Weston Solutions Office Building Proposal In Midtown

[brian0123]

Weston Solutions is going to build a new office development in the NE corner of Midtown near St Joseph's. The two blocks they are going to build on are the one's that typically have homeless that camp out on them... so this is going to make a huge impact on the area. More info here and here. Apparently one of the office buildings will be 40k-60k sq ft and the company's "greenest" office building.

[Highway6]

While any development in this economy is welcome, and I wouldn't mind seeing more mid-rises and hi-rises going up in midtown.. This project doesn't get me excited. 40-60k SF is only 2-3 levels

And quoting from the first link, I wouldn't agree that "this corner over by St. Joseph is screaming for development"... it is 6 and 8 blocks from the two nearest LRT stations. That corner of midtown should be at the back of the line.

I'm glad its getting built, but it doesn't seem like anything to write home about.

[brian0123]

While any development in this economy is welcome, and I wouldn't mind seeing more mid-rises and hi-rises going up in midtown.. This project doesn't get me excited. 40-60k SF is only 2-3 levels

And quoting from the first link, I wouldn't agree that "this corner over by St. Joseph is screaming for development"... it is 6 and 8 blocks from the two nearest LRT stations. That corner of midtown should be at the back of the line.

I'm glad its getting built, but it doesn't seem like anything to write home about.

When you live near it and have dealt with homeless camping on these lots (and walking out into traffic) for many years... it's a huge win for the neighborhood. Also, considering that the SE side of Downtown is still empty lots, I'll gladly take a 2-3 story building housing a national company. Plus, the area is a good location considering the easy access to 45, 59, 288, and DT.

[DrLan34]

Weston Solutions is going to build a new office development in the NE corner of Midtown near St Joseph's. The two blocks they are going to build on are the one's that typically have homeless that camp out on them... so this is going to make a huge impact on the area. More info here and here. Apparently one of the office buildings will be 40k-60k sq ft and the company's "greenest" office building.

Man this is excellent news... this coupled with the gray street improvements is great. I hope we start seeing some more infill over there.

The giant rectangle is filling out...

"Gray Street Pedestrian Enhancements

Right-of-way improvements along Gray Street from Hamilton to Brazos. Enhancements will include sidewalks, landscaping, street furniture, brick pavers, and accessibility ramps."

[ricco67]

While the buildings themselves isn't that significant, it IS a big boon for the area. I do have to say that construction might be a bit of a challenge, though. Security will have to be beefed up considerably than a typical construction site, particularly in the final stages as the plumbing is put in place.

[LTAWACS]

This is indeed good news. I've been saying it for years that numerous proposals to build towers out of the loop belong IN midtown.

[lockmat]

While any development in this economy is welcome, and I wouldn't mind seeing more mid-rises and hi-rises going up in midtown.. This project doesn't get me excited. 40-60k SF is only 2-3 levels

And quoting from the first link, I wouldn't agree that "this corner over by St. Joseph is screaming for development"... it is 6 and 8 blocks from the two nearest LRT stations. That corner of midtown should be at the back of the line.

I'm glad its getting built, but it doesn't seem like anything to write home about.

A search for buildings 40-65k square feet shows buildings at least 4 stories high. Even if it's only three, I agree that this is a big win for midtown.

http://www.showcase.com/?src=ppcg_Costar_ShowcaseBrand_ShowcaseBrand&LID=s9x0BeYH4_pcrid_4619944399#&&/wEXAQURV29ya2Zsb3dIaXN0b3J5SUQFJGFjYzI4ZDRjLWQ1ODItNGIzZi1iNDdkLTRiMWNjZmJiNThhOdX6Ei6tO1Sl32MoC3jfeeUjQLZa

Will they be building two buildings or will they use one for parking lot/garage?

[diggity]

I wouldn't mind seeing more mid-rises and hi-rises going up in midtown

Maybe you should develop one then

Considering The Edge recently had to auction off a decent percentage of their units, I would say it's not the most feasible business plan right now.

[HTX]

I think that is the property that had signs up a couple of years ago announcing a new hospital would be built there. That never happened because the Doc's that were going to vest into it were mainly from St. Joe and they saw or more likely leveraged an opportunity to buy St. Joe from the Sisters.

[lockmat]

Maybe you should develop one then

Considering The Edge recently had to auction off a decent percentage of their units, I would say it's not the most feasible business plan right now.

I think he meant any kind of 'rise, including office, not just residential as the Edge is.

[Highway6]

A search for buildings 40-65k square feet shows buildings at least 4 stories high. Even if it's only three, I agree that this is a big win for midtown.

http://www.showcase....2MoC3jfeeUjQLZa

Midtown and Downtown lots are 250'x250'... or 62,500 SF.

