Office Tower At 1111 Travis St.

[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.

[arche_757]

It was viable considering the current stance the City has taken towards developing downtown real estate.

 

It needed work - no doubt - but imagine if the city could have gotten a Target and maybe some other "big box" into that space and still had some other leasable sq ft then it would certainly have been hearalded as worthwhile and viable.

 

In tearing it down it ceases to ever be anything, and now we will never know if it could have been something.

[swtsig]

It was viable considering the current stance the City has taken towards developing downtown real estate.

 

It needed work - no doubt - but imagine if the city could have gotten a Target and maybe some other "big box" into that space and still had some other leasable sq ft then it would certainly have been hearalded as worthwhile and viable.

 

In tearing it down it ceases to ever be anything, and now we will never know if it could have been something.

 

right, but why this building? there are plenty of architecturally more pleasing/approachable buildings that are worth saving over this one. the structure itself likely made any sort of repurposing not only difficult but likely impossible to make profitable. i understand that there is a bit of nostalgia in regards to the foleys/macys, but the building itself was aesthetically worthless.

 

to me there just wasn't anything worth saving. almost anything would be a better use of the land then a windowless, asbestos-filled, midrise concrete bunker.

[arche_757]

Yet it could have been saved.  That is my only argument.  Because it lacked windows doesn't mean that none could have been punched into a re-purposed building.  And the asbestos has to be removed whether its torn down (which it obviously is) or not.  You couldn't leave it and redo it with the asbestos in it.

 

Aesthetically it was somewhat interesting - you don't like it that's fine.  I think it was a rather fun building for a big-box department store.  Now, to be fair I do believe the Sakowitz Building across the street is FAR, FAR more grand and interesting and would make for a better renovation than the Foley's building.  I've actually drawn up plans for the interior before (for fun, not for work - but to scale) and it could easily see a number of marque stores inserted into it.  Yet I've always thought it would make a central location for a Whole Foods or similar grocer in downtown and would be quite successful since the proximity of the Red Line would draw shoppers from Midtown, Museum District and around.

 

I guess - getting back to the central point - It was a building that could have been re-worked and salvaged given the right developer and architects.  Hilcorp could have built their 20 something tower just 2 blocks south on vacant land - read EMPTY - and not had to deal with the aggrivation of asbestos abatement and demolition.  Yet they chose to spend MORE money and destroy an existing building.

[swtsig]

Yet it could have been saved.  That is my only argument.  Because it lacked windows doesn't mean that none could have been punched into a re-purposed building.  And the asbestos has to be removed whether its torn down (which it obviously is) or not.  You couldn't leave it and redo it with the asbestos in it.

 

Aesthetically it was somewhat interesting - you don't like it that's fine.  I think it was a rather fun building for a big-box department store.  Now, to be fair I do believe the Sakowitz Building across the street is FAR, FAR more grand and interesting and would make for a better renovation than the Foley's building.  I've actually drawn up plans for the interior before (for fun, not for work - but to scale) and it could easily see a number of marque stores inserted into it.  Yet I've always thought it would make a central location for a Whole Foods or similar grocer in downtown and would be quite successful since the proximity of the Red Line would draw shoppers from Midtown, Museum District and around.

 

I guess - getting back to the central point - It was a building that could have been re-worked and salvaged given the right developer and architects.  Hilcorp could have built their 20 something tower just 2 blocks south on vacant land - read EMPTY - and not had to deal with the aggrivation of asbestos abatement and demolition.  Yet they chose to spend MORE money and destroy an existing building.

 

right - and not that i don't agree with your premise - but stating something like "hilcorp could have built their building two blocks south" removes your argument so far from reality that it makes it unfeasible.  for all we know, the land two blocks south was not and may never be for sale. likewise for all the surrounding blocks.

 

i assure you that jeff most definitely considered repurposing the building at one point - and ultimately, for what he wanted, it was determined that it just wasn't feasible. you can't just remove the economics from these situations - they are always an integral driver. to think that he had his pick of whatever lot he wanted and simply opted to demolish an exisiting structure is ridiculous.

 

that is my single biggest gripe with the arhcitecture/urban planning faction on this board - total disregard for the real life economic implications. this isn't sim city.

