Williams Tower At 2800 Post Oak Blvd.

[sevfiv]

Bye bye waterwall?

[lockmat]

Bye bye waterwall?

I think Houstonians would come with their torches and axes to Hines if they even thought about that.

[editor]

I don't think there will be any traumatic changes. It's not like it's some out-of-towners buying it. Hines REIT has been in the Williams Tower for years. Also, it's a REIT -- doesn't that mean it buys properties, instead of developing them?

I've been in the Hines REIT offices in the Williams Tower. In the middle of lobby is the five-foot-tall model of the Bank of America Center.

[sevfiv]

Hopefully the Hines "family" won't continue to follow in the destructive footsteps of Weingarten (of which the family has been in Houston since the 1880s) - recently: Montagu Hotel, Bond Store, Beatty-West building, San Jacinto/Bender property...

As far as REITs developing:

Following its restructuring as a real estate investment trust (REIT), Weingarten became a publicly-held company in August 1985 and was listed as “WRI” on the New York Stock Exchange. The Company is one of the largest equity REITs listed on the Exchange and has consistently been ranked as one of the nation’s leading developers/owners of community shopping centers.

[musicman]

I think Houstonians would come with their torches and axes to Hines if they even thought about that.

yeah like the river oaks center.

[travelguy_73]

Williams Tower is a jewel in Gerald Hines's crown. The REIT may not be 100% Hines family-owned, but it is managed by Hines, and that management style is what has made it so successful. I think it is safe to say that it is in better hands with Hines than with many of the other REITs out there!

Edited March 26, 2008 by travelguy_73

[lockmat]

Williams Tower is a jewel in Gerald Hines's crown. The REIT may not be 100% Hines family-owned, but it is managed by Hines, and that management style is what has made it so successful. I think it is safe to say that it is in better hands with Hines than with many of the other REITs out there!

What do REITs normally do with their new properties?

also...

What do yall make of this chron comment? Does it hold any water?

Somethings not right. I heard the rumors around Jan. that they were selling the building but I Hines still owned it. Who is Fosterlane Holdings of Atlanta? The tax records still have Gearld D Hines Int. as the owner of record. And you're telling me that a Class AAA property like Transco traded for $271.5 million!!???!!?!?! Bank of America traded for like $350 million and its 500,000 sf smaller. And cap rates are between 5 and 7 percent right now, that would put the price of the building much closer to $400 million. Something smells fishy.

Edited March 26, 2008 by lockmat

[crunchtastic]

All the REIT is doing is holding it. At this point it looks like a strategic purchase, by someone's measure, and not a lot else. To me anyway.

Lock, I can't believe you've sullied HAIF with a quote from those Chron board trogs!!

[travelguy_73]

All the REIT is doing is holding it. At this point it looks like a strategic purchase, by someone's measure, and not a lot else. To me anyway.

You are exactly right. The only rumor I had heard (and this was during Fosterlane's ownership, not Hines) was that the empty lot across Post Oak would make a nice spot for a parking garage. The economics might not be there to support such a move, but parking is tight now that the building is full.

[lockmat]

Lock, I can't believe you've sullied HAIF with a quote from those Chron board trogs!!

Hey, sorry! I figured if it was a worthy comment then it'd be worth discussing.

[editor]

I guess the deal is finally done. Hines REIT just sent out this news release:

---------------------------

HINES REIT AQUIRES LANDMARK TOWER

Uptown Houston Landmark is also REIT

[houstonmacbro]

I wish they weren't such picture Nazi's about shooting out in the park there. Soon as you set up a tripod, the security swoops down (from somewhere) and asks you not to take pictures with a tripod.

[JWW]

Any and All..... please inform us with any inside information about the seller (a holding company perhaps since 'Transco' has not existed since '95 or '99)'s reasoning for selling in a market like Houston's, currently...especially around 180$/ft (forgot the exact sq ftg for the building much less the land in the deal). I'd love to hear the story why (and when) Hines sold the building in the first place (and continued to have the management contract).

