800 Bell St. (Former Exxon Building) Conversion to Residential

[cloud713]

ive heard a few rumors that this building will be bought by Chevron for a potential corporate headquarters relocation in the next 5 years, and either joined into Chevrons campus with a large podium-like structure on the parking lot between Exxon and Chevron, connecting the two, or torn down all together and Chevron builds another building. what do you guys think is the likely hood of this?

[lockmat]

Wow, that would be sweet. I'd prefer they keep it as is.

I was downtown today and I really like it.

[Fortune]

ive heard a few rumors that this building will be bought by Chevron for a potential corporate headquarters relocation in the next 5 years, and either joined into Chevrons campus with a large podium-like structure on the parking lot between Exxon and Chevron, connecting the two, or torn down all together and Chevron builds another building. what do you guys think is the likely hood of this?

I was just about to ask the same thing. I really hope they aren't going to tear the building down. Renovating it sounds good but not tearing it down. Also, if this is true will they buy the building from shorenstein or lease it ? Also why don't they just build a tower on the block with the day care ?

[lockmat]

There are some good sources over at city data saying Chevron will move their headquarters to HOU and that this building could/will be part of the Chevron campus.

Funny...it sure does resemble the other Chevron towers. Hmmm, maybe they're on to something.

Thanks to cloud713 for the link

http://www.city-data.com/forum/houston/1900307-chevron-announces-plans-building-50-story-6.html

Edit: looks he already explained all that. But I think the resemblance might be the biggest giveaway especially with their new tower showing they want to stick to this theme.

Edited July 8, 2013 by lockmat

[infinite_jim]

Why would Shorenstein pay good money for a tunnel connection to the Wedge tower if it's bldg is in the Chevron downtown masterplan?

[Montrose1100]

There are some good sources over at city data saying Chevron will move their headquarters to HOU and that this building could/will be part of the Chevron campus.

Funny...it sure does resemble the other Chevron towers. Hmmm, maybe they're on to something.

Thanks to cloud713 for the link

http://www.city-data.com/forum/houston/1900307-chevron-announces-plans-building-50-story-6.html

Edit: looks he already explained all that. But I think the resemblance might be the biggest giveaway especially with their new tower showing they want to stick to this theme.

 

It can't be true that the building's anchors go off into every surrounding block. City-Data is easily one of the least resourceful forums on the internet.

[lockmat]

It can't be true that the building's anchors go off into every surrounding block. City-Data is easily one of the least resourceful forums on the internet.

Why can't it be true?

Why would Shorenstein pay good money for a tunnel connection to the Wedge tower if it's bldg is in the Chevron downtown masterplan?

I'm not familiar with the tunnels. Shorenstein is already building a tunnel connection?

[infinite_jim]

Why can't it be true?

I'm not familiar with the tunnels. Shorenstein is already building a tunnel connection?

B/c there are foundations where some of those parking lots are now (like the HP lot) When the Humble tower was built there was nothing but single and double storey commercial bldgs throughout the area. Also I can't think of any logical reason to have some weighted counter-balance "anchor" underneath adjacent properties unless the bldg was intended to lean like the tower of Pisa.

Edit:

Previously mentioned was that the closest tunnel connection is the sunken lobby of the Wedge tower; however Chevron could opt for both connections (across Milam due north-west by skywalk or tunnel and diagonally north via tunnel) with a secured Wedge tower connection. Shorenstein has stated that they wanted to renovate the bldg and add a tunnel connection.

Edited July 8, 2013 by infinite_jim

[Naviguessor]

I always thought that Enron2 was a brilliant deisgn that complitmented, and honored, its two closest neighbors/parents. The shape and wall curtin from Enron1.  The proportions and the top detail echos the Petroleum club of the Exxon.  Even the overhangs from the Exxon building are "mirrored" on the side of Enron2 that faces Exxon (look close)...but not on the side that faces its father...I mean...Enron1.  Really Brilliant and sensitive.  The Exxon building would fit beautifully in to the "Campus".  I bet that Chevron would add some significant green space on one of the blocks in the area.  Park or Plaza. 

[lockmat]

B/c there are foundations where some of those parking lots are now (like the HP lot) When the Humble tower was built there was nothing but single and double storey commercial bldgs throughout the area. Also I can't think of any logical reason to have some weighted counter-balance "anchor" underneath adjacent properties unless the bldg was intended to lean like the tower of Pisa.

