JWW

I guess you didn't really understand my question. I know that soil data is an important prerequisite to starting construction.

I was wondering if anybody knew whether soil data was something that is generally collected immediately before construction starts, or does it generally take months/years of analysis/design work using this type of data before construction starts. Since they also collected soil samples a year ago, I fear that this does not mean construction is imminent.

I guess we'll know soon though.

Jax, I'd like to know the same thing, so hopefully we can get an answer from someone in the field on this. I would presume this would be used a few months before construction starts, but who knows.

Is there anyone who has knowledge/experience with mid/high rise development that can give an overview of the soil-testing process??

Question about Phase I and Phase II environmental- what other stakeholders TYPICALLY or ROUTINELY require the first or both in a development? (permitting, lending, etc. ) I will repost this in the Development and Real Estate thread if anyone can answer there

Anyone know?

Terracon are environmental consultants. They probably conducted Phase I and/or Phase II environmental studies last year to satisfy lender requirements, ....

Question about Phase I and Phase II - what other stakeholders TYPICALLY or ROUTINELY require the first or both in a development? (permitting, lending, etc. ) I will repost this in the Development and Real Estate thread if anyone can answer there

Stop backing up your argument with poorly-written mostly-irrelevant articles containing botched data and I'll stop calling it out as such.

The article you posted from 2004 actually discusses a strategy and elements of that strategy that can be traced back to the Bob Lanier years. There's an article in Cite Looks at Houston about this. I believe they called the strategy, "Filling in the donut hole," or something like that. Like this article, this strategy has absolutely nothing to do with downtown in particular. I like Lanier and at the point during which that article was written, I really liked White, who seemed to be prudently and ethically continuing the strategy. He came off as an honest politician, truly a rare breed.

But it's been about five years and White has faltered a few times now, this incident with the salesmanship being one of them. I can understand if on the balance of it all, you still like him, but it is not apparent from your response that this general opinion of yours has anything to do with the specific topic of this thread.

Only if you can clarify for me what your point is.

I second that entire post.

The letter states, among other things:

The capital letters in the word "THE" were printed out as such in the letter.

I object to that statement specifically. It is an example of White acting in the capacity of a City official who is showing favoritism to a specific developer to the categorical exclusion of all others.

Moreover, the statement is not factual. These are the priciest apartments in downtown; a lot of people who would choose between downtown apartments may disagree that One Park Place is "THE residence of choice" as evidenced by their preference to lease a unit at the Post Rice Lofts, Hogg Palace, Houston House, or other options. I myself would much rather live in either a genuine historic building or a shiny new modern-looking apartment building than a new apartment building unconvincingly made to look old, so it is in fact not "THE residence of choice."

Randall Davis is a smart guy. Even if he is pissed off, Davis knows better than to go on public record as opposing someone as powerful or popular as Mayor White because that's the kind of thing that will come back to haunt him one day.

I also do not agree with "The" being used. I do not like the favortism shown and would like that article removed from the letter. However, it sure seems favortism is shown when tax and other financial incentives are given to different developers for all kinds of reasons, including developing in government-preferred areas of town. I'd take the "the" out but I can deal with the rest of this.

Regarding Davis, he has spoken his piece about many officials in government currently and recently out of power. Yes, he is very smart, but I actually think he'd prefer any high government official going on about a downtown residential development just to get people down to the area to look and when they find out the rent is $2.20, $2.15 a ft or whatever it will be, the prospective renters might look at other developments in downtown (Hogg, etc.).

The article and the news yesterday stated this:

White said the letter was part of a longstanding agreement he made with Finger to promote the 37-story tower, which is scheduled to open in March.

Am I the only one who thinks 'Southpointe' could be a prank? One could make the point that those renderings are grandiose to the point of ridiculous for that piece of land.

Sure it's not...but your hypothesis is not the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard....the project surprises me, at least

It could work... the question is, could it work even better???

IMO the number one priority for this piece of property should be H-O-T-E-L-S... Houston has lots of office parks. Another one isn't going to make any difference to me. But if we build some classy Hotels, and decent restaurant/ entertainment options (Marquee-Reliant anyone???????), Reliant conventioneers, sports-goers and rodeo hounds will have some more fun things to do AND a rail connection to downtown, the TMC and the museum district.

