make it even harder to get anything other than an unimaginative design. It increases the incentive to build something as generic as possible so potential tenants aren't alarmed. The uncertainty over the number of floors tells you right off the bat that economics are the driving factor here, not aesthetics. We are most likely to see something resembling downtown's latest additions: 1000 Main and 5 Houston Center.

I'd think that it would be the other way around. Compare two scenarios: 1) You've got a big tenant that has preleased space; you're practically guaranteed to come close to a break-even right off the bat; the amount of space that you're going to have to market is smaller and the pressure to lease it quickly is more manageable; versus 2) You're taking a big and risky position; there is a high likelihood of having an initial period of negative cash flows; you desperately need to reduce the amount of time spent swimming in red ink. Under which circumstances do you think it is more likely that the developer will spend money on items related to sales/marketing? I think that architectural design would fall into that category as far as they're concerned.

You're right that we probably aren't going to see anything avant garde, but unless a project is a build-to-suit for a single tenant with very exacting tastes, that is pretty much a given anyway.

Of course, there is a 3rd scenario. If one of the developers senses that the market for their space is going to be highly competitive, but they still want to move ahead, they might try to differentiate their product from the competition by experimenting with the design. This may be the most influential factor of all, and it isn't all that unreasonable of an expectation right now.

[RedScare]

Well, it has already been announced that it will be LEED certified. That is extremely unique by itself. Some of the energy saving techniques can incorporate some pretty unique features, including on the outside of the building, so we could see some architectural features that we don't see every day.

I agree that the spec nature lends itself to more amenities and features, rather than less.

[lockmat]

Of course, there is a 3rd scenario. If one of the developers senses that the market for their space is going to be highly competitive, but they still want to move ahead, they might try to differentiate their product from the competition by experimenting with the design. This may be the most influential factor of all, and it isn't all that unreasonable of an expectation right now.

Say there are two or three new towers downtown and there's a company looking to move into one of them. It seems like what the tower looks like on the outside would be the last aspect they'd consider in making a decision.

I thought it was all about location. I don't know if a couple of blocks makes a difference or not, or if it's just enough to be in the general vicinity of the cbd.

[VelvetJ]

Houston builds on the cheap-although really good architecture doesn't always require alot of money.

OH MY GOODNESS, someone in Houston finally admitted this?!?!

nmainguy, you are correct in good architecture doesn't always require a lot of money, but embracing a habit of building on the cheap certainly can open the door to mediocre designs, and that hasn't been more evident than in Houston over the past decade.

[marc]

To me it was unclear whether the possible expansion meant more floors on the same building -- or building a second building on the other block. So if the demand comes in strong, I'm not sure if this one grows, or this one stays at 31 and they build another. (My guess is there are enough firms looking at building towers now that this one stays at 31 stories on one block, at best...)

I'm wondering just how "prime" this block is. If you're a company looking for space, what's more attractive? A building by the park, the convention center, Minute Maid, Houston Pavillions, etc...? Or one more centrally located in downtown? Either way, I'm beginning to think Brookfield's proposed building on the Continental Center I front lawn doesn't stand a chance -- it's in a far corner of downtown, and it's not close to any attractions. (Unless, of course, Chevron needs yet more space, but they're still getting the old Enron HQ ready for move-in)

Many of you may already know this, BUT unless something internationally major comes into play, Chevron is posed to expand to gargantuan levels. First off, they have exclusive rights to the billions of barrels of oil found in the TX Gulf Coast; which of course, means $$$$$$$$$$$$ for Houston. Considering our country's patience, which is running out on depending on foreign oil, this seems to be pointing in a direction where we will become more self sufficient in the energy sector. In fact projections for 5-10 years from now, say the oil drilled in the Gulf will supply the country with 25% of our need. Again, this means MAJOR dollars for not only our country, but specifically for TX and locally, for Houston. ALSO- Chevron is a major partner in the TX Green/ Wind Energy Project which is planning to build, in time, 100 ten story windmills about 5 miles of off the TX Gulf Coast. I think the writing is on the wall...

that type of business coupled with the explosion of energy companies and research facilities moving into the Houston area, dare i whisper....................."boom."

Whatever the case, it seems Houston's construction pace is building even more momentum.

m.

[TheNiche]

Say there are two or three new towers downtown and there's a company looking to move into one of them. It seems like what the tower looks like on the outside would be the last aspect they'd consider in making a decision.

I thought it was all about location. I don't know if a couple of blocks makes a difference or not, or if it's just enough to be in the general vicinity of the cbd.

When it comes to location, the best spots are closer to the weighted core of downtown--I'd place that spot at approximately Milam & McKinney. So they're all very similar, locationally, although Hines has the advantage. The park helps Trammell Crow, but it really is more oriented toward residential users than office workers...I was actually a bit surprised that Trammell Crow didn't try something with a residential component or perhaps live/work units on this site. Tunnel access could be an important locational factor as well, btw.

A big tenant looking to get naming rights would be more concerned with skyline visibility (esp. to the west), and Brookfield has the advantage on that one. Visibility is good, generally...big tenants or small.

Odds are that interior common areas are going to be pretty similar high-end finishes. I don't suspect that anyone will come away with a clear victory on that one.

The space in which offices are actually located is all just a shell--the tenant builds it out to their liking. No one gets an advantage there, although depending on how they go about it, Trammell Crow's green status might require a few changes that are perceptible in leased areas in one way or another.

Otherwise, about the only way to physically stand out from the competition is architecture.

