811 Main: Office Skyscraper At 811 Main St.

[marc]

well, with the brick at the bottom and then an all glass tower on the top... would that standout with the buildings around it or will it just be some other tall building in houston that didnt live up to the hype? the architect on the project has very futuristic desgins with the other buildings he has done. the one on top of my head is the never built AIM Corporate Headquarters that would have been in the galleria. im curious how he can make a postmodern building with a little bit of 1900's houston with it.. it could be a challenge dont you think?...

It can be done, IF, it is done cautiously and carefully. By that, i mean don't sell out and make it look like a dozen other Houston skyscrapers. It is no secret that Houston has her own style. Just look at Sim City 4. One of the architectural choices is Houston 1990s. Which means......many of Houston's scrapers have a similar look to them with a few that stand out as unique.

Like all of us here, i pray to the architectural gods....now that Houston has a market for skyscrapers in DT and UT, that the developers take the opportunity to comission some really outstanding designs. i pray.

m.

PS- QUESTION- Many very popular architects (Calatrava, Rogers, Gehry, Meir, Piano, etc.) have their own unique style, but then seem to market their style where it becomes more of a type. (i don't know if my thought is coherent here) ANYWAY, my question is ....Is it safe to assume that when lesser known architects are hired we can look to their other projects to get a gist of what Houston could get OR are their projects different depending on the purpose of the building?? So, in other words, could i look up the chosen architects' portfolios and get a gist of what Houston could get OR are all bets off until we get official renderings? Does my question make sense?

[strickn]

...don't sell out and make it look like a dozen other Houston skyscrapers. It is no secret that Houston has her own style.

Many very popular architects (Calatrava, Rogers, Gehry, Meir, Piano, etc.) have their own unique style, but then seem to market their style where it becomes more of a type. ...Is it safe to assume that when lesser known architects are hired we can look to their other projects to get a gist of what Houston could get OR are their projects different depending on the purpose of the building?? So, in other words, could i look up the chosen architects' portfolios and get a gist of what Houston could get OR are all bets off until we get official renderings? Does my question make sense?

I will address both because I'm really still holding out hope for some involved discussion of my previous question. Yours is also worthwhile, but I can answer it, unlike my own. Pickard Chilton can very likely be depended upon to recycle, with modifications for site and client, previous designs on which they have put in the working hours but which they unfortunately have not gotten built. When a modern Houston-styled tower did not get built as Greenway Plaza's tallest (for AIM Funds), Pickard Chilton stripped two of its four curved sides off into sheer walls and made it Atlanta's newest sensation, 1180 Peachtree, a few years later. But that is not the primary reason that I make the claim.

The description of Hines 47 so far has been that it rises most of the way up and then, surprisingly, splits into two interlocking volumes. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but I thought that was a novel strategy too, when I saw it proposed for 30-then-40-storey Victory Tower in Dallas as a teenager. If you go to archive.org, the March 2001 version of dallasmetropolis.com still lists it as soon to be under the crane, with completion in 2003. Now that it wasn't built and a second architect designed the Victory Tower that will be built, you get one guess as to the architect of the original Victory Tower:

http://web.archive.org/web/20010309225519/.../undercrane.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20020502093444/...alctm-uc063.JPG

I'm not going to embed the rendering, or one with the blue glass finished facade (although you can see it on other websites, including one that starts with an 'e'), because I'd rather the discussion not spark off in the direction of how great the tower is and how we'd better not let anybody in Dallas hear that we're getting their leftovers rather than a building that was designed for Houston with 'her own style' held in mind like we hold it.

Now, about the 'one building per block' tendency:

Edited July 30, 2007 by strickn

[Houston2010]

The Victory building you refer to with links doesn't appear to share one design element with the Hines 47. I can't think of a more different building than the one we've been shown.