[Pumapayam]

Maybe they will called it "Transco Tower" again. I really did find that name more fitting.

[rsb320]

It's not the second tallest building in Texas. It's not even the second tallest in Houston, it's the third. 1. Chase, 2. Wells Fargo 3. Transco/Williams. You would think that Hines would know their buildings better.

Edited May 2, 2008 by rsb320

[ndnuno]

I see that this is quite an old post and yet no one seemed to answer any of the questions.

First, this is my first official post on the forum, so hello.

Second, I work for Wachovia in the Williams Tower. The 1st, 2nd, 34th, and 35th floors are all leased by Wachovia Bank N.A.. The Texas regional President and all the midwest financial centers report to our little home of Houston. (We report directly to Charlotte from here) A.G. Edwards is based out of Galleria Tower II - 2700 Post Oak (Williams Tower is 2800 Post Oak), but Wachovia purchased the company and merged them with South Trust Bank forming ultimately Wachovia Securities, which is still based in 2700 Post Oak. Our operations are different, we just share a name.

Third, the Williams company is HUGE! I'm not sure if any of you have been inside the Williams Tower, but the 2nd floor elevators (the whole left bank) belong to Williams Corporation. ~ They lease beyond 50% of the building! Wachovia only takes up 2.5 floors....though Wachovia tower sounds cooler...definitely no name change.

Fourth, Hines (who built the tower & the galleria mall is headquartered here) repurchased the building back. Though Williams maintains naming rights, Hines is now the new building owner. CB Richard Ellis (also headquartered in the building) finished the transactions last month and announced they are selling off the Williams Waterfall and are planning to tear it down due to high operating costs. It's still unknown what they plan to do with the land, either sell it to adjacent Turnberry Towers, develop it or just keep it as a minimal walking park.

I'll keep you posted on what happens...

Edited June 12, 2008 by ndnuno

[musicman]

CB Richard Ellis (also headquartered in the building) finished the transactions last month and announced they are selling off the Williams Waterfall and are planning to tear it down due to high operating costs.

...the land's probably too expensive not to do something with it.

[ndnuno]

I'm sure it will connect to the delayed Turnberry Tower somehow. Turnberry's main advertising scheme is that they are adjacent to the Waterfall and provide amazing views.

They were filming a movie last week with Sean Penn and Brad Pitt at the site. Rumor has it they wanted a "less expensive" Central Park movie shot. Guess Williams Waterfall will due.

[Subdude]

It never seemed to me that the "Williams Tower" name took that well anyway. I usually would just refer to it as Transco and no one ever corrects that. People frequently still call the tall one downtown the Texas Commerce Tower, not JPMorganChaseBankOne whatever.

CB Richard Ellis (also headquartered in the building) finished the transactions last month and announced they are selling off the Williams Waterfall and are planning to tear it down due to high operating costs.

Yikes!

[NewMND]

They wouldn't get rid of the Water Wall...........would they?

[musicman]

They wouldn't get rid of the Water Wall...........would they?

HISTORY

[Pumapayam]

They wouldn't get rid of the Water Wall...........would they?

If people rallied they way they did for the Riveroaks Theatre (Theater, whatever), there is NO WAY anyone in Houston is going to let Wachovia/Hines tear down the water wall. This is going to EASILY get 1000 X's more support.

Heck, I would incur a 0.05% increase in property taxes just to cover the operating and maintenace cost each year if the city could buy it back.

Trust me, there will be so much publicity on this, it will never happen. To many weddings, proposals, quincineras, and proms photos have been there, it is likely the most photographed place in Houston.

It won't happen.

[lockmat]

I guess it would be impossible to move it?

[Houston19514]

Hi. Welcome to the forum. Just a couple of corrections.

(1) Williams does not occupy more than half of Williams Tower. Far from it. Williams actually leases approximately 250,000 square feet of the building's 1.5 Million square feet of rentable area (16%).

