Office Tower At 1111 Travis St.

[cloud713]

i don't understand the southbound traffic lane from Lamar to Dallas on Main.  Because you can't  take lefts over the rail tracks (which you would have to do if you were coming down Lamar), i don't see how anyone could ever use it.  so shutting it down makes perfect sense.  

are you not supposed to make left turns from the side streets onto Main? i thought it was just no left turns across the tracks if your on Main. if not ive been making illegal turns and havent noticed any signs saying otherwise. ha, but yeah it would be cool if they blocked off that part to cars for a wider pedestrian area on that block.

[Guest Jackwood]

I think you missed the implication...

 

No. You did.

[H-Town Man]

No. You did.

Then why are you still posting? You said you think Urbannizer should be the only one allowed to post. Be the change you want to see in the world.

I think I understood your implications pretty well. As soon as the word "stupid" gets thrown in, subtlety is pretty much gone.

[htownproud]

are you not supposed to make left turns from the side streets onto Main? i thought it was just no left turns across the tracks if your on Main. if not ive been making illegal turns and havent noticed any signs saying otherwise. ha, but yeah it would be cool if they blocked off that part to cars for a wider pedestrian area on that block.

You must be right!

[monarch]

ENOUGH Already!

 

Personally, I feel that H-TOWN MAN is above all correct upon his assessments / critiques, as per the proposed "Hilcorp" boondoggle of a building....  slated as per the most "prime" real estate in all of Texas.  

 

Upon whether or not we are ready to admit it....  aren't we all a bit "shocked" as per the actual "underwhelming" aspects of such a building being promoted as per such a "high octane" site of Downtown Houston.  As I have casually stated beforehand.....  "this green glassed building look's as though it just involuntarily stood up, turned it's "ass" upon Main Street....  and just let out a big "garage".  Just downright insulting....

 

Jackwood, you should never proposed to anyone to "quit" posting upon this open forum.  Your insight is just as "valuable" as anyone else's.  For whenever I venture upon HAIF, I am seeking to reference the insight upon "all" posters....  not just those that are inclined to agree with my own views.  

 

Somehow, over the past several months, I have been getting the feeling that "posters" have been a bit reluctant to "post" simply due to the simple fact that they are "intimidated" by others that they think are a bit more "well versed" than they are.....  isn't this a bit "elementary" to say the least.  Upon my own personal view, (to run the risk of patronizing anyone in lieu this great site) HAIF posters seem to be some of the most intelligent patrons around.....  not to mention, they seem to harbor an undying love as per the City of Houston.....  which in spite of itself....  is it's strength.

 

Look HAIF, just as the old saying goes....  "if it look's and quack's like a duck....  at some point, the duck shall be revealed".  This is the same way that I feel in regards to the proposed "garage" aspect of the newly proposed "Hilcorp" building.  There is just to much "history / memories" dedicated as per this particular site upon Main Street.....  to allow for such an non inspiring, non entertaining, complete bore of an edifice, to be constructed upon such an "holistic" site....  and not allow yourselves to be completely honest about it...    

 

 

 

Edited November 5, 2013 by monarch

[H-Town Man]

Jackwood, I'd prefer we both just tolerate each other. I've been on here eleven years and don't intend to quit now. I like discussing architecture and critiquing it. But I have nothing against you except your attitude towards me.

[asubrt]

 

 

Ok, you don't like this building, we get it. But do you have to use quotes in every single sentence with those bold italics? Just type normally, your posts are coming across as really obnoxious and maybe people aren't taking you as seriously as you'd like.

 

Personally I don't mind the building. Of course I'd like for it to be taller, but Hillcorp is building it for their HQ and this is how much space they need. If it was being built without a tenant it would be competing with several of the other buildings that we all want to see built, and probably wouldn't ever get off the ground. Or worse, would prevent some of the other towers that people tend to like more (i.e. Stream/Essex) from going up.

[monarch]

Ok, you don't like this building, we get it. But do you have to use quotes in every single sentence with those bold italics? Just type normally, your posts are coming across as really obnoxious and maybe people aren't taking you as seriously as you'd like.

 

Personally I don't mind the building. Of course I'd like for it to be taller, but Hillcorp is building it for their HQ and this is how much space they need. If it was being built without a tenant it would be competing with several of the other buildings that we all want to see built, and probably wouldn't ever get off the ground. Or worse, would prevent some of the other towers that people tend to like more (i.e. Stream/Essex) from going up.

 

Some posters warrant a bit more expressive articulation method than others.  The "quotes" / BOLD modes are here to serve a purpose...  am I correct?

 

....I do not care at all about others taking me seriously.  I just care about them having a voice....  just like yours....