[Mister X]

I sure wish the people who have seen the rendering had some basic drawing skills. Drawing rectangles isn't too hard. Just think how cool it would be to reveal the first rendering of this tower to the public (HAIFers), even if it's only a simple home made doodle. You would be a hero around here. Besides, it would give the person who did this an undisputed reputation of being one of the most reliable sources at this website. An instant STAR!

People are getting so anxious to see a rendering of this tower that they are starting to crack.

I'm so cracked I've desided to post my own rendering based on all the descriptions I've heard. Sort of like a police sketching of a crimal suspect.

Someone who has seen the real rendering please let me know if I came close:

Edited July 30, 2007 by Mister X

[Deut28Thirteen]

Have not read this topic in a while and still no rendering. X did you draw those? Nice drawings but I hope Hines does not look like that tower.

[WesternGulf]

Nice sketches Mister X.

[Mister X]

Thanx. I hope the real tower looks better than that too. And that someone who's seen the actual rendering can use my guesstimation renderings to give us a better idea of the real deal. The whole terrace thing 2/3rds the way up has me a bit baffled. As does the "interlocking volumes". I based the overall look on the Pan Am building, but who knows.

Anyone have an idea WHEN the actual renderings will come out?

[The Great Hizzy!]

I'm actually impressed by your committment "to know the truth", Mister X. LOL!

It's great to speculate, and yet without a real feel for what Pickard-Chilton (I believe I spelled that correctly) discussed with Hines--including what elements it wanted to emphasize, what features would be most prominent in terms of the building's functional points--it's difficult to really put your finger on it--the building's design, that is.

My gut, however, leads me to believe that it will share some design elements as the canceled building that would've gone up for AIM in Greenway Plaza (a lovely building, IMO, which looked similar to the tower that went up in Midtown Atlanta a couple of years ago). Then again, it's just speculation, because Hines may have different interests that would affect how certain facial treatments are handled or how the building is crowned or the type of materials that are used (that alone can dictate how a building is shaped or what have you).

Regardless, 0I'd like to think that there will be a preliminary design "released' in the next couple of months. Maybe mid-Fall at the latest.

If not, then by god this had better be one kick-butt design to have been shrouded in such secrecy for so long leading up to groundbreaking.

[dalparadise]

Thanx. I hope the real tower looks better than that too. And that someone who's seen the actual rendering can use my guesstimation renderings to give us a better idea of the real deal. The whole terrace thing 2/3rds the way up has me a bit baffled. As does the "interlocking volumes". I based the overall look on the Pan Am building, but who knows.

Anyone have an idea WHEN the actual renderings will come out?

They are nice sketches, but that really looks like a building suited for Ft. Worth, not Houston.

[pm91]

i hope it will look like one of pickard chilton usual designs like the aim and the atlanta one. i think it will add a new style in houston and will set off a new style boom in downtown. i havent really heard and if i have i forgot. but when exactly does hines 47 (800 main) breakground?

[The Great Hizzy!]

If I'm not mistaken, Hines 47 could potentially be about 750 feet or so, which is taller than what the AIM Tower would've been or what the tower in Atlanta is. A building's height can also affect how the building is designed and whether a certain shape, crown, facade, etc works.

That said, I agree that a 750-foot version of the AIM Tower would still look nice, although maybe not as visually impressive perched among the other towers downtown as it would be standing more freely in Greenway Plaza.

Edited July 31, 2007 by The Great Hizzy!

[dalparadise]

I just hope it's more "architecturally significant" than Hines' last building here.

[Mister X]

Here's some more. Yes. I'm just THAT bored. I doodle skyscrapers when there's nothing on TV. Besides, if I keep guessing maybe someone will post the real rendering just to shut me up.

Basically this is the same thing I posted before only made simpler by making it a 6 sided outer walled structure vs. an 8 sided outer walled structure. Forgive my ignorance of proper architecture lingo. I crank out thumbs for a living and speak graphic design lingo, but I don't normally draw buildings except for fun.