Edit:

Previously mentioned was that the closest tunnel connection is the sunken lobby of the Wedge tower; however Chevron could opt for both connections (across Milam due north-west by skywalk or tunnel and diagonally north via tunnel) with a secured Wedge tower connection. Shorenstein has stated that they wanted to renovate the bldg and add a tunnel connection.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if this source thinks Chevron would buy or lease from Shorenstein.

But it does sound a little fishy. Had Chevron not thought of buying when Sh. bought it? Seems they would have saved money.

Although you have to admit this rendering makes you wonder.

[cloud713]

It can't be true that the building's anchors go off into every surrounding block. City-Data is easily one of the least resourceful forums on the internet.

 

then why arent the 4 parking lots to the N/E/S/W sides developed with towers? it was the tallest building west of the Mississippi when they built it. maybe they were worried about our soil being different or something and wanted to better anchor it? i hope those rumors are false so that those lots can be developed, but that info apparently came from someone affiliated with the Exxonmobil building.

 

I always thought that Enron2 was a brilliant deisgn that complitmented, and honored, its two closest neighbors/parents. The shape and wall curtin from Enron1.  The proportions and the top detail echos the Petroleum club of the Exxon.  Even the overhangs from the Exxon building are "mirrored" on the side of Enron2 that faces Exxon (look close)...but not on the side that faces its father...I mean...Enron1.  Really Brilliant and sensitive.  The Exxon building would fit beautifully in to the "Campus".  I bet that Chevron would add some significant green space on one of the blocks in the area.  Park or Plaza. 

i was just thinking the other day the lot to the north of Exxonmobil would be a prime place to implement my submerged park idea linking the streets to the tunnel network, with the ring of retail/cafes around the bottom and openings connecting into the tunnel system (through Wedge, would also link to Exxonmobil, Travis Tower, and the plot to the north east of exxonmobil, on main street along the light rail line, where i envision the park spurring a residential tower). Mayor Parker was talking about wanting to better connect the streets with the tunnel level and that side of downtown isnt linked to the tunnel system very well, but its starting to sprout residential projects which will need the retail/dining.

 

Thanks for the clarification. I don't know if this source thinks Chevron would buy or lease from Shorenstein.

But it does sound a little fishy. Had Chevron not thought of buying when Sh. bought it? Seems they would have saved money.

Although you have to admit this rendering makes you wonder.

 

ive wondered this as well. it would be really awkward if Chevron bought the building instead of Shorenstein and leased it out to Exxon for the remainder of their stay, haha. 

and the tunnel connection isnt planned to happen until the renovations, correct? this source said Chevron would prefer to buy the building out from Shorenstein. it would be a shame if they tore it down, but if the 4 anchors rumor is true and its preventing those lots from being developed, maybe this tower coming down and Chevron rebuilding on the lot closer to their campus is better to open up new lots right off of the light rail line.

 

 

[Naviguessor]

Yeah, Cloud. Loved your idea about a submerged park and this would be an awesome location for it. The Exxon building would look awesome framed by the street level opening. The whole effect could be very mid-century. Hot!

[Ross]

I really doubt there are any "anchors" running out into the adjacent lots. Exxon has never owned those lots, as far as I can tell, and you don't get to use someone's property without paying for it.

[lockmat]

then why arent the 4 parking lots to the N/E/S/W sides developed with towers? it was the tallest building west of the Mississippi when they built it. maybe they were worried about our soil being different or something and wanted to better anchor it? i hope those rumors are false so that those lots can be developed, but that info apparently came from someone affiliated with the Exxonmobil building.

i was just thinking the other day the lot to the north of Exxonmobil would be a prime place to implement my submerged park idea linking the streets to the tunnel network, with the ring of retail/cafes around the bottom and openings connecting into the tunnel system (through Wedge, would also link to Exxonmobil, Travis Tower, and the plot to the north east of exxonmobil, on main street along the light rail line, where i envision the park spurring a residential tower). Mayor Parker was talking about wanting to better connect the streets with the tunnel level and that side of downtown isnt linked to the tunnel system very well, but its starting to sprout residential projects which will need the retail/dining.

ive wondered this as well. it would be really awkward if Chevron bought the building instead of Shorenstein and leased it out to Exxon for the remainder of their stay, haha.

and the tunnel connection isnt planned to happen until the renovations, correct? this source said Chevron would prefer to buy the building out from Shorenstein. it would be a shame if they tore it down, but if the 4 anchors rumor is true and its preventing those lots from being developed, maybe this tower coming down and Chevron rebuilding on the lot closer to their campus is better to open up new lots right off of the light rail line.

