One Shell Plaza At 910 Louisiana St.

[ArchitecturalPRGirl]

Opening in 1971, One Shell Plaza

[musicman]

so why the 25 yr award when it was built in 71?

[Vertigo58]

A Houston tradition, The Downtown Club, an exclusive, private club was added to the 49th floor in 1972.

I used to work in that building and the Downtown Club is so elegant and has views that would leave one......breathless. You dont even feel like your in Houston when your up there. More like Toronto or Ontario.

Ooops almost forgot...Be yourself Houston!

[ArchitecturalPRGirl]

so why the 25 yr award when it was built in 71?

Because they just honored their 2006 winners

[FilioScotia]

Opening in 1971, One Shell Plaza

Edited February 20, 2007 by FilioScotia

[Vertigo58]

I think, but I'm not certain, that a new building in Los Angeles may be taller.

I am almost certain it's the Bank Of America building in beautiful downtown LA. However; this one has been here for several years. Remember they (Martians) blew it up in Independance day?

Edited February 20, 2007 by Vertigo58

[Montrose1100]

I am almost certain that when One Shell was built in 1971, it was not just the tallest building in Texas, and the south, but, at a mere 50 floors, it was also the tallest building west of the Mississippi. It had that distinction for some time, until the 75 floor Chase Center was built.

I think, but I'm not certain, that a new building in Los Angeles may be taller.

I think 1 Shell Plaza was only "tallest west of the Mississippi" for less then a year. The Transamerica Pyramid in S.F. (853ft.) held the title from 1972-1974. Which was replaced by the Aon Center in L.A. , until the JP Morgan Chase tower was built here, which from until 1989, when the US Bank Tower in L.A. (pictured above) was completed.

Also, 1 Shell Plaza was surpassed in height by 1100 Louisiana in 1980 - for Texas and the South. But Atlanta's Bank of America Plaza is the tallest in the south, standing at 1,023ft.

[Saddleman]

25 years? 2006 - 1971 = 35 years

[ricco67]

25 years? 2006 - 1971 = 35 years

It's all in the paperwork. you know how that is.

That and they wanted to make sure it was going to stay standing for a few more years. <shrug>

[Saddleman]

Whatever.

[Urbannizer]

Shell to vacate namesake downtown tower

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2016/09/20/shell-to-vacate-namesake-downtown-tower.html

 

Quote

 

Six months after listing a whopping 350,000 square feet of downtown office space on the sublease market, Houston-based Shell Oil Co. is completely vacating its namesake downtown tower.

 

Shell Oil, the U.S. arm of the Netherlands-based Royal Dutch Shell PLC (NYSE: RDS-A, RDS-B), announced Sept. 20 it will vacate One Shell Plaza and move those employees to the company's campuses in west Houston. Roughly 3,400 employees will move from the Central Business District to Shell's Woodcreek campus and its Shell Technology Center, the spokesperson said. The employees will move in the first quarter 2017.

[kbates2]

That is horrible news.

[dml423]

The chronicle article I read stated that the trading group was staying downtown and they were moving the supporting groups.

 

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Shell-to-leave-bulk-of-its-downtown-offices-9234185.php

 

Either way this is horrible news. I don't understand, urban revitalization is at one of the highest points ever yet, so many of these large corporations are moving to the suburbs. Is this due to the fact that the people high up in the companies grew up during the era of suburban sprawl and don't see the appeal of urban areas like the new young folks see?  

[Houston19514]

32 minutes ago, dml423 said:

The chronicle article I read stated that the trading group was staying downtown and they were moving the supporting groups.

 

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Shell-to-leave-bulk-of-its-downtown-offices-9234185.php

 

Either way this is horrible news. I don't understand, urban revitalization is at one of the highest points ever yet, so many of these large corporations are moving to the suburbs. Is this due to the fact that the people high up in the companies grew up during the era of suburban sprawl and don't see the appeal of urban areas like the new young folks see?  

 

Shell is consolidating into buildings they own so they will save money by not continuing to pay rent on space they don't need.  Disappointing of course, but I think that is the full story. 

[KinkaidAlum]

Ugh. Terrible news. Horrible timing too. 

[Twinsanity02]

This is a setback.  I love the suburbs, but given a choice between a long commute to a suburb or to downtown with all its enhancements I'd pick downtown in a second. Anyone know the reason?

[tigereye]

6 hours ago, dml423 said:

The chronicle article I read stated that the trading group was staying downtown and they were moving the supporting groups.

 

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Shell-to-leave-bulk-of-its-downtown-offices-9234185.php

 

Either way this is horrible news. I don't understand, urban revitalization is at one of the highest points ever yet, so many of these large corporations are moving to the suburbs. Is this due to the fact that the people high up in the companies grew up during the era of suburban sprawl and don't see the appeal of urban areas like the new young folks see?  