Please don't take all these off-the-clock thumbnail doodles as my idea of great architecture or what I necessarily want to see in downtown Houston. I'm trying to stay within the parameters of what has been revealed so far about Hines 47 with the hopes that people who have seen it will give me more info so that I can make the necessary revisions - or better yet someone post the real renderings.

...So, we know that looking down at it, it's longer on one axis than another and has horizontally angled walls similar to the Pan Am building. All glass. No strong horizontal or vertical lines. Flat roof. Interlocking volumes (whatever that is) and a ~5 story terrace 2/3rds up.

BTW, Great Hizzy, it looks like the AIM building was to have slightly vertically angled or tapered sides near the top of the tower. I have heard no mention of that being applied on Hines 47 before on this website, but I think it would be awesome if it used a similar effect.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Mister X

[Trae]

I wouldn't mind that building in Houston.

[Guest Marty]

Those are some good sketches, they reminded me of the 1957 KRONOS movie.

Edited July 31, 2007 by Marty

[nmainguy]

Here's some more. Yes. I'm just THAT bored. I doodle skyscrapers when there's nothing on TV. Besides, if I keep guessing maybe someone will post the real rendering just to shut me up.

Basically this is the same thing I posted before only made simpler by making it a 6 sided outer walled structure vs. an 8 sided outer walled structure. Forgive my ignorance of proper architecture lingo. I crank out thumbs for a living and speak graphic design lingo, but I don't normally draw buildings except for fun.

Please don't take all these off-the-clock thumbnail doodles as my idea of great architecture or what I necessarily want to see in downtown Houston. I'm trying to stay within the parameters of what has been revealed so far about Hines 47 with the hopes that people who have seen it will give me more info so that I can make the necessary revisions - or better yet someone post the real renderings.

...So, we know that looking down at it, it's longer on one axis than another and has horizontally angled walls similar to the Pan Am building. All glass. No strong horizontal or vertical lines. Interlocking volumes (whatever that is) and a ~5 story terrace 2/3rds up.

BTW, Great Hizzy, it looks like the AIM building was to have slightly vertically angled or tapered sides near the top of the tower. I have heard no mention of that before on this website. I think it would be awesome if Hines 47 used a similar effect.

You have great imagination. I'm sure someone faulted whoever aborted the three buildings currently occupied by The Chronicle. If Hinz's corporate successors have decided not to incorporate the Montague into their plans then I suppose their long term goal is to flip a short term investment into a short term profit. Such is the expediency of today's world. On the other hand Donald Trump-ass-wipe supreme that he is-at least gets that preservation combined with enhancement means big $$$. I'd love to see your doodles, BTW.

OPPS: OK..I saw your doodles after I posted.

Edited July 31, 2007 by nmainguy

[Vertigo58]

Those are some good sketches, they reminded me of the 1957 KRONOS movie.

I think that was one of the strangest films ever made. Very weird. Think I had nightmares about it. I think the giant legs would pound up & down and move across the landscape?

and the doodles Mr X (the white polar bear) made were quite good indeed!

Will this endeavor ever come into fruition I ask again.

[Deut28Thirteen]

Another great drawing that one looks nice.

[The Great Hizzy!]

In the first of the last two links of sketches that Mister X provided, I can actually see the on on the bottom right being built--of course, with some changes here and there. In fact, the wide fascia versus thin profiles are similar to the W Hotel in Dallas, for example, or the Endeavor in Clear Lake.

[ricco67]

the montague and a couple of the businesses have been boarded up this week, but the convienence store is still open, though.

[theGizmo]

Hey everyone. I went to college in Houston, and I miss it sometimes. Mostly the cool architecture.

I need to come down for a visit. Seems like much has happened downtown since I moved back to Seattle in 1991!

Any new information on City Centre or Discovery Tower? Trammell's website said it could be as much as 1.2 million square feet. That would be huge! Just can't believe it....when I lived in Houston that part of downtown was a no man's land!

