jt16 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself.Not trying to bust your chops. I like the inside info on this site. But sometimes rich people think they know everything. Here's an example both of us might appreciate. A few weeks ago a bunch of rich people swore nick Saban or job gruden were going to be head coach in Austin. ; ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself.dont take it personally.. we are just trying to keep calm by convincing ourselves of the many reasons you might be wrong. heh.. thanks for providing some possibly significant insight.. i just wish it was better news like "THE NEW TOWER IS HAPPENING AND ITS GOING TO BE A SUPERTALL!!!" or something of the likes.. lmao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 on a somewhat related note.. how is Shell getting out of its lease at 2 Shell Plaza before its 2025 expiration? didnt Chevron just sign a new lease in one of the neighboring towers to house some of its new/relocated employees? if so, i wonder if Chevron can back out of that agreement similar to however Shell is getting out of 2SP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 on a somewhat related note.. how is Shell getting out of its lease at 2 Shell Plaza before its 2025 expiration? didnt Chevron just sign a new lease in one of the neighboring towers to house some of its new/relocated employees? if so, i wonder if Chevron can back out of that agreement similar to however Shell is getting out of 2SP.You don't get out of a lease. You try and sublease 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself. I hope you don't. Everyone here is reacting negatively because it is possibly bad news, not because they don't appreciate the info. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sellanious Caesar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 They will build downtown. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well the good news is he said nothing is for certain. It just appears that they are leaning hard one direction currently (campus on the north side) but nothing is inked by any means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) I sure as he'll hope not... I have no idea why they would want to relocate from downtown to Conroe.. I could MAYBE (besides all the reasons we listed after your original post today) understand a move to the EC or the woodlands/spring area, but Conroe? That's like 40 miles.. (My map program says it's about a 50 minute drive, assuming there isn't bad traffic or a wreck). 80 more miles/an hour and 40 minutes tacked onto employees commutes who live on the south side of town... And I thought Exxons move to spring was harsh on its southern employees. Ha.Edit: ****... Just looked at how far San Ramon is from San Fran. Over 35 miles away.. Granted there's really no such thing as west San Francisco since it's on the coast, so they didn't have the same problems they would face here of people having to commute from the other side of town. Edited January 12, 2014 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Well the good news is he said nothing is for certain. It just appears that they are leaning hard one direction currently (campus on the north side) but nothing is inked by any means. In the words of an esteemed board contributor earlier in this very thread, "I'll take what you say as rumor for now. Perhaps at the end of the day you DO know something the rest of us don't but your credibility is on the line if it all falls apart ;)" To further quote the same esteemed contributor, again from earlier in this very thread, "Finally, I'm not going to call you out or call you a liar. If you say you have a [wealthy] friend [whose father has connections], then by all means, I'm all ears. However, what you say doesn't make any sense so perhaps you can keep us updated?" (See post #405) ;-) Edited January 12, 2014 by Houston19514 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I don't fault him for relaying what his source said. He considers him reliable, especially considering his position. I'll admit though, it doesn't seem to add up, but let's see. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt since according to his source, they're just considering it, nothing firm, so if it doesn't happen it doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 All I know is that he told me that his firm is working on a campus for Chevron that is very large. He said they are well into the design of the campus. I never meant to imply that they will build a campus in place of a tower, but according to my friend the scale and scope of Chevrons campus is quite large. Again - he didn't know about Chevrons plans for a downtown tower until I told him. I think others have misunderstood what I said "Chevron could go either way? I understand they are looking to build a suburban campus like Exxon out near Spring Woods/The Woodlands - if that happens perhaps they move from Downtown? If that does happen, then perhaps they will vacate both fromer Enron buildings? That would leave 2 40 floor towers virtually empty and place little need for something like Stream to move forward." [that is from post 256] I never said "The tower is off" or "They won't build the tower because of the campus" I was just speculating that they may perhaps do one or the other. That was all. Sorry for mentioning anything... but since this is a forum and most of the posts on here are just speculation and opinions I felt I could maybe mention it. Boy was I wrong.lol.. same story, same outcome, just a different day. im not sure if the fact weve heard about this from someone else is a bad thing, or if its just a case of wxmans guy knowing the same people arches guy does...im hoping all