8 hours ago, KinkaidAlum said:

Love this development but am I the only one that finds it odd that the second office tower gets a better location than the hotel/residential tower? Seems like you'd lure more folks to rent/stay if there were views of Discovery Green and not the electrical substation to the East and surface lots to the South. Also, for large conventions, people at the hotels quickest route would take them by the substation rather than the edge of the park and by tower one's amenities. 

Office is worth more in this town than residential so they are going to give the office building the better location. Office tenants like their views too. Also, downtown office tenants demand access to the skywalk/tunnel system and value proximity to other buildings, so it helps for the office to be closer to the other office stock, even though tenants will have to walk through the Four Seasons tunnels to get anywhere else. 

4 hours ago, Urbannizer said:

https://www.1550onthegreen.com/neighborhood/

Tower 2 - Office

Tower 3 - Hotel & Residential

Very cool. Makes it look like they've acquired/are planning to acquire the piece they didn't own of the southernmost block.

On 12/20/2021 at 5:01 PM, editor said:

It's a shame that the Metro bus barn is going to be right next to that walking trail.  When I lived at Dakota Lofts, Metro would let those buses idle all day long and the fumes blowing in the windows was awful sometimes.  At least we could close the windows.  Walkers will get gassed.

I think that the canal will increase the value of the land to the point where Metro will sell it and move their bus barn someplace else. They are already losing about a third of their capacity from the lower buildings being demolished so they will most likely be looking elsewhere already to replace that capacity (although the graphic does show a new building along the northern part of the site). This Warehouse District project will also increase the value of the land by establishing the area for multi-family.

14 hours ago, arche_757 said:

Hard to compare NYC historic buildings with our own.  Coliseum may be a bit of a stretch.  The others may seem odd, but considering how few large historical structures we have, not to mention those were all recently demolished with nothing replacing them.  *Foley’s being the exception.

Sam Houston Coliseum:Houston::3rd Madison Square Garden:New York

On 12/20/2021 at 10:00 PM, arche_757 said:

@H-Town Man I am not sure?  I mean if the structure of the Post Office is by itself the  architecturally significant element that deserves preservation, then why do we even debate the Astrodome?

Beggers cannot be choosers, since at this point we’re all beggers in this town when it comes to historic preservation.  It is a shame developers like Lovett didn’t exist a couple decades sooner.  If there had been more here with a thought towards preservation then perhaps we would have some of our old, great buildings: Sam Houston Coliseum, Robinson Public Warehouse, Foleys Downtown, Prudential Building et cetera.

I don't know why there is even a debate about the Astrodome. I don't see why it is controversial to preserve. I am also pretty sure it would be a functioning tourist attraction right now if it were not for the Texans and the Rodeo. I think Ed Emmett was willing to take them on and Lina Hidalgo isn't. It's not a fight that most people would want to have in their first or second term as judge.

Some of those buildings you mention I am not sure pass cost/benefit analysis. Sam Houston Coliseum had some history but was pretty dated for its function. Location comes into play. New York is on its third or fourth iteration of Madison Square Garden. Some of those early iterations were pretty amazing structures with 100 times the history of Sam Houston Coliseum, but land on Madison Square is too precious a commodity to be taken up by a functionally obsolete arena (and yes, I do realize that the current MSG is not on Madison Square). POST might see the wrecking ball too at some point and I won't be chaining myself to the bulldozers.

On 12/18/2021 at 11:14 AM, arche_757 said:

What’s the historic part of the post office again?

The Gulf I certainly understand.  The other -to me- is a stretch.  I mean we’ve had a lot of fantastic buildings torn down here that are more substantial architecture, but whatever.

I'm not saying I love the building. But the giant cast-in-place concrete columns and beams are a type of construction we may not see again. The postal service didn't mess around when they built things. There's a sense of, "Let us think that when we build, we build forever" that you don't find in today's steel frame, tiltwall warehouses like that Amazon one that crumpled like a tin can.

How many other existing warehouses in Houston do you think could support a rooftop deck without a ton of extra columns and reinforcement being added?

The cast concrete exoskeleton of the office building is also something that evokes an era.

10 hours ago, arche_757 said:

What sense of history are you remotely referring to?

Both buildings are historic. The Gulf moreso, obviously.

