609 Main At Texas

[swtsig]

I love when I log into HAIF like any normal day, and suddenly there is a new downtown tower proposal, it rocks my face off. Anyways, for that location, I think the height is fine, considering it's basically behind Chase Tower. I'd prefer that side of downtown, the more eastern part, to have building more in that 500ft range. Now the west side, and especially the Gateway tract, that's where I want to see building built tall!

the current renderings of the gateway building (5 allen center) would be a stellar addition to downtown's skyline. i dont have any confirmation on whether or not it's gonna happen, but somebody gave me a "90% chance" that it gets built. better than nothing.

if we could get Discovery Tower, MainPlace, 6 Houston Center, Hines North, and 5 Allen Center all built w/in the next 5 years.... i'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

[lockmat]

Can someone post a map showing exactly where Block 69 is? This isn't San Jacinto-Rusk-Caroline-Walker block a 30-story tower connected to One Houston Center by a skywalk is planned?

score! http://www.houstondowntown.com/Home/Busine...Block%20Map.PDF

this should go on the wiki

[King Owl]

the current renderings of the gateway building (5 allen center) would be a stellar addition to downtown's skyline. i dont have any confirmation on whether or not it's gonna happen, but somebody gave me a "90% chance" that it gets built. better than nothing.

if we could get Discovery Tower, MainPlace, 6 Houston Center, Hines North, and 5 Allen Center all built w/in the next 5 years.... i'd say that's pretty damn impressive.

What does the gateway building rendering look like? Hopefully it has a lighting element at the top. I'd also like to see an "Atlanta-style" cheat on the height by doing the build-up or crown on top

[shasta]

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

[rsb320]

this will look great being in close proximity to Mainplace and the older part of downtown that it will look amazing. kind of like if Heritage Plaza wasn't there, Wells Fargo probably wouldn't look as nice. this will make both buildings compliment each other like Heritage Plaza and Wells Fargo.

I don't agree. I think it's too much glass around all of that stone. It appears that this building is facing south (Saint Germain/Flying Saucer) and is on the block east of Main between Texas and Capitol. I like the design of the building, but on the fence regarding the design for this locale. This is the Market/Historic District, after all.

Edited May 7, 2008 by rsb320

[sevfiv]

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&z=18

[Trae]

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

I agree completely.

[jayshoota]

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&z=18

I'll fourth the questioning of the location BUT I am sure glad that something is happening on this lot. I drive by it everyday and just think of the possibilities. One of the best locations in downtown.

[Jax]

I'm not crazy about the design, but the location is awesome and it better have retail at the very least...

[shasta]

I'll fourth the questioning of the location BUT I am sure glad that something is happening on this lot. I drive by it everyday and just think of the possibilities. One of the best locations in downtown.

Historically speaking, the intersection of Texas and Main IS the best availaible lot in downtown.

[musicman]

I'll second (or third) the questioning of the location...having a hard time seeing it mesh, but who knows.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&z=18

i think this is the listing with a property address of 609 main. between 2007 and 2008 appraised value has gone up 3.3 mil. ouch.

Edited May 7, 2008 by musicman

[KinkaidAlum]

If the building is indeed L shaped, then I am assuming it is being built around The Texas Tower. That is potentially good news but I would think the chances of the Texas Tower ever becoming residential would be slim to none if an office building was built around it. A hotel still might be a possibility.

I HATE that the City Centre concept has faded away. A Mandarin Oriental with a residential component, offices, and retail would have been excellent for that lot. It also appeared that the tower portion was set back and built atop a wider base. That's a more respectful way to build in a "historic" area. This new proposal is essentially just a blobby office tower pinched into a L shaped lot.

[TheNiche]

I think it is a HUGE loss for the city to have a building here without a residential component.

This is a VERY significant lot and we've already had two proposals or schemes the last 5 years- one called for a condo tower and the other called for a striking mix- use tower (residential/ hotel/ office) . The location is near one of the strong nucleus of downtown (Texas and Main) which includes the historic Rice and other residential buildings with close proximity to dining options, the theater district, Market Square, and of course the rail. I almost say it's a crime for HINES to replace a residential vision that at least two developers had dreamed about with a 30 story, sterile looking, ho-hum glass, office building. I mean -Is this Greenspoint??? They could have at least put Main Place here if this was their plan.

Why not build this building on the other side of Main to take up some of the surface lots?