[arche_757]

Well - it is an architectural board first and foremost so I'm not sure I understand what your complaint is in regards to that?

 

And its not like Hilcorp found the only place to build downtown.  In case you aren't aware there are around 10 large scale projects excluding this one taking place or proposed in the next few months around downtown.  Some how there is even a 5 floor - wood framed - apartment building going in on Main Street (again on empty land just south of where Hilcorp is building) that some way, some how amazingly got not only the money to buy the land but found a willing seller.

 

I'm also having trouble understanding what point you're trying to make that Hilcorp couldn't have found any other land that was empty?  Perhaps they got the Foley's for such a song and a dance that they couldn't have looked elsewhere?  And I'll bet money they never - ever - ever - intended to re-use that building.  He (Jeff - I'm sure he's a "nice" guy) may have said otherwise but in Hilcorps inner circles they never discussed it as a reality.

 

I'm not removing the economics from anything.  My point was:  "They spent more money tearing down a useable - if somewhat ungainly building - to build something new, when there are plenty of available lots all over the southern edge of downtown."

Edited November 6, 2013 by arche_757

[arche_757]

At the end of the day Foley's is gone (both as a company and the building).  In its place is a 100 year building, so there is at least that.  Thankful that what is getting built is better than a parking garage or just a vacant lot on Main Street.

 

I'm also glad Hilcorp decided to build in Downtown rather than the suburbs.  I'm not complaining, just playing devils advocate - so please don't take offense swtsig.

[HoustonIsHome]

I am no expert but from what I heard it is more costly to demo and rebuild a similar size structure but the work involved in renovating is more than building new. Tearing down a ten floor building to build a 35 floor one is a different story, however.

Some government funded projects adhere to a rule that if renovation cost more than 2/3s the price of a new build then they opt for new building.

I think that there are so many things to consider that an outsider lacking info of the building may not be qualified to make a decision as to which route (reno or rebuild) would be more prudent.

Things I would consider:

1. Structural integrity

2. Ease of conversion

3. Leasable Space especially in relation to market

4. Historical Value

5. Aesthetic considerations

6. Perception (converting mental institution into condos)

Foleys looked like a structurally sound building so renovating would be cheaper in this regard than new construction of a similar capacity structure.

The owners seemed to be more inclined to commercial real estate so ease of conversion may have been a problem. If I was faced with coming up with a plan to either convert a windowless cube to a marketable office building or start fresh, I am sure I would go the lazy route and convince the owners that new construction is the way to go.

Finally, pride and ownership in our surroundings is something that we lack here. I think nostalgic value of structures factor in costs. To be honest, I don't think the Foleys building was good looking. It wasn't an eyesore (I hate how this word is overused) but it wasn't architecturally special in my eyes. The value I placed in it was purely nostalgic. Plain and simple: it was an old building where many fond memories were had by many Houston residents. I would not like it much if Houston was overly attached to every single building as they are in San Antonio, but it would be nice if we kept some of our memories and culture.

Saying all of that, however, I like the drawings for the new structure. I wish we could have had both but if I had to choose one, I would go for the look of the new one. The same goes for the old Texas tower vs the new Hines Tower. The Ben Milam Hotel and Houston club are different stories. I do not really care for what is replacing those structures.

But a win win scenario for me would have been increasing the height of the Foleys building, Keeping Macys as a tenant while adding new office space AND building the proposed new tower down the street.

[arche_757]

You are correct... though it does depend on the state of the building.  Something in utter disrepair is of course going to be much more costly than something that has been kept up through the years.

 

Renovation can be cost effective if the space is equal to what you propose to do - again provided that the building is in good (reasonable) shape.  The problem with renovation of anything "historic" is that you really must have competant architects, engineers and contractors.  Hiring people who have zero knowledge of how to work within a historic structure really causes a lot of headache.  With the right crew its possible to convert just about anything.

 

To me Foley's was unique in that it afforded a huge chunk of square footage in central downtown that could have been reworked given that it was a working store just a couple years before.

 

Like you said - and what I hinted at:  At least the replacement we're getting is quality.  Could have certainly been much worse.