The latest commercial addition to Midtown, the multistory clinic at Fannin and Mcgowen, doesn't even take up half their lot and still has a footprint of about 22k SF. It is 3 levels and it probably about 60-65k SF total.

The fact that the article says they are developing 1 building yet purchased 2 lots tells me that one of those lots will be parking. This means that minus setbacks, they still have over 50,000 SF to work with. This will either be a 1 or 2 story building (depending on the range of programmed SF given) if they utilize their entire site, 3 levels at the most if for some reason they can't or choose not to utilize their entire site. 4 levels minimum would mean they are only able to build on 1/4th of one of their lots. Not likely.

[Highway6]

I think he meant any kind of 'rise, including office, not just residential as the Edge is.

He was just being a smartarse, insinuating I should go into the developer business since I'm all debbie downer on this project.

Listen, I'm for any and all development in midtown, including this one... and I'm glad for the residents over there since this will displace some of your homeless. I just don't think a project this small is worth getting all woo-hoo over. Wake me up when a 10+ level commercial building is planned for midtown.

Unless of course the renderings are just absolutely stunning.. cuz then I'll certainly enjoy watching this disappointment unfold when it fails to meet expectations That's always exciting for me.

[roadrunner]

As long as they aren't trying to lease it, I say it's great. Otherwise, this site seems random for development. I do, however, think Midtown could support more office space if done right.

[Mister X]

This is sensational news! Midtown rocks!

[dbigtex56]

When you live near it and have dealt with homeless camping on these lots (and walking out into traffic) for many years... it's a huge win for the neighborhood.

debbie downer

Ditto the debbie downer... this only means that some other neighborhood will be the up-and-coming place for the homeless. They simply refuse to just die.[/sarcasm]

[editor]

Maybe you should develop one then

Considering The Edge recently had to auction off a decent percentage of their units, I would say it's not the most feasible business plan right now.

The business plan is the problem. American development companies have become so dependent on only building with bank loans that when the banks stop lending, development dries up. That's now how it works in other parts of the world where developers actually develop buildings with their own money, and have continued to build in spite of the recession. They're taking advantage of low construction, labor, and land prices to build the buildings of the future. Meanwhile, the American developers turn out to be nothing but shell corporations that funnel money from banks to construction companies (while taking their cut) and are powerless to actually develop anything on their own.

The old system is broken. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet so many real estate/development/land companies still stick to the old, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

[TheNiche]

The business plan is the problem. American development companies have become so dependent on only building with bank loans that when the banks stop lending, development dries up. That's now how it works in other parts of the world where developers actually develop buildings with their own money, and have continued to build in spite of the recession.

Bull.

They're taking advantage of low construction, labor, and land prices to build the buildings of the future.

If were so much construction overseas, then you would think that construction, labor, and land prices would not be in decline. In fact, some countries are facing inflation problems. China comes to mind (although developers there building with "their own money" is laughable).

Meanwhile, the American developers turn out to be nothing but shell corporations that funnel money from banks to construction companies (while taking their cut) and are powerless to actually develop anything on their own.

The old system is broken. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet so many real estate/development/land companies still stick to the old, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

The developer is a project manager. They use their own money to identify investment opportunities, coordinate the acquisition and due diligence process (inclusive of zoning changes), package and market the investment to third-party investors and lenders. That's the risky part, where 100% of the project funding comes from the developer. At that juncture, quite frankly the odds are against them. If they can structure financing, then the developer has to bid out and coordinate a team that includes the general contractor, but also an architect and a littany of engineers, consultants, and the inevitable and dreaded 'change orders'. (I'd agree that this is the easy part, but I'd point out that construction is the only thing you care about. Financial success be damned, obviously. Incompetence, waste, bankruptcy...all are acceptable so long as your phallic symbol rises.) As the project progresses, the developer is responsible for contracting with a reputable management company or for managing the project themselves. The process of lease-up and stabilization takes a couple of years under ideal circumstances and is an extraordinarily hands-on process. At that point, you've also got to deal with utility companies, vendor contracts and contract management, property and income taxation, and all the administration that goes into it.

The old system is broken. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet so many real estate/development/land companies still stick to the old, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

The old ways of media are broken. Wannabe moguls out to make a buck have no fear of propogating misinformation and levering thoughtless catharsis to jolt politicians into doing horribly stupid things. They've done it for decades now. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet these wannabes keep on talking, talking, talking, sputtering nonsense that they themselves do not have even the slightest expertise in, sticking to the old, divisive, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

It's a pity. It really is.

[bachanon]

not sure how the state of the media is connected to two new buildings in midtown................

two blocks of new construction in midtown is good for midtown, regardless of the sad state of mass media. are there any renderings of the new buildings? i'll go out on a limb here and predict the usual outcry of "boring, banal, suburban, f*ugly and why isn't there any retail space?"

