nate

Galleria Plaza? 

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/03/galleria-area-complex-changes-hands/

From HBJ (subscription required), cool statistics, charts, and graphs about Downtown rents and available space: http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/print-edition/2013/11/01/downtown-sees-big-gains-in-occupancy.html?iana=ind_cre

Is it consistent? I thought most places in Midtown started at $1000 to $1200. Key word: started.

Not anymore: http://www.apartmentguide.com/neighborhoods/Texas/Houston/Midtown/

Seems like a steep rent amount.

Maybe, but it is entirely consistent with the market right now.

Sad for the fire museum, but nice to see a vacant lot on Main get developed.

 

Unable to raise the needed funds, the Fire Museum of Houston on Friday said plans for a $15 million state-of-the-art midtown museum have gone up in smoke. Rising from the ashes, though, are proposals to buy the museum's present 1898 firehouse home from the city and upgrade its exhibits and educational activities.

 

Money for those improvements should come from a pending sale of the museum's planned building site, a 1.44-acre tract at Main and Hadley for apartment development.

 

M. Scot Davis of Trammell Crow Residential said the high-end project, Alexan Midtown, will have five stories of apartments atop two levels of parking. Davis said the average 850-square-foot unit will lease for about $1,700 a month.

Sale of property is to close on Monday, Davis said. Construction of the 215-unit complex should begin in January, with the first units ready for occupancy in early 2015

Read more here: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Fire-museum-plans-doused-by-lack-of-funding-4927493.php

Is parking really that short in downtown Houston?  Compared to other downtowns I have been to there seems like there are loads of parking (including an entire Parking District).  I'm not objecting to this garage, but I really have a hard time believing that there is a parking shortage.

It is not that short, but to keep it from getting bad, new parking garages are needed.

See P. 4 of the linked Coliler's survey: http://colliersink.com/2012/10/03/811/

Houston's parking availability is rated as "limited." As ancedotal evidence only, I do know that the Regency Garage across the street from this development has just raised their rates for all floors. They also have very high occupancy on all floors.

For the sake of the people who park on the upper floors, I sure do hope that this garage has helix/spherical ramps like Regency Garage has.

16 stories is a long way up.

Will Oakdale Street be opened up to allow vehicular access to San Jacinto? That would be a big help to this project and the site plan does not show the existing barrier.

Perhaps an agreement was reached with METRO that in exchange for opening up Oakdale, they would limit that corner lot to park use. Also, not developing the lot may have enabled them to avoid a re-plat since I have not seen any signs about one.

Beginning this week, the entire site, save for the existing parking lot, has been fenced and clearing work has begun.  I assume they will not close the existing parking lot until the new lot is built?

Unfortunately, have cleared a lot of old trees.

Comparison of Aqua and 2929 Weslayan, with a big mention of HAIF, heh

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2013/09/30/chicagos-iconic-aqua-tower-gets-a-doppleganger-in-texas/

It is just a bit of snark. Who gives a shit?

Good designs are copied all the time. Just because 2929 Weslayan was inspired by a taller or "better" building, doesn't mean that it won't be a nice building and a good addition to the city.

does the COH or museum district not have information on this tower listed on a website for upcoming projects, like the Hines residential market square tower had all the information filed with the historical district and the COH? if its supposed to start next month youd think its gone through the proposal/approval phases and there would be some documentation of it? then again, nothing like that has ever been found/released for SkyHouse or 2929 Weslayan that i know of and those projects are well under way. im curious to know if Houston is going to have a new tallest residential building..

Unlike the market square tower, I don't believe that this building requires any discretionary governmental approvals.

The land is already platted, so it doesn't need to go to the Planning Commission. It isn't in a historic protection district, so it doesn't need to go to the Archaeological and Historical Commission.

Another rendering of Hanover Post Oak. The architect Solomen Cordwell Buenz, is also working on the design for the 30-Story high-rise by Hanover that will go up in Montrose.

 

 

 

 

http://blog.chicagoarchitecture.info/2013/09/10/thinking-post-bust-chicagos-scb-is-planting-flags-in-cities-across-america/

 

Interesting discussion.

Anyone know where the Montrose tower will be? 

Works for me. Where is block 35? If it's that empty block on lower Main I'll faint.

http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2012-04-09/Downtown_block_numbering.pdf

Block 35 is bounded by Louisiana, Preston, Milam, and Congress. Half the block is surface parking, the other half is a 5-ish story parking garage.

That's it?

He forgot tennis courts. The Parklane has 2 of them.

 or another gas station.

Correct.

It is going to be a Chevron. I forget the operator, but there is a sign on the fence on the Hermann side with the operator's name and the Chevron logo.

How is the Asby Highise site coming along? Has construction started?

The site has been cleared, but the lawsuit by the neighbors against the developer is still pending.

I don't have any insider information, but my assumption is that there won't be any further construction until the lawsuit is resolved. It is highly unlikely that a lender will extend any funds until then. As of writing, the trial is set for Nov. 18th. It looks like both parties have already gone to the mattresses on this, so expect an appeal no matter who wins. Therefore, I wouldn't expect anything until mid 2014 at the earliest. 

Not directly on point to the residential tower, but I did notice yesterday that the Houston Garden Center across the street from it has now been closed.

At every entrance (at least on Hermann Dr.), a sign was posted about the upcoming Centennial Gardens: http://www.hermannpark.org/centennial_gardens.php

So, it looks like that project is going to start soon as well.

not yet. word is that it will be 30 stories though.

so anyone know what im talking about with the TEMA development plan having 3 towers? i wonder if the third would be even taller since it would stand between this and the Parklane..?

When The Parklane was originally built, the plan was for three towers. However, the 80s oil glut happened and only one building was built.

No idea whether or not a third tower is planned at this point, but there is room for one.

Great shots of the Med Center.

its not the corner of Parklane? the rounded edge sticking in the upper right of the picture? the corners on Parklane are rounded like that..

It is definitely The Parklane.

The lowrise building on the left is The Plaza Museum District. In the background, the brick building is Museum Tower on Montrose with the corner of the Diagnostic Clinic on Binz visible on the edge of the rendering.

This rendering is from the pocket of Hermann Park behind the 17th tee box on the golf course.

That's a beautiful building.

I like how well it compliments The Parklane, including some design similarities.

Also, placing it at the corner of Hermann and Jackon makes it right across from the Centennial Gardens parking lot, preserves most of the TEMA lot for future development including the possibility of a third tower as was originally contemplated, doesn't block any significant views from The Parklane (see attached), and shouldn't arouse any NIMBY protests.

Job well done.

1.  Of course it would be "wise for the developer to obtain them".   It would also be wise for the developer to get first right of refusal on a sale of the remaining McDonalds property.   It would be wise for the developer to obtain any restriction he can on the adjacent property - and as I keep telling you, that was not going to happen - because of McDonalds having the LEVERAGE because the site has the value here.   If you do not believe it, I could not care less.   The only thing silly thing here is that you are talking academically about a deal with details that you do not know about and your generalizing is inaccurate.   "Perfectly reasonable that the seller agree..." - not at all.   McDonalds has too much leverage in the deal.   "Who would probably pay a little more for its lot" - not at all, was not going to happen.

 

Your academic generalizations do not accurately describe this deal and the leverage in it.   Of course the buyer wants to institute every restriction he can on the McDonalds site.   Of course the buyer wants to put in a height restriction.   And, as I said in my post that you have continued to argue with -  

     

       "No major oversight - no oversight, at all, actually.   McDonalds has too much leverage in this deal.              

        The site has the value.   Not that it is impossible, but good luck preventing a next-door development  

        from general "adverse effect" of your development....too many things a development can do that  

        can adversely affect your adjacent development."   

 

You have gone from taking an academic and obvious approach at looking at how to buy a property to extrapolating what is "nonsense" in this deal, "perfectly reasonable" in this deal, that the buyer would "probably pay a little more" in this deal,  and then trying to rebut my comment about "good luck preventing .....general 'adverse effect'..." by stating that some restrictions and covenants are implemented "all the time" - which does not rebut what I said, at ALL - I said good luck preventing GENERAL "adverse effect".   When you use subjective "nonsense", "perfectly reasonable", and "probably pay a little more" claims in a deal that you obviously do not know about, that is when your argument goes awry.   

 

2.  Your request for a document between the seller and buyer to be posted on HAIF is not going to get any more of a response than this.   Get serious.

1. See my post above. The leverage is primarily the money. The right to develop a tall building is a valuable right, but land owners will give up that right in exchange for money or other rights. As I said before, it would be wise for Mr. Davis to demand as a part of the bargain that McDonald's right to develop a tall building be forfeited. That kind of exchange is done all the time.

2. The document is filed for public record and is available to anyone who wants to read it. In fact, the document was filed specifically because they want people to read it. All you have to do is go down to the Harris County Clerk's office or hire an abstractor to pull it.

1.  You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.  It was not done, and for the exact reason I stated - the leverage.   

 

 

2.  Who claimed restrictions and covenants are not imposed "all the time" ?   You, apparently, did not read or did not follow my statement - so I will repeat one line of it - "good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development. "GENERAL 'adverse effect' " - not specific.   There is always a way an adjacent development can adversely affect your property.

1. I never claimed that I know whether height restrictions were imposed or not. What I did say is that it would have been wise for the developer to obtain them. Do you know what was done? If so, could you please share with the group what restrictions were imposed on the McDondald's lot? It took me all of two minutes to find that a 12 page agreement likely concerning restrictions was imposed pursuant to Harris County Clerk's File No. 20120583367. Since you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about, I presume that you have this document and don't mind posting it so that we can settle this silly argument.

2. My original post intended to refer to the adverse effects of height. I apologize if that wasn't clear. Since your reply discussed adverse effects generally, I pointed out that generally, adverse effects are dealt with through restrictions and covenants all the time.

No major oversight - no oversight, at all, actually.   McDonalds has too much leverage in this deal.  The site has the value.   Not that it is impossible, but good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development....too many things a development can do that can adversely affect your adjacent development.   

This is nonsense.

The leverage in a voluntary business transaction is primarily money. Whoever owned the McDonald's land felt like it was wise to redevelop the restaurant and monetize a portion of the lot. In this case, it is perfectly reasonable that the seller agree to a height restriction on its remaining land as part of the benefit of the bargain to purchaser, who would probably pay a little more for its lot because it has the benefit of the height restriction on seller's remaining land.

You cannot immunize yourself completely from adverse effects of adjacent development, but restrictions and covenants can mitigate a lot of adverse effects and are imposed all the time. In fact, since most McDonald's locations in the Houston area are located on shopping center pad sites, I presume that most McDonald's locations in the Houston area have height restrictions since shopping center owners typically won't sell a pad site without imposting a 20-30ft height restriction.  

I don't think there is a law against building something tall right next to it, but neither tenant facing the other building would be too happy.

There may not be a law against it, but if I were the developer here, I would not have purchased the land from McDonald's unless McDonald's agreed to a height restriction on their remaining land to prevent any development that would adversely affect Astoria. 

You would have to check the real property records to be sure, but it would be a major oversight if Randall Davis didn't secure such a restriction.