Edited November 6, 2013 by arche_757

[HoustonIsHome]

In the end I think Dallas will be abandoned as the future retail corridor. I think Macys was the anchor or glue for the plan. We will bounce back, but now it will be new construction which would more than likely involve city incentives to lure another Macys type store in an ignored section of downtown. I think Lower downtown is a much better location to develop retail/ pedestrian activity than the tunnel dominated mainstreet square. MSS I believe is the busiest rail station, but who is to say that that won't change. I keep hearing that the best ... is on THE rail line, but there isnt going to be THE rail line fir much longer.

Anyway, before skyhouse started I noticed that in a 3 block radius around Bell Station there were 16 empty or near empty (lot is less than 25% built over) lots. With all the residential/ hotel units popping up on the south end of downtown, I think that is the best place for a resurgence of retail downtown.

Edited November 6, 2013 by HoustonIsHome

[LTAWACS]

I'm also glad Hilcorp decided to build in Downtown rather than the suburbs.

About bloody time.

[cloud713]

In the end I think Dallas will be abandoned as the future retail corridor. I think Macys was the anchor or glue for the plan. We will bounce back, but now it will be new construction which would more than likely involve city incentives to lure another Macys type store in an ignored section of downtown. I think Lower downtown is a much better location to develop retail/ pedestrian activity than the tunnel dominated mainstreet square. MSS I believe is the busiest rail station, but who is to say that that won't change. I keep hearing that the best ... is on THE rail line, but there isnt going to be THE rail line fir much longer.

Anyway, before skyhouse started I noticed that in a 3 block radius around Bell Station there were 16 empty or near empty (lot is less than 25% built over) lots. With all the residential/ hotel units popping up on the south end of downtown, I think that is the best place for a resurgence of retail downtown.

you do realize they knew Macys was closing long before the Downtown Retail Initiative came out, right? if it werent for the city wanting the Main/Dallas intersection to be 100% retail on all 4 sides i dont think Hilcorp would of bothered implementing ground floor retail. it should be interesting to see if/when the Swarkovzky (i probably just butchered the hell out of that) building gets renovated for GFR. but i dont see the city abandoning the Dallas retail corridor plans. Mayor Parker seems pretty dedicated to revamping downtown and she just won the election again so i think the retail incentives plan will go ahead as scheduled. the city has been set on the Dallas retail corridor for years now.

(2011)

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

(2013)

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-09-12/Downtown_Retail_Task_Force_Report_Sept_12_2013_ONLINE.pdf

[KinkaidAlum]

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.

 Because there had been a department store operational on the site from the day it was built until the very month it was destroyed.

 

Yes, the Foley's Bldg. was ugly, but it was a vital part of downtown. Downtown is worse off without a major department store. Office workers and residents used that Macy's. It was a valuable addition to the downtown experience. Having worked in downtown for years, I can tell you how much I relied on that place to get things done on the lunch hour in order to avoid the Galleria. 

[H-Town Man]

An adaptive reuse could have looked something like Water Tower Place. You save the front facade, gut the interior. One of the back quadrants of the building becomes an office tower. Then make the interior kind of a giant atrium with shops and escalators and trees in the middle. Maybe an ice rink. Make the roof skylights, and maybe have the upper floors as office space looking out over the atrium with windows punched on the non-Main sides of the building.  Parking can go either in the other back quadrant or across the street where the Americana building is.

 

 

[HoustonIsHome]

you do realize they knew Macys was closing long before the Downtown Retail Initiative came out, right? if it werent for the city wanting the Main/Dallas intersection to be 100% retail on all 4 sides i dont think Hilcorp would of bothered implementing ground floor retail. it should be interesting to see if/when the Swarkovzky (i probably just butchered the hell out of that) building gets renovated for GFR. but i dont see the city abandoning the Dallas retail corridor plans. Mayor Parker seems pretty dedicated to revamping downtown and she just won the election again so i think the retail incentives plan will go ahead as scheduled. the city has been set on the Dallas retail corridor for years now.

It doesn't matter when they knew Macys was closing or how much the mayor supports the Dallas corridor. The project was anchored by Macys and isnt much without it. Corridors like these need major tenants to pull it together. A couple of small clothing retailers, a deli and coffee shop will do nothing to build a string retail district.

It doesn't matter what hilcorp does, unless they can pull of a Macys or even something lesser like a Target, the area isn't going to evolve as planned.

