arche_757

^Nabors moved their HQ to either Switzerland or the Bahama's several years ago...of course the majority of their corporate employees are here in Houston.

Exxon also slashed their budget - but I think some of the bigger oil companies are simply being "protective" at this time (at least how my simple mind reads things) and projecting less growth for the rest of this year and 2016.  2017 is the unknown.

Lets recall that when Nabors says "....we're cutting 6,000 jobs..." that's not all in Houston!  That's everywhere.  A lot of the energy firms cut the jobs in the MidEast first, then trimmed fat back home.  Or so I've seen.

Something that doesn't get mentioned --- just how many of the construction jobs in this region are directly tied to energy?  I'll wager at least 40%

I'll go out on a limb and say that neither design was very good.  I can't see the more contemporary design aging very well.  The sea of parking is much cheaper than a parking structure.

^It does.  The problem for most of us - we don't have the financial backing of a TrammelCrow.  2 bad years will tank many families.  2 bad years will cause architectural/engineering/construction firms that *just* weathered the 2008-2010/11 recession (the worst since the Depression for AEC companies) to go belly up.

Frankly I'm concerned, and my firm doesn't do anything that's directly connected to oil/gas.  Houston's slow-down hurts all that are in construction.  That's a fact.  Hopefully the new schools/retail/hospitals etc. that are needed for all these new people will keep most of us busy for the next year or two?

I meant globally.  And I wasn't attacking you - your post seems a *tad* defensive?

And yes, Houston's changed A LOT since 2008.  There are more people, we have walk-able development, 2 new light rail lines, UH has 10,000 students living on campus now, Exxon's move has nearly created an entire new town out in the woods of north Houston, The Woodlands has exploded, Buffalo Bayou has been turned into a usable park, Discovery Green... has created a neighborhood.  Upper Kirby is actually a neighborhood maybe just a little bit of one - but its growing.

Yeah, we've not changed so much that Houston isn't recognizable, but then again its much different than it was just 7 years ago.  The needle is moving in the direction it needs to, yet it can still certainly move further.

Next time you're in town open your eyes!  And if you weren't privy to this forum these buildings (when you went by them) would seem far different.

No need to be a d-bag, especially when it's from information derived from a meeting that you and a couple of others were privy to, and not previously released to the public. And yes, how dare I try to find the closest examples of comparison, because the HSR will blow my stupid peasant mind wide open.

Honestly It'll blow all our minds when/if it comes to be!  Peasant or not.  Which seems to be most of us on this forum... peasants that is.

Odd to think of it as something that's 5-7 years away.  So much can happen in that time its not even funny.

That may be good news for Houston, but as an economy as a whole this type of jobs relocation means nothing. No permanent jobs are created. Nothing was produced. Nothing new was invented. No competition to see who has a better product. Just sliding one asset from one side of the table to another.

 

Well, maybe  the moving companies and real estate compnaies made a little bit out of the deal, but the net gain on the whole economy is nothing.

That's 100 families who need homes.  Aside from that and the moving companies you mentioned it won't be a big deal.  Not for Inner Loop Houston at least.  Now if this was Huntsville or even Galveston - big news.

Because they think it champions "big government" and eminent domain.  Which I don't think it does, but then they don't mind using ED for purposes that are pro-GOP.  This guys mindset is: Trains are for democrats!  That's the perception.  Wrong though it may be, you can read the opinions of the poorly informed all over in our local media comment boards.  It won't change until the troglodytes in this state (and there are millions of them) see one working, and working well.

I've always said: Americans need to travel to Europe and see how the rest of the West does it.  Yes there are problems aplenty, but they do a lot of the little things that make life easier right.

Who knows?  Why?

I rambled in my previous post (as I tend to do) but the point remains that Houston needs to further diversify the economy - no reason we should have a slump while the rest of the economy (nationally) starts to really ramp up.  Eventually there will be lesser need for oil/fossil fuels.  Maybe not till 2100?  Maybe beyond?  But then again in 1915 could anyone have predicted that by 1945 we would have discovered nuclear power?  Or that by the 1960s flying jets across oceans without trouble?  And who in 1960 would have been able to even remotely imagine the internet, and to a further extent: Google?  No one.  Time marches on...