If METRO were smart, they'd start bustin' their bootays to extend the Redline to Pearland (and the planned Waterlights district/Nanoville). Dreaming? Probably so. But Houston needs to start getting smart about their planning.

Someone needs to get appointed to the Planning Commission....

the office component is a go

residential component is looking for a second financing partner

Redstone is looking for mezzanine financing for residential?

Crap, had I known, would have taken a same location before and after photo. I drive by that building on the way to the gym.

Are they doing more than just parking demo right now?

It was a done deal... until they undid it.

This is an excerpt from an 11/4 Chronicle article (the original is no longer on the Chronicle's website):

Can you post this in the Development and Real Estate topic under going up so others who dont' read about this project in particular can still give us an answer how KBR "undid" the deal?

Why do so many projects have to have so much retail? Are residential-heavy projects unfeasible or something? I'd think more people would prefer low-end luxury units with a few conveniences like a grocery rather than a veritable mall downstairs.

See above - please post that in Development and Real Estate - I'd really like to hear more answers on your question.

except for the whole foods at BLVD Place, b/c that is dead... as is the ritz... and maybe more

Since when is whole foods not anchoring BLVD Place?

Wow... how awsome is it that they are taking the WHOLE building!!

It is great. What a homerun for TrammelCrow/CBRE, especially for recent and current development markets in Houston. Hope they take more risks asap.

I guess Allen Center is their (Devon's, not just Hess') E&P base or something, but all other things are not remaining equal with its overall leasing needs and operations growth - Devon is building a 2,000,000 ft^2 building in Oklahoma City.

Wow. Any idea where in OKC? That's huge...

i agree it is disappointing to hear about the loss of two floors and Hess Tower just doesnt have a ring to it like Discovery Tower did.

atleast the name Discovery Tower makes you think of positive innovation

Pretty interesting how construction can be altered still at this point of progress. Too bad for architectural reasons but well worth it to entice other completely spec buildings to be built (would presume this development was completely spec) at the current time.

Write to Hess for a name change - a change you can believe in .

"Shepherd Alabama LLC" is on the Planning Commission agenda tomorrow with Gene Carroll and Associates for Consent. 2.2 acres

Where and when is that meeting/where can I find this info online???

Would presume this has already been written about but cannot find any topic on this under 'Going Up' so...

http://crosstorian.com/southpointe

Thoughts?

ugh! who comes up with this pretentious crap?

Coming from someone who has a desire to develop ultra-luxury residential in the near future, I am finding myself constantly gagging reading advertising like this. The worst I've seen in Houston recently was Turnberry (if the shape/design of the building was not enough of a turnoff, their marketing closed the deal) with lines like "If you don't spend it, your heirs will", complete with man in tuxedo and untied bowtie looking out the window onto 610. Just garbage.

Can't you just picture some pretentious prick drooling over that description?

I am aware of very, very few people who can 'afford' to live in a 2m+ home in Houston in the RICE AREA that would really be sold by that. The fast $, at least it SEEMS to me, would be in other areas of town.

They are very much up and out of the ground now, but today was the first time I actually noticed...

I can't give much detail since it was a pretty quick drive by, but my initial reaction was "not impressive."

Drove in yesterday. Only report I have is "hope it gets better than this."

Found a rendering:

Yawn.

Too bad Ashby guys couldn't have picked up this lot, instead.

The condo owner gave their willful consent when they agreed to abide by the Owners' Association bylaws.

Great, thanks a lot for clearing this up... Warwick Towers, here I come... (joking)

So an owner of a condo could be forced to sell his unit without his consent? (e.g. - 98 percent of condo association says they will sell to a prospective buyer; the other 2 percent would be forced to sell, as well)

If the majority of condo units are owned by one entity, such as the original developer, then it doesn't really matter what is in the bylaws because that entity will change the bylaws to facilitate the sale of the units. Residents or investors that have already bought in do not yet have control of the Owners' Association, and so they don't really have any say in the matter. In fact, a financially distressed developer that controls the Association and is desperately looking to reduce operating costs or generate auxilliary streams of revenue has the power to royally screw over those that bought in early. This usually doesn't happen, because such practices have an adverse effect on the sale of units, but it has been known to happen. I won't name names, but there is a former condo project west of the Texas Medical Center where this kind of situation unfolded and the outcome was far more messy than at Mosaic/Montage.

