mattyt36

8 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Pretty obvious from what I said. Is this a courtroom?

 

More like a forum for a self-published novel.

16 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

If a sign has been there for most of the building's history, that becomes its history. If they could show that when it was the Petroleum Building, there was a sign there called "The Petro" and that they are merely restoring this sign, then there might be an interesting argument for reverting it back. Or if the building was especially famous when it was the Petroleum Building and no one ever really called it the Great Southwest building, sort of like Transco Tower vs. Williams Tower or Sears Tower vs. Willis Tower, then you could revert back. But it's sort of like a legal precedent... once it has amassed a considerable history a certain way, that becomes the history. An analogous case is the AC by Marriott hotel on Main Street, where they are retaining the building's modern-style renovation because it has been that way long enough that that is legitimate history. (And because whatever is under that façade is probably too ruined to be worth retrieving.)

So, in short, yes?

Didn’t the building open as the Petroleum Building and later became Great Southwest? Not that I like the name ...

That article from 2000 quoted prices around $50/sq ft. Have prices grown by that much since then?

Here’s another article that provides further explanation ... evidently purchased at $70 per sq ft. What’s the going rate these days?

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/city-may-condemn-land-for-arena.18163/

On 6/6/2018 at 1:03 PM, thatguysly said:

Just closed on a house near this development. I walked by and two guys were working on the eastern-most building. The western most had one security guard walking around. There are multiple windows broken out, drywall that has been vandalized, graffiti, and ruined plaster. I guess I get to watch this go on for a while now.

Welcome to the neighborhood, I’m right by Bethel Park

14 hours ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

the first induction ceremony for the Houston Sports HoF was at HoB today. Honestly, it was sad watching Earl Campbell ride in on a wheelchair scooter. (H)Akeem was looking well, and Nolan Ryan sent his son to accept his ring.

How, er, nice of Nolan Ryan.  Kind of tacky . . .

13 hours ago, Dakota79 said:

A hotel would be great!  Of course, LaColombe D'or will have a some hotel space in their new tower.  The views from this corner would be incredible.

Would be a great location for a Moxy.  Bizarre hotel chain but would fit the neighborhood well. 

I stayed at one in Minneapolis's Montrose-ish neighborhood.

http://moxy-hotels.marriott.com/hotels/minneapolis-uptown

9 hours ago, ArchFan said:

I gotta say, putting an urban Target in the old Sakowitz building sounds like a great idea.  I'm not sure whether the investment community is ready to fund something like that yet, but I think that ultimately it would quite successful as more residential buildings open nearby.

I’d have to say the chances of that were far higher when the DRA was involved. But that’s just my gut.

51 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

 

And their original (and apparently very successful) location in Dallas is also right next to a freeway, so I suspect they've got it figured out.

Turn the amps up you mean?

Now up for sale.  Negotiations to redevelop as a result of the Downtown Redevelopment Authority RFP stalled.

https://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Downtown-office-tower-and-former-Sakowitz-12934125.php

15 hours ago, hindesky said:

I love the concept but I'm not sure how appealing it will be to have a live concert abutting a noisy freeway.

It's amazing how much of a difference moving a couple blocks west would make, but I guess HoustonFirst had to go with the plot of land it owned.

The HSR will fail on its own--lack of transit won't be a contributing factor.  TNCs are perfectly adequate and indeed preferable to anyone buying a ticket on the HSR.

1 hour ago, hindesky said:

More downtown pics from reddit, 70's and current Google earth.

70's

Current Google Earth

I can't believe I'm saying this but Pennzoil looked so out of place 45 (45 . . . almost half a century!!) years ago, and not nearly as pretty.

It’s pretty impressive how it looks coming out of GreenStreet.

I still don't understand what happened . . . doesn't Matt Thomas work for the Rockets as well?  Or Clanton got fired because he wouldn't say anything negative about the Rockets?

1 minute ago, cspwal said:

Unless it's attached to a gas station

Yes, either a gas station or a horrible CVS!

