Office Tower At 1111 Travis St.

[Luminare]

Bravo

 

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[Purdueenginerd]

With proper maintenance and the occasional rehabilitation, you're looking at centuries for large scale high rises. Recall, that the root cause and reason for demolishing a highrise is (most of the time) not because of engineering design deficiencies, but because of economic constraints such as square footage and altered needs for the land. One could argue that controlling factor for life expectancy of a highrise is not engineering, but rather economics.

Now, my profession deals with the rehabilitation of structures--- including highrises. If I remember correctly, The empire state building and sears tower or both steel frame high rises; the (likely) primary deterioration mechanism that supporting members will undergo is corrosion, thus reducing the structural capacity. Lets say zombie apocalypse happens and the building is totally abandoned. Without maintenance; I'd give your average highrise about 50 years+ before large scale structural collapses could occur- Will the building look like shit before that? hell yes. Will it collapse--- maybe. Will it stand--- maybe?

Quick example: Sterick building in downtown Memphis, TN-- built in the 1930's... Has been abandoned since 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterick_Building

 http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/may/03/memphis-officials-pushing-plan-redevelop-long-vaca/?print=1

There's plenty of pictures of people sneaking inside and snapping photos all over the net: looks like shit. I guarantee it could be fixed (albeit probably expensive).

A concrete highrise is going to be a different. Carbonatation is a likely (long term) deterioration mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation (assuming everything else is perfect. Even then... I'd give it more than 50 years before major major issues started to occur. 

Even in the industrial world, I've worked on process unit structures that are over 100 years old and thats saying a lot since MechE's and ChemE's tend to not give a shit about Civil infrastructure Maintenance 

 

Structurally unsafe caused by deterioration/age on a skyscaper is only going to occur if the owners are negligent that their structural members are deteriorating or the building is abandoned. To give another example, The old Days Inn and Central Square here in Houston have been both abandoned now for several years. I'll put money on the fact that the central square renovation had some structural repairs. 

 

To answer your question in TL:DR form: With proper maintenance and continuous use: A long long time.

[mollusk]

Closer example:  The Texaco Building, vacant for what, 20 years or so?

[fernz]

I feel like I just came out if a college lecture, in a good way. Thanks purdueenginerd.

[Triton]

2014-07-12 14.16.10 by marclongoria, on Flickr

 

2014-07-12 14.15.14 by marclongoria, on Flickr

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

last week

 

[IronTiger]

With proper maintenance and the occasional rehabilitation, you're looking at centuries for large scale high rises. Recall, that the root cause and reason for demolishing a highrise is (most of the time) not because of engineering design deficiencies, but because of economic constraints such as square footage and altered needs for the land. One could argue that controlling factor for life expectancy of a highrise is not engineering, but rather economics.

Now, my profession deals with the rehabilitation of structures--- including highrises. If I remember correctly, The empire state building and sears tower or both steel frame high rises; the (likely) primary deterioration mechanism that supporting members will undergo is corrosion, thus reducing the structural capacity. Lets say zombie apocalypse happens and the building is totally abandoned. Without maintenance; I'd give your average highrise about 50 years+ before large scale structural collapses could occur- Will the building look like shit before that? hell yes. Will it collapse--- maybe. Will it stand--- maybe?

Quick example: Sterick building in downtown Memphis, TN-- built in the 1930's... Has been abandoned since 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterick_Building

 http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/may/03/memphis-officials-pushing-plan-redevelop-long-vaca/?print=1

There's plenty of pictures of people sneaking inside and snapping photos all over the net: looks like shit. I guarantee it could be fixed (albeit probably expensive).

A concrete highrise is going to be a different. Carbonatation is a likely (long term) deterioration mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation (assuming everything else is perfect. Even then... I'd give it more than 50 years before major major issues started to occur. 

