609 Main At Texas

[rechlin]

As promised, here's a ground-level photo. They have a couple more segments in the crane tower now. As before, you can click for a bigger photo:

[brijonmang]

Thank you for the photos Rechlin!  You may be a new poster but your construction progress photos are quite an asset for the rest of the forum who can't be there to see things in person. 

[H-Town Man]

As promised, here's a ground-level photo. They have a couple more segments in the crane tower now. As before, you can click for a bigger photo:

 

Wow, like watching the executioner arrange his instruments!  Still think this one's a shame.  One less classic fire escape downtown.

[Nate99]

[ChannelTwoNews]

Was pressed for time when I was downtown yesterday so here's a peek from Discovery Green. Will probably get more in upcoming days...

 

 

 

[Houston19514]

Is this building really going to be gone by March?  Interesting process.

[Triton]

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

there is no way it will be gone by March, but, excavation for the rest of the tower will take a couple of months, so, if this one is gone by June, then it'll work out pretty well.

 

I think it took 6 months to disassemble the Sheraton, which was just a shell.

 

 

(timeline pulled out of thin air)

[H-Town Man]

Can they start excavating while this is still being demo'd?

[rechlin]

Today they removed part of the fire escape, and they've now removed the top 11 floors of windows, and finally they removed the old Chinese Cafe sign from the south corner. Also, they've been carrying dumpster after dumpster of debris off the roof.

Here's a photo of the fire escape partially removed (as always, you can click these photos for a higher resolution image):

The Chinese Cafe sign just before removal:

Dumpsters of debris being brought down:

And a bonus photo from early last week, when they were putting the cab on top of the crane:

[Purdueenginerd]

Can they start excavating while this is still being demo'd?

 

Depends on foundation design and soil characteristics of the adjacent structure. Among other things...

[Nate99]

 

[ricco67]

Well, that looks interesting.  Certainly seems like it would speed it up.   Did they do this with the old Sheraton Demo? I don't seem to recall this structure on the outside of it.

[Nate99]

Well, that looks interesting.  Certainly seems like it would speed it up.   Did they do this with the old Sheraton Demo? I don't seem to recall this structure on the outside of it.

 

They had a crane with the Sheraton demo, but not the scaffolvator contraptions. 

 

They have pretty much surrounded the building with these lifts and have installed "walls" in each of them where there is normally just the catwalk and a rail. I guess they intend to haul debris down as they go, should be interesting to watch. 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

the Sheraton wasn't a brick structure like this one, so I'm sure the scaffolvator (heh.. good name for it, Nate) is up so they can remove all the brick.

 

Plus, the Sheraton was already gutted and had all it's asbestos removed.

 

after the brick comes down, the rest of the structure will come down rather quickly

[H-Town Man]

the Sheraton wasn't a brick structure like this one, so I'm sure the scaffolvator (heh.. good name for it, Nate) is up so they can remove all the brick.

Plus, the Sheraton was already gutted and had all it's asbestos removed.

after the brick comes down, the rest of the structure will come down rather quickly

Ironic that this building is slowing everything down with its well endowed set of brick while the Marriott has to have panelling glued on because its brick was ruined.

How much better things are when you just take care of them.

[Subdude]

Ironic that this building is slowing everything down with its well endowed set of brick while the Marriott has to have panelling glued on because its brick was ruined.

How much better things are when you just take care of them.

 

A lesson one might consider with respect to the Exxon Building.

[Nate99]

A lesson one might consider with respect to the Exxon Building.

 

It's interesting. The long since removed deco features of the building on this block and the tarred and feathered brick of 806 Main seem like a waste right now. At the time these changes were made, people were just trying to make the buildings economic.  

 

Re-skinning the Exxon building may be the only way it doesn't become the most prominent skyline eyesore in the country for 50 years. 

[H-Town Man]

It's interesting. The long since removed deco features of the building on this block and the tarred and feathered brick of 806 Main seem like a waste right now. At the time these changes were made, people were just trying to make the buildings economic.  