While I'm all for infill and making downtown more dense- It has to make sense and contribute to the bigger picture and add to the 'city building' standard we should all hold developers to. This building doesn't do that and this lot is too valuable- I hope this one doesn't go through because I'm holding out for something more significant.

Downtown's office market is doing so well that rents have shot upward. Land prices have gone up, reflecting the higher and better economic use, and in so doing, made it effectively impossible to develop residential unless it is paired as condos within a five-star hotel...but even those are tricky to pull off, and they are ultimately relatively few in number.

In the mean time, Kirby Lofts is just about empty, almost entirely foreclosed upon. And even Randall Davis had difficulty selling units in St. Germain at an acceptable pace. Why do we need more units when we have so much difficulty filling the ones we've got? More importantly, if the mixed-residential visions were failures, why should we so vehemently adhere to a concept that won't fly? Why make the same mistakes time and time again? The vacant lot certainly isn't contributing to economic vitality.

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is with office space. In terms of the sheer density of people that it can accomodate, nothing adds to daytime population like an office building. Moreover, if you watch apartment absorption trends inside the loop at all, they very closely mirror downtown office employment. The more people work downtown, the more people live in the city, the tighter the apartment market gets, the higher the rents, go, and the more apartments get built.

No two ways about it, this is good news!

Edited May 7, 2008 by TheNiche

[musicman]

In the mean time, Kirby Lofts is just about empty, almost entirely foreclosed upon. And even Randall Davis had difficulty selling units in St. Germain at an acceptable pace. Why do we need more units when we have so much difficulty filling the ones we've got?

bingo.

[rsb320]

I don't care that it's an office building; I just don't think the design fits that location.

[TheNiche]

I don't care that it's an office building; I just don't think the design fits that location.

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

[rsb320]

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

Anything will be better than a hole in the ground with a fence around it.

[KinkaidAlum]

Comparing the St Germaine + Kirby Lofts to anything that would have been attached to a Mandarin Oriental is laughable.

Two completely different markets.

[RedScare]

Oh, ok, well the juxtaposition of old and new appeals to me.

It does to me, as well. And, just to throw in my $0.02, a proposal to build a several hundred million dollar tax producing building in the Central Business District is not only not a HUGE loss, it isn't a loss at all, but rather a gain for the city in general, and downtown specifically. With new residential construction occurring immediately south and east of downtown, it is in no danger of withering away. For upwards of 25,000 residents, downtown attractions and amenities are no more than a railstop or $4.00 cab ride away....cheaper than valet parking.

I've read all of the same new urbanism articles that you all have, filled with all of the trendy buzzwords. The fact is, none of this hoped for residential development in downtown will be attainable for 95% or more of the population. And, if you can't live in it, who cares what is inside it? Amenities located in downtown, such as the theatres, stadiums, parks and convention centers....all things that draw consumers looking to be entertained....are going to put far more feet on the ground for people watching than a couple of 200 unit condo towers with 1.5 persons residing in each unit. Think about that. 600 rich people who you'll never see, versus 43,000 Astros fans, 18,500 Rockets fans, 5,000 convention attendees or 3,000 concert goers....and possibly 20,000 soccer fans. ALL of these events flood downtown with consumers. Rich condo owners do not. For proof, check out that WFAA "Victory Cam" that constantly shows the empty Victory Plaza....EXCEPT when American Airlines Center is in use.

[TheNiche]

Comparing the St Germaine + Kirby Lofts to anything that would have been attached to a Mandarin Oriental is laughable.

Two completely different markets.

Yep, well that idea didn't exactly fly, and like I had already said, if any kind of new-build residential can work, that'd have been it. Why do you think that Hines (or anybody) ought to continue persuing a concept that couldn't even pass the sniff test?

[H-Town Man]

In regards to the old CityCentre Building...I received confirmation that it was a little more than a wetdream...I might be telling soemthing that people already know, but it did involve the Madrian Oriental, Residential component and office component, but I heard that it went bust when they couldn't close on any major corporation signing a lease for the office component.

That's pathetic.

Downtown's office market is doing so well that rents have shot upward. Land prices have gone up, reflecting the higher and better economic use, and in so doing, made it effectively impossible to develop residential unless it is paired as condos within a five-star hotel...but even those are tricky to pull off, and they are ultimately relatively few in number.

So much for a boom economy bringing innovative residential developments to downtown.

