H-Town Man Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) You are missing something. First of all, capping $30M at 6% gives $500M, not $600M.But more importantly, you should be capping net operating income, not gross income. To those $30M you need to deduct debt service, real estate taxes, maintenance, and expenses ( which will vary greatly depending on the type of lease) I am not capping $30 million. I am capping $30/sf (see post above) by 1.2 million square feet (the size of the building), which gives $600 million. As to NOI, did you read the third sentence of my post, where I addressed the gross vs. net rent issue? Edited February 3, 2015 by H-Town Man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 My mistake, I thought there was 1M square feet.I did read the part about expenses on your post, but that ddoes not cover debt service (huge cost), RE taxes or maintenance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 My mistake, I thought there was 1M square feet.I did read the part about expenses on your post, but that ddoes not cover debt service (huge cost), RE taxes or maintenance. I said "landlord paying expenses," not specifying which. I estimated about $5/SF, which I intended roughly to cover RE taxes, maintenance, and insurance. I do not believe debt service is an expense that affects NOI, but rather is deducted after NOI, affecting pre-tax cash flow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timoric Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) - Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lol. Why do people want to see this building redesigned so badly? It's a classic. Just needs a nice shine. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lol. Why do people want to see this building redesigned so badly? It's a classic. Just needs a nice shine.I agree. I kinda like it like it is. I do have a question though.....Do the sunscreens actually work? Do they actually make the building less dependent on air conditioning because the shades actually blunt the sun's rays?If so, this was a "green" building before its time! One City Center seems to be of similar concept. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Lol. Why do people want to see this building redesigned so badly? It's a classic. Just needs a nice shine.I dunno. We Need More Stand Out Buildings NOT More Blend IN buildings. Leeland didn't stand out. It was a bland building with a hideous facade. Exxon has a dirty facade but it stands out. Makes our skyline more interesting. Something extra to look at. Having all glass boxes is boring. If anything we should make the fins stand out more. Don't ruin it by covering it up with glass. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 right? pretty neat.http://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/The-Humble-Oil-skyscraper-stripped-of-its-Mad-5579787.php#/0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 I agree. I kinda like it like it is. I do have a question though.....Do the sunscreens actually work? Do they actually make the building less dependent on air conditioning because the shades actually blunt the sun's rays?If so, this was a "green" building before its time! One City Center seems to be of similar concept. I can't imagine how they could not work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 Is this a money pit or something? Is there something Exxon knows that the rest of us do not? For Exxon Mobil, it's just a property tying up resources they'd rather devote elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timoric Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) - Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted February 3, 2015 Share Posted February 3, 2015 You leave too much cash lying around, two things could happen, none of them good: 1. Carl Icahn could demand you share it with the shareholders; 2. Somebody will try to take over the company, just to get their hands on the cash. Apple's now got the biggest cash pile on the planet. Their problem is they can't spend it fast enough. I want to have more money than I know what to do with... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
placoors Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 (edited) From the Chron: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Records-reveal-timeline-on-Exxon-tower-issue-6081936.php#/0 Edited February 15, 2015 by placoors 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 I was just noticing how this building has such a nice top. Really hoping it gets preserved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 From the Chron:http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Records-reveal-timeline-on-Exxon-tower-issue-6081936.php#/0Can we get a summary? I can't see past the pay wall unfortunately. I hope this is still play for the courts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 15, 2015 Share Posted February 15, 2015 Cramped, crumblingThe city's current 18-acre justice complex outside downtown contains a dozen buildings, most built between 1950 and 1975. Officials say they are cramped, crumbling and lack parking. The Exxon building, built in 1962, holds 1.2 million square feet, about 10 percent more than the space in the city's current facilities, which include the police headquarters at 1200 Travis.Unlike the other justice complex options, leasing the Exxon tower likely would not require a vote of the public because it is assumed it could be funded without a tax increase. This remains unclear, however; Icken mentions having done "financing and economic evaluations" in emails, but no cost estimates appear in the 127 pages of documents, and Icken insisted no such numbers exist.Griffin said he now is preparing estimates on the cost to increase the building's parking capacity, remove asbestos and bring air conditioning, mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems up to code.Griffin acknowledged he was a losing bidder on the Exxon building when Shorenstein bought it two years ago, that prices have risen sharply since then, and that he is considering spending significantly more on the same building today because the city has appeared as a potential tenant.Still, Icken stressed he has given Griffin no assurances the city will become a tenant, and both men said Griffin's deal with Shorenstein would not cost him greatly if the city backs out.Griffin was one of seven firms who submitted proposals to build a new justice center, but he was not among the final three firms chosen to proceed with negotiations. Icken acknowledged the three firms chosen to continue talks may be angry that a competitor they had beaten remains in the running with a different proposal, but Icken said such concerns won't matter if the idea works."It will stand on its merits regardless of who is proposing it to us," Icken said. "He came with an alternative that could be cheaper to us. If it's perceived as that and he achieves the goal the city wanted to achieve, people can say what they want."Representatives of the three chosen firms declined comment or did not return calls for comment.Some emails seem to contradict the notion that moving police and courts operations into the Exxon tower is entirely tentative and in its infancy.The day before a Jan. 22 call in which Icken sold Shorenstein officials on the idea, for instance, Griffin consultant Dan Bellow emailed suggestions for Icken, though he sent them to Griffin and not Icken because he felt it "should not be on the public record."Icken, Bellow wrote, must be "as positive as he can" and show the city is "highly interested" because Shorenstein was worried about derailing its already-underway plans to renovate the building should the mayor prove unable to get City Council approval or to finish talks by March 16."We cannot cast much doubt about the process," Bellow wrote. "It would be OK to mention the difficulty of the task at hand, but that we are confident in success, say 75-80%." 