 

Re-skinning the Exxon building may be the only way it doesn't become the most prominent skyline eyesore in the country for 50 years. 

 

I think a good sensitive restoration would eliminate any problem of the Exxon building being an eyesore. Mid-century modern is getting more appreciation every year, and aside from a certain group that only likes whatever's newest and shiniest (unfortunately a lot of people in the energy industry), the Exxon will be more appreciated longterm as a landmark representative of its era.

 

I can't excuse the tacky restorations of the 60's and 70's with the thought that it was just people trying to make them economic, trying to put food on the table, etc. People need to be held accountable for wasteful, short-sighted slavery to trend or we'll just get more of the same.

 

At some point cities figure out that they actually look better if they have a variety of well-maintained buildings from different periods rather than trying to have all their buildings look as much as possible like the latest period and letting them go derelict if they can't adapt. I'm hoping Houston can turn this corner at some point.

[Nate99]

I think a good sensitive restoration would eliminate any problem of the Exxon building being an eyesore. Mid-century modern is getting more appreciation every year, and aside from a certain group that only likes whatever's newest and shiniest (unfortunately a lot of people in the energy industry), the Exxon will be more appreciated longterm as a landmark representative of its era.

 

I can't excuse the tacky restorations of the 60's and 70's with the thought that it was just people trying to make them economic, trying to put food on the table, etc. People need to be held accountable for wasteful, short-sighted slavery to trend or we'll just get more of the same.

 

At some point cities figure out that they actually look better if they have a variety of well-maintained buildings from different periods rather than trying to have all their buildings look as much as possible like the latest period and letting them go derelict if they can't adapt. I'm hoping Houston can turn this corner at some point.

 

People also need to be held accountable for pricing development out of markets and chasing industry out of entire cities. There is a reason Chevron may or may not build its own tower here instead of preserving its campus in California (to say nothing of its move out of DT San Francisco in the first place).

 

It's not an either/or proposition and the balance point will be different for every city, but I would not count on mid-century modern architecture appreciation to care and feed a 50 story behemoth while it waits for tenants. Accountability and priorities can move to more pragmatic concerns when influential owners have more skin in the game than preserving the memory of changing design aesthetics. 

 

If someone is willing to pay for it, by all means preserve away. If it takes restrictive regulations and/or tax incentives to keep things looking the way a few or even many people want them to look, count me out. 

Edited January 22, 2014 by Nate99

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

A lesson one might consider with respect to the Exxon Building.

 

 

it's better applied to One Allen Center

[H-Town Man]

People also need to be held accountable for pricing development out of markets and chasing industry out of entire cities. There is a reason Chevron may or may not build its own tower here instead of preserving its campus in California (to say nothing of its move out of DT San Francisco in the first place).

 

It's not an either/or proposition and the balance point will be different for every city, but I would not count on mid-century modern architecture appreciation to care and feed a 50 story behemoth while it waits for tenants. Accountability and priorities can move to more pragmatic concerns when influential owners have more skin in the game than preserving the memory of changing design aesthetics. 

 

If someone is willing to pay for it, by all means preserve away. If it takes restrictive regulations and/or tax incentives to keep things looking the way a few or even many people want them to look, count me out. 

 

I think Chevron's move out of San Francisco has more to do with rising costs (and traffic) due to the desirability of the area than any aesthetic regulations that may or may not have affected them.  When you say "there is a reason," do you actually have special insider knowledge that Chevron's reason for making these moves was due to aesthetic regulations and/or tax incentives?

[cloud713]

I think a good sensitive restoration would eliminate any problem of the Exxon building being an eyesore. Mid-century modern is getting more appreciation every year, and aside from a certain group that only likes whatever's newest and shiniest (unfortunately a lot of people in the energy industry), the Exxon will be more appreciated longterm as a landmark representative of its era.

I can't excuse the tacky restorations of the 60's and 70's with the thought that it was just people trying to make them economic, trying to put food on the table, etc. People need to be held accountable for wasteful, short-sighted slavery to trend or we'll just get more of the same.