[cloud713]

THIS
 

Personally I don't mind the building. Of course I'd like for it to be taller, but Hillcorp is building it for their HQ and this is how much space they need. If it was being built without a tenant it would be competing with several of the other buildings that we all want to see built, and probably wouldn't ever get off the ground. Or worse, would prevent some of the other towers that people tend to like more (i.e. Stream/Essex) from going up.

any other new office proposal without a lead tenant and it probably wouldnt of seen the light of day given all the existing proposals out there. a residential tower would of been neat but Hilcorp ended up being the ones willing to fork over the dough for that "prime property" (wouldnt the Hines tower be much more prime since its at the intersection of 2 light rail lines?). it would be cool if they engineered the building for future height expansion when the company grows.. heh

[mfastx]

I think the building is fine.  It's better than what was there before, and it's a hell of a lot better than a vacant/parking lot. 

 

There's plenty of other lots in downtown for trophy towers.  Sometimes some classic infill is nice. 

[capnmcbarnacle]

THIS

 

any other new office proposal without a lead tenant and it probably wouldnt of seen the light of day given all the existing proposals out there. a residential tower would of been neat but Hilcorp ended up being the ones willing to fork over the dough for that "prime property" (wouldnt the Hines tower be much more prime since its at the intersection of 2 light rail lines?). it would be cool if they engineered the building for future height expansion when the company grows.. heh

 

I'm guessing they bought the adjacent lot to accommodate future growth.  As a general rule (taking land costs out of the equation) would it be cheaper to build one 44 story tower, or two 22 story towers?

[H-Town Man]

I'm guessing they bought the adjacent lot to accommodate future growth. As a general rule (taking land costs out of the equation) would it be cheaper to build one 44 story tower, or two 22 story towers?

Two 22 stories, almost always, unless land is too expensive (not here). Not to belabor the point, but a taller building would still likely get off the ground if it were only 40-50% preleased. But that's not what Hilcorp wanted to do, and it's their tower. Plus it makes other towers more likely, like the International. More shorter towers is probably better for downtown than fewer taller towers.

Overall I do like this building(assuming that is ground floor retail below the garage), just wish there weren't another garage on Main.

Edited November 5, 2013 by H-Town Man

[Montrose1100]

 slated as per the most "prime" real estate in all of Texas.  

Source? If it were the most "prime", they'd be building mixed-use with rent-able commercial and/or residential space. But It's not. 

[cloud713]

Source? If it were the most "prime", they'd be building mixed-use with rent-able commercial and/or residential space. But It's not. 

right..? this guy is getting all hyped up over nothing. the lot isnt any more prime than any of the other numerous lots on Main Street. like i said earlier, doesnt Hines have one of the most prime properties in Houston right now (Main/Capital)? their BG Place was an excellent choice too at Main/Rusk so both towers are/will be at the intersection of 2 light rail lines.

i guess it depends how you look at prime and what type of project your building. some may consider a site such as Astroworld or the Hardy Yards to be the most prime since it has so much space for large development and is on a light rail line. but this site at the old Macys? hardly.. the only prime thing about this property other than the light rail (which dozens of other properties along Main and Capital/Rusk are on too) is that its in the new retail district.. we should be glad they arent replacing it with a strip mall...

[Guest Jackwood]

I love how my light hearted, compliment to Urbanizer offended all the right people without ever having named names. If you really took personal offense that this would be a better website without YOUR posts then you are probably just insecure or paranoid or possibly correct. 

 

Seriously tho, some of you took that post a little more seriously than I did.  I don't have anything against anyone. I come hear to read the posts like everyone else. As much as I like Urbanizer's postings and do place a higher value on any posts that come with renderings, info, photos and updates on projects going up in Houston, compared to reading personal opinions that don't make any difference one way or another, this would be a boring place if only one person was allowed to post and I would never come here.

 

So don't be too offended if I didn't say "I wish only (insert your name here) was allowed to post at HAIF." It doesn't mean I hate your guts or anything. I like a lot of people here. 

Edited November 5, 2013 by Jackwood

[arche_757]

Here is my take (just my opinion):

- Yes this building could have been taller (with more uses included - such as hotel or condominium space) but it is just fine.  Its actually a clever little design and will work quite well for its intended use.

- Height doesn't matter here.  I think what we all want to see is more infill.  And that will mean more 15-25 floor buildings all over downtown, the more the merrier.

- The location of the parking garage is ok sense to me it would appear that it is fairly well concealed.

- I'm hoping they will re-do the Americana if they own or intend to buy that building, as it is honestly a nice little tower in the middle of DT.