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 This would probably be the best outcome. The city needs to sell off their complex west of downtown (prime real estate for redevelopment), and this would lock up a significant amount of vacant space downtown. It would help with five houston and the capital tower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 agreed this is pretty much the best possible outcome for everyone. fill a large vacancy downtown and leave the old judicial site to either be an addition to the Buffalo Bayou Park(s) system, or mixed use develop it, though i think there are more than enough locations for that type of thing in the area already.. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UtterlyUrban Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 This would probably be the best outcome. The city needs to sell off their complex west of downtown (prime real estate for redevelopment), and this would lock up a significant amount of vacant space downtown. It would help with five houston and the capital tower.I am trying to thing about downsides to the area around 800 Bell. A few blocks away is a probable large residential area that includes houstonhouse, SkyHouse I and II, block 334, etc. I don't think that the proposed use of 800 bell as a "law enforcement and municipal courts" building would impact that Area. In fact, the extra law enforcement around might actually benefit the area.So, I think that I agree with you.... This might be the best outcome...... 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fkp5 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'd like to see the old judicial site sold to Texas Central for them to develop around a HSR station at the post office site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Please God let this happen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 thats an interesting idea fkp5, i just think there is enough area at the 16 acre post office site to build a large enough development around an intermodal station. plus, 45 kind of isolates that site from the Post Office site. even though they plan on moving 45 to 59/10, the latest schematics still show the northern most part of 45 downtown, cutting through the two sites, existing as downtown access points from 45/10. plus, couldnt they expand the Post Office development north across the train tracks?idk, im all for mixed use developments, i just think between the Post Office site, the Hardy Yards (and whatever other land Cypress has been buying up in the Near Northside), KBR, the remaining vacant portions of downtown, and the potential for huge land redevelopment opportunities with the i10 realignment, there is more than enough room for "mixed use developments" in the near downtown area for MUDs to go around without adding this 18 acres to the mix. this property butts up against the park along Buffalo Bayou in downtown so i would use the land to expand the park with additional amenities for the influx of residents to that area (Market Square isnt going to be enough. its already going to be ridiculous with the 700+ additional residents coming in a few years. add in any residential components at the Post Office redevelopment [Midways Post Office plans showed somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,000 residential units] and the fact that stretch of "park" along Buffalo Bayou is almost non existent, and youve got what appears to be quite a shortage of park space in that part of downtown given all the potential new residents. the current parks in that northwest quadrant of downtown worked well enough for the day time office workers and the hundreds to a thousand or so people living in the lofts and stuff around it, but IMO it wont be enough if a few thousand more residents pack into the area in the coming years.for reference, heres what appears to be the most recent i45 rerouting and i10 realignment schematics being considered for downtown..and sorry for the ramble. lol 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTHONYHTOWN Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Many Ideas, maybe make part of it like a grand central station for the future high speed train connecting dallas to houston but i am sure other ideas could come if this is to happen. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Many Ideas, maybe make part of it like a grand central station for the future high speed train connecting dallas to houston but i am sure other ideas could come if this is to happen.yeah if only they could get the parcel of land across Washington so you could technically make the high speed rail station north of the Justice Complex site and develop south into the justice complex, extending the Green/Purple lines across the bayou and north/northwest straight into the justice complex site for direct HSR to local LRT access, as was originally envisioned at the Hardy Yards. the Judicial Complex site would probably provide "better" views of downtown from the HSR station too.. Edited February 16, 2015 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
por favor gracias Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Yup...connectivity is crucial. The lack of mass transit options has been holding Houston back more than anything else over the years. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted February 16, 2015 Share Posted February 16, 2015 Yup...connectivity is crucial. The lack of mass transit options has been holding Houston back more than anything else over the years.LOL. Yeah, Houston has really been held back over the years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Yup...connectivity is crucial. The lack of mass transit options has been holding Houston back more than anything else over the years.I know what you mean. Downtown with better access not by car would be awesome. MORE TOD'S wold boost us a lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmellyHoustonian Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 does putting the courthouse there impact the new skyhouse and alliance developments?I can't imagine it could be good for residential growth in that area Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 I think a block away in downtown might as well be a mile. This thing is far enough from the residentials. Then again, Exxon is surrounded on about 7 sides by empty or partially empty blocks. Residential could almost encircle it.I would however be more concerned with the residential on San Jacinto and St Joseph being so close to the sketchy activity under pierce and south of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted February 17, 2015 Share Posted February 17, 2015 Supposedly there is some significant push back from the police. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.