Parker can support the area till she is blue in the face but she cant dictate where the market heads. Undoubtedly she will improve the area, but I don't think the reality will be anywhere near what was planned.

MACY'S is gone, Sarcowitz (sp) will remain a parking garage. Don't mean to sound like a downer but I don't think the project can be anchored by greenstreet. To me, too much depends on commitments from other parties.

Like I said, I do believe that downtown will develop a strong retail component, I just don't think it's going to be on Dallas. I think it's going to be in a newer area of downtown. Walking around Dallas up to the shops at Houston center is rather depressing. So many concrete walks instead of store fronts. Conversions are going to be expensive, parking is a problem...

I just think that newer developments will build wiser and incorporate retail components at ground level and that will be the area that retail will make a resurgence

[Moore713]

It doesn't matter when they knew Macys was closing or how much the mayor supports the Dallas corridor. The project was anchored by Macys and isnt much without it. Corridors like these need major tenants to pull it together. A couple of small clothing retailers, a deli and coffee shop will do nothing to build a string retail district.

It doesn't matter what hilcorp does, unless they can pull of a Macys or even something lesser like a Target, the area isn't going to evolve as planned.

Parker can support the area till she is blue in the face but she cant dictate where the market heads. Undoubtedly she will improve the area, but I don't think the reality will be anywhere near what was planned.

MACY'S is gone, Sarcowitz (sp) will remain a parking garage. Don't mean to sound like a downer but I don't think the project can be anchored by greenstreet. To me, too much depends on commitments from other parties.

Like I said, I do believe that downtown will develop a strong retail component, I just don't think it's going to be on Dallas. I think it's going to be in a newer area of downtown. Walking around Dallas up to the shops at Houston center is rather depressing. So many concrete walks instead of store fronts. Conversions are going to be expensive, parking is a problem...

I just think that newer developments will build wiser and incorporate retail components at ground level and that will be the area that retail will make a resurgence

 

 

 

Edited November 7, 2013 by Moore713

[Moore713]

 

It doesn't matter when they knew Macys was closing or how much the mayor supports the Dallas corridor. The project was anchored by Macys and isnt much without it. Corridors like these need major tenants to pull it together. A couple of small clothing retailers, a deli and coffee shop will do nothing to build a string retail district.

It doesn't matter what hilcorp does, unless they can pull of a Macys or even something lesser like a Target, the area isn't going to evolve as planned.

Parker can support the area till she is blue in the face but she cant dictate where the market heads. Undoubtedly she will improve the area, but I don't think the reality will be anywhere near what was planned.

MACY'S is gone, Sarcowitz (sp) will remain a parking garage. Don't mean to sound like a downer but I don't think the project can be anchored by greenstreet. To me, too much depends on commitments from other parties.

Like I said, I do believe that downtown will develop a strong retail component, I just don't think it's going to be on Dallas. I think it's going to be in a newer area of downtown. Walking around Dallas up to the shops at Houston center is rather depressing. So many concrete walks instead of store fronts. Conversions are going to be expensive, parking is a problem...

I just think that newer developments will build wiser and incorporate retail components at ground level and that will be the area that retail will make a resurgence

 

 

 

 

 

[Moore713]

The area retail plan had already been revised after Macys closed to focus on making Green St the ancor 

[LTAWACS]

So... is this a go or what?

[Subdude]

you do realize they knew Macys was closing long before the Downtown Retail Initiative came out, right? if it werent for the city wanting the Main/Dallas intersection to be 100% retail on all 4 sides i dont think Hilcorp would of bothered implementing ground floor retail. it should be interesting to see if/when the Swarkovzky (i probably just butchered the hell out of that) building gets renovated for GFR. but i dont see the city abandoning the Dallas retail corridor plans. Mayor Parker seems pretty dedicated to revamping downtown and she just won the election again so i think the retail incentives plan will go ahead as scheduled. the city has been set on the Dallas retail corridor for years now.