[strickn]

Hey everyone. I went to college in Houston, and I miss it sometimes. Mostly the cool architecture.

I need to come down for a visit. Seems like much has happened downtown since I moved back to Seattle in 1991!

Any new information on City Centre or Discovery Tower? Trammell's website said it could be as much as 1.2 million square feet. That would be huge! Just can't believe it....when I lived in Houston that part of downtown was a no man's land!

Gizmo, glad to hear. The area has gone from almost three and three quarter million, when you left, to almost five and three quarter million today, while preserving its place as one of the best and only major cities where lower income families can get a foothold without paying an arm and a leg in the process. Come on back and add to it once you're free to do so.

The skyline, however, is not the place to look for the action (despite the exciting proposals).

http://www.globest.com/news/964_964/houston/162890-1.html

"With construction costs so high, the current rental rates can't support the newer buildings," he says. "We'll have to see much higher rental rates for those buildings to get built. And tenants need the space." David Lee, senior vice president for Houston-based Transwestern, not only agrees, but points out replacement costs for new product will need to have nearly $40-per-sf gross quotes [and the top rate downtown just hit $30, it says in the opening of the article, although it's hard to say how far downtown is from the $40 benchmark, because the $30psf is not a gross quote, it's a triple-net rate] to justify costs. It's a matter of economics. "When in a condition of limited supply, rates will increase closer and closer to the cost of the new replacement product," Lee says. "This is something we've seen before."

That doesn't mean that nothing is going to move forward after all, but don't hold your breath for news on these other proposals.

Edited August 6, 2007 by strickn

[Trae]

Rendering:

No not really, but wouldn't this be nice. If San Francisco doesn't choose this design for their new Transit Center and Tower development, maybe Houston could buy it.

[HtownWxBoy]

Rendering:

No not really, but wouldn't this be nice. If San Francisco doesn't choose this design for their new Transit Center and Tower development, maybe Houston could buy it.

[Triton]

Rendering:

No not really, but wouldn't this be nice. If San Francisco doesn't choose this design for their new Transit Center and Tower development, maybe Houston could buy it.

SOM's design is impressive. We could use a tower like that, but the design definitely wouldn't fit in Houston.

[marc]

Rendering:

No not really, but wouldn't this be nice. If San Francisco doesn't choose this design for their new Transit Center and Tower development, maybe Houston could buy it.

Well, for one: i hope San Fran gets this one. It really fits in with the present skyline. Although i do like the Rogers' red and black themed scraper.

But, a couple of people who say it doesn't "fit" Houston sort of disappoint me. i feel that is what is lacking in vision for Houston.

I do understand incorporating with the existing skyline, but i am also a big believer in BOLD statements. Look at Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, Big John or more recently, Swiss Re Tower, Shanghai World Financial etc. Architects bold enough to create an iconic tower for a city are, in my book, awesome.

OK, let's make it a bit more local and not so lofty. Those of you who know Austin know this: icons that represented Austin for years were quickly brushed aside the moment Frost Bank Tower was erected.

IMHO cities BEG for iconic images. Houston could use a 21st century icon.

If nothing else, thank YOU, TRAE, for keeping us imagining.

Kudos.

m.

[wxman]

Did anybody else's heart skip a beat after seeing this?

[marc]

Did anybody else's heart skip a beat after seeing this?

Yep. I don't care where it is built in the US, just build it!

m.

[Jax]

How long do you guys think we'll have to wait to see a real rendering? How long do they usually keep these things secret? Construction is supposed to start in March, and they have already closed down the buildings scheduled to be demolished right?

[TheNiche]

IMHO cities BEG for iconic images. Houston could use a 21st century icon.

Our icon should be the lack thereof. Nonconformity.

[GovernorAggie]

Our icon should be the lack thereof. Nonconformity.