2 hours ago, BEES?! said:

Don’t Pennzoil and the Gulf building both suffer from pretty high vacancy rates? I’d be curious to see how much POST is asking for lines up with similar projects. Probably not something like Texas Tower, but a low or mid-rise new construction office building/ mixed use concept inside the loop? How much are asking rates for, say, Montrose Collective? 
 

I’m not an expert on any of this stuff by any stretch of the imagination, to be sure (nor do i play one on tv :P ) but I’d imagine someone who wants to lease office space in POST/one of the trendier new low/midrise buildings might be a different clientele than the people looking to rent in one of the towers in downtown/uptown/etc. 

Pennzoil and Gulf both have fairly good occupancy for downtown - Gulf is high 70's and Pennzoil is in the 60's%. Montrose Collective is $37-45/SF NNN but that is new construction, hard to compare. Ion might be a better comparison at $33-37/SF NNN.

Different clientele, yes, to a point. A prospective tenant at POST gets a great view, a food hall, a sense of history, a downtown vibe. A prospective tenant at the Gulf building gets a great view, a food hall, a sense of history, a downtown vibe. Some differences remain... POST may be more of a blank slate for something offbeat, while at Gulf there is more the traditional office feel with lots of bank employees around you. Parking and traffic are big issues... maybe POST is easier to get in and out of for someone driving in on Washington?

This was the featured article on Costar yesterday, at least for Texas-area subscribers (my subscription is through Dallas). So everyone in the Texas real estate world saw a nice big picture of the center atrium. The article was fairly in depth but not much that we didn't already know.

Leasing the office will be challenging... they are asking $32/SF NNN. Compare that to Pennzoil Place at $28.50/SF NNN, the Gulf Building at $24.00/SF NNN, or for the history lover, a nice old gem like 917 Franklin for $24.00/SF Full Service (~$15.00/SF NNN). Where would you rather be?

The article's focus on the Lius was something different from other articles I've read:

Unlikely Duo

When local Taiwanese-American developer Frank Liu, with Lovett Commercial, purchased the high-profile site in 2015, it drew some initial concern because his company is mostly known for building shopping centers and townhouses that are “neither ugly nor distinctive” and are “mostly inconspicuous despite their large numbers,” according to Texas Architect Magazine.

Indeed, OMA’s partnership with Lovett Commercial is a bit like the fictional Homer Simpson character from "The Simpsons" marrying a super model, said Kirby Liu, director of development at Lovett Commercial and Frank Liu's son, at Post Houston’s grand opening in November. OMA’s international adaptive reuse projects include turning a Soviet-era restaurant into a contemporary art museum in Moscow and converting a distillery into a museum for Prada in Milan.

Lovett Commercial beat out some bids from developers that wanted to demolish the project and start from scratch for the high-profile site.

“This site after all stands alone as the key to unlock the urban potential of downtown. So perhaps there was a little disappointment when this once-in-a-generation opportunity fell into the hands of a developer whose primarily known for townhouses and strip centers and perhaps that disappointment was magnified when it became known that we wanted to preserve virtually the entirety of the complex,” said Kirby Liu.

An interior shot of a the post office sorting room where letters served as locators in the warehouse. (OMA)

Lovett Commercial bought the site at a time when global oil prices were collapsing and sending the commercial real estate market that tended to rely on energy tenants into a tailspin, with oil and gas companies shedding office space and fleeing pricey downtown leases. Two years later, Hurricane Harvey crashed into the city, flooding underground pipes that overwhelmed the former post office's sump pumps, flooding basements and destroying much of the building’s infrastructure, Kirby Liu said in an email to CoStar News.

“To be honest, we were not immune from mounting public incredulity that we were chasing what seemed to be a project with all the odds stacked against it and inexperienced leadership at that," Kirby Liu said at the ceremony. "This is a manifestation of our collective hope in that true architecture is for everyone from every walk of life.”

On 12/14/2021 at 4:57 PM, Montrose1100 said:

I read the Texas Monthly link https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/three-gentlemen-one-ghost-and-a-skyscraper/ King Kirby posted on SSC. It's basically about how 601 Travis came to be. They were worried about Main becoming a slum, and adjacent properties closer to City Hall. Also talks about the Tunnel System. Wish they had more pictures, would love to see the models and all of the proposals. 