 

IIRC, the trading floors are at 1K Main. 

 

If Shell is consolidating into spaces they own, I'd presume the trading floors move from 1K Main to 1 Shell Plaza. 

Edited September 21, 2016 by tigereye

[jgriff]

7 hours ago, dml423 said:

The chronicle article I read stated that the trading group was staying downtown and they were moving the supporting groups.

 

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Shell-to-leave-bulk-of-its-downtown-offices-9234185.php

 

Either way this is horrible news. I don't understand, urban revitalization is at one of the highest points ever yet, so many of these large corporations are moving to the suburbs. Is this due to the fact that the people high up in the companies grew up during the era of suburban sprawl and don't see the appeal of urban areas like the new young folks see?  

It's due to the oil crash. Remember that "Can the boom continue" thread? This is the answer to that question. 

[Houston19514]

44 minutes ago, tigereye said:

 

IIRC, the trading floors are at 1K Main. 

 

If Shell is consolidating into spaces they own, I'd presume the trading floors move from 1K Main to 1 Shell Plaza. 

 

Why would you presume that?  They do not own Shell Plaza.

[Houston19514]

4 hours ago, Twinsanity02 said:

This is a setback.  I love the suburbs, but given a choice between a long commute to a suburb or to downtown with all its enhancements I'd pick downtown in a second. Anyone know the reason?

 

Seriously?  In case you hadn't noticed, oil prices have been languishing for some time.  All oil & gas companies have been cutting spending right and left.  Shell is consolidating into buildings they own so they will save money by not continuing to pay rent on space they don't need.  Disappointing of course, but I think that is the full story. 

[gmac]

Good move by Shell. Savings will be significant.

[nativehoustonion]

Bad news who is next Chevron?

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, nativehoustonion said:

Bad news who is next Chevron?

 

Doubtful.  Chevron owns their downtown complex.

[Subdude]

So with 800 Bell and the Shell buildings vacated, this will leave a lot of vacant office space downtown.  It could take years to absorb. 

[Twinsanity02]

Hopefully it can be turned into a mixed use office, residential, commercial like the John Hancock in Chicago. Have no idea what a transition of that sort would cost, but it would be nice.

[nativehoustonion]

The city of Houston was thinking about leasing 800 Bell.  One Shell Plaza is near City Hall, and the Bob Lanier building. The COH could get a good deal from this.  Then we also have BG Group Place.

[Houston19514]

Before we get too carried away, it should be noted that One Shell Plaza is not being totally vacated.  It has tenants other than Shell.

[urbanize713]

On 9/22/2016 at 0:32 PM, Houston19514 said:

Before we get too carried away, it should be noted that One Shell Plaza is not being totally vacated.  It has tenants other than Shell.

Correct, I believe Shell only occupies roughly 60% The article quotes them putting 350k sq ft on the market which is what a third/fourth of the building?

 

Baker Botts is another notable tenant in this building.

Edited September 23, 2016 by urbanize713
Addition

[HoustonIsHome]

Downtown living in Houston is just not all that attractive right now.  If I could afford it I would rather live in a hi rise in a more established neighborhood like Montrose,  Museum district,  even midtown or Uptown over downtown. 

 

Downtown just seems too new, whitewashed,  wrapped in cellophane. 

It does not have that comfort of home feeling yet

[samagon]

I'm not so certain about whitewashed, but pee-stained, absolutely.

[Nole23]

I moved downtown 4 months ago and absolutely love it. It's very attractive to a lot of people as all of the new complexes are leasing up very fast. It still has a way to go, but once all of the current apartments under construction, hotels, and the convention district are complete it will definitely take it to the next level.

[ArchFan]

Can you give any detailed info on how fast the new apartments are being rented?  I'd love for that to be true, but I haven't seen any info -- anecdotal or otherwise -- for a long time.

 

Despite all the gloom-and-doom in the air, doesn't downtown still have something like 150,000 daytime workers?  Seems like it would only take 2-3% of those people wanting to swap their commute for downtown living to fill up the rental units coming on line.

Edited September 29, 2016 by ArchFan

[Nole23]

1 hour ago, ArchFan said:

Can you give any detailed info on how fast the new apartments are being rented?  I'd love for that to be true, but I haven't seen any info -- anecdotal or otherwise -- for a long time.

 

Despite all the gloom-and-doom in the air, doesn't downtown still have something like 150,000 daytime workers?  Seems like it would only take 2-3% of those people wanting to swap their commute for downtown living to fill up the rental units coming on line.

 

Sorry to go off topic for this thread, but here is an article from Mid august stating that 500 Crawford where I live is already 40% leased after having move ins starting in March. The whole north half of the building just opened not too long ago and I can tell more people are moving in as the parking garage has more and more cars.