Our icon should be the lack of an icon? What are you talking about? The lack of one DOES bring us into conformity. The whole idea of an icon is that it's something that sets you or your city or your business apart. That's why companies have logos. C'mon economist Niche, how iconic would a business be with no logo, generic business cards, and products of all the same size, shape, and colors.

Like it or not, NO icon is what would make Houston like almost everywhere else. No icon is why some people say, "Houston, what's there besides NASA?" Icons are why Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, New York, and others are set apart from the Charlottes, Buffalos, Tampas, and Phoenixes of the world. No icons is why most of Sugar Land will feel just like Addison, Round Rock, Leander, McKinney, Plano, Metairie, Mesa, Naperville, Scottsdale, and Fairfax. No need of listing the states because you can be dropped in them all and not tell the difference most of the time.

Thankfully Houston was started in 1836 and not 2006--otherwise there would be no Astrodome (thankfully foolish foreign Deutsche Bank saved it from the Houstonian Efficiciency Complex), no San Jacinto Monument, no Memorial Park (an open park as the "highest and best economical use of the land?"), and maybe even no NASA (today's thinkers would probably use a cost/benefit analysis and say there's no future in space exploration if their thought processes were warped back in time)

Edited August 9, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[marc]

^^^ Hey Governor,

You've been really jaded when it comes to outstanding development in Houston, haven't you?

Me......i keep hoping. I try hard to be optomistic about it. Maybe, just, maybe, some day, we will gain another visionary.

m. keep the faith

[bkjones98]

***

Like it or not, NO icon is what would make Houston like almost everywhere else. No icon is why some people say, "Houston, what's there besides NASA?" Icons are why Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, New York, and others are set apart from the Charlottes, Buffalos, Tampas, and Phoenixes of the world. No icons is why most of Sugar Land will feel just like Addison, Round Rock, Leander, McKinney, Plano, Metairie, Mesa, Naperville, Scottsdale, and Fairfax. No need of listing the states because you can be dropped in them all and not tell the difference most of the time.

***

Well said--very hard to argue with that.

[Jax]

While I agree with the Niche in the sense that it doesn't take an icon to make a place great (Houston is pretty cool as it is), I also think it would be awesome if there were something to make Houston stand out from all the other sprawly big cities. And even if there already is something (as I'm sure some of you would argue), something that would be more visible to the world would be great.

When most people from Canada think of Houston, besides the cowboy stereotypes, they don't think of much besides oil refineries, Enron, and George Bush.

I also agree with the Niche about non-conformity (ie: not another tall observation tower like Dalas, San Antonio, Toronto, Seatle, Moscow, etc), but I don't think no icon is preferable to an icon that is at the same time non-conformant.

[marc]

While I agree with the Niche in the sense that it doesn't take an icon to make a place great (Houston is pretty cool as it is), I also think it would be awesome if there were something to make Houston stand out from all the other sprawly big cities. And even if there already is something (as I'm sure some of you would argue), something that would be more visible to the world would be great.

When most people from Canada think of Houston, besides the cowboy stereotypes, they don't think of much besides oil refineries, Enron, and George Bush.

I also agree with the Niche about non-conformity (ie: not another tall observation tower like Dalas, San Antonio, Toronto, Seatle, Moscow, etc), but I don't think no icon is preferable to an icon that is at the same time non-conformant.

Whoa, with all the "non" this and "non" that, i think i am getting confused as to who likes what.

Anyway, an observation tower? I agree. i don't really want that for Houston either. But i do want some sort of global icon.

m.

Edited August 9, 2007 by marc

[TheNiche]

Our icon should be the lack of an icon? What are you talking about? The lack of one DOES bring us into conformity. The whole idea of an icon is that it's something that sets you or your city or your business apart. That's why companies have logos. C'mon economist Niche, how iconic would a business be with no logo, generic business cards, and products of all the same size, shape, and colors.