Thanks Montrose, that is a great article! Irony of ironies that what they thought was keeping downtown alive - replacing all those little buildings on Block 68 with a really big building - was just hurting it, from our perspective today. Look at the before and after on this link and decide which looks more interesting:

http://www.houstontimeportal.net/milby-hotel.html

This passage from the article is also painful to read:

It was by far the largest plat on the block and for years had been the home of Montgomery Ward, until that department store moved to the suburbs in the early sixties. The rest of the block held odd-shaped little lots of no particular interest. The old Milby Hotel, weathered and forlorn, stood on the northwest corner, at Travis and Texas. On Texas, directly across from the Rice Hotel, were a liquor store, a newsstand, and the most popular lunch spot in town, Kelley’s Oyster Bar. Along Main, on the eastern side of the block, were a dozen tiny shops, all of which had seen better days, including a haberdashery, a furrier, a drugstore, a National Shirt shop, the Felix Mexican Restaurant, Thom McAn and Hanover shoe stores, a toy shop, and two jewelry stores.

Horne was old enough to remember the row of stores as it had looked in the forties, when it was the prime retail location in all of Houston and the intersection of Main and Texas was perhaps the busiest corner in the state. In those days the shops catered strictly to the carriage trade, but now most of them were victims of suburban shopping malls and dealt in either secondhand goods or discount clothing. Horne had seen blocks like this before; they were all too common in downtown Houston in the sixties. Montgomery Ward’s evacuation seemed almost clairvoyant.

1 hour ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 

The concert venue is also going to help draw people constantly. When I was in SF and Seattle, both of their markets weren't always busy. It was usually big events that drew crowds but otherwise the amount of people was sparse. 

How often are concerts though?

19 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

I’ve always found the generic name to be almost sinister, like an evil company in a video game angling to take over the world or something. I guess Service Corporation International has a better ring to it than Dead People ‘r’ Us or whatever.

I find it fascinating that maybe 90% of the population has no idea what industry the company is in, and I’m sure funeral services would be one of the least likely guesses.

When you think about it though, that is pretty much the word for what they do - a service.

"Someday, and that day may never come, I will call upon you to do a service for me."

I guess the big question now is whether the attraction of the rooftop deck can continue to draw enough people to provide business to support the food court tenants, whose rent in turn supports the maintenance of the rooftop deck. Unless they can get some other things going.

Those who wish for a world of only highrises and no churches would do well to remember the Grenfell Tower fire in London, when it was the local churches and mosques that provided the first stages of relief for the people left homeless by the fire, as the government social services were mired in bureaucratic inefficiency. Here is an article about it:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2017/jun/22/after-the-grenfell-fire-the-church-got-it-right-where-the-council-failed

That being said, there is no way this will survive as a church longterm. For the purchase price of $8 million to be adequately returned, it would take an annual lease rate of around $500,000, which would translate to $40/square foot - higher than most of the retail rents in Houston.

15 hours ago, Ross said:

Here's something interesting https://thestory.church/nextchapter/

Building apparently leased to another church.

Gotta be an interim use. I can't imagine the lease is longer than a few years as they wait for the market to be right.

On 7/30/2021 at 5:11 PM, X.R. said:

Yeah the way I read it is the same as @Houston19514 . It sounds like the enviro studies and pre-construction stuff for the whole line is under-way and construction on the thing as a whole doesn't begin until 2025. At this particular meeting however, they chose to focus on that certain piece.

A significant date, since the whole Metro service area voted to have 78 miles of light rail finished by then.

On 12/1/2021 at 5:37 PM, Luminare said:

Would be a shame to lose it. It definitely is a prime example of Neo-Classical, and sits on that site very nicely. Hope it stays, but understand if it goes. That whole area is just too valuable in regard to real estate. You are correct that Neo-classical churches are a victim of their own successes because there are so many, but also even the use case and low density of Houston in general is the same. I think we have had discussions about this in other threads, but single story low density is just hard to keep and reuse if you want to up the density. So this too is also a victim in that regard. If we had built more mid-rise buildings in the early days like I've seen in other American cities (this includes where I live now in Salt Lake City) then it would be a lot more difficult to tear down. Walked this area a lot when I lived in Montrose, and always liked passing by this church.

