houston-development

they were never going to get their price (over $100k/unit) due to the fact it's their old inferior construction (ie 8ft ceilings, odd floor plans, etc).

at the time, probably only cost about $50k/unit (if that) and $10 psf for the dirt. the land is worth more that what they had into it and their net cost basis, after blowing away their original underwriting, is probably next to nothing.

great to hear.

But keep it to the facts.

which is my point.

2010 made a disclaimer it was something he heard.

when your "source" is nothing more than the HBJ, its a report you are regurgating, not facts.

rather than bashing 2010, you could have easily said, "well, per HBJ, they said x".

you dont have any inside information on the projects, so stop acting like you do.

final $0.02 on the subject and sorry to the mods...

Since 2010 has chosen not to clarify his earlier post or answer my question, let me clear things up a bit.

The fact is, TC had the adjoining block under contract at the time they announced their purchase of Block 126 and plans to construct Discovery Tower. The fact is (as I demonstrated in an earlier post) TC had in mind the possibility of building parking on the adjoining block from the very start, contrary to what 2010 wanted us to believe.

just because you use the word "fact" doesnt mean your statements are factual. unless, of course, you are a sr. principal with crow, which i seriously doubt.

seems to me that you try your best to discredit others while no one is allowed to question your posts.

/ $0.02

From what I know about the Farb project, they are eventually planning the midrisde apartments mentioned above. They were unable to negotiate out of the cell tower lease, therefore the building will "surround" the tower. I've also heard this project is delayed behind higher margin projects they have planned.

um....

he is not doing a midrise, its a 4-story project.

the cell phone tower will be enclosed by the 6 level parking garage, which will be wrapped by the main building. the top will be seen but hes designed it so focus will be diverted elsewhere. he gave up trying to negotiate several months ago.

it was delayed due to the architects, not because of "higher margin projects". he has a couple of townhome projects and that margin is ABSOLUTELY nothing compared to this deal.

Both links are the same though.

i fixed them.. sorry, coffee hasnt kicked in yet.

right now is the absolute worst possible time to raise equity and/or secure commitments from lenders.

i would rather have the developers use this time to dot their Is and cross their Ts three or four times over. the dome aint going anywhere any time soon, so why not explore other possibilities.

personally, would rather have an eyesore for a couple more years and then a wonderful project than some rushed POS which we will regret later down the road.

theres a thread or two about this project in the midtown forums.

for clarification, its harold farbs grandson.

long story short:

it will be built on 3 parcels, parking garage will be wrapped by the main building, pool on top overlooking downtown (while hopefully somewhat hiding the phone tower) , and rents are projected to be about $1.50 psf.

edited to add midtown forum links here and here (gave details in post #23)

Reading back through some of the press releases, it looks like Boymelgreen may be trying to sell part of the land they bought (specifically at Richmond and Post Oak). http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/stories...ry2.html?page=1. Perhaps it's not Boymelgreen who is considering this big project.

Also, referencing Houston Development's post around the McCue site, I'm guessing that's Faulkner's project which was rumored to be a 40 story condo tower...

Houston Development, are you in a mood to share any info with us?

this is eng's rodeo, so you'll have to ask him.

and yes, boymel did put their site at richmond and post oak under contract.

dont personally know if they closed or not but sounds like they did.

I don't think this is any stage except that a conceptual design has been established and possibly some meetings. I know the land has been purchased, but whether or not something is built on it is a question mark. From what I understand it could be a couple of towers, one that might rival Williams tower, again this right now is pure speculation.

are you talking about the dirt that traded for $230 psf?

or perhaps some land off mccue?

maybe post oak / richmond?

come on eng, you know better than to be that vauge. narrow it down a bit and maybe ill bite.

let me be perfectly clear.

i am not defending their position, only giving a brief explination because i see both sides of the arguement.

Can you explain how the current concept of the Astrodome Hotel would take money out of the Rodeo or Texans' pocket?

as i mentioned above, most people bring a set amount of money to the event. every $ spent at the hotel is a $ less spent at the rodeo or game.

and yes, i totally understand the flip side. we can debate trickle down economics all day but again, it is what it is.

as for the other items, ill gladly elaborate when i can.

edited to add: sweet, post #420. do i win a haif bong?

...oh, I don't know, perhaps because the Rodeo negotiated for a share of revenue from hotel concessions during the rodeo, have obtained rights to premium event parking in the hotel parking garages, or something to that effect? And if those kinds of negotiated concessions make the ARC plan infeasible, then we'll hear about it down the road when ARC folds.

as you know, life isnt that easy.

again, theres more to the story but i cant comment any further.

sorry.