Like it or not, NO icon is what would make Houston like almost everywhere else. No icon is why some people say, "Houston, what's there besides NASA?" Icons are why Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, New York, and others are set apart from the Charlottes, Buffalos, Tampas, and Phoenixes of the world. No icons is why most of Sugar Land will feel just like Addison, Round Rock, Leander, McKinney, Plano, Metairie, Mesa, Naperville, Scottsdale, and Fairfax. No need of listing the states because you can be dropped in them all and not tell the difference most of the time.

Have you ever accumulated and sorted through a stack of business cards? Most of them are unremarkable. The most striking card I've ever seen had no logo, just the facts. Very minimalist. I've also seen business cards that come in full color, are double-sided, and one that was metal with a hologram. IMO, that communicates that your firm is wasteful of resources. And the most annoying ones are those that have a shape that isn't uniform with the other 98% and that refuse to be properly indexed.

Are Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, or New York better or worse than other places you listed? For value, I'd rather live here, in Charlotte, Tampa, or Phoenix. Buffalo, not so much. Too cold.

Thankfully Houston was started in 1836 and not 2006--otherwise there would be no Astrodome (thankfully foolish foreign Deutsche Bank saved it from the Houstonian Efficiciency Complex), no San Jacinto Monument, no Memorial Park (an open park as the "highest and best economical use of the land?"), and maybe even no NASA (today's thinkers would probably use a cost/benefit analysis and say there's no future in space exploration if their thought processes were warped back in time)

I agree with you about the construction of the Astrodome. But...the Astrodome would've cost more in present value terms to tear down than it would to mothball. And the fact that it would cost any money at all to mothball is an indicator that the county should've been willing to pay someone to take it off their hands and do something even minimally productive with it. I've come to believe that any statement to the effect that they were going to tear it down was PR whitewash, an incredible threat, to give them a negotiating advantage and to discourage popular proposals by firms requiring subsidy.

The San Jac monument was built during the depression. Otherwise, it'd never have stood a shot. It is one of countless depression-era monuments and public facilities throughout the nation. In that sense, it is not special.

Open land, especially along bodies of water with a propensity for flooding, frequently have a highest and best economic use that is recreational. Also, that it was donated by the private sector is a pretty clear indicator of the preferences of the owners of capital.

NASA probably was ultimately more wasteful than not as far as finances were concerned, except that it prodded the Russians to make huge investments in their own space program, and that we were better equipped to fight an economic war of attrition than they were. In the broader context of the Cold War, it was probably reasonable. Today it wouldn't make sense--neither does a manned trip to Mars. ...and as far as the decision to locate NASA in the Clear Lake area, that was also probably a mistake in that day and age.

[Jax]

Are Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, or New York better or worse than other places you listed? For value, I'd rather live here, in Charlotte, Tampa, or Phoenix

It's not a question of whether they are any better or worse, it's a question of whether they are more recognizable on a global scale, and yes they are. And I think most people would agree that it's a good thing for a city to be well recognized.

Last time I was back in Canada, I met an asian dude (possibly vietnamese) who told me "Houston is a cool place!". That's about the most recognition I've seen Houston getting!

[nmainguy]

Because spines are straight.

No they're not. It's just an easy term for lazy people who can't differentiate between a corridor and a spine.

Any chance we can move this discussion back on topic?

It's your site, Boss. I suggest you leave your cash-cow alone.

[TheNiche]

No they're not. It's just an easy term for lazy people who can't differentiate between a corridor and a spine.

It's your site, Boss. I suggest you leave your cash-cow alone.

Downtown Houston is neither a corridor or a spine.

[nmainguy]

Downtown Houston is neither a corridor or a spine.

Of course it's not. Who said it was? I was just pointing out that you don't know anything about a spine. Now please proceed.

[TheNiche]

Of course it's not. Who said it was? I was just pointing out that you don't know anything about a spine. Now please proceed.

[VelvetJ]

Our icon should be the lack of an icon? What are you talking about? The lack of one DOES bring us into conformity. The whole idea of an icon is that it's something that sets you or your city or your business apart. That's why companies have logos. C'mon economist Niche, how iconic would a business be with no logo, generic business cards, and products of all the same size, shape, and colors.