 

I am however, a bit dismayed they couldn't have built this just two blocks further down the line on Main Street.  For one, it would have not necessitated the destruction of a building that could have been re-done (albeit in a very difficult manner) and it would have held a greater presence on the skyline coming from the south/southwest.

Edited November 5, 2013 by arche_757

[htownproud]

A lot of people have suggested Hilcorp should have restored Foley's. Can someone with building knowledge comment on how expensive it would be to install the windows that would be required to make a building with no windows into a Class A building with as many windows as would be required for such? I'm not a builder but I assume it be cost prohibitive times a thousand.

[KinkaidAlum]

Infill? More like replacement. They tore down a viable building that had been an operational department store for 70 years. 

 

Downtown YMCA, The Houston Club, The Texas Tower, Montague Hotel, Ben Milam Hotel, Foley's, etc... RIP.

[cloud713]

A lot of people have suggested Hilcorp should have restored Foley's. Can someone with building knowledge comment on how expensive it would be to install the windows that would be required to make a building with no windows into a Class A building with as many windows as would be required for such? I'm not a builder but I assume it be cost prohibitive times a thousand.

i dont have the knowledge but i think many of us mentioned it because of the idea that was floated around a few years ago.. here is a PDF mentioning it. Pages 19-21. it would of been a neat repurpose but probably costly.

FWIW, there is a lot of other cool stuff in the PDF but im not sure if they are still trying to pursue the same course of action now that the new retail initiative has come out. i like the Calatrava-esque "galleria" idea down Dallas with a section of street closed off (even though it would screw up the grid), and especially the sunken plaza idea (ive been raving about something like this since i first mentioned my sunken plaza/park idea).

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2011-10-25/111024-AECOM-Final_Report-HDMD_Post.pdf

 

[LTAWACS]

Sunken plaza sounds like a neat idea...

[cloud713]

Especially with the underground signature apple store

[LTAWACS]

Especially with the underground signature apple store

 

Is this some sort of euphemism for "faux apple store"?

[Nate99]

Infill? More like replacement. They tore down a viable building that had been an operational department store for 70 years. 

 

Downtown YMCA, The Houston Club, The Texas Tower, Montague Hotel, Ben Milam Hotel, Foley's, etc... RIP.

 

It's an interesting dynamic. You have buildings being torn down when empty lots would be available. Getting a building that has been neglected for so long has to be incredibly expensive, perhaps more so than tearing it down. I'd be curious to see the numbers ether way.

 

My guess is that nearly no one wants to repurpose old buildings, and the owners of vacant lots are keeping their asking prices way up.  The old buildings sit neglected for long enough that they become a huge liability to the owners as opposed to a fairly stable asset that is a surface parking lot, thus the price differential for new developers. 1121 Walker is another one that I keep wondering about.

 

It is interesting that the Savoy and 806 Main are being rehabilitated (as well as Rice, Icon and Magnolia), the hotel/residential business model must work. The only office/commercial space that I can think of that went that route downtown are the Stowers building (BG Place block) and the building at the corner of Fannin and Prairie, both of which are still vacant.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Nate99

[Subdude]

 

It is interesting that the Savoy and 806 Main are being rehabilitated (as well as Rice, Icon and Magnolia), the hotel/residential business model must work. The only office/commercial space that I can think of that went that route downtown are the Stowers building (BG Place block) and the building at the corner of Fannin and Prairie, both of which are still vacant.

 

I assume that the hotel development over the past decade came about because of the city subsidy to support the convention business.  Prior to that these buildings had been vacant or near vacant for decades.  I think you are right that vacant lots are more valuable because they have steady cash flow from parking, while vacant buildings go cheaper because they pay taxes but generate no revenue.  The problematic ones are high-rises like the old Holiday Inn or the Melrose Building, that would be more expensive to demolish and may require asbestos remediation first.  

[H-Town Man]

It's an interesting dynamic. You have buildings being torn down when empty lots would be available. Getting a building that has been neglected for so long has to be incredibly expensive, perhaps more so than tearing it down. I'd be curious to see the numbers ether way.

 

My guess is that nearly no one wants to repurpose old buildings, and the owners of vacant lots are keeping their asking prices way up.  The old buildings sit neglected for long enough that they become a huge liability to the owners as opposed to a fairly stable asset that is a surface parking lot, thus the price differential for new developers. 1121 Walker is another one that I keep wondering about.

 

It is interesting that the Savoy and 806 Main are being rehabilitated (as well as Rice, Icon and Magnolia), the hotel/residential business model must work. The only office/commercial space that I can think of that went that route downtown are the Stowers building (BG Place block) and the building at the corner of Fannin and Prairie, both of which are still vacant.