The only way we could turn into Detroit would be an even greater slump in the oil prices, and if the whole world went to electric or fusion transportation. Also if plastics were banned world wide.

That's sort of oversimplifying things isn't it?  I mean we actually increased our consumption of automobiles every decade since their inception and yet the auto industry (largely based in Detroit) tanked that city when foreign competition+recession+failed housing/civic policies (which contributed to poverty) all came together.

Houston would really suffer if non-fossil fuel based energy alternatives became the norm even in just the US, but plastics production alone wouldn't keep Houston's "fossil fuel based companies" afloat.  Far from it I'd wager.

Look, I'm not saying we're the very next Detroit - I'm just saying I think if we don't make efforts in the next 20 years to "right the ship" so to speak we're going to enter into some unfortunately rough waters ahead when oil is challenged by all sorts of issues.

Kind'a like New Orleans clinging to Cotton too long.  Yeah, people still wear clothes made of it more than any other time in history... but.  Well.

^Detroit is a unique example. I suppose I should have typed "...worried about Houston heading the way of the rust belt cities and towns..." ?

Article in chronicle today highlights the fact that 22.5% of houstonians live under the poverty line. That's what nobody talks about.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/Two-faces-6101793.php

Sadly - quite a few Americans in general live below the poverty line.  14.5% nationally.

https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/

This is abosultely a huge problem for this region.  Imagine if this slowdown lasts longer than 1-2 years.... I've long worried what might push Houston to be the "next" Detroit, I think a huge slowdown in the largest employment sector + recent surge in population (with a lot of poverty stricken folks among them) would be a step.

This is a great reason we need to further diversify the economy.  Poverty will only get worse!

Thank you again....

 

I guess thats what Im trying to do...although I thought the firms that did the modeling were the architechtual firms themselves.

 

I guess I just didnt really know where to start my search or what to google....

 

I took your keywords from above and I think I found a few companies I can contact and maybe get some input from them.

 

Stephen

Quite a few firms do build physical models.  Sometimes it depends on the client, or the project head and what they desire.  At my firm we do a lot of restoration projects - so no need to build models.  As for making a living... doubt it would be worthwhile - but you could make extra money doing it if you're good.

tisk tisk

 

If this is the direction we are going in shouldn't we be on point in using words like "contemporary" or "post-modern" to define current trends given that currently we aren't really in the "modern" era if you really want to get technical. Sorry it just really irks  me when modern becomes the substitute of "contemporary". Empire State and Chrysler are Modern. Many of the new buildings going up today in New York in Chicago are flying the banner of Post-Modern, or simply Contemporary as the current industry refuses to have any type of dominant "style" or "movement".

 

I completely agree with you though Arche that supertalls aren't really being built because it just doesn't make sound economic sense. Corporate culture and trends are just too conservative. We are no longer in the age where a single building defined an entire company. Most of those projects are now relegated to campuses not towers. While built to spec has always been a larger market than built to suit, the built to suit market continues it's spiral downwards since everyone is obsessed with trying to please everyone instead of looking for niche markets. There is simply no longer an environment where a buildings looks and height play into the symbolic views of the company's ideals. There is not a market for standing out when you are worried about the bottom line and when the individuals willing to take such risks is at an all time low. There are plenty of ways to reverse such trends, but thats for another post for another day

Built in the modern epoch - YES.  But in terms of the actual skyscraper they are not "modern"!

Would you call the original Hobby Airport Terminal a "Modern Terminal?"  In certain contexts you can, but not in discussing a building typology that dates to maybe 1909 or so at the earliest!  Skyscrapers as we define them today didn't come about until the late 1800's and even then only really when the Flatiron and Singer Buildings came about in NYC did we truly-truly consider them "skyscrapers".

By that context the Empire State and Chrysler are not "modern."