Edited March 28, 2007 by TheNiche

[lockmat]

Otherwise, about the only way to physically stand out from the competition is architecture.

So I'm assuming then, that the cost for any office space DT is relatively the same?

[fernz]

So what would it take for a developer to go along with some architecture that is really worth it? Someone who has integrity, lots of money, a love for the city, a love for architecture, for beauty?

With money being the bottom line, it must be hard.

The key word here is "spec" office building. If you are developing a tower that is pre-leased to a bank or giant energy corporation you can make a statement, as long as your tenant goes along with it. But if you don't know who your main tenant will be, you need a "safe" design, something that is not too trendy or flashy, which unfortunately means boring.

[TheNiche]

The key word here is "spec" office building. If you are developing a tower that is pre-leased to a bank or giant energy corporation you can make a statement, as long as your tenant goes along with it. But if you don't know who your main tenant will be, you need a "safe" design, something that is not too trendy or flashy, which unfortunately means boring.

It won't be avant garde, but that doesn't mean that it has to be boring either.

[Montrose1100]

The fact that the tower (if it ends up getting built) will be on spec will make it even harder to get anything other than an unimaginative design. It increases the incentive to build something as generic as possible so potential tenants aren't alarmed. The uncertainty over the number of floors tells you right off the bat that economics are the driving factor here, not aesthetics. We are most likely to see something resembling downtown's latest additions: 1000 Main and 5 Houston Center.

1000 Main is a beautiful building... and the fiber optics at night are what sets it completely apart from every building downtown. 5 Houston Center is a nice little 'book stop' building for Fulbright Tower and 1 & 2 Houston Center.

It would be nice to see this building be taller then 5 Houston Center, and it would be even better if it were as tall or taller then Fulbright Tower. It would be a 'Houston style' to have a +50 story skyscraper of international or modern design in a solid color, expanding the skyline of 1 & 2 Houston Center, and Fulbright Tower (in a line, like how Louisiana Street is).

Edited March 28, 2007 by Montrose1100

[TheNiche]

1000 Main is a beautiful building... and the fiber optics at night are what sets it completely apart from every building downtown. 5 Houston Center is a nice little 'book stop' building for Fulbright Tower and 1 & 2 Houston Center.

I'd forgotten that 1000 Main was the one with the fiber optics. They work really well in an aesthetic sense from that part of downtown, too. I was never all that impressed by 5 Houston Center, though. It won a few awards, but to me it just looks like something that belongs in Austin...can't put my finger on why.

[Montrose1100]

I'd forgotten that 1000 Main was the one with the fiber optics. They work really well in an aesthetic sense from that part of downtown, too. I was never all that impressed by 5 Houston Center, though. It won a few awards, but to me it just looks like something that belongs in Austin...can't put my finger on why.

5 Houston Center doesn't look like it belongs in the shawdow of the Fulbright Tower, or have anything much taller around it. It isn't a "filler" building because of its roof, height, and bright glass. Looks like it should be a little taller, standing on its own, "standing out" as one of the main structures to make up a skyline - such as Austin's.

[nmainguy]

OH MY GOODNESS, someone in Houston finally admitted this?!?!

nmainguy, you are correct in good architecture doesn't always require a lot of money, but embracing a habit of building on the cheap certainly can open the door to mediocre designs, and that hasn't been more evident than in Houston over the past decade.

A recent example is the Christ Church Cathedral addition on Texas. It is a great example of for-profit architecture that exceeds long-term design, style and cost-effectiveness for a non-profit.

My mother-in-law was here 2 weeks ago and we walked from Main down Texas to MMP. Now she hasn't been exposed to alot of design in her 67 years outside of Milam and Hemphill but I was taken aback when she stopped midway in the block and looked up at the trellis. Then she started to explain to us how pleasant it was to walk under this shaded trellis and how beautiful yet inexpensive it must have been to contruct in the overall scheme of the design Then she commented on the structure and it's windows and how energy efficient it must be and how great it was that the church had the buisness and esthetic sense to choose a beautiful and lasting yet cost effective design that included parking, office and green space.

So yes, Velvet: you are correct. Houston is a captive of mediocre design. It's a quick-fix for the shortsighted which has unfortunatly become the hallmark for developers/investors/architects. It seems the days of long-term planning that not only benefits the developer but the public which he/she relys on have past.

[Subdude]

Different churches. The mediocre cathedral is close to the Pierce Elevated, Christ Church Cathedral is on Texas.

Neither 1000 Main or 5 Houston Center are bad designs, but they are not the kind that will turn up in architecture books either, especially the latter. I do like the lighting on 1000 Main, which is at least gives it some distinction that the architecture alone does. The layout is good too - they spent some effort trying to integrate the tunnel and street entrances, include the bus dropoff, and include some retail at the street level.

Given the location, I would expect Discovery Tower to end up architecturally a lot closer to 5 Houston Center.

[HtownWxBoy]

Different churches. The mediocre cathedral is close to the Pierce Elevated, Christ Church Cathedral is on Texas.

Neither 1000 Main or 5 Houston Center are bad designs, but they are not the kind that will turn up in architecture books either, especially the latter. I do like the lighting on 1000 Main, which is at least gives it some distinction that the architecture alone does. The layout is good too - they spent some effort trying to integrate the tunnel and street entrances, include the bus dropoff, and include some retail at the street level.

Given the location, I would expect Discovery Tower to end up architecturally a lot closer to 5 Houston Center.

I love 1000 Main... it's one of my favorite buildings Downtown. 5 Houston Center is nice too... I just wish it were taller.