(2) There has been no announcement of plans to sell off or tear down the waterwall. If you have a source or evidence of such a plan, we'd all love to see it.

(3) Galleria Tower II is on Westheimer. The building at 2700 Post Oak is Galleria Tower I.

I see that this is quite an old post and yet no one seemed to answer any of the questions.

First, this is my first official post on the forum, so hello.

Second, I work for Wachovia in the Williams Tower. The 1st, 2nd, 34th, and 35th floors are all leased by Wachovia Bank N.A.. The Texas regional President and all the midwest financial centers report to our little home of Houston. (We report directly to Charlotte from here) A.G. Edwards is based out of Galleria Tower II - 2700 Post Oak (Williams Tower is 2800 Post Oak), but Wachovia purchased the company and merged them with South Trust Bank forming ultimately Wachovia Securities, which is still based in 2700 Post Oak. Our operations are different, we just share a name.

Third, the Williams company is HUGE! I'm not sure if any of you have been inside the Williams Tower, but the 2nd floor elevators (the whole left bank) belong to Williams Corporation. ~ They lease beyond 50% of the building! Wachovia only takes up 2.5 floors....though Wachovia tower sounds cooler...definitely no name change.

Fourth, Hines (who built the tower & the galleria mall is headquartered here) repurchased the building back. Though Williams maintains naming rights, Hines is now the new building owner. CB Richard Ellis (also headquartered in the building) finished the transactions last month and announced they are selling off the Williams Waterfall and are planning to tear it down due to high operating costs. It's still unknown what they plan to do with the land, either sell it to adjacent Turnberry Towers, develop it or just keep it as a minimal walking park.

I'll keep you posted on what happens...

[Pumapayam]

(2) There has been no announcement of plans to sell off or tear down the waterwall. If you have a source or evidence of such a plan, we'd all love to see it.

If they announce it, it will be when the ball and chain arrives.

They would be crazy to announce that beforehand. People will picket and protest it's destruction like crazy. I would take a day off work to help too.

[Subdude]

They wouldn't get rid of the Water Wall...........would they?

This is Houston, remember?

They would be crazy to announce that beforehand. People will picket and protest it's destruction like crazy.

That was certainly effective in saving the River Oaks shopping center. Not.

[Pumapayam]

This is Houston, remember?

That was certainly effective in saving the River Oaks shopping center. Not.

As nostalgic as the shopping center was, I don't considered it a historical landmark. The theater was the only thing worth saving. And even so, only fanboys would use that theater to see artsy movies, Rocky Horror, and the Academy Awards. I like my stadium seating movie theaters.

The waterwall is a completely different icon. It is a landmark on it's own, a beautiful modern masterpiece that was unfortunately built on private property.

The city should try to buy it before it is too late.

[ndnuno]

My mistake -

Galleria Tower I is on Post Oak Boulevard (where Wachovia Securities is located) and Galleria Tower II is on Westheimer. Thank you for the correction.

As for Williams owning 50% of the building is a detail I learned from some Williams employees and the security guards, so again apologies if the number is inaccurate indeed. I'm not positive the occupancy is as little as 16% but I will give the benefit of the doubt to you rather than a rent-a-cop.

Lastly, the Waterfall being shut down hasn't been publicly announced yet. To my understanding, my clear understanding -- A client of mine who is part of the CB Richard Ellis transaction team for the Hines buy out mentioned the detail to me. He said Hines repurchased the building back but the deal still left the waterwall in question.

I will definitely find out more as soon as I can.

[Pumapayam]

I will definitely find out more as soon as I can.

Darn right! We HAIFers like to get on our soapboxes, and I think a shutdown/teardown will bring more than just online ranting and raving.

I can't imagine uptown without the waterwall.

It is SO big, it has it's own wikipedia page!