Even in the industrial world, I've worked on process unit structures that are over 100 years old and thats saying a lot since MechE's and ChemE's tend to not give a shit about Civil infrastructure Maintenance 

 

Structurally unsafe caused by deterioration/age on a skyscaper is only going to occur if the owners are negligent that their structural members are deteriorating or the building is abandoned. To give another example, The old Days Inn and Central Square here in Houston have been both abandoned now for several years. I'll put money on the fact that the central square renovation had some structural repairs. 

 

To answer your question in TL:DR form: With proper maintenance and continuous use: A long long time.

Typically the primary cause for damage in at least houses is rain. A properly roofed house and its floors will last decade, if the roof falls in and the water starts getting into the floors, it's toast and will be a nasty wreck when the bulldozers finally take it out.

Freeways tend to last about 40 years before substantial replacement is needed, that can attributed to less erosion but heavy stress (trucks, mostly). Towers are not subject to that stress. If the old Days Inn/Holiday Inn is to be reopened, any structural damages would likely be caused from vandalism or erosion (again, exterior parts only), unless there were other problems (being a hotel, it was probably built relatively cheaply). That's just a thought, I'm not an engineer.

[Urbannizer]

7/25 by elina999 on Flickr

 

 

[HoustonIsHome]

I am overjoyed that they didn't drag their feet on this one and shot a building out of that massive bathtub, but I don't like that wide of a setback on the Travis side.

I guess I might change my mind when its all done, but I doubt it. I am not a big fan of plazas.

The building itself looks like its shaping up to be an interesting one, I just appreciated the mass of the previous occupant of that block, and the shade that it offered.

[nate]

Not easy to take good pictures out of Total because of the double pane glass, but here you go.

 

 

[toxtethogrady]

Thanks, hello I thought that was the developer.  Just pulled up their website never heard of them until now.

Hilcorp is an independent oil and gas company. The property is being developed by Hines. I think the entire building will be occupied by Hilcorp.

[Houston19514]

Hilcorp is an independent oil and gas company. The property is being developed by Hines. I think the entire building will be occupied by Hilcorp.

 

I think that slightly misstates the situation.  I believe Hines is managing the 1111 Travis construction project.  I don't think it's quite accurate to say the property is being developed by Hines.  Might seem like semantics, but it's a substantive difference.  609 Main is being developed by Hines.  They bought the real property; They made the plans for the building; They own the project.   1111 Travis is owned and is being developed by Hilcorp.  Hines is managing the development for a contractual fee paid by Hilcorp.

[tigereye]

Does anyone know what Hilcorp's plans are for the block they own across Travis St, where everyone has vacated (except for Subway)?

Also IIRC, didn't 1111 Travis recieve tax incentives from the city for including retail?

Edited August 5, 2014 by tigereye

[cloud713]

I've been wondering about the other plot of land too. Maybe they're saving it for future expansion? Interesting if true about the incentives for retail. It certainly looks like retail along the main st side..

[toxtethogrady]

Seems odd they'd buy a second plot rather than build taller.

[tigereye]

Seems odd they'd buy a second plot rather than build taller.

IIRC, 1110 Main Partners LP actually owner the Americana/Macy's garage longer than then Macy's plot. Think they bought that in 2003.

[nate]

The base from Lamar near Travis.

 

 

[H-Town Man]

With proper maintenance and the occasional rehabilitation, you're looking at centuries for large scale high rises. Recall, that the root cause and reason for demolishing a highrise is (most of the time) not because of engineering design deficiencies, but because of economic constraints such as square footage and altered needs for the land. One could argue that controlling factor for life expectancy of a highrise is not engineering, but rather economics.

Now, my profession deals with the rehabilitation of structures--- including highrises. If I remember correctly, The empire state building and sears tower or both steel frame high rises; the (likely) primary deterioration mechanism that supporting members will undergo is corrosion, thus reducing the structural capacity. Lets say zombie apocalypse happens and the building is totally abandoned. Without maintenance; I'd give your average highrise about 50 years+ before large scale structural collapses could occur- Will the building look like shit before that? hell yes. Will it collapse--- maybe. Will it stand--- maybe?