 

http://realtynewsreport.com/2016/08/16/ahead-in-the-standings-fingers-new-multifamily-community-off-to-a-good-start-near-astros-field/

Edited September 29, 2016 by Nole23

[H-Town Man]

Bummer. Somehow they managed to get through the 80's oil bust, and the late 90's bust when gas prices hovered around $1 for a few years, without leaving the iconic real estate that they built for themselves downtown. Also remarkable that they signed a 20 year lease here in 2011 IIRC, and talked about the uniqueness of downtown as a work environment. And it touched everyone's heart when they remained committed to One Shell Center in downtown New Orleans (designed as a replica of One Shell Plaza, sheathed in the same shellstone) in the aftermath of Katrina, when industry observers thought they'd move those offices to Houston. Now I guess if you're a Shell worker, you're hoping to end up in the New Orleans office rather than the boring 'burbs Houston office, where you can look at the Katy Freeway all day and eat lunch at Applebee's.

 

Whoever said that this was a generational issue between baby boomers and younger workers is absolutely correct. The young workers have signaled loud and clear where they would rather be (~5,000 mostly high-end apartments built in central Houston in the last few years).

 

I think worries about downtown's health long term are misplaced - it has the highest office rents of any Houston submarket, in sharp contrast to some of our peer cities. And with the residential wave and street revitalization, it stands to become more attractive to companies than it has been in a long time, probably since the 70's. The vacancy holes are akin to the collapse of energy trading companies in 2001-2002. Took about 5 years (and a major rise in oil prices) to refill. I guess that's our yardstick on any new office construction downtown, including Skanska and Hines projects.

 

[cspwal]

48 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

I think worries about downtown's health long term are misplaced - it has the highest office rents of any Houston submarket, in sharp contrast to some of our peer cities

 

"No one wants to be there - the rents are too high"

[H-Town Man]

34 minutes ago, cspwal said:

 

"No one wants to be there - the rents are too high"

 

The rents would not be high if people did not want to be there. Occupancy will take a hit in the current cost-cutting environment, just like Class A apartments are taking a hit. It's a nice problem for downtown to have - a problem most other mid-American cities (including Dallas and Atlanta) would envy. Even downtown L.A. does not have the rents that our downtown does.

 

Edited September 29, 2016 by H-Town Man

[UtterlyUrban]

Has shell vacated?  Was it really 60% of the building?

 

any news on leasing to a new tenant(s)?

[tigereye]

1 hour ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Has shell vacated?  Was it really 60% of the building?

 

any news on leasing to a new tenant(s)?

 

There's one new tenant who'll consolidate all Downtown offices here next year. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by tigereye

[CREguy13]

2 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

Has shell vacated?  Was it really 60% of the building?

 

any news on leasing to a new tenant(s)?

Yes.  A lease was recently signed for about 20 of the Shell floors

[UtterlyUrban]

7 hours ago, CREguy13 said:

Yes.  A lease was recently signed for about 20 of the Shell floors

Wow!  That's big news!  Thanks Tigereye and CREguy!

 

Tigereye: if it's a downtown company already then occupancy rates in the CBD will stay the same.  That's too bad, I was hopeful it would be a new tenant so occupancy would go up.

 

when will the name of the new tenant be public?

[ryrohtx]

NRG Energy. They've notified employees already. 

[Nate99]

35 minutes ago, ryrohtx said:

NRG Energy. They've notified employees already. 

 

20 floors worth of 1 Shell sounds like a lot more space than they would currently have over at Green Street. Are they consolidating other Houston offices or are they moving operations from elsewhere?

 

I think they have some corporate office presence in New Jersey. Is that moving?

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, Nate99 said:

 

20 floors worth of 1 Shell sounds like a lot more space than they would currently have over at Green Street. Are they consolidating other Houston offices or are they moving operations from elsewhere?

 

I think they have some corporate office presence in New Jersey. Is that moving?

 

Yes, 20 floors of 1 Shell would be a lot more than they had at GreenStreet (probably at least double).  According to the Houston Business Journal,  "NRG did say that “its downtown Houston offices plan to come together in a single location” at 910 Louisiana, in the statement."  Hopefully, they are also moving the New Jersey offices.

 

I bet they'll get naming rights.  Surely the Shell name will be taken off the building.

Edited August 23, 2017 by Houston19514

[H-Town Man]

13 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Yes, 20 floors of 1 Shell would be a lot more than they had at GreenStreet (probably at least double).  According to the Houston Business Journal,  "NRG did say that “its downtown Houston offices plan to come together in a single location” at 910 Louisiana, in the statement."  Hopefully, they are also moving the New Jersey offices.

 

I bet they'll get naming rights.  Surely the Shell name will be taken off the building.

 

If this is a sublease, they may have to wait until Shell is no longer the sandwich lessor/lessee to get naming rights. I think Shell signed a 10 or 20 year lease here back in 2011. Then again, anything can probably be made to work with the right negotiation/compensation.