Who here considers the Woolworth Tower "Modern"?  Anyone?  Its not much older than the others.

Do you consider Houston City Hall a Modern building?  I don't.  History has eras, same with architecture.  If these buildings were churches then by all accounts would we consider them "new" and "modern!"  They aren't.  They're skyscrapers.

I'll cut you some slack on the second tower that I didn't include, but 300m is considered a supertall and if the building has a spire it counts as the height (ornamental, non mechanical).

 

And the Chrysler Building and Empire State Building are modern, if your scale includes ancient pyramids 

 

While we are no where near the growth in scale compared to the Middle East and Asia, there have been a few proposals over the years since 9/11. Nashville, Miami, Seattle, Boston, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, and even Jersey City come to mind. Of course, how many of those have or will come to fruition. I get your point. The American corporation is looking to squeeze every penny for profit, and building a super tall doesn't make sense.

Modern in terms of overall history, yes.  But not in terms of the Skyscraper itself.  That would be like considering The Polo Grounds a modern football stadium... (I'll give you that might be a bit of a stretch).

I mean speaking in architectural history terms I'd break skyscrapers into these eras:

- Emergence (1880s-1900)

- Early 20th Century (1901-1919)

- Roaring 20s (1920-1929)

- Great Depression (1929-1945)

- Post-war (1945-1960)

- International Style Era (1960s-late 1970s)

- Postmodernism (Pennzoil Place - late 1990s)

- Modern Era (2000s - today)

That's roughly how I break it down.  And I don't know for sure - but I think very few highrises were built during the Second World War?

5 Built Since 9/11

8 Currently under construction

13 Built before 9/11 (including the WTC).

 

http://skyscraperpage.com/diagrams/?searchID=67507286

WTC is 2 buildings, but one development.  Also, I'd like to exclude the Empire State and Chrysler from the list.  We're talking "modern" and those are not modern buildings ...anymore!

Also, There's a few Chicago buildings that are not considered "supertalls" except if you include the antenna, so on 1 list they make the cut, on another they do not.

But I'll make the point that there are very few 270 meter + buildings designed any more in this country because it simply doesn't make sense to spend so much money building tall when there is ample room, and developers can still make money building a nice fat 40 floor tower.

^Undergraduate thesis project.

I can't believe they didn't mention 9/11, which I think is the singularly biggest reason why supertalls have tended to fall out of favor.

And yet more have been built post-9/11 than pre-9/11 (excluding the 1970s: Sears, Hancock, WTC 1 & 2, 1980s: Texas Commerce Tower, 1990s: US Bank Tower)... I'm missing the name of the one in Atlanta?

Hi Guys,

 

Looks like I may have to have a mid-life career change.  Ive always been interested in buildings and architecture. 

 

Are there any schools and/or apprenticeships in the Houston area for this type of work?

 

Not really sure where to even look or search for.

 

Thanks for any ideas or help.

 

Stephen

University of Houston

Rice

Prairie View A&M

Texas A&M

All offer degrees in the "area" of architecture.  UH, and Rice provide 5 year plans that allow you to avoid graduate school, Texas A&M may (not sure now?)?

Honestly, for a mid-life career change... Architecture would be really tough, and I would only recommend it if you were 100% positive you really-really-really wanted to pursue that at all costs.

As a realistic view of the profession from the inside:  I honestly think its one of the absolute worst careers to get into post-2008.  So many architects lost their jobs during that recession (nationally) that you'd be up against it.  And you'd be starting out at mid-life -- up against peers who would be 20somethings.  Architects and architectural employees your age would be middle/upper management level with ~20 years of experience.

Good luck.  Message me if you want any more information or a my own personal story of architecture.

Too bad better thought wasn't given to *what* was going to be built on the other side of that nifty little park?!  Maybe some residential apartments or townhomes (or both) would have helped to give the place more of 24/7 look?  I guess in time there's the possibility it may "fill out"?

Perhaps we should start a new Development List for Buildings in Houston 2015 thread?