Quick example: Sterick building in downtown Memphis, TN-- built in the 1930's... Has been abandoned since 1980s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterick_Building

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/may/03/memphis-officials-pushing-plan-redevelop-long-vaca/?print=1

There's plenty of pictures of people sneaking inside and snapping photos all over the net: looks like shit. I guarantee it could be fixed (albeit probably expensive).

A concrete highrise is going to be a different. Carbonatation is a likely (long term) deterioration mechanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonatation (assuming everything else is perfect. Even then... I'd give it more than 50 years before major major issues started to occur.

Even in the industrial world, I've worked on process unit structures that are over 100 years old and thats saying a lot since MechE's and ChemE's tend to not give a shit about Civil infrastructure Maintenance

Structurally unsafe caused by deterioration/age on a skyscaper is only going to occur if the owners are negligent that their structural members are deteriorating or the building is abandoned. To give another example, The old Days Inn and Central Square here in Houston have been both abandoned now for several years. I'll put money on the fact that the central square renovation had some structural repairs.

To answer your question in TL:DR form: With proper maintenance and continuous use: A long long time.

Doesn't steel become brittle after being bent or stressed a certain number of times (like in the millions)? Stressed by wind, for example.

[infinite_jim]

The base from Lamar near Travis.

The plaza looks a lot bigger in scale then imagining it from the site plan.

[Purdueenginerd]

Doesn't steel become brittle after being bent or stressed a certain number of times (like in the millions)? Stressed by wind, for example.

 

Elastic deflections of steel below the yield stress can induce brittle fractures in steel. That is correct! Generally conditions that can cause brittle fracture, triaxial state of stress, increased straing rate, strain aging, low operating temperatures... etc... are minimized in design. 

 

So, the design codes account for fatigue. If youre bored.. AISC (Steel construction Manual) Table A 3.1 gives the fatigue design parameters. During design, the engineer will check if fatigue even matters!

 

In that table there are values given as Limit state of fatigue. The engineer of record will calculate the stress in his connections and compare it with the table. No fatigue resistance is required if the live load stress range is less than the threshold stress range as defined by Table A 3.1. Generally, the engineer will design the structure connections so the stresses fall under the tabled values. At that point, Fatigue will never control on the design. 

 

Great question!

[bobruss]

Great answer. Thanks for enlightening.

[HoustonIsHome]

The plaza looks a lot bigger in scale then imagining it from the site plan.

Yep, that's my major gripe with the building thus far. Main Street itself should be the plaza for the buildings in that area. My preference would be if it kept in line with the other buildings on Travis.

[mollusk]

I beg to differ.  I'd just as soon have plazas spotted around rather than having a row of plazas and then a street canyon a block over.  It ends up giving more light to the ground level, and better views to the occupants of the buildings.

[cloud713]

Yep, that's my major gripe with the building thus far. Main Street itself should be the plaza for the buildings in that area. My preference would be if it kept in line with the other buildings on Travis.

Why should Main Street be the plaza? Especially if it gets cut off to cars? It makes sense to have the ground floor retail out along the sidewalk and not set back behind a plaza/away from everything else..

[arndthwrld82]

I could be wrong but I think you're both saying the same thing...

[HoustonIsHome]

Why should Main Street be the plaza? Especially if it gets cut off to cars? It makes sense to have the ground floor retail out along the sidewalk and not set back behind a plaza/away from everything else..

I didn't intend to mean that they put the plaza on the main street side, I meant that main street itself, the entire thing from Dallas to Walker should be the plaza, and the buildings should occupy the entire lot, with the sidewalks covered and tables set out for cafes and stuff. I see so many buildings (especially on the southern end of town with beautiful plazas but I rarely ever see people in them. Too hot, no shade and no restaurants or retail around to draw them. I think this plaza will join those as just a big chunk of wasted space.