 

More impactful would be if they met the city's requirements to put their name or logo on the building. But I think to do that you need to lease at least half of the building, in addition to it being your corporate headquarters.

 

[Houston19514]

12 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

If this is a sublease, they may have to wait until Shell is no longer the sandwich lessor/lessee to get naming rights. I think Shell signed a 10 or 20 year lease here back in 2011. Then again, anything can probably be made to work with the right negotiation/compensation.

 

More impactful would be if they met the city's requirements to put their name or logo on the building. But I think to do that you need to lease at least half of the building, in addition to it being your corporate headquarters.

 

 

Good thoughts.  Very interesting idea about qualifying for the Continental Airlines exception.  FWIW, below is the exception language from the ordinance.  To summarize, NRG would have to occupy at least 45% of the gross usable floor space of the building. They would presumably have to make Houston their sole headquarters. IF they qualified (and it appears they would not meet the 45% requirement, they could display their registered trademark (logo) by light projection or similar technology, only visible between sunset and sunrise.

 

The height limit of 421⁄2 feet for signs in the central business district shall not apply to a headquarters logo sign that meets each of the following criteria:

1. The sign may display only the registered trademark or a portion of the registered trademark of the principal occupant of a headquarters building. For purposes of this requirement, a headquarters building is a structure that has 750,000, or more, square feet of gross usable floor space, provided that at least 45 percent of the gross usable floor space is occupied by the holder of the registered trademark as the headquarters for its operations in the world, within the United States, or within a region of the world that includes all of the United States.

2. The sign shall be displayed upon the surface structure of the headquarters building. The display may be created by light projection, video projection, laser technology, or other technology that causes the image to appear upon the surface structure of the building and shall appear upon the roof structure, a parapet wall, or other building surface that is situated above the highest occupiable story of the building. The sign shall be visible only between sunset and sunrise. The sign may utilize projection equipment or other light sources that are not readily visible from ground level but shall not utilize any conventional sign cabinet or structure.

3. Evidence must be provided with the sign permit application that (i) the entity to be represented on the sign is the principal occupant of the headquarters building, meaning that it occupies more space within the building than any other occupant, (ii) that the criteria set forth in Item (1) above are applicable, and (iii) that the building owner accepts and agrees to the removal requirement specified below. The building owner’s agreement to remove the sign shall be accompanied by evidence of title demonstrating ownership of the building, shall be in the form of a covenant running with the title to the property that is approved by the city attorney, and shall be recorded at the applicant’s expense in the real property records of Harris County.

4. The sign illumination must be a continuous image that is not blinking or animated in any manner.

5. No more than two signs, each not exceeding 1500 square feet in area, may be placed on any building under this exception.

A sign authorized under this exception is authorized for only so long as each of the criteria specified above remains in effect. Upon request of the Sign Administrator, the permit holder shall provide evidence of compliance with the requirements of this section. Upon failure to timely provide evidence of compliance or upon any change of circumstances that causes a sign to no longer be authorized, the Sign Administrator shall revoke the permit, and the building owner shall upon request of the Sign Administrator cause the sign to be removed.

[Nate99]

Doesn't Los Angeles (and perhaps others) more or less require companies to put signage on buildings? It probably comes and goes out of fashion, but I think it's kind of cool to see who's there making a big presence.  

[flatline]

Does NRG still have a presence in the 1000 Main/former Reliant Energy Plaza that would be consolidated in One Shell?

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, flatline said:

Does NRG still have a presence in the 1000 Main/former Reliant Energy Plaza that would be consolidated in One Shell?

 

According to today's article regarding the renewal of Porter Hedge's lease in 1000 Main, yes.  (But keep in mind, this is from the Chronicle, so it's anyone's guess).

[H-Town Man]

Based on those rules, it seems like Shell would have qualified, since this was their U.S. headquarters. I wonder why they didn't pursue it.

 

Always thought the L.A. skyline looked tacky with all the names. I do think having a few scattered names on buildings as in Chicago can look classy and actually make the skyline more interesting. In L.A. it seems like it's every building.

 

[Houston19514]

12 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

Based on those rules, it seems like Shell would have qualified, since this was their U.S. headquarters. I wonder why they didn't pursue it.

 

Always thought the L.A. skyline looked tacky with all the names. I do think having a few scattered names on buildings as in Chicago can look classy and actually make the skyline more interesting. In L.A. it seems like it's every building.

 

 

Apparently, we can thank Gerald Hines.  From Cite magazine:  "It was Gerald Hines who, in the early 1970s, had helped persuade Shell Oil to forego a sign on its building and, with other developers such as Kenneth Schnitzer, promoted the idea that downtown's architecture should be allowed to speak for itself, and not be marred by names or logos."