of this is just a big misunderstanding/people speculating that Chevron would abandoned downtown after hearing of plans for whats hopefully just a new campus for the joint ChevronPhillips corporation up north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Exxon, according to my source, has set the example and both Shell and Chevron have taken notice. According to 'him', Exxon has shown that it is cheaper to build in the burbs, with the ability to spread out and own adjacent parcels of land for later expansion than it is to build in the CBD. His words, not mine. This makes sense that Chevron would be looking for cheaper capital investment projects since they're Australian project is running way over budget.Btw, he also said the HQ of Exxon will relocate to the new campus in the next few years. He said this campus was built and designed strictly for that purpose. He also mentioned that a new high-rise of some sort will be erected near the campus as an "architectural marvel" when the HQ is relocated.I'm going to focus on this for a minute since it is pretty much the only positive thing from your post, lol..Does Exxon own the land at the northwest corner of springwoods village parkway and i45, right across from the Hardy flyovers? That would be the place to put an "architectural marvel" that's close to the campus, but visible for all to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchCity Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 lol.. same story, same outcome, just a different day. im not sure if the fact weve heard about this from someone else is a bad thing, or if its just a case of wxmans guy knowing the same people arches guy does...im hoping all of this is just a big misunderstanding/people speculating that Chevron would abandoned downtown after hearing of plans for whats hopefully just a new campus for the joint ChevronPhillips corporation up north.Yea I had a feeling this was Déjà Vu. All I can do is hope with you that it's just a confusion of similar sounding companies, but if Chevron picks up shop and goes North that would be a death blow to Downtown's office market until at least the end of the decade. 2.5 mil sq ft from the Enron towers, 1.4 mil from the renovated Exxon building, and 1 mil(albeit state-of-the-art) sq ft from Hines and that sounds like a recipe for a very slow office pipeline downtown. and here I am holding out hope that Chevron will choose downtown, which might in turn induce more demand for space similar to how the Woodlands was affected by Exxon's campus. Pipe dreams just like the 102 story tower I guess haha 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ya that makes perfect sense. Prior to Exxon, I don't think any company ever considered the potential benefits of a suburban campus.Signed,Shell's Woodcreek campusChevron's San Ramos HQBP's Westlake campusConoco's energy corridor HQ campusHalliburton's North Belt campusAnadarko's Woodlands HQPhillips66 HQ westchase campusCameron's Westchase campusFMC's North Belt HQ campusBMC's Westchase campusFluor's sugar land campusChesapeake's suburban okc HQ campusApple's Cupertino HQMicrosofts suburban Seattle HQDell's Round Rock HQ campusState farm's suburban Dallas HQ campusOracle's suburban San Fran HQ campusThe 1000's of other large-scale commercial office campuses around the worldBtw I'd be more worried about chevron simply buying 1600 smith in lieu of a new tower than I'd be about them moving their operations to Conroe. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Lol Exxon employees sitting rumors about Chevron hitting the burbs too so that workers who don't want to make the 6hr trip to work will still trying to jump ship to Chevron.In all seriousness, chevron seemed to have been doing well downtown. Ever expanding, seems an odd time to move. Its not like the burbs all of a sudden got attractive, plus downtown is on the rise. Send they would want to stake out they'd little corner and own it instead if being lost on the woods. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself. When you get a chance, could you ask your source why Chevron bought the parcel bounded by Milam/Leeland/Travis/Pease just a couple weeks before announcing they are delaying the tower at 1600 Louisiana.http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Chevron-buys-another-parcel-downtown-5112259.php Just spending somewhere around 10 million dollars as a head fake? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I don't fault him for relaying what his source said. He considers him reliable, especially considering his position. I'll admit though, it doesn't seem to add up, but let's see. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt since according to his source, they're just considering it, nothing firm, so if it doesn't happen it doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it.Sensible post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 HAIF, I am disappointed in you guys. TWO PAGES of yall taking this TROLL'S bait? Cmon, yall are smarter than that.... First of all, did you all forget, just a couple of pages back that wxman (who is the woodlands biggest champion and promoter, to the point of outlandish exaggerations, one of the few making the baseless claim that pretty much ALL of "Big Oil" is relocating to the woodlands/conroe, and also a downtown/urban hater, check his posts) got all BUTTHURT that we said the woodlands was in the boondocks (which it is). Butthurt to the point that he cussed us all out and Urbannizer had to edit/delete the posts (thanks urb). ....So now, to exact his revenge on all you Downtown Houston, city slicker, Inner loop, skyscraper loving posters who called his precious woodlands "the boonies", he posts this made up story about "a guy i know, who knows this guy, who cousins sister in laws dentist went to school with the neighbor of this extremely rich guy who i "had to squeeze information out of" and it was so difficult to get this information (which he explicitly states is NOT FACT and ALL HEARSAY to cover his lie when it is exposed as a bunch of hogwash when chevron actually builds the tower downtown, which they have all but guaranteed they are) it was like "pulling teeth". Why would a bunch of speculation nonsense and possibly false hearsay be such a "big secret" anyway? Dumb. Anyhow, all you guys need to relax, Chevron has said as recently as a couple weeks ago that the tower is still a go, just delayed until 2015, and THAT IS FROM THE HORSES MOUTH, so until CHEVRON says otherwise, this project is still happening. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ya that makes perfect sense. Prior to Exxon, I don't think any company ever considered the potential benefits of a suburban campus.Signed,Shell's Woodcreek campusChevron's San Ramos HQBP's Westlake campusConoco's energy corridor HQ campusHalliburton's North Belt campusAnadarko's Woodlands HQPhillips66 HQ westchase campusCameron's Westchase campusFMC's North Belt HQ campusBMC's Westchase campusFluor's sugar land campusChesapeake's suburban okc HQ campusApple's Cupertino HQMicrosofts suburban Seattle HQDell's Round Rock HQ campusState farm's suburban Dallas HQ campusOracle's suburban San Fran HQ campusThe 1000's of other large-scale commercial office campuses around the worldA shameful list indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Speaking of trolls No kidding. Getting people to discuss a rumor which is most likely false is one thing. Not the best thing, but HAIFers would sometimes rather discuss BS (this) or fantasy (what's your favorite transit plan for the exurbs?) then a new topic. I get that. Calling a person/place/thing a name with the goal of getting people angry and swearing, necessitating moderator intervention ... that's a whole 'nother level of unpleasantness. Pretty much the textbook definition of trolling. Oh, the irony! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban909 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) I know it's (hopefully) going up next year, but here is a different vantage point: Edited January 27, 2014 by urban909 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Chevron is not moving to Camp Strake. It would be suicide by professional employee mass exodus. If something Exxon did convinced them to do that then I salute the nefarious Exxon masterminds. Edited January 27, 2014 by JJxvi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJxvi Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 As for Shell, their current landlord seems busy building new office towers rather than worrying about filling the space of its major tenant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Chevron is not moving to Camp Strake. It would be suicide by professional employee mass exodus. If something Exxon did convinced them to do that then I salute the nefarious Exxon masterminds.The rumor hasn't been that Chevron is moving towards that area, it is Shell. As posted in another thread, Shell is wanting to build a campus between Conroe and the Woodlands and the rumor has been Camp Strake but nobody clearly knows at this point. And as said in the other thread, it's my opinion that Shell won't consolidate everyone in the Houston area to that campus... I have a feeling the campus will have a separate goal such a research, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 The rumor hasn't been that Chevron is moving towards that area, it is Shell. As posted in another thread, Shell is wanting to build a campus between Conroe and the Woodlands and the rumor has been Camp Strake but nobody clearly knows at this point. And as said in the other thread, it's my opinion that Shell won't consolidate everyone in the Houston area to that campus... I have a feeling the campus will have a separate goal such a research, etc. Actually, there has also been posted and discussed on this forum a rumor regarding Chevron building a campus out north, similarly-substantiated (that is to say not at all). 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I still don't get why any company would move out to nowhere-land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 I still don't get why any company would move out to nowhere-land.Its oil companies. Making you spend more on gas getting to work is a good thing 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Its oil companies. Making you spend more on gas getting to work is a good thing Peanuts. And conspiracy theory talk too. If they wanted employees to spend more on gas, they wouldn't give employee discounts on gasoline, no matter what the size of the discount. Also, you'd have to drive at least 30 cars at 60 mph for an hour to waste the same amount of money in gas as the productivity of your average O&G company office worker. So no. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 Actually, there has also been posted and discussed on this forum a rumor regarding Chevron building a campus out north, similarly-substantiated (that is to say not at all).Really..... News to me. Who is saying this (Sorry, I'm sure someone first posted it here in this thread)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 27, 2014 Share Posted January 27, 2014 (edited) Really..... News to me. Who is saying this (Sorry, I'm sure someone first posted it here in this thread)? Yes. Posts #398, 402, 403 and 406 in this thread. And of course post #618. Edited January 27, 2014 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.