[gwilson]

I still think I should buy Transco and rename it "GWilson's Big Building with a Light on Top".

But that is just me.

[citykid09]

I think they fix the water wall park up like a smaller Discovery Green.

[Houston19514]

My mistake -

Galleria Tower I is on Post Oak Boulevard (where Wachovia Securities is located) and Galleria Tower II is on Westheimer. Thank you for the correction.

As for Williams owning 50% of the building is a detail I learned from some Williams employees and the security guards, so again apologies if the number is inaccurate indeed. I'm not positive the occupancy is as little as 16% but I will give the benefit of the doubt to you rather than a rent-a-cop.

Lastly, the Waterfall being shut down hasn't been publicly announced yet. To my understanding, my clear understanding -- A client of mine who is part of the CB Richard Ellis transaction team for the Hines buy out mentioned the detail to me. He said Hines repurchased the building back but the deal still left the waterwall in question.

I will definitely find out more as soon as I can.

Well, to be precise, Williams does not now and never has owned a single square inch of the building. They are merely a tenant. My information regarding Williams' occupancy of 16% of the building is from an SEC filing made by Hines, so I think it's pretty accurate and reliable.

Regarding the waterwall, I think someone has been pulling your leg. First, Cushman & Wakefield handled the transaction on behalf of the sellers. I think Hines handled their own end of the deal, so I'm not sure that CB Richard Ellis had anything to do with it.

More to the point, the deal did not leave ownership of the waterwall in question. In the transaction, Hines bought a 47.8% interest in the waterwall. And another Hines entity already owned the other 52.2% interest. End result: It's 100% owned by Hines. Given that it is part of the package that makes Williams Tower one of the very best buildings in Houston, it's a little hard to imagine Hines tearing down the waterwall.

[Subdude]

As nostalgic as the shopping center was, I don't considered it a historical landmark.

The waterwall is a completely different icon. It is a landmark on it's own, a beautiful modern masterpiece that was unfortunately built on private property.

The city should try to buy it before it is too late.

I would be hard pressed to argue that the waterwall is more "historic" than the shopping center.

The theater was the only thing worth saving. And even so, only fanboys would use that theater to see artsy movies, Rocky Horror, and the Academy Awards. I like my stadium seating movie theaters.

Implying that it's OK to demolish the oldest extant theater in the city because it is only used by "fanboys" to see "artsy" movies is about as shallow as it gets. Don't worry, there will always be plenty of multiplexes with stadium seating catering to people who think like that.

Or maybe the River Oaks should just start showing more Jim Carrey comedies, or Bruce Willis action flix. You know, real crowd pleasing movies, not that "artsy" stuff. Then it might be worth saving.

[lockmat]

I would be hard pressed to argue that the waterwall is more "historic" than the shopping center.

It may not be more "historic" but I bet tons more people care more about the waterwall than they do the theatre.

[Pumapayam]

I would be hard pressed to argue that the waterwall is more "historic" than the shopping center.

Implying that it's OK to demolish the oldest extant theater in the city because it is only used by "fanboys" to see "artsy" movies is about as shallow as it gets. Don't worry, there will always be plenty of multiplexes with stadium seating catering to people who think like that.

Or maybe the River Oaks should just start showing more Jim Carrey comedies, or Bruce Willis action flix. You know, real crowd pleasing movies, not that "artsy" stuff. Then it might be worth saving.

I will set up a HAIF poll in a new thread then so we don't digress as to which landmark is more valuable, and it should give you an idea which is important to most people.

The waterwall is on private land, but people treat it like a public park. Everyone knows about it, and everyone in Houston has been there at least once.

River Oaks Theatre is only used by an elite few who appreciate the old charm that the theatre has, but most people prefer to see movies with digital picture, sound, and stadium seating. Even those theatres are starting to show some of the more unknown films to attract all types of customers.

River Oaks Theatre does not hold a candle to the Williams Waterwall. I have a stronger connection with the waterwall than an old theatre.