 

It might be good to get an outside-of-Houston perspective on this. Obviously some pretty big precedents have been set here for just tearing down any old building, and the development community still hasn't really learned to think in terms of adaptation and creative reuse (the very words have such a fruity, lefty sound to them...). Our developers have simply developed x-ray vision for anything old - they see straight through the building to the land underneath. And why go two blocks further south to a vacant lot when there's good land right under that old Foley's?

 

But I think if you walk around downtown San Antonio, for instance, you'll see a lot of old buildings that have been adapted and reused. This is owing to the fact that that city forbids historic buildings to be torn down, so property owners are forced to evolve.

[arche_757]

I believe in some instances its actually much more costly to tear down (how many millions does that cost) and then rebuild - particularly if you are building something new that is similar in size and scale.  Obviously if you tear down a 12 floor building and build a 40 floor building then the comparissions aren't accurate.  One thing to consider is that asbestos abatement has to be done whether or not that building is going to be torn down.  So that expense is going to be rather hefty regardless of salvage or scrap.  The obvious plus to demolition is that you get a 100% new building where everything is going to be brand new.  BGPlace Tower has 2 buildings intergrated into it - one is brand new, the other is historic.  That historic building still has systems that are probably close to 100 or 75 years old (such as pipes and anything structural).  Yes new bracing and other systems were installed, but probably around 65% of the Stowers building is still what was there when it was first built.

 

Foley's could have been salvaged and re-used as a sort of shopping base with perhaps some leasable offices on the upper floors and Hilcorp could have then placed a tower above.  Is it expensive?  Yep.  But building anything 20+ floors is $$$$

 

Although the scale is smaller - in Galveston its generally cheaper to save the older building and add to it, or just repurpose it than to tear down and build new.  And folks - some of the buildings down here that are being saved are in absolutely horrid condition - I mean almost total rott.  Structural bracing has to be added just to keep them from falling apart during the process.  It is obviosuly possible to save old buildings - it is done almost everywhere else in the country.  Look at Philadelphia and Boston, or NYC or closer to home New Orleans.  It is done every single day in those towns.

[Nate99]

 BGPlace Tower has 2 buildings intergrated into it - one is brand new, the other is historic.  That historic building still has systems that are probably close to 100 or 75 years old (such as pipes and anything structural).  Yes new bracing and other systems were installed, but probably around 65% of the Stowers building is still what was there when it was first built.

 

I do not think that the Stowers building in integrated in to BG Place apart from perhaps the exteriors physically touching with the new building "bracing" the old. Stowers is vacant, BG is fully leased.

 

Heritage Plaza has some of the old building remaining in it.

 

It is certainly interesting to re-use the old structues, but allowing them to come down is part of the trade off you get for cheaper sustained growth, something many cities would give all of their rotting landmarks to have.

[arche_757]

I'm sure Hines reworked much of the Stowers while they were at it.  It probably goes unleased because the movement downtown is on the larger scale side of things.  If I were a prospective company looking for space - and I needed under 20 - 50k of square feet I would look in the older buildings first.  But that's just me.

 

Heritage Plaza has an old bank inside it - not so much a part of it.

 

Re-use is the future.  Think of all the buildings from 1960 - 2000 that will in 20 or 30 years be in need of some serious attention.  Houston alone will have many.  I don't see tear-downs as being nearly as realistic in the future economies.

[Houston19514]

I'm sure Hines reworked much of the Stowers while they were at it.  It probably goes unleased because the movement downtown is on the larger scale side of things.  If I were a prospective company looking for space - and I needed under 20 - 50k of square feet I would look in the older buildings first.  But that's just me.

Heritage Plaza has an old bank inside it - not so much a part of it.

 

Re-use is the future.  Think of all the buildings from 1960 - 2000 that will in 20 or 30 years be in need of some serious attention.  Houston alone will have many.  I don't see tear-downs as being nearly as realistic in the future economies.

 

No.  The Stowers building is not connected  in any way to BG Group Place.  Hines has had nothing to do with the Stowers Building.  It was re-done by the Spire Group, which seems to have had a notable lack of success in its real estate endeavors.  They should probably sell it to someone who knows what they are doing.

[swtsig]

Infill? More like replacement. They tore down a viable building that had been an operational department store for 70 years. 

 

Downtown YMCA, The Houston Club, The Texas Tower, Montague Hotel, Ben Milam Hotel, Foley's, etc... RIP.

 

how was this building in any shape way or form "viable"?  it was essentially a giant, windowless, concrete bunker. just b/c it was old does not mean it was even remotely worth saving. the proposed building is lightyears better than the exisiting structure.