(2011)

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

(2013)

http://www.downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2013-09-12/Downtown_Retail_Task_Force_Report_Sept_12_2013_ONLINE.pdf

 

It's not clear to me that they will implement ground floor retail.  The rendering doesn't seem to preclude it, but on the other hand doesn't include the usual rendering signifiers of retail, ie an H&M sign and large stock photography on the side of the building.  I assume the Main side will include an entrance to the main lobby, although it is hard to see how that will work with the way the parking entrance and exit are aligned.  My guess is that the Main side will include flexible space that will be offered for retail but that is convertible to parking if demand for retail doesn't pan out (as what happened with the Foley's garage).

[Subdude]

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.

 

The Bank of America building incorporates what was I believe a Western Union building, although one would never know it.  

 

My hunch is that the Macy's building was too idiosyncratic to be economically redeveloped while maintaining anything like its architectural integrity.  But speaking of buildings from 1960-2000 that will be in need of attention, I'm curious as to what Hilcorp has planned for the Americana building across the street, which is a real nice example of Mid-Century Modern.  I originally expected that block to be devoted to parking for the new building across the street, but that appears not to be the case.  

[htownproud]

An adaptive reuse could have looked something like Water Tower Place. You save the front facade, gut the interior. One of the back quadrants of the building becomes an office tower. Then make the interior kind of a giant atrium with shops and escalators and trees in the middle. Maybe an ice rink. Make the roof skylights, and maybe have the upper floors as office space looking out over the atrium with windows punched on the non-Main sides of the building.  Parking can go either in the other back quadrant or across the street where the Americana building is.

 

 

 

This is a deceiving picture.  Water Tower Place was never part of the original structure.  There is street between the two that you can't see from this angle.  

[livincinco]

It doesn't matter when they knew Macys was closing or how much the mayor supports the Dallas corridor. The project was anchored by Macys and isnt much without it. Corridors like these need major tenants to pull it together. A couple of small clothing retailers, a deli and coffee shop will do nothing to build a string retail district.

It doesn't matter what hilcorp does, unless they can pull of a Macys or even something lesser like a Target, the area isn't going to evolve as planned.

Parker can support the area till she is blue in the face but she cant dictate where the market heads. Undoubtedly she will improve the area, but I don't think the reality will be anywhere near what was planned.

MACY'S is gone, Sarcowitz (sp) will remain a parking garage. Don't mean to sound like a downer but I don't think the project can be anchored by greenstreet. To me, too much depends on commitments from other parties.

Like I said, I do believe that downtown will develop a strong retail component, I just don't think it's going to be on Dallas. I think it's going to be in a newer area of downtown. Walking around Dallas up to the shops at Houston center is rather depressing. So many concrete walks instead of store fronts. Conversions are going to be expensive, parking is a problem...

I just think that newer developments will build wiser and incorporate retail components at ground level and that will be the area that retail will make a resurgence

 

There's a key point that you're missing here though.  Macys closed their store because it wasn't doing enough business.  It's great to speculate about how nice it would be to build storefronts but they need to be able to do business and there just isn't any evidence at this point that sufficient retail volume exists to do that.  Pavilions/Greenstreet has had success as a entertainment/dining destination, but hasn't been able to generate any significant retail presence.

 

The only way that you draw a department store anchor at this point is by giving a large 380 development agreement.  I would argue that money is better invested in drawing residential for the near term and then letting the retail develop organically from the increased population.

 

[H-Town Man]

This is a deceiving picture.  Water Tower Place was never part of the original structure.  There is street between the two that you can't see from this angle.  

 

You're saying the Water Tower Place mall is not attached to the Water Tower Place tower?  I am not talking about the old water tower itself. I am talking about the Water Tower Place development. There is no street cutting through it.

[KinkaidAlum]

The downtown Houston Macy's was profitable. They closed the store because the land got sold from underneath it. That said, it wasn't a stellar profit, but it did make money.

[Moore713]

The downtown Houston Macy's was profitable. They closed the store because the land got sold from underneath it. That said, it wasn't a stellar profit, but it did make money.

Then why was this downtown property one of five other downtown macy closing???

[KinkaidAlum]

Simple. They lost their lease. You can't run a store if you don't have a lease and you can't have a lease if the new landlord plans to tear down the building and replace it with a single purpose office tower.

[livincinco]

The downtown Houston Macy's was profitable. They closed the store because the land got sold from underneath it. That said, it wasn't a stellar profit, but it did make money.