^Counting Qatar twice for DFW.... fyi

I'm not a studied economist, so my opinion isn't worth much, but it's because of investors.

 

margins need to be high, and profits need to be high, and year over year growth needs to be high. otherwise you will lose investors.

 

as far as the point about fresh engineers making 100k right out of college, as I said, there's a supply issue, demand is high enough to warrant that. it's not just oil and gas that creates that demand. everyone wants engineers, and no one wants to become and engineer.

Apparently there isn't quite as high of a demand as previously thought of... Forbes and a few other publications spell it out (I'm way too lazy to post them right now).  There is perception that engineers are wanted everywhere.  Houston supposedly has the highest concentration of them anywhere in the US?  I think we have the highest concentration of "engineer-like" degrees, not engineers themselves.  I'll wager LA and NYC by virtue of having more people have more engineers?  But that's me being obstinate.

That said: I fully expect engineers/geologists/phyicistsphysicists/others with degrees get let go with this round of layoffs.  Roughnecks and roundabouts (and whatnot) will also (or already do) find themselves laid off.  The bigger issue is why, and why so suddenly?  I still maintain that oil/gas companies have failed to properly protect themselves from something like this.  I mean we're not talking about an alternative energy source discovered overnight - we're talking about overproduction - years of it!  And there were/are people sitting high up in offices atop towers that said it would happen and did nothing.

That's my issue.  And in 10 years it will repeat.  Only in Oil/Gas does this seem to happen again..and again...and again...and again...and again...and again...

*I can't spell for a durn today!*

when there is no more 'easy' oil, you have to go deeper.

 

to go deeper it costs exponentially more money.

 

the sediment is hotter and harder, so it takes longer, you have to use more sophisticated equipment, you have to find a way to keep the well from collapsing thanks to pressure.

 

the costs to produce are so high because it actually is that much harder to access.

 

back when oil was first being drilled it was literally 50 feet below the surface.

 

back in the 60s they were drilling a few hundred yards.

 

now they are drilling thousands are yards.

 

rather than the oil sitting in a large cavern, it is actually part of the rock. 

 

Here's an article:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cost-of-offshore-drilling-rising-as-fast-as-oil-prices/

 

that was written in 2008. but it gives you a good idea what prices are like just to rent the rig per day. that doesn't include finding the well, that doesn't include building the pipe to extract the oil from the well, none of that, just the cost of the rig to drill.

 

paying an engineer $100k a year instead of $80k a year is pretty low on the ledger of overhead when you consider all the costs involved in extracting oil from the ground.

So if people aren't really that expensive - to an oil company - why terminate so many jobs so soon?  Why is that the "go-to" for companies (in this case) oil and gas exploration/field service companies?  If they have so much inventory, so many rigs and trucks and whatnot... why then cut jobs that really (according to you) do little in the way of damage to the pocket books of oil/gas companies?

Don't lecture me on the econmics of oil/gas - I understand that it is expensive!  I'm not arguing we should stop drilling, or cease using oil - far from it.  I understand 1 single oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico costs as much (if not more) than the proposed 50-55 floor Chevron Corporate Building that's been shelved over near the old Enron campus.

Then how do you explain "Industrial Distributers" (which is a quasi-engineer-like degree) there are?  And better still - how do you explain a recent (as in past few months) graduate making nearly 100,000?  I understand a 8-10+ graduate with experience making that sort of money.

I'll add:  I understand why companies fire people...er...lay the off.  I do.  I just don't quite understand how - the worlds most powerful and wealthy industry - cannot figure out a way to better shield itself from energy slumps.  That is my gripe.

And why are costs so high?  What is driving the costs upward?  What is typically one of the biggest expenses of any company?  I still maintain that oil/gas companies are their own worst enemies.  But people in the oil and gas industry don't want to hear it - face it you guys work in a highly-highly flawed and screwed up profession.  You damage yourselves every 8-12 years

And my other point....  Why over produce?  Why shoot yourself in the foot?  US Oil companies are responsible (at least partly) for the most recent price slump due to the overproduction.