Like it or not, NO icon is what would make Houston like almost everywhere else. No icon is why some people say, "Houston, what's there besides NASA?" Icons are why Las Vegas, Orlando, Washington, New York, and others are set apart from the Charlottes, Buffalos, Tampas, and Phoenixes of the world. No icons is why most of Sugar Land will feel just like Addison, Round Rock, Leander, McKinney, Plano, Metairie, Mesa, Naperville, Scottsdale, and Fairfax. No need of listing the states because you can be dropped in them all and not tell the difference most of the time.

Thankfully Houston was started in 1836 and not 2006--otherwise there would be no Astrodome (thankfully foolish foreign Deutsche Bank saved it from the Houstonian Efficiciency Complex), no San Jacinto Monument, no Memorial Park (an open park as the "highest and best economical use of the land?"), and maybe even no NASA (today's thinkers would probably use a cost/benefit analysis and say there's no future in space exploration if their thought processes were warped back in time)

GovernorAggie for MAYOR of Houston, GovernorAggie for MAYOR of Houston!!!!!! Say it brother.

[Ethanra]

I don't understand why they have to demolish structures when their is empty parking lots two blocks away along Main. Is their a logical reason for this?

[Saddleman]

Hines doesn't appear to own or have building rights to those parking lots. Maybe Hines tried to get one of those parking lots but the owner was a dick and wouldn't sell. Or maybe they didn't try to buy it. Or maybe Hines is haggling on price to purchase one of those parking lots as I type. Or maybe they could careless about those parking lots. Or maybe someone else bought the parking lots for development. Or maybe whoever owns the parking lots likes the parking lot business. Or maybe the owner of the parking lot wants to develope something better than just an office tower, but they haven't released anything to the public about yet. Or maybe whatever.... There are many possible reasons why Hines isn't building or trying to build on those parking lots. I just don't think Hines should be made a 'bad guy' or whatever just because they're going to build on a lot that has buildings already on it instead of on a parking lot.

[sevfiv]

I just don't think Hines should be made a 'bad guy' or whatever just because they're going to build on a lot that has buildings already on it instead of on a parking lot.

nope, that's just their business (or how they do it, rather). imo, it would be nice if, since they are determined to build on this particular plot, they stepped up to the plate and adaptively reused the structures - much like the Stowers building and Spire Realty (before they did the Jekyll and Hyde thing with the Penn Hotel).

Edited August 15, 2007 by sevfiv

[nate]

I don't understand why they have to demolish structures when their is empty parking lots two blocks away along Main. Is their a logical reason for this?

I assume that you are talking about Texas at Main?

Give it time, that lot is not going to be vacant for much longer.

[TheNiche]

nope, that's just their business (or how they do it, rather). imo, it would be nice if, since they are determined to build on this particular plot, they stepped up to the plate and adaptively reused the structures - much like the Stowers building and Spire Realty (before they did the Jekyll and Hyde thing with the Penn Hotel).

To my knowledge, the Stowers Building may look beautiful, but it has been a financial bust. Office condos are a hard sell, primarily because the market isn't deep enough to be at all liquid.

[sevfiv]

To my knowledge, the Stowers Building may look beautiful, but it has been a financial bust. Office condos are a hard sell, primarily because the market isn't deep enough to be at all liquid.

apparently - it has been vacant for a sad amount of time.

it's too bad - i know there are folks out there with enough money and know-how to make things like this work.

just not here.

Edited August 15, 2007 by sevfiv

[travelguy_73]

We'll see the renderings w/in a couple of weeks when the building and name are officially announced. Then we will finally be able to rename this thread, LOL.

[Triton]

We'll see the renderings w/in a couple of weeks when the building and name are officially announced.

Just curious, what's going to happen in a couple of weeks? *I'm sure I missed something*