Vote in the poll here.

[musicman]

everyone in Houston has been there at least once.

false.

River Oaks Theatre is only used by an elite few

false.

[Pumapayam]

false.

I post my response to this here.

[swtsig]

Well, to be precise, Williams does not now and never has owned a single square inch of the building. They are merely a tenant. My information regarding Williams' occupancy of 16% of the building is from an SEC filing made by Hines, so I think it's pretty accurate and reliable.

Regarding the waterwall, I think someone has been pulling your leg. First, Cushman & Wakefield handled the transaction on behalf of the sellers. I think Hines handled their own end of the deal, so I'm not sure that CB Richard Ellis had anything to do with it.

More to the point, the deal did not leave ownership of the waterwall in question. In the transaction, Hines bought a 47.8% interest in the waterwall. And another Hines entity already owned the other 52.2% interest. End result: It's 100% owned by Hines. Given that it is part of the package that makes Williams Tower one of the very best buildings in Houston, it's a little hard to imagine Hines tearing down the waterwall.

i'll agree and say insofar as i know, CBRE acts only as the landlord rep for williams tower... not sure if they've been part of any sale transactions.

Edited June 13, 2008 by swtsig

[sanguine entity]

and yet another new member... hello

I work in Williams Tower for HOK architecture firm as an architecture/design technician. I've spoken with a few old timers here in the office about this topic and here is what I have found out.

Wachovia hardly compares as a big time tenet in Williams Tower. They claim they own four floors and how that is a big deal... square footage wise they probably don't have more than HOK's three floors. Williams is on the 1st, 2nd, 34th and 35th floor. The first floor is split with Knoll and the art gallery giving them barely a 1/4 of that floor. The 2nd floor is also split with three other groups giving them less than the first. 34th and 35th to my knowledge are the only completely leased floors.

HOK has 3 complete floors currently but will probably drop to 2 1/2 by the end of this year... Hellmuth Obata Kassabaum Tower hahaha

So if the name should be changed to anything besides Williams... it surely wouldn't belong to Wachovia. As far as I understand this situation, Wachovia pays more for the prime space it has and ensures that the Wachovia logo is greatly seen upon entering the building... it is still hard to see amongst all the art typically in the lobby and more so difficult when Knoll has 10,000 sq feet of furniture exhibit just begging for people to come in.

Well, to be precise, Williams does not now and never has owned a single square inch of the building. They are merely a tenant. My information regarding Williams' occupancy of 16% of the building is from an SEC filing made by Hines, so I think it's pretty accurate and reliable.

Regarding the waterwall, I think someone has been pulling your leg. First, Cushman & Wakefield handled the transaction on behalf of the sellers. I think Hines handled their own end of the deal, so I'm not sure that CB Richard Ellis had anything to do with it.

More to the point, the deal did not leave ownership of the waterwall in question. In the transaction, Hines bought a 47.8% interest in the waterwall. And another Hines entity already owned the other 52.2% interest. End result: It's 100% owned by Hines. Given that it is part of the package that makes Williams Tower one of the very best buildings in Houston, it's a little hard to imagine Hines tearing down the waterwall.

Williams at a time was the largest tenet (may still be technically) and as far as I can tell, never wanted to "own" the tower. But as the largest tenet it had a say on the name change when the ownership switched last. Hines, also does not own the building. A long long long time ago when cars looked completely different Hines owned this building. No one in this office is sure of exactly who owns the building now but is definitely a middle eastern developer, probably someone associated with Nakheel. Hines for nearly a decade has been the manager of the building. Not the owner. This is probably easily confused since almost everything with the building from our security badges to many of the memos laying around say Hines.