I agree on the density and the economics. Of course, there are some other pretty nice churches in that neighborhood with similar density. St. Paul's United Methodist at Main and Binz has similar density and is certainly a landmark that should be protected if it is not already (one of the few Gothic churches in Texas that used cut limestone rather than brick or rubble stone - thank Jesse Jones, Walter Fondren, and "Silver Dollar" Jim West for the cash), and First Presbyterian and South Main Baptist both also take up a lot of space. Only difference is that these grew into campuses with robust congregations while the Christian Science church withered. 

But if we think of churches as a form of architecture worth preserving - and I don't see why not, it is the form of architecture that is probably the least practical, that spends proportionally the most on beauty for beauty's sake (museums and courthouses are also up there) - then we run into a problem when you consider that most of Houston's best churches in the first half of the twentieth century were built around South Main and Montrose. Even the Masons got in on the action. So you lose a pretty big chunk of Houston's architectural story if all of these get turned into midrise apartments, although that would probably make for a more active neighborhood.

As to the restaurant option, I just can't eat in someone's former worship space, I don't care whose it was. I'll never eat in a synagogue, a mosque, etc. If other people want to and it saves the building, <shrug>. I've often thought St. Paul's could turn into MFAH's medieval wing if the Methodists someday go away.

On 1/4/2021 at 7:16 AM, Ross said:

Hmm, another Christian Science church goes away. Are they losing members quickly, or are the members moving to other areas. 4910 Montrose is a good sized facility that implies there were a number of members at some point in the past.

This is a pretty fine example of neo-classical architecture, which seems to have been the favored style for the Christian Science movement, given its associations with the rationalist tradition of New England religion. I am surprised we haven't heard anything from the preservation community, especially considering their impassioned defense of the old Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral downtown. Examples of this style may become victims of their own success... there were so many neo-classical churches built in the U.S. that they tend to be seen as "just another church," although this example is certainly more graceful than most, especially with the large oak trees.

On 10/22/2021 at 9:22 AM, Nate99 said:

That would have been my guess. Old oil fields are typically seen as oil fields waiting on technology to surpass what existed when they stopped producing the last time.  Mineral rights owners will go generations waiting for it to come around, and I'd imagine no developer would want to build on top of land with a permanent easement for future development of wells, if doing so is even legal.  Mineral rights changing hands is a completely different economic ballgame compared to the real estate it is attached to. 

They will get developed if the land value goes up enough. Lots of oil fields around Houston have been developed and now look like any suburban area - Humble, Tomball, Fairbanks, etc. Some have been mostly developed with just a small core area remaining. This link is fun to explore:

https://gis.rrc.texas.gov/GISViewer/

18 hours ago, cspwal said:

Why did the main cluster of skyscrapers develop where they did? Is it because of the 45 and Allen parkway ramps being right there?

Good question. I think the tunnel system kept buildings in a clump. Why that clump developed where it did probably had something to do with proximity to existing office buildings along Main Street and the feeling that west of Main Street was the "good side" of Main Street since it was in the direction of River Oaks, Allen Parkway, etc.

There was a time when "Uptown" referred to the part of Main Street around where the Gulf Building is, as opposed to the older parts north of Texas Ave. Jesse Jones helped lead a migration of developers to "Uptown" as Lower Main and the areas around it slid into disrepute. 

Later on, in the 50's-60's, "Uptown" referred to the area around South Main and Holcombe with the Shamrock and the Prudential Building, which area is now a part of the Texas Medical Center. Especially with the Astrodome coming along, this area felt like the future of Houston.

Then Hines built the Galleria and "City Post Oak" eclipsed South Main and eventually claimed the name of "Uptown."

On 11/17/2021 at 9:51 AM, hindesky said:

1977 downtown. From reddit u/morganmonroe81

Jeez, all that parking. Bulldozers had already done most of their work around Market Square. Still a building hanging on there at Preston & Travis and some stuff on Milam. Not sure what that stuff is on the Lyric Center block.

On 11/22/2021 at 10:51 AM, Houston19514 said:

I don't know... I'm not sure it really rises to a question of ethics.  If a self-absorbed architect wants to fluff up an audience by allowing them to believe what they want to believe/hear what they want to hear on a matter as inconsequential as whether they save their best work for a particular city... not sure there's any real harm done.

 

It's interesting that Phillip Johnson has also been quoted as saying "Glibness will get you anywhere."

Ok. This has generally been my view of the matter. Some of the architects on here thought that it was unethical. I rather like that he saved his best stuff for Houston, if he in fact did.