[TheNiche]

not sure how the state of the media is connected to two new buildings in midtown................

Call it a form of rebuttal evidence. My hope is that as a media mogul of sorts, Wayne will feel the same frustration at me for criticizing him and his industry out of ignorance as I felt upon reading his post.

[DrLan34]

This building might be pretty cool, here are some of their other offices.

http://www.lakewood....WestonGreen.cfm Lakewood, Colorado

http://www.martineau...ng-projects.cfm Concord, NH

http://www.proconinc...=2546&Index=yes Concord, NH

Looks like they are really into green roofs... could make for some pretty cool views from other Downtown office buildings.

A 60K sq ft. office would be nice...

[brian0123]

This building might be pretty cool, here are some of their other offices.

http://www.lakewood....WestonGreen.cfm Lakewood, Colorado

http://www.martineau...ng-projects.cfm Concord, NH

http://www.proconinc...=2546&Index=yes Concord, NH

Looks like they are really into green roofs... could make for some pretty cool views from other Downtown office buildings.

A 60K sq ft. office would be nice...

Good call on the green roofs. I would think that the one in Midtown will have one considering they are saying this will be their "greenest office yet".

[LTAWACS]

This gets better and better.

[Highway6]

I have found a rendering of this Midtown-defining project...

Behold !!

[samagon]

the green roof concept always confused me.

how do you get the lawn equipment to the roof to do the landscaping? freight elevator? those rarely have roof access, and besides that sounds like an excellent idea, confined space, plus gasoline fumes, plus electrical contacts that aren't rated for use around combustive fumes.

we always oooh and ahhh at the beautiful renderings of our city of the future where every building has a roof teeming with grass, and plants (I've seen some with trees, but I doubt any builder would be willing to commit enough space that would be required for an adequate root system), but how the hell would it be maintained?

irrigation is the easy part, and what's a few tons of dirt, water and plant matter on the roof of a building? but what about maintenance? mowing the grass? trimming the shrubs? just general maintenance.

I guess they could go with a small organic garden that is used by the local deli for fresh fruits and vegetables, that would be pretty awesome.

[Specwriter]

how do you get the lawn equipment to the roof to do the landscaping? Most green roofs do not have turf grasses. The primarily use Sedum and Delosperma species which can, depending on variety, be drought, cold, or heat tolerant depending on where they are used. No mowing is necessary although taking your pet goat onto the roof would be fun. Think Swiss chalet.

a roof teeming with grass, and plants Most plants, including small trees are in their own containters but, in general, the roof structure does have to be beefed up for the extra weight.

irrigation is the easy part, and what's a few tons of dirt, water and plant matter on the roof of a building? but what about maintenance? mowing the grass? trimming the shrubs? just general maintenance. Irrigation is indeed simple. The goal is to have species that survive with whatever rainwater they receive. Although provision for some supplementary irrigation would be wise, it should not have to be used on a regular basis. One of the benefits of a green roof is that it retains rainwater thus slowing run-off into the storm sewer system. Ideally too, the plants used should be of the lowest maintenance requirement possible. Frequent trimmng should not be required. IMO any living plant on a roof would look better than most conventional roofing materials. In the case of a roof someone could access, like a terrace, and where ornamental plantings are desired, yes the maintenance requirement would probably be greater. In that case though maintenance should not require more than hand tools (hedge clippers, sprayers) or possibly small electric tools like a (damn) leaf blower. I hate leaf blowers!

I guess they could go with a small organic garden that is used by the local deli for fresh fruits and vegetables, that would be pretty awesome. That would be neat - and smart.

[samagon]

awesome, thanks for the answers, I should never assume anything with landscaping is impractical!

[livincinco]

This building might be pretty cool, here are some of their other offices.

http://www.lakewood....WestonGreen.cfm Lakewood, Colorado

http://www.martineau...ng-projects.cfm Concord, NH

http://www.proconinc...=2546&Index=yes Concord, NH

Looks like they are really into green roofs... could make for some pretty cool views from other Downtown office buildings.

A 60K sq ft. office would be nice...

Uh oh...high expections. We all know where that leads, so here a quick preview of the next few pages of this thread.

- First renderings posted

- followed by - complaints of how pedestrian the design is

- which lead to - complaints that nothing cool ever gets built in Houston

- and ultimately lead to - calls to tear the whole thing down and bring back the homeless people.

[Highway6]

Uh oh...high expections. We all know where that leads, so here a quick preview of the next few pages of this thread.

- First renderings posted

- followed by - complaints of how pedestrian the design is

- which lead to - complaints that nothing cool ever gets built in Houston

- and ultimately lead to - calls to tear the whole thing down and bring back the homeless people.