I'll echo shasta's comments... this is the most important undeveloped block downtown, at the city's most historically prominent intersection. This should have gotten premier treatment. Instead we get a tasteful but banal glass box, the best facade of which does not face onto Main our signature street, or onto Texas where it would add to the north view of our skyline, but Capitol! The ONLY reason I can think why they would put the best facade on Capitol is so it will look nice from their other development, MainPlace!

I say we create a HAIF Cinder Block Award for insensitive development and present the first one to Hines.

[Trae]

Yep, well that idea didn't exactly fly, and like I had already said, if any kind of new-build residential can work, that'd have been it. Why do you think that Hines (or anybody) ought to continue persuing a concept that couldn't even pass the sniff test?

First, Mandarin is having financial problems in many cities. Second, this thing wasn't even marketed. Just a rendering someone found on a architect's website.

[Triton]

The link for this project has been taken off the original website that was posted. Check the LEED section. It's not there anymore.

What does that mean?

[TheNiche]

So much for a boom economy bringing innovative residential developments to downtown.

That's pretty much what it comes down to (in Houston).

But strangely enough, Austin has a percentage growth rate that is even faster than ours, and their downtown area is growing by leaps and bounds, with most of it being residential/hotel/retail. There really isn't much in the way of new office space being built downtown; it's all out in the suburbs. Worse still is Dallas, where their downtown office market keeps on getting new supply but can't quite seem to fill it.

Personally, I strongly perfer our urban growth model. It draws a greater number and diversity of people downtown, as Red pointed out, and as our region grows, having a strong central business district in the context of an urban core with a dense residential population will make developing effective local and regional transit much easier than will be the case in a place like Austin.

I'll echo shasta's comments... this is the most important undeveloped block downtown, at the city's most historically prominent intersection. This should have gotten premier treatment. Instead we get a tasteful but banal glass box, the best facade of which does not face onto Main our signature street, or onto Texas where it would add to the north view of our skyline, but Capitol! The ONLY reason I can think why they would put the best facade on Capitol is so it will look nice from their other development, MainPlace!

Which is the best facade? It's not as though we know what it'll look like at street level, and it frankly doesn't matter which street its facing, per se, if you're looking at the tower as part of the skyline from a mile away.

First, Mandarin is having financial problems in many cities. Second, this thing wasn't even marketed. Just a rendering someone found on a architect's website.

That's kind of my point. It didn't even pass the sniff test.

The link for this project has been taken off the original website that was posted. Check the LEED section. It's not there anymore.

What does that mean?

It means that somebody at Wylie breached their CA, and Hines found out and got all pissy.

TOO LATE!!! They've already been scooped.

[H-Town Man]

Which is the best facade? It's not as though we know what it'll look like at street level, and it frankly doesn't matter which street its facing, per se, if you're looking at the tower as part of the skyline from a mile away.

I assume it's the one shown in the rendering. As to your second point, who said I was looking at the tower as part of the skyline a mile away? For pedestrians at most places pedestrians would be, having your best facade on Capitol does not help the effect much.

[TheNiche]

I assume it's the one shown in the rendering. As to your second point, who said I was looking at the tower as part of the skyline a mile away? For pedestrians at most places pedestrians would be, having your best facade on Capitol does not help the effect much.

For pedestrians at most places pedestrians would be, the facade of the tower doesn't really matter so much. Most people don't walk around downtown with their head held back at a 90-degree angle to the ground. With that in mind, it matters less which way the tower is facing, and more whether the building is articulated at street level and how the retail and lobby entrances are situated...but that's something that the rendering doesn't resolve at all, which is why I think that your comment may have been made prematurely.

[Jax]

...

Edited May 7, 2008 by Jax

[rsb320]

The link for this project has been taken off the original website that was posted. Check the LEED section. It's not there anymore.

What does that mean?

I saw the link earlier on the City Centre blog. If CC and Mandarine were the same project - I don't know. Nice building (rendering) though.

[rsb320]

I saw the link earlier on the City Centre blog. If CC and Mandarine were the same project - I don't know. Nice building (rendering) though.

Is this it?

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...showtopic=10539

[lockmat]

The link for this project has been taken off the original website that was posted. Check the LEED section. It's not there anymore.

What does that mean?

You're right, it's not listed under the LEED link, but it still comes up when you click on the link that channel2news posted. That's interesting. You'd think they would have taken that one down too.