On to the ludicrous idea of the Waterwall being demo'd. This is most definitely a fly-turned-elephant situation with something passed down through at least twenty people. Someone with Hines probably said "the repairs on the waterwall aren't worth a damn" (and they're not, the waterwall is seemingly always under maintenance now) and there was probably a delivery person in the office that heard that little bit of venting and carried down the 64 stories of elevator rides back to the loading dock where a group of people on a cigarette break all collaborated around the delivery person with "hot" gossip. This group then dispersed and one of them probably ran into a Wachovia employee on the first floor and continued to mention the gossip further. Thus bringing us to the Wachovia water tank gossip that brought it to this page.

In my mind, it would be absolutely insane for the current building manager, Hines, to even think about demoing the waterwall. First, they claim nothing but the upmost respect for architecture and great architects as one of HOK's clients. Williams/Transco/something middle eastern Tower is a Phillip Johnson building. PJ designed the building and the waterwall as "campus beautification". Most all great towers have some sort of plaza, sculpture, oddness that is beautiful or accepted to all the people who smoke by it. To take down the waterwall would not only disrupt/uprage the laymen of Houston who have grown to love the mysterious water wall, it would make PJ turn in his grave as he shouted at the desecration of his thoroughly thought out site! Secondly, Hines owns/manages many starcatect buildings and prides itself in keeping these great pieces of work intact. Taking away the waterwall from Williams Tower would be looked down from every architecture historian in the country and probably some abroad as the dumbest thing any manager could have done to this site. Thirdly, most importantly... the waterwall is currently undergoing a major overall in its infrastructure. Hines would not be paying so much to have its pipes carefully maintained if it were planning on destroying it. Just last week I noticed a large amount of piping being replaced on the west side of the waterwall. If you go there today you will see dirt all along this side where they had been working.

It is fact that the waterwall is a pain to keep up. During the movie shooting (Tree of Life) where Sean Penn and Brad Pitt were here, a lot of maintenance was occurring on the site for the waterwall. Since it is quite a large structure I'm sure keeping this lug pristine is a bit of work and a lot of dough and most importantly... endlessly worth it ; )

[travelguy_73]

and yet another new member... hello

I work in Williams Tower for HOK architecture firm as an architecture/design technician. I've spoken with a few old timers here in the office about this topic and here is what I have found out.

Wachovia hardly compares as a big time tenet in Williams Tower. They claim they own four floors and how that is a big deal... square footage wise they probably don't have more than HOK's three floors. Williams is on the 1st, 2nd, 34th and 35th floor. The first floor is split with Knoll and the art gallery giving them barely a 1/4 of that floor. The 2nd floor is also split with three other groups giving them less than the first. 34th and 35th to my knowledge are the only completely leased floors.

HOK has 3 complete floors currently but will probably drop to 2 1/2 by the end of this year... Hellmuth Obata Kassabaum Tower hahaha

So if the name should be changed to anything besides Williams... it surely wouldn't belong to Wachovia. As far as I understand this situation, Wachovia pays more for the prime space it has and ensures that the Wachovia logo is greatly seen upon entering the building... it is still hard to see amongst all the art typically in the lobby and more so difficult when Knoll has 10,000 sq feet of furniture exhibit just begging for people to come in.

Williams at a time was the largest tenet (may still be technically) and as far as I can tell, never wanted to "own" the tower. But as the largest tenet it had a say on the name change when the ownership switched last. Hines, also does not own the building. A long long long time ago when cars looked completely different Hines owned this building. No one in this office is sure of exactly who owns the building now but is definitely a middle eastern developer, probably someone associated with Nakheel. Hines for nearly a decade has been the manager of the building. Not the owner. This is probably easily confused since almost everything with the building from our security badges to many of the memos laying around say Hines.

On to the ludicrous idea of the Waterwall being demo'd. This is most definitely a fly-turned-elephant situation with something passed down through at least twenty people. Someone with Hines probably said "the repairs on the waterwall aren't worth a damn" (and they're not, the waterwall is seemingly always under maintenance now) and there was probably a delivery person in the office that heard that little bit of venting and carried down the 64 stories of elevator rides back to the loading dock where a group of people on a cigarette break all collaborated around the delivery person with "hot" gossip. This group then dispersed and one of them probably ran into a Wachovia employee on the first floor and continued to mention the gossip further. Thus bringing us to the Wachovia water tank gossip that brought it to this page.