 

Profitable really isn't the issue, opportunity cost is.  Let's accept that the land got sold out from underneath them.  They clearly weren't making enough profit to relocate and open the store in another downtown location.  I don't know what their rent was at that location, but I'm going to guess that it was below market value (which could have also contributed to their profitability).

 

I don't have the data to say for sure, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence that street level retail in downtown is a good business investment at this point.

[Slick Vik]

Profitable really isn't the issue, opportunity cost is. Let's accept that the land got sold out from underneath them. They clearly weren't making enough profit to relocate and open the store in another downtown location. I don't know what their rent was at that location, but I'm going to guess that it was below market value (which could have also contributed to their profitability).

I don't have the data to say for sure, but there just doesn't seem to be evidence that street level retail in downtown is a good business investment at this point.

City of houston disagrees with you. They are offering incentives for ground level retail on the Dallas corridor.

[swtsig]

City of houston disagrees with you. They are offering incentives for ground level retail on the Dallas corridor.

 

your two sentences are in direct contradiction of each other.

[H-Town Man]

Simple. They lost their lease. You can't run a store if you don't have a lease and you can't have a lease if the new landlord plans to tear down the building and replace it with a single purpose office tower.

 

Did they lose their lease or did they just decide not to renew?

[HoustonIsHome]

Did they lose their lease or did they just decide not to renew?

If I remember correctly both Macys and the city wanted the store to stay. Owners of Foleys wanted a different use of the space.

As for not renewing, I don't think the lease was even up yet. I trunk Macys was in the middle of a ten year lease

[Houston19514]

If I remember correctly both Macys and the city wanted the store to stay. Owners of Foleys wanted a different use of the space.

As for not renewing, I don't think the lease was even up yet. I trunk Macys was in the middle of a ten year lease

 

Highly doubtful.  If they were in the middle of a ten year lease and wanted to stay, there would probably be a lawsuit in progress.

[Houston19514]

Did they lose their lease or did they just decide not to renew?

 

The word at the time from both Macy's and the city was that they lost their lease.  Also that they were interested in finding space downtown for a 150,000 square foot store.

[htownproud]

You're saying the Water Tower Place mall is not attached to the Water Tower Place tower?  I am not talking about the old water tower itself. I am talking about the Water Tower Place development. There is no street cutting through it.

I thought you were trying to show that an old structure could be attached to a new structure/mall.  But if you were just trying to show that you can have a hotel on top of a mall, then yes I agree with you.  

[Urbannizer]

Forgot to post these before leaving off to San Marcos & Austin. You can only get a good view of the site from the open side of the fence.

 

 

 

[H-Town Man]

I thought you were trying to show that an old structure could be attached to a new structure/mall. But if you were just trying to show that you can have a hotel on top of a mall, then yes I agree with you.

I was trying to show how a possible redevelopment of Foley's could have incorporated shops and an office tower. The bulk of Foley's is analogous to the bulky lower portion of Water Tower Place. The text of my post explained what I was driving at.

Edited November 21, 2013 by H-Town Man

[Nate99]

They are chipping out the below grade foundations currently with nealy all of the former building debris havig been hauled off.

 

Tough to see much, but there wasa ton of steel reinforcing the concrete that made up the outer retaning wall. Maybe what I saw was part of the rumored "fallout shelter".

Edited November 21, 2013 by Nate99

[H-Town Man]

They are chipping out the below grade foundations currently with nealy all of the former building debris havig been hauled off.

 

Tough to see much, but there wasa ton of steel reinforcing the concrete that made up the outer retaning wall. Maybe what I saw was part of the rumored "fallout shelter".

 

Perhaps they thought that when they built, they built forever.

[Nate99]

Perhaps they thought that when they built, they built forever.

 

It was bunker level substantial. They were working on the Main street side, kind of made me wonder what they might have to do to keep the soil from shifting around under the light rail tracks once that big, heavy subterranian wall was removed, but what I know about soils and construction is limited to knowing that you generally construct buildings on top of soil.

 

It also occurs to me that my metaphorical exagerration of "ton" is woefully inaequate.

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

you can see the entire site from the top of the Pavilions Garage. When I go to work tomorrow, I'll park on the 8th and snap a few pics for y'all.

 

 

ugh.. work.. I'm in Vegas right now... lol