You posted Scenario A.

Scenario B of course is:

- First renderings posted

- everyone falls in love with how stunning the design is due to (unrealistic glazing/see-through buildings, amazing lighting, happy silhouette people, unrealistic overabundance of landscaping, lack of realistic site context)

- everyone falls in love with the renderings themselves

- everyone forgets that renderings are NOT promises between the developer and the public

- everyone fails to realize that renderings are shelved once construction starts and change-orders and fiscal realities start rolling in

- followed by complaints of how unlike the renderings the built project is

- which lead to - complaints that nothing cool ever gets built in Houston

- and ultimately lead to - calls to tear the whole thing down and bring back the homeless people and/or surface lot.

[DrLan34]

You posted Scenario A.

Scenario B of course is:

- First renderings posted

- everyone falls in love with how stunning the design is due to (unrealistic glazing/see-through buildings, amazing lighting, happy silhouette people, unrealistic overabundance of landscaping, lack of realistic site context)

- everyone falls in love with the renderings themselves

- everyone forgets that renderings are NOT promises between the developer and the public

- everyone fails to realize that renderings are shelved once construction starts and change-orders and fiscal realities start rolling in

- followed by complaints of how unlike the renderings the built project is

- which lead to - complaints that nothing cool ever gets built in Houston

- and ultimately lead to - calls to tear the whole thing down and bring back the homeless people and/or surface lot.

hahaha i'm already mad at this seemingly positive news, clearly it is terrible for the area (and our pursuit of happiness)...

[dbigtex56]

The business plan is the problem. American development companies have become so dependent on only building with bank loans that when the banks stop lending, development dries up. That's now how it works in other parts of the world where developers actually develop buildings with their own money, and have continued to build in spite of the recession. They're taking advantage of low construction, labor, and land prices to build the buildings of the future. Meanwhile, the American developers turn out to be nothing but shell corporations that funnel money from banks to construction companies (while taking their cut) and are powerless to actually develop anything on their own.

The old system is broken. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet so many real estate/development/land companies still stick to the old, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

Bull.

If were so much construction overseas, then you would think that construction, labor, and land prices would not be in decline. In fact, some countries are facing inflation problems. China comes to mind (although developers there building with "their own money" is laughable).

The developer is a project manager. They use their own money to identify investment opportunities, coordinate the acquisition and due diligence process (inclusive of zoning changes), package and market the investment to third-party investors and lenders. That's the risky part, where 100% of the project funding comes from the developer. At that juncture, quite frankly the odds are against them. If they can structure financing, then the developer has to bid out and coordinate a team that includes the general contractor, but also an architect and a littany of engineers, consultants, and the inevitable and dreaded 'change orders'. (I'd agree that this is the easy part, but I'd point out that construction is the only thing you care about. Financial success be damned, obviously. Incompetence, waste, bankruptcy...all are acceptable so long as your phallic symbol rises.) As the project progresses, the developer is responsible for contracting with a reputable management company or for managing the project themselves. The process of lease-up and stabilization takes a couple of years under ideal circumstances and is an extraordinarily hands-on process. At that point, you've also got to deal with utility companies, vendor contracts and contract management, property and income taxation, and all the administration that goes into it.

The old ways of media are broken. Wannabe moguls out to make a buck have no fear of propogating misinformation and levering thoughtless catharsis to jolt politicians into doing horribly stupid things. They've done it for decades now. The collapse was evidence of that. Yet these wannabes keep on talking, talking, talking, sputtering nonsense that they themselves do not have even the slightest expertise in, sticking to the old, divisive, outdated routine that has proven to be fatally flawed.

It's a pity. It really is.

I read both posts with interest and but slight comprehension.

Editor's post seems to be concerned with how the influence of banks has had a stifling effect on development - which is to say, those who gamble with others' money might achieve results that are less noteworthy and ultimately less profitable than those who invest their own. People are more concerned with short-term gains to their careers than having a stake in the final product. Examples of developments (both built during the Great Depression) which reflect his point of view might include Rockefeller Center or the Chrysler Building - both of which, I assume, were built with substantial funding by their namesakes. I'd hate to make the case before stone-faced bankers for including an ice-skating rink or stainless steel gargoyles in a building's plans.

TheNiche's post (and informative it is, too) seems more concerned with the vital role that developers play in putting together "The Deal" (as in, Donald Trump's "The Art of the Deal") - In his defense, the Empire State Building was built 'on spec'; and those who brokered this deal deserve kudos. On the other hand, we have some terrible crap being built in Houston, with the understanding that if it's profitable in the next few years, people can walk away with their pockets full and reputations intact. And there are few of those "beloved phallic symbols" rising, which I admit to viewing with admiration. (Cheap shots already acknowledged.)