In my mind, it would be absolutely insane for the current building manager, Hines, to even think about demoing the waterwall. First, they claim nothing but the upmost respect for architecture and great architects as one of HOK's clients. Williams/Transco/something middle eastern Tower is a Phillip Johnson building. PJ designed the building and the waterwall as "campus beautification". Most all great towers have some sort of plaza, sculpture, oddness that is beautiful or accepted to all the people who smoke by it. To take down the waterwall would not only disrupt/uprage the laymen of Houston who have grown to love the mysterious water wall, it would make PJ turn in his grave as he shouted at the desecration of his thoroughly thought out site! Secondly, Hines owns/manages many starcatect buildings and prides itself in keeping these great pieces of work intact. Taking away the waterwall from Williams Tower would be looked down from every architecture historian in the country and probably some abroad as the dumbest thing any manager could have done to this site. Thirdly, most importantly... the waterwall is currently undergoing a major overall in its infrastructure. Hines would not be paying so much to have its pipes carefully maintained if it were planning on destroying it. Just last week I noticed a large amount of piping being replaced on the west side of the waterwall. If you go there today you will see dirt all along this side where they had been working.

It is fact that the waterwall is a pain to keep up. During the movie shooting (Tree of Life) where Sean Penn and Brad Pitt were here, a lot of maintenance was occurring on the site for the waterwall. Since it is quite a large structure I'm sure keeping this lug pristine is a bit of work and a lot of dough and most importantly... endlessly worth it ; )

While I agree with you on the silliness regarding the rumor the water wall will come down, Hines absolutely positively owns Williams Tower. It was purchased from Fosterlane (the Kuwaiti interest you noted in your post) earlier this year.

Edited June 24, 2008 by travelguy_73

[Pumapayam]

Hey, what happened to the rotating beacon?

I was driving home tonight and it was off.

Is this some recent energy saving consequence?

[Houston19514]

FWIW, the water wall is running again, after being down for quite a few weeks for presumably expensive repairs. Not the sort of thing one imagines an owner would bother with after "announcing", or for that matter even considering, that they are going to tear it down.

[houstonmacbro]

I caught the tail end of a story by ABC 13 saying something about the Williams Tower and all the land around it being sold. Can anybody pull the story or has anybody heard about this? Is it for development? Pardon the lack of info.

Not sure if this belongs here but has anyone ever noticed this satellite dish looking thing on the south side, about mid-way up the tower?

It seems like an odd protrusion on the building.

What is that?

[editor]

To get things started, here is a picture of one of Houston's most beloved, iconic, fundamental structures.

• Subject: The Williams Tower
  
• Location: West Loop/Galleria Area
  
• Date: January, 2008
  
• Photographer: Wayne Lorentz
  

[20thStDad]

For the first time in my 7 years in Houston I got to visit the Williams Tower today, it was great. I had a meeting on the 54th floor, the view was incredible. Well, aside from the ridiculously visible haze that our city has this time of year. Nasty. Downtown was all fuzzy, even from that close. It was still cool though, a very nice building.

[editor]

Transco Tower, originally uploaded by bilbao58.

Houston's favorite beacon splatters its pattern across the night sky. Looks like a giant movie projector!

Thanks to bilbao58 for this one.

You can see lots more great pictures, and add your own -- dive in to
the HAIF Flickr Pool.

[citizen4rmptown]

i see the light!

wow, great picture

[rsb320]

Carol-Ann, go toward the light.

Awesome picture.

[Jeebus]

Just think how awesome this building will look when dwarfed by the 89 story Deyaar tower!

[crunchtastic]

Carol-Ann, go toward the light.

There is peace and serenity in the light.