[tigereye]

I didn't intend to mean that they put the plaza on the main street side, I meant that main street itself, the entire thing from Dallas to Walker should be the plaza, and the buildings should occupy the entire lot, with the sidewalks covered and tables set out for cafes and stuff. I see so many buildings (especially on the southern end of town with beautiful plazas but I rarely ever see people in them. Too hot, no shade and no restaurants or retail around to draw them. I think this plaza will join those as just a big chunk of wasted space.

I'd go further with the closure. Considering all the development on Main in the center city (609 Main, JW Marriott, Main St Square, 1111 Travis, GreenStreet) and then all the bars/restaurants around the 300- block of Main, the city should consider connecting all of the existing/new developments by closing Main St down to vehicular traffic permanently from Commerce/Buffalo Bayou to Dallas St (eventual shopping corridor) and repurposing Main St as a pedistrian mall, a la 16th Street Mall in Denver.

Edited August 10, 2014 by tigereye

[HoustonIsHome]

Tigereye, that was what I had in mind.

Wouldn't that be more functional and further the pedestrian movement more than scattered plazas?

Thought pretty, I don't think they serve much more of a purpose than simple aesthetics. Now if downtown was more of a bustling place then open space, such as that planned for the Travis side of the building, would be more worthwhile.

I think 609 has the right idea for the current downtown. Kill two birds with one stone. Maximize floor space by building a hulking structure on the full lot and still provide your tenants with outdoor plaza amenities by incorporating greenspace on top of the garage.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[mollusk]

 

Getting the guy blowing past the "no bicycles" sign in order to ride down the busway into this shot is genius. 

[infinite_jim]

I'd go further with the closure. Considering all the development on Main in the center city (609 Main, JW Marriott, Main St Square, 1111 Travis, GreenStreet) and then all the bars/restaurants around the 300- block of Main, the city should consider connecting all of the existing/new developments by closing Main St down to vehicular traffic permanently from Commerce/Buffalo Bayou to Dallas St (eventual shopping corridor) and repurposing Main St as a pedistrian mall, a la 16th Street Mall in Denver.

I'd rather they leave all existing curb cuts but where there is none then they could fill the street with more park space and the aforementioned bike lanes. The point is to irregularize Main St. to auto traffic whereby people would then be forced to use Travis or Fannin to get places that are farther (and it would get them there faster than currently taking Main as is). If Main was not a straight shot and instead a cruising street for slow driving, bikes, and deliveries then it would less of an oppressive autozone to walk/ride around.

[IronTiger]

The other problem with closing Main Street is the light rail. The benefit of pedestrian plazas is able to get across from the street without worrying about being hit with something, light rail kind of defeats the purpose. I would rather have Main Street continue as a two-way road through the entire downtown area, but I can't control opinions.

[cloud713]

The other problem with closing Main Street is the light rail. The benefit of pedestrian plazas is able to get across from the street without worrying about being hit with something, light rail kind of defeats the purpose. I would rather have Main Street continue as a two-way road through the entire downtown area, but I can't control opinions.

But the trains comes what? Like every 5-7 minutes? Pedestrians would still have to cross at the intersections.. we wouldn't want people crossing the tracks mid block where there is no signage. Getting rid of the vehicle lanes just allow for things like potential designated bike lanes and cafés to have larger outdoor seating areas without obstructing the pedestrian walkway/sidewalk movement up and down main.

[infinite_jim]

The other problem with closing Main Street is the light rail. The benefit of pedestrian plazas is able to get across from the street without worrying about being hit with something, light rail kind of defeats the purpose. I would rather have Main Street continue as a two-way road through the entire downtown area, but I can't control opinions.

That's not a problem that's the feature. Scofflaw auto-drivers have proven themselves time and time again that they are unable to play nice with people walking, trains, and bike riders. By engineering Main St. as a series of irregular road blocks here and there it pushes efficient (and higher speed) driving where it belongs (i.e. on Fannin or Travis). I would extend irregularity of blocks all through Downtown and Midtown.