If the developer has to sell the remaining units (i.e. the entire development) and does not control the Association, they'll find that they have a very hard time doing so. The best offers for the units will come from apartment operators seeking to lease the rest of the units out as a large-scale operation, but empowered Owners' Associations don't like that and will do everything they can to block such a move. Getting the Owners' Association on board with such a plan under those circumstances typically is difficult or impossible. Foreclosure is nearly inevitable if sales stall out that late into a condo project.

Thanks for the information. However, I am specifically curious about an existing, sold and closed condominium building , such as the building on central park south that had been in existence for over a decade when Trump came to buy the building and convert to his Trump Parc or Trump Parc South or Trump Infinity (you can choose the next hyperbolic name for him). If he wants to buy the building that is a condominium, I would think that he would have to either agree to purchase each unit (seems impossible to reasonably do), or maybe reach an agreement with over 50 percent of the voting shares of the condo association to set a price/foot for the purchase of each unit, whether the rest of the unit owners wanted to sell or not?

Does this question make sense?

The buyer has to agree to obey the Condo Association's bylaws. The bylaws can change over time according to the proceedures described in the bylaws pertaining to their being changed (for instance, some aspects of the bylaws can be changed by majority vote while other aspects may require a supermajority vote). Regardless, the owner of a condo is subject to them. If a buyer is unwilling to agree, they cannot purchase the condo.

The seller of a real property can arrange for a deed restriction to the property. This is done infrequently, such as where there is sentimental value attached to the home or trees and the seller doesn't wish anything to be disturbed. Some sellers use deed restrictions for historical preservation purposes. I cannot imagine, however, why a seller of a condo would want to enact a deed restriction, much less how they would enforce it.

Sorry, I meant a buyer buying the entire condominium, not a unit (buying the development, not a condo unit), and did he have to agree with every unit OWNER (not 'buyer') ??

The only area that comes to mind like this is around Tanglewood/Post Oak/Galleria, but many of those buildings have Post Oak, Westheimer, San Felipe, and 610 to funnel traffic out...

Have you read the anticipated % change in traffic due to this redevelopment ? (Would expect that you have)

Should be a simple question to answer for many of you : When someone comes to buy a condominium, does the new buyer just have to agree on terms with a majority of the condo association? Does he have to agree with every buyer (seems improbable) ? Does this differ depending on the bylaws of the Condo Association?

You can just walk into the leasing office at the corner of Austin & McKinney and they'll set you up with that. Takes just over an hour, but it's worth a look.

The crane is still being disassembled. Can't say I've seen a crane of that height taken down before... didn't realize the amount of time it took.

actually talking to people and walking the real estate rather than depending on information from the interwebs?

what a novel concept.

Definitely will do this. Just prefer to have a PM or super as I tend to ask questions that sales don't seem to answer or are unable to answer many times. Plus it is always nice to not have to be pretend to be interested in moving in.

Excellent use of hyperbole in your post. I see a bright future for you in writing homeowners association newsletters and public comment speaking at city council and METRO meetings.

Nice one

That's not really how it works. "Tall Buildings" are built with a contiguous core which includes elevators, stairwells, bathrooms, utility runs, etc. Stairwells tend to be on opposing sides of the core. The effect that this change would have in some buildings (mostly the ones that only barely qualify as a "Tall Building") is that the core may become narrower and longer. But I can only think of a few cases in which the core might move toward the outer wall of a building...it certainly will not inconvenience the CEOs in corner offices.

Thank you for putting that dumb argument down.

Thanks for welcoming me.

Im new to Houston as well..

Moved here 4 months ago and finally know my way around the city.

As for OPP that is a nice building and its in a great area.

Do you know when its suppose to be ready for people to move in?

Does anyone know the PM or a super to get a walkthrough perhaps???

Anyone familiar with bankruptcy (if the lender, and I guess that's the takout/permanent lender on the first building and that the construction loan was taken out already?, takes ownership of the Mosaic condo building) know what happens here with the communal areas shared by both buildings? (parking, pool, workout room, etc)???

Talking about what will be going on at Mosaic/Montage now...

http://swamplot.com/mosaic-avoids-foreclos...1-09/#more-5461