At some point cities figure out that they actually look better if they have a variety of well-maintained buildings from different periods rather than trying to have all their buildings look as much as possible like the latest period and letting them go derelict if they can't adapt. I'm hoping Houston can turn this corner at some point.

Agreed.. While I like the new design.. I wish it were a brand new tower and not replacing this mid century architectural icon.. Sure it could use a face lift.. Maybe a little bit of streamlining, but in 50 years are we going to be talking about how cool the renovated Exxon mobile building looks, or are we going to be wishing we had the original tower of the 60s? A condo conversion retaining the same design would be pretty cool IMO, obviously turning the fins into balconies..

[Nate99]

I think Chevron's move out of San Francisco has more to do with rising costs (and traffic) due to the desirability of the area than any aesthetic regulations that may or may not have affected them.  When you say "there is a reason," do you actually have special insider knowledge that Chevron's reason for making these moves was due to aesthetic regulations and/or tax incentives?

 

 

No insider knowledge whatever. More restrictions and higher costs go hand in glove, there's no free lunch.  Rising costs happen for many reasons, among them scarcity created by restrictive regulation. 

 

That said, if one could increase the desirability of the area and keep their favored aesthetic restrictions in place, I would have no problem with that as someone would be willing to pay for it. I don't think we're quite there just yet.  It's the Chevrons of the world that we're trying to court (though I have no love lost for the tax breaks they get), and our approach has been successful. San Francisco wants to go another direction, more power to them. 

[rechlin]

Back on topic, I can now see daylight coming from above when looking in the top floor windows, so they've clearly scraped the roof off already. There's a big yellow excavator on the roof doing the damage; unfortunately I was unable to witness them lifting that thing up there, or I would have taken a photo.

They also added (or have almost finished adding) a few more mast climber lifts now that the old fire escape is gone. It will be interesting to see how quickly things progress from this point.

[King Owl]

Agreed.. While I like the new design.. I wish it were a brand new tower and not replacing this mid century architectural icon.. Sure it could use a face lift.. Maybe a little bit of streamlining, but in 50 years are we going to be talking about how cool the renovated Exxon mobile building looks, or are we going to be wishing we had the original tower of the 60s? A condo conversion retaining the same design would be pretty cool IMO, obviously turning the fins into balconies..

 

(sorry...pet peeve...it's ExxonMobil.  It's not like the "mobile phone" or "Mobile, Alabama")  If you live in Houston you should be able to get this right...)

 

 

as you were.

[Nate99]

Back on topic, I can now see daylight coming from above when looking in the top floor windows, so they've clearly scraped the roof off already. There's a big yellow excavator on the roof doing the damage; unfortunately I was unable to witness them lifting that thing up there, or I would have taken a photo.

They also added (or have almost finished adding) a few more mast climber lifts now that the old fire escape is gone. It will be interesting to see how quickly things progress from this point.

 

That would have been impressive to watch. 

[cloud713]

Edit.

Edited January 22, 2014 by cloud713

[Nate99]

You can see daylight from the disappearing roof noted by rechlin through the window on the top floor in the recessed corner here:

 

Edited January 22, 2014 by Nate99

[H-Town Man]

No insider knowledge whatever. More restrictions and higher costs go hand in glove, there's no free lunch.  Rising costs happen for many reasons, among them scarcity created by restrictive regulation. 

 

That said, if one could increase the desirability of the area and keep their favored aesthetic restrictions in place, I would have no problem with that as someone would be willing to pay for it. I don't think we're quite there just yet.  It's the Chevrons of the world that we're trying to court (though I have no love lost for the tax breaks they get), and our approach has been successful. San Francisco wants to go another direction, more power to them. 

 

This is a scare tactic.  If you pass any regulation, any regulation at all, we'll lose the Chevrons of the world!  Our approach has been successful, but so have the approaches of New York and London, the economic capitals of the world, both of which have plenty of regulations. 

 

Incidentally I never even suggested regulations, just made a comment on the shortsightedness of certain decisions, and here are all the usual tired arguments about regulations.

Edited January 22, 2014 by H-Town Man