Edited August 11, 2014 by infinite_jim

[IronTiger]

That's not a problem that's the feature. Scofflaw auto-drivers have proven themselves time and time again that they are unable to play nice with people walking, trains, and bike riders. By engineering Main St. as a series of irregular road blocks here and there it pushes efficient (and higher speed) driving where it belongs (i.e. on Fannin or Travis). I would extend irregularity of blocks all through Downtown and Midtown.

I don't know, with trains and cars the problem tends to sort itself out, and as for the rest, a few strategically placed LEOs can help out with that and help reduce the deficit, if you know what I mean.

[rechlin]

Turning Main into a bike lane really isn't ideal.  The trains totally mess up the lights, so cyclists would have to stop every few blocks and wait for a light since they turn the lights red when a train is coming up behind you.  Trains are spaced 5 minutes apart, and because they are coming both directions, that means 2.5 minutes between trains.  And with how overly conservative they are with lights, you're stopped a lot of the time.

 

I prefer biking down roads like Travis.  The lights are timed well enough that you can go a long way without hitting a red (I've made it all the way across Midtown on Travis, starting where it comes from Spur 527, all the way to 45, without hitting a single red light before, and in downtown I rarely catch more than a couple reds all the way from 45 to Rusk).

 

That said, I'm all in favor of closing off Main to traffic by the Hilcorp tower.  Having more pedestrian areas is a good thing.

[IronTiger]

...OK, but how is the building doing? I want to see something better replace Macy's...and maybe have an attractive area underneath for the tunnels, too.

 

You know, I've seen in the tunnels (somewhere) a large picture of downtown as it used to be (can't tell you where), but I'm thinking that maybe in the tunnels if they themed it with historic Foley's pictures and the like, that would be pretty cool.

[mollusk]

You know, I've seen in the tunnels (somewhere) a large picture of downtown as it used to be (can't tell you where), but I'm thinking that maybe in the tunnels if they themed it with historic Foley's pictures and the like, that would be pretty cool.

 

On the street lobby level of 919 Milam (which I still call the Bank of the Southwest Building - granted, usually to blank stares now) there are very large photos of downtown as it was in 1956 +/- and just a few years ago, both taken from an airplane over somewhere around Woodland Heights or the 4th Ward.

 

The tunnel level under 1000 Main has street level photos of downtown in the 20s and 30s.

 

And La Carafe has a couple pictures of the City Hall and Market that it used to be across the street from.

[IronTiger]

There was one building on the way to the tunnels that as you entered, there was a wall from the original building that the newer building replaced on the wall.

 

 

It would be also interesting if the 1111 Travis building did that as well, but I think that it's a bit late for that to happen at this point.

[mollusk]

To answer the question someone's bound to ask... 

 

That's under BG Place.  It's a chunk from the top of what was built as the Hotel Cotton, known in its later years as the Montague (or, as my friend The Nutria called it, that old fleabag).  

[Urbannizer]

The building will have 8,000 square ft. of retail space. See page 2, Block 256

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2014-08-12/HDMD_Traditional_Retail_Base_Case_072514.FINAL.pdf

[tigereye]

The building will have 8,000 square ft. of retail space. See page 2, Block 256

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2014-08-12/HDMD_Traditional_Retail_Base_Case_072514.FINAL.pdf

 

Not only that, it looks like Hotel Alessandra has 2,000 sq ft of retail space planned as well. 

[Sky-guy]

The other problem with closing Main Street is the light rail. The benefit of pedestrian plazas is able to get across from the street without worrying about being hit with something, light rail kind of defeats the purpose. I would rather have Main Street continue as a two-way road through the entire downtown area, but I can't control opinions.

Main Street should look like this:

http://www.panoramio.com/m/photo/82206146

[bobruss]

it would if we didn't have the tunnels. They make the city look like a ghost town.

Although in a downpour or 100 degree days I guess its good, but it has spoiled everyone just like the indoor stadiums have, to the point that no one ever wants the roof open for football or baseball games, and everyone drives their car into a covered parking garage takes the elevator to their floor and at lunch goes down to the food court in the tunnel system never leaving the friendly confines of the air conditioned  tunnels while the  sidewalks are relatively empty. Thats why there is very little ground floor retail. We have a subterranian downtown.