We're definitely an outlier on this.

Hell, a couple of 7-11s would be a start, but for whatever reason Houston isn't a convenience store city.

1 hour ago, jgriff said:

I have to stop coming to HAIF so much. Complaining about 2 high rises being too close together and implying that zoning would fix this “problem”? That post made the world a dumber place. Sorry to be rude but sometimes you just have to call stupid out.

That's the spirit . . . people sharing opinions about aesthetics on an architecture forum and saying the opinion makes the "world a dumber place."  You certainly have a well-developed sense of proportion and perspective.

(And, BTW, any link between that opinion and the mention of zoning with some sort of umbrella endorsement of zoning was entirely of your own making.)

3 minutes ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Do two high-rises next to each other look more awkward than one standing alone?  ;-)

OK, you obviously win.  Such development is entirely desirable, certainly common the country over, and Houston can now consider itself a "real city" like Milwaukee.

37 minutes ago, houstontexasjack said:

From the standpoint of urban development, I tend to think seemingly sudden changes in land usage--including the need for greater density--necessarily mean the first structures that reflect the shift in usage will look "out of place" because our expectations are framed by what's been there before.  If, in 15 years, Montrose becomes an urban canyon, we won't think twice about these two being close together.

 

 

I know I'm likely beating a dead horse at this point but have you seen the site in person?  I think even if there are 10 more similarly sized residential towers on Montrose between Westheimer and 59 this pair will stand out as rather kooky.

Stated differently, if the same person owned the block, I doubt he would ever build 2 buildings along the lines of what is happening here.

It's almost as if the La Colombe D'Or guy was so p*ssed by the Hanover that he went all-in on this project out of revenge.  (I know that's not the case as I highly doubt Hines would be associated with a project that wasn't financially feasible.)

6 minutes ago, roadrunner said:

I actually think the way these buildings will be situated on each site will limit the obstruction of views.  

 

Both are excellent projects, in my opinion, and probably 2 of the better high-rise additions to the city in the last 5 years.

It's great if the obstruction of views will be "limited" (albeit that in and of itself implies that there will still be some negative impacts for existing residents of Hanover Montrose).  My comment is how out of place it will look from the exterior.

47 minutes ago, MarathonMan said:

Of course there are high rises in similarly close proximity in downtown areas.  Land is at a premium, so you have to cram y’all buildings together.  I think what mattyt36 is getting at is that two buildings this close to one another in an area with no other high rises nearby will look awkward. I agree.

Thanks, that's what I was getting at.  These buildings will be right on top of each other, closer than any buildings of similar scale in downtown (not that that has to be a de facto constraint).  And if there are modern examples (i.e., not built in the 1920s) of buildings of similar scale being built by different developers in a neighborhood otherwise barren of high rises, I'd be happy to walk back my comments.

5 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Yes, that is the reason why taller buildings are more expensive PSF. But the number of floors has a certain psychological impact.

 

Q: "Why did a globally renowned developer choose to build a 48-story tower versus a 50+-story tower?"

A.  He married his wife in 1948.

B.  He built the Galleria when he was 48.

C. The economics of a 48-story building fit more in line with the market.

D. There's a psychological effect with 50 stories.

I just find it so hard to believe the answer is (D) and not (C).

The above said, is there anything special about mixed use hotel/residential/office that changes the economics appreciably?  Smaller floor plates OK for residential and hotel?

Are the changing economy and changing tastes also changing old "rules" about optimal floor plates?

6 hours ago, cspwal said:

I only listen to 790 when I'm listening to Astros games through the app, and I think they are having a lot of trouble selling ad inventory.  Last night's game had maybe one ad between each inning, and the rest of the time was filled with "highlights from MLB history" 

If you're listening through the MLB app (which you must be as 790 doesn't have online streaming rights) that has nothing to do with 790.  Now why the Astros don't sell advertising, I'm not sure.  (Astros announcers work for the Astros, not 790.)