Everybody already looks greedy. It's a given. Doesn't mean that they have to be greedy and put on a PR spiel that paints them as beligerent.

true but pr is the last thing on their mind at the moment.

im limited on what i can say, so i'll just leave it at this:

the rodeo is pretty much running at maximum capacity (give or take) with the current facilities and events. why support something that will take money out of your pocket and add serious congestion.

not making excuses for them, just is what it is.

There are solutions to things like that, like contractural agreements. It'd be far better for their PR, IMO, if they'd just say what the problems were, make known what their demands were, and if ARC can handle it great, and if they can't, then they can't. But as it is, the Texans just come across as beligerent.

think of it this way...

the biggest draw will be the rodeo, followed closely by the texans. when people attend these events, they normally bring a set amount of disposable income. its difficult as is to make the numbers work for the dome, much less giving the lssr/texans a cut.

i hope it works out but at the end of the day, everyone is going to look greedy.

this is the site. was driving by and took a last minute picture. sorry for the blurry shot.

it appears, and im pretty certain its the case, that all tenants have vacated.

BUT, if you want to talk about financing of THIS particular development, then by all means.

uh, the cliff notes version would be they have a ton of money. hypothetically speaking, if they were build this without presales, they would have to put up a chunk of equity (say 40%) vs debt. so if they build it and no one comes, the bank gets a brand new deal at a discount.

Did the Chron have it wrong when they said: "The company owns about 9 acres near Richmond and Post Oak that it acquired for $34 million. The land is now under contract to another buyer for $57.5 million."?

i didnt see that. they were selling out-parcels but if that is the case, obviously someone made an offer they couldnt refuse for the whole thing.

If I'm seeing this location in my mind properly, it "seems" small. I'm assuming a greater part of the parcel stretches out under the foliage that hangs over the bayou in that area?

sorta. here is the hcad map (bottom right) -> link

comes out to 242,325 sq ft = 5.56 a

edited to add: the numbers are lightly off from the map because they have one more parcel that isn't shown. click this link and then "similar owner name". three will pop up.

edited again: post oak/richmond comes out to $147 psf.

: shakes head :

the san felipe / voss (the article mistakenly says woodway/voss) site is NOT the retirement site. ive mentioned this before but unable to disclose the actual location.. its an old retail center on the south side of san felipe and west of voss. the only tenant i can recall was fedex, which vacated a while ago.

in regards to the retirement development, that land is currently for sale. a marketing sign just went up over the weekend.

finally, they are still moving forward with richmond/post oak, only selling off out-parcels.

thats the land they purchased from oak lane (+/- $75 psf). its right behind avalon diner, off westheimer.

No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)

where are you getting your information? mine is from the final draft, dated 10/29/07, which reads:

Is proposed to take primary vehicular access from an abutting two-lane local or collector street with two-way traffic

and then goes on to say:

; and

4) Is either:

a. A high-rise structure, as defined in the City of Houston

Building Code; or

b. Constructed on a tract containing eight acres or more.

but that was a given, so posting it would have been slightly redundant.

edited to add screen shot, just because..

there are too many posts and not enough time to review them all. so if this was already covered, i apologize in advance.

this proposed ordinance, which has not been approved, means the project would have to go through an approval process if all three items are triggered:

1) if the density would increase by 100%+

2) comprise of more than 100 units

3) primary car access is from a two lane street

so if the development does not impact ALL THREE POINTS, the city cannot do a thing about it. if all three are triggered, it doesnt mean the deal is dead, just means you have to go through some red tape.

in other words, if this development were on kirby, main, westheimer, whatever, the proposed ordinance will NOT effect the development.

hanover has pushed back ground breaking to next summer; however, they fully anticipate closing on the land in january.

sorry for the delayed response, i normally stick around the going up section.

farb is still moving foward. ive seen the renderings and its going to be a gorgeous project.

there was a possibility of him selling a chunk a while ago but the potential buyer realized it wasnt feasible.

sorry if this has been covered before...

1) this deal is faaaaaaaaaar from being a "done deal".

2) as an example: the land that LSR owns (monaco) has zero restrictions. in theory and by the letter of houstons law, they can build a highrise on their site. their current model could be built without any setback variances and they could hit their number. the reason why they havent is because anyone's name involved in that deal will become mud in houston. from social to business partners to anything.. for a lack of better words, they will be considered a leper in social circles.

3) im not saying this is right or wrong BUT the surrounding neighborhoods have very deep pockets and even more politically connected .

i do not foresee this deal going foward without it getting very, very, very ugly and bloody. honestly, it doesnt affect me one way or the other because i have zero personal interest either way. however, its going to be fun to watch.

Unless the billboards are located INSIDE their areas, I think that's a really bad idea.

i agree 100% with your point. i believe they are area billboards (ill double check into that, if possible).