[Nate99]

it would if we didn't have the tunnels. They make the city look like a ghost town.

Although in a downpour or 100 degree days I guess its good, but it has spoiled everyone just like the indoor stadiums have, to the point that no one ever wants the roof open for football or baseball games, and everyone drives their car into a covered parking garage takes the elevator to their floor and at lunch goes down to the food court in the tunnel system never leaving the friendly confines of the air conditioned  tunnels while the  sidewalks are relatively empty. Thats why there is very little ground floor retail. We have a subterranian downtown.

 

It has been covered quite thoroughly here, re: tunnels/street life, but it is worth noting that in the first pre-Dome years of Major League Baseball in Houston with the Colt .45's, the players that were accustomed to playing outdoors exclusively (and mostly afternoon games) complained about the climate. It sucks to be out there this time of year, n two ways about it.

 

IMO, the tunnels and consequent undergrounding of the street life are a response to the climate. If they somehow disappeared, people still wouldn't walk around out there very much during the summer, and a four to five month slow down in foot trafic would make owning a business out there a pretty dodgy proposition given the few types of businesses that survive in the tunnels as it is.

 

Folks living downtown will make street life more viable, and the sprawl/congestion is making that a more reasonable option.

[Purdueenginerd]

As a native Memphian, making main street into pedestrian only is something I have seen-- not work. Memphis has more of a downtown bar scene, and I think a larger downtown population than Houston and their main street (where its pedestrian only) is effectively a ghost town whereas other parts of downtown Memphis are very vibrant. I feel that pedestrian traffic needs to be already established before one converts to pedestrian only. 

 

/opinion

[Subdude]

it would if we didn't have the tunnels. They make the city look like a ghost town.

Although in a downpour or 100 degree days I guess its good, but it has spoiled everyone just like the indoor stadiums have, to the point that no one ever wants the roof open for football or baseball games, and everyone drives their car into a covered parking garage takes the elevator to their floor and at lunch goes down to the food court in the tunnel system never leaving the friendly confines of the air conditioned  tunnels while the  sidewalks are relatively empty. Thats why there is very little ground floor retail. We have a subterranian downtown.

 

So there is a bit of a mismatch.  We have a vibrant underground street life, with lots of restaurants and retail.  However, most if not all of the new residential construction downtown isn't connected to the tunnels, so residents have to drive out of downtown or walk outside to get to retail/restaurants, and outside of business hours, when the tunnels close, they have to drive somewhere.  So should there be an effort to extend the hours of tunnel businesses, or improve tunnel connectivity to new residential development?  I don't think it is necessarily bad that street life is tunneled, but it isn't easily accessible to nearby residents.  Otherwise what is the point of downtown residential development?

[Nate99]

So there is a bit of a mismatch.  We have a vibrant underground street life, with lots of restaurants and retail.  However, most if not all of the new residential construction downtown isn't connected to the tunnels, so residents have to drive out of downtown or walk outside to get to retail/restaurants, and outside of business hours, when the tunnels close, they have to drive somewhere.  So should there be an effort to extend the hours of tunnel businesses, or improve tunnel connectivity to new residential development?  I don't think it is necessarily bad that street life is tunneled, but it isn't easily accessible to nearby residents.  Otherwise what is the point of downtown residential development?

 

Tunnel retail is fairly confined to that which survives on peope's lunch breaks. I'm sure the restaurants would love to get evening traffic, but apart from that, the types of retail that residents would need/want will have to be new anyway and accessible after the hours that the tunnels will be open, so I think street life will come as a necessity.

 

Not that I am personally that big of a fan of vibrant street life as a standalone concept; discrete desirable things along the streets may bring more people (including me) out to them and be worthwhile, but more people crowding around me is a net negative in my mind. I know I am in the minority around here, but all of the urbanists' paridises I've been to, I would not have wanted to live in any of them unless I was filthy rich.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric