H-Town Man

So sorry.  I guess even the ever-so-slight honing in on a particular section of downtown that could be discerned from my suggested division of downtown was exaggerated.   Thank you for helping to demonstrate the silliness of treblelino's complaint about developers honing in on a particular section of downtown.

I don't really follow your second sentence. As far as treblelino, he wasn't really complaining, and I think his point was legitimate, at least as far as office development - I count four new buildings that aren't additions to an existing campus and so could have been anywhere, and three of them are on the north side. You spend too much time trying to bully people.

Here are the current high-rise developments according to the Downtown Houston development map, dividing downtown at Main Street Square:

 

Southeast:

3 highrise residential

(Plus the possible high rise hotel addition to GreenStreet)

 

Southwest:

3 highrise office towers under development

2 highrise office towers under redevelopment

1 highrise hotel under redevelopment

 

Northwest:

2 highrise office towers under development

2 highrise residential under development

1 highrise hotel under redevelopment

1 highrise office building under redevelopment

 

Northeast:

2 highrise office buildings under development

3 highrise hotels under development

1 highrise residential under development

1 highrise residential under redevelopment

Probably could have just posted the map. ;-)  Dividing downtown into 4 quadrants at Main Street Square seems misleading, as it would for example put the 806 Main renovation in the "northwest" on par with the stuff on Market Square, which doesn't really seem right.

So many buildings ABOUT to break ground downtown I can hardly stand it, I've got Bank of the Southwest Syndrome (BSS), keep thinking a dire economic crash is going to derail everything right before it happens. Feel like walking the streets like a madman with a shovel and breaking ground everywhere myself.

You're right, but most of the office is concentrating in the northeast part.

I think you're generally right, the hot area right now is the northern/northeastern end of the existing office mass, with Hines, Skanska, Crescent, and Stream/Essex all working on projects in this area. It used to be the west side back in the 70's/80's since the powerful wanted to see and be seen from the part of town where they lived, but they ran up against parks and freeway over there. But the historic district renaissance that began with the Rice Lofts in the late 90's has made the north side most attractive, unless you want to build a giant campus like Chevron.

The east side is also attractive due to Discovery Green, but the south/southeastern sides are still the gloomier parts of downtown, with nothing but cheaper land to really attract developers. Development is also of course limited by access to the tunnel system, and there aren't many available sites on the s/se side that have easy access.

I'll go back to posting pictures from here, I'm not changing your mind. 

I guess we can mutually agree on this, at least.

As I noted, the timing of and reasons for the desirability of any given city will be different. NYC and London are economic centers because of the industries that grew out of their ports, ditto SF, before any of them had "plenty of regulations". Now they just cater to the extremely rich while back office functions have long since moved to other cities. We have no such luxury at the moment to charge a premium, and we do a lot better when tech and financial bubbles bust, because only the most profitable and risky companies can pay the rent in such places.

If you are not even suggesting regulation, what did you have in mind when you mentioned that "people need to be held accountable" when alter their own property in a way that someone else deems trendy or short sighted? Do you really think that restrictive regulation on the use of private property is costless or do you just not care because someone you do not like very much will have to pay it?

You said "there is a reason" that Chevron is sending their lower offices here from San Francisco, implying that historic preservation laws would jeopardize our advantage in this respect. I call bs. If Chevron is pulling jobs out of the SF area, it has much more to do with the high costs arising from 8 million people living around a huge bay and other geographical limits such as water supply than it does historic preservation laws. If downtown SF got too expensive, it's probably bc of its high land costs owing to desirability and the fact that it is half surrounded by water, not preservation laws. To suggest that we are going the way of SF in terms of attracting back office jobs if we pass preservation laws is absurd and will be treated as such.

Once again, I personally did not suggest regulations, just couldn't resist answering your either/or warnings and economic prophesying. When I said "people need to be held accountable" I meant in the court of public opinion. We have two buildings being torn down or heavily renovated that, if left in their original condition, would be viable today. If you've read many of my posts you'll know that I believe in architectural criticism, one of the functions of which is to foster a better understanding of the value of the past as regards buildings and styles, and to encourage long term vs. short term thinking.

(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.

It's probably the autocorrect from his mobile phone... just going out on a limb here.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ironic that two twenty+/- floor buildings that are otherwise probably useable are being demolished to make way for the only commercial highrises that are actually moving forward (and not just talking about moving forward) during our current economic boom, in downtown. And I'm just making that point, not arguing in favor of preservation versus new development, just observing.

And that supertall in Philly - is ugly. At least NYC and Chicago produce reasonable architectural supertalls. Let them have that building. Height doesn't make a city, never has and never will, and who cares who has a tall building taller than here in Houston? We used to have the 12th - 18th tallest building in the world, but now its barely in the top 100. So what?

To your first paragraph, I think what did these buildings in is the beige brick. Imagine the same buildings with red brick... No way they get torn down. I also think these are the tallest historic buildings ever demolished downtown... only other one comparable is the Medical Arts building.

To your last comment, I think Texas Commerce was actually 7th globally when built. Could be wrong.

I think what he meant was, it's going to be some infill. Which is fantastic.

Going to take awhile to overcome the dead zone in this section of Main, 3000 to 3300 blocks, and the plans for the Superblock aren't really going to help. The area south of this should become something nice though.

Was wasting time on Google Earth the other day when I noticed on Francis St. what appeared to be an interesting row of rooftops in Third Ward.  Went to streetview and had one of those beautiful, exhilarating moments I sometimes have when I discover something that's been built in Houston I had no idea about, and that gives me hope that new development can sometimes get it right.

I have generally not been a fan of what is considered innovative residential architecture in this town, especially as regards townhomes.  Whether it's the tin houses in 4th ward or the ultra-minimalist houses that some big-name architect did in the Heights and all the local highbrow press swooned over, I frankly think most of it is ugly, and springs out of some postmodern desire to attack conventional ideas of beauty (mission accomplished).  Not so these.

(I like the plain white ones even better)

The simple wooden materials awaken a feeling of Texas history in me, reminding me of vintage homes in my favorite rural towns, like Round Top or Montgomery. The minimalist detailing bears no trace of ostentatious European design elements, but nor is it so minimalist as to give a stark or inhospitable feeling. Rather the open, almost modernist (think of the Univ. of St. Thomas campus) framing of the porch seems to embrace the outdoors while inhaling deep drafts of fresh air for the inside. And the fact that they are duplexes suggests a communal, urban living style.

It reminds me a little of the old Rhinelander Row in New York:

As I was reading the article on Project Row in the Chronicle today I put two and two together - this is actually a spinoff of that project, an affordable housing venture called Row House CDC. They are designed with the collaboration of Rice architecture students, showing that something at least is coming out of there besides the culture-cleansing postmodern stuff.  Here's hoping that we see a lot more of these going up in the Third Ward.

So the sky lobby is back open?

Ok lol wow, I guess if they have a concept like that it would work downtown. Subdude, you are vindicated!

Well yes, Home Depot. Recently for one reason or another I have been going there all of the time, and it is convenient having one close.

What you are saying contradicts the earlier poster's assertion that one residential was in place that retail would grow. I've never been quite sold on the idea of downtown retail oriented towards visitors. On the other hand, I can definitely see the need for retail to support the growing downtown population. That means a different kind of retail, such as Home Depot, that isn't available on side streets at all. Also, retail supporting residential is going to be more sustainable in the long run. I'm not even sure what kind of retail would be appropriate for visitors, other than shops selling Texas souvenirs. How many chic boutiques can downtown reasonably support when there are already scads of them in the Galleria area?

There is an overlap between retail that residents would want and that visitors would want. It doesn't all have to be chic boutiques and Texas souvenirs. That said, and understanding that some things need to be practical to support residents, I don't think Home Depot would work. Unless they have some urban format that I'm not aware of, the price per sf of land downtown is way too high for them, a 250 x 250 block size is too small, and imagine people buying lumber downtown. Maybe a small Ace hardware would suffice, and if people need more they can drive out.

I wouldn't say they're "redneck" cities (unless you use redneck and Texas conservative to be interchangeable terms), but in those cases, they would only put up scaffolding to prevent the shell from falling apart and hope that a developer steps in and saves it before weathering damage (as the roof tends to go first, then the floors below) causes the whole thing to collapse in on itself.

No, I don't think those cities are redneck, which is why I put the term in quotation marks.  But they are rural towns, which to many people is perceived as being redneck.  The point was to say that they are in this respect more civilized than the people in Harris County.  Doing what you suggested they would do is better than proposing it be torn down for parking.

Harris County almost demolished the building to make room for 27 parking spaces, which I wish was a joke. Luckily preservationists were able to stop the County's plans.

One is tempted to say that county government is run by rednecks, but in almost every "redneck" town I know (Brenham, La Grange, Bastrop, Lockhart, etc.) a building like that would most certainly be saved, cracks or no. Something more sinister lurks here...

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

You're assuming everyone wants the same things you do. I really wouldn't want to live in a high rise where the sidewalks are full of people at night. If I was going to live here I'd rather have a 12' wall around the building. Nice and quiet on the grounds and you could walk across the street for retail.

If you want the seclusion of a 12 foot wall, a high rise on a major urban boulevard should not be the place for you. If highrises on Montrose Blvd. are catering to people who want total privacy, then there's no hope of it ever being an exciting destination.

To all the people saying "well there's retail in the area," you don't get a lively street just by having retail in the area.  Right now you can drive down Montrose at 4 PM of a gorgeous, 70 degree day, and you might see at most a handful of people on the street between Westheimer and W. Alabama, despite the fact that there's retail in the area! Retail "in the area" does not breathe life into a street and throng it with people; to have this, you need to have retail all along that street, on nearly every block, without setbacks. Then you have something exciting.

Is it possible for the street to still evolve into something exciting without the help of this building?  Yes.  But every building helps set the tone for what follows, especially major ones. A project of this scale deciding its block of Montrose is just going to be one more dead zone is a major opportunity lost.

Ott said the site is only about 39,000 square feet, and the setback requirements don't leave room for it.

 

The area already has a lot of retail development, he said.

 

The building will boast a long list of amenities for tenants.

 

An outdoor area on the ninth floor will have views of downtown, a swimming pool with private cabanas, grilling areas and a green lawn. Other perks will include 24-hour concierge services, business and fitness centers, a demonstration kitchen, a private dining room and a screening room.

Pretty easy to get a variance if you want.

More residents = more demand for retail. 

A public retail space is ultimately much more exciting than some of these private amenities. I'm pretty sure no one who lives in Columbus Square on McKinney Ave. in Dallas, which has on its first floor a Starbucks, i Fratelli pizzeria, Palm Beach Tan, Trophy Fitness, and Sebastien Salon, and whose sidewalks are full of people at night, wishes that they could trade all this for a private cabana and grilling area, and a dead first floor. And yes, there's plenty of other retail development in that neighborhood, too.

Yeah, I have to admit a bit of jealousy. 59 stories, the bottom 45 of which are offices with a Four Seasons hotel taking up the rest. This will be the tallest outside of NYC and Chicago. Interestingly, Comcast is getting $40m in state and city financing. The starchitect is Norman Foster.

I guess mixed use is the way to get a tall building if you don't need that much office. We won't get the investment for that type of mixed use until we have a thriving downtown walking and retail scene. To have that we need these residential buildings to go up first. Paint the fence, Daniel san.

You're sure that's not outside of NYC and Chicago?

Harrumph at the whole thing. Oil companies won't build tall because they're scared of looking bad in the press. Harrumph.