Great point about Chevron leasing to Exxon.

Also, are you referring to the Gensler idea?

[cloud713]

Great point about Chevron leasing to Exxon.

Also, are you referring to the Gensler idea?

 

Gensler idea? not sure what that is, you quoted all three portions of my reply.

[lockmat]

Gensler idea? not sure what that is, you quoted all three portions of my reply.

 

What you described sounded like this:

 

 

http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2013/6/24/town-square-initiative-houston.html

[cloud713]

What you described sounded like this:

 

 

http://www.gensleron.com/cities/2013/6/24/town-square-initiative-houston.html

woah, ive never seen that before! yet again someone beats me to the punch... i was envisioning it to be less of a typical "park" though, but more of a submerged promenade with more retail and cafes with outdoor seating areas around the grassy central area. and large trees to provide shade (or some of those suspended horizontal roman shades to open in the summer time). an outdoor area you could envision a farmers market or something taking place in. i dont see a single tree/shaded area in that proposal, it gets HOT in Houston.

was that planned for the parking lot/block to the east of Shell Plaza? when i was looking at the map of the tunnel system i noticed all four sides of that lot are surrounded by the tunnel system and that was my first idea for a submerged park location, but i felt that the lack of any vacant lots around the block took away from the parks ability to spur future development, and given the fact that all the buildings surrounding that property are office it would only get used during lunch break, so i decided it would be better fit for the south side of downtown where some residential activity is currently taking place and where the tunnel system could really use the street access and improvements.

Edited July 9, 2013 by cloud713

[Montrose1100]

I really hope that isn't a serious proposal. Jones Plaza sunken in. Besides, the only thing that needs to go south of 1 Shell Plaza is a +1,000ft skyscraper. I would rather it remain a surface lot until oil prices skyrocket.

[cloud713]

lockmat, was that a serious proposal? what ever came of it?

[lockmat]

lockmat, was that a serious proposal? what ever came of it?

Not sure, I don't think so. I think they're hoping someone comes up with something similar. They're trying to improve the area and spur ideas.

[cloud713]

I really doubt there are any "anchors" running out into the adjacent lots. Exxon has never owned those lots, as far as I can tell, and you don't get to use someone's property without paying for it.

 

i emailed the city of Houston planning and development about it and they said the building plans for Exxonmobil building could be viewed at 1002 Washington. i still dont understand why all 4 lots around the tower have remained vacant for all this time.

[JJxvi]

Submerged plaza/townsquare idea sounds awesome.

[jgriff]

i emailed the city of Houston planning and development about it and they said the building plans for Exxonmobil building could be viewed at 1002 Washington. i still dont understand why all 4 lots around the tower have remained vacant for all this time.

 

There are empty lots all over downtown.

[JJxvi]

Should be easy to find out assuming we're talking about full blocks. See what the HCAD value on the land of those full blocks and see how it compares to their land value on nearby full blocks that would not be impaired. If its equal, then you can bet that those property owners aren't going in to tell them "you cant build a tower on our land because of the exxon building" every year.

If you've got four surrounding blocks at like $75 and Exxon, other blocks at $250 or something then there might be something to it.

Edited July 9, 2013 by JJxvi

[Montrose1100]

Just email the architect. That's what I did whenever I wanted to find out if the FAA regulations were true regarding the Chase Tower and why the observation deck was on the 60th floor

[fernz]

Just email the architect. That's what I did whenever I wanted to find out if the FAA regulations were true regarding the Chase Tower and why the observation deck was on the 60th floor

Why is it on the 60th floor?

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

because that's where the sky lobby is, eh

[Montrose1100]

Why is it on the 60th floor?

Because that was the original height of the building. They added 15 floors late in the design due to the office demand. Edited July 10, 2013 by Montrose1100

[fernz]

Because that was the original height of the building. They added 15 floors late in the design due to the office demand.

Cool. Thanks for the info.

[Houston19514]

Because that was the original height of the building. They added 15 floors late in the design due to the office demand.

 

That's a new one.   Isn't it just because that's where the elevator banks transfer?  (Just as with the sky lobbies in Wells Fargo and Transco/Wiliams Tower, and Heritage Plaza are located where the elevator banks meet and have nothing to do with late additions to the height of the buildings.)