10 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

Phillip Johnson was a great self-promoter who was very good at making comments that flattered and/or entertained his audiences.  Even if he once said that he save his best designs for Houston, that doesn't make it true.  

Sure. I guess the discussion is still, "Is it even ethical for an architect to say that, true or not?" Also, there is the evidence. Except for the AT&T Center which seems like it was intended for New York for maximum impact, it does seem like he saved his best work post-1970 for Houston. Obviously not measurable or provable, however. NY and Atlanta are probably second and third in terms of the level of work he gave them.

On 11/19/2021 at 7:17 PM, Luminare said:

Since I like analogies I'll use a football one again. Nick Saban, who is probably going to go down as the greatest head football coach, not just in Alabama, but in College Football as a whole. To this day, Saban has won 6 National Championships at Alabama, 1 with LSU, zero with the Miami Dolphins in the NFL, and zero with Michigan State. Clearly his best run as a coach has been with Alabama. No question about that, and I would assume that with his success at Alabama he will probably say that they best place he coached at was at Alabama. So does that mean he wasn't coaching his best at LSU? or Miami? or Michigan State? No. It highlights just how difficult it is to win, and be the best, and also the combination of factors it takes to be the best. It also tells the story that sometimes when one is at the their best or thinks what they are doing is the best it isn't enough in certain circumstances, or administration, etc...

Its the same with architecture. In fact the link you posted if you don't zero in that one statement, which was actually said by the journalist even if Johnson said it once before, but you learn in that interview why he "saved" his best designs for Houston, and that was because of the relationship Johnson and Hines had with one another. It was a relationship that just worked and was quite magical. In those types of relationships anything can happen. No matter what design Johnson would have presented Hines, Hines trusted Johnson no matter what and that allowed Johnson to do more daring projects that also just so happened to be his best. This is also why I said we should have defined what constitutes as "best" are we talking global? In a particular context? At a particular point and time? In my opinion best isn't relative. Its very much based in context. Best also doesn't mean that just because things didn't work out with one client even when you were at your best doesn't mean you weren't doing your best. All that matters is if you were doing your best at that time at that place, and if it was best for that client and what they wanted. People also change, and evolve. Situations change. Tastes change. Circumstances change. Its way more complicated than just saying "Oh he said he saved his best designs for Houston, that must mean he didn't do his best for others". I KNOW THATS NOT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, but its the heart and soul of what is being said.

If you are interested in the idea of "standard of care" look into it further because its very specific to time, place, context, client, circumstances, etc... Its not relative in the slightest. If Johnson satisfied his clients needs and gave them the best design that THE CLIENT wanted then thats all that matters, and maybe he showcased these other designs and were rejected by the client, like in my example that happened to me. Also look into the AIA code of ethics because its all centered on the architect, but more important their relationship with the client, the public, and the environment, and as long as they aren't intentionally delivering an inferior product or are leading their client down a wrong path and knowingly doing so then that is grounds for a violation. I don't believe from my knowledge of Johnson that this was ever the case. I don't remember ever hearing about a client that ever said...hey I wanted that design, and Johnson didn't show me that. Never heard of that. In my opinion, case closed. Not just per each circumstances, as Johnson was beloved by his clients, but also globally across his career. I'm I saying he never did anything wrong ever...no. What I'm saying is that he was not only a great architect in what the code of ethics calls for, but was also the standard by which Architects should practice. A high bar. His best designs where in Houston because his best client was in Houston that allowed him to be the best and what he did. Not exactly rocket science. For anyone on this forum that hasn't ever had to collaborate on a project or work with a client, or work with others to achieve a higher goal will never know how difficult it is to get what you want done done.

Well, Hines might have been headquartered in Houston, but they partnered with Philip Johnson on buildings all over the U.S.: Atlanta, New York, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Louisville, Denver, etc. I think Philip Johnson did his best designs in Houston because, as he elaborated elsewhere, it was a laissez-faire city where you could do anything anywhere, which went along with his "great man"/heroic views on art and history. He was a big proponent of the unfettered individual and appreciated Houston as a place where such individuality was still encouraged.

I know the link I gave you didn't actually quote Johnson saying this. I said above that it "referenced" it. I don't really feel like trying to track down the original quote. The link makes it clear enough that he said it.