Office Building At 811 Main St.

[ricco67]

Natural gas is expensive electricity. Combined-cycle would be too large/complex for a single building, so it'd probably be just regular turbine, at half the efficiency (twice the fuel costs.) Your residents would strangle you after the first electricity bill. It would probably be several times the cost of grid electricity. If on the other hand, you mean switching over from grid to on-demand generation via diesel generator, this is a standard system hospitals, data centers, etc. use. In this case, your residents would strangle you when they realized the premium it added to their condos w.r.t. to the small benefit. Even then, it wouldn't be fast enough to switch over before all the computers in the building shut down. You'd have to add a very expensive Uninterruptible Power Supply system for that. And if you want to offer datacenter grade electricity, start adding in various line conditioners, triple redundant generators, etc..... I think there's a reason this doesn't exist in residential buildings It'd be cheaper just to give a small UPS system to each tenant for their computers.

My building has backup generators, but only because extended loss of electricity would be catastrophic. People could lose their entire life's work.

There is a building in New York that is "off the grid", and from what I remember it was about at 12 storey building at the minimum. The only reason I know this is because during the North East blackout several years ago, they showed this Co-op that had lights on during the blackout. They had a generator in constant use, but I forgot the specifics. I tried looking it up online, but got zilch.

It IS possible to have a "relatively" self contained building, but it would require the use of a special design to for the use of rainwater for (non drinkable) use, solar panels to (partially) off set electricity, air conditioning would be a rather serious challenge, however in our climate, but I think it can be done.

The trick is to build a reasonably low maintenance cost building that would save considerably on electricity, but I don't see it being done unless oil has a continuous climb for the next few years.

[editor]

Editor, it is possible that the cost did not include buildout. That is common in condo towers. Any idea the square footage of the building?

BTW, another example, closer to home, is 5 Houston Center. It is 580,000 sf, and cost $115 mil to build in 2002....dead-on $200 psf.

It's not a condo building, it's apartments, if that matters.

Again, I'm not in real estate development, so I'm not sure what you mean by "buildout." If you mean finished walls and wiring and everything, then that cost should be included in the $60 million figure. The whole thing was pre-wired with satellite television in every bedroom and living room, plus T1s to each apartment (on the best damned internet provider on the planet, but that's another thread).

According to the management web site it's 765,000 square feet with 11,000 square feet of that retail.

[RedScare]

Yeah, apartments would matter, since apartments are leased already built out and ready to move in. Many condo towers are just shells, and the buildout is decided by and paid by the buyer of the unit.

As for 765,000 sf for $60 million, I'm stumped. $78 per square foot just doesn't sound feasible, especially in an expensive market such as Chicago. I can only say that my architect friends tell me that office towers in Houston generally cost $200 per square foot to build (obviously, this is a VERY general figure).

[KinkaidAlum]

We work mainly with steel at work and the price has more than doubled over the course of 4 years. I can't imagine how bad it must be for large scale projects like a 47 story tower!

[gwilson]

How do you handle water purification and wastewater treatment and removal?

I'm no engineer but I imagine well water could be used to supply the building. I've already had a couple projects in town where I've sunk wells and they provide a lot more water (with the right pumping and storage system) than people realize. Waste is another issue though. I read not too long ago of an office building in Nebraska that collected all of it's waste water, treated and filtered it and used it to maintain grounds and public areas (it was what came out of the water hoses to wash windows, grounds, it filled the water fountains and toilets in public areas, it watered the grass, etc). This concept could be extended where the waste water re-use is used for all toilets and such. Solid waste was also collected and treated and turned in to composted fertilizer and sold to nurserys.

I don't know how well any of that would work on the scale of 600,000 square feet though.

[gwilson]

Natural gas is expensive electricity. Combined-cycle would be too large/complex for a single building, so it'd probably be just regular turbine, at half the efficiency (twice the fuel costs.) Your residents would strangle you after the first electricity bill. It would probably be several times the cost of grid electricity. If on the other hand, you mean switching over from grid to on-demand generation via diesel generator, this is a standard system hospitals, data centers, etc. use. In this case, your residents would strangle you when they realized the premium it added to their condos w.r.t. to the small benefit. Even then, it wouldn't be fast enough to switch over before all the computers in the building shut down. You'd have to add a very expensive Uninterruptible Power Supply system for that. And if you want to offer datacenter grade electricity, start adding in various line conditioners, triple redundant generators, etc..... I think there's a reason this doesn't exist in residential buildings It'd be cheaper just to give a small UPS system to each tenant for their computers.

My building has backup generators, but only because extended loss of electricity would be catastrophic. People could lose their entire life's work.

I didn't intend natural gas or diesel for primary power generation. When talking about a building on the scale of 40 stories, there is plenty of room for photovoltaics and with proper engineering, wind turbine power could be used on the roof. I've done no research in to how much this would cost over traditional electric sources over time or what the impact would be on the construction budget. Geothermal technology could be used as well.

While it would be great to have a building completely self sustaining, I suppose the primary goal would be to just make it as sustainable as possible. Energy efficiency, low heat gain, alternative methods of heating and cooling.

Yeah, apartments would matter, since apartments are leased already built out and ready to move in. Many condo towers are just shells, and the buildout is decided by and paid by the buyer of the unit.

As for 765,000 sf for $60 million, I'm stumped. $78 per square foot just doesn't sound feasible, especially in an expensive market such as Chicago. I can only say that my architect friends tell me that office towers in Houston generally cost $200 per square foot to build (obviously, this is a VERY general figure).

Condo buildings are usually built as shells, but there is a per square foot allowance in the purchase price for basic build out. So there is a basic build out cost included in the construction of the building. The owners simply have to supplement that if they want anything that isn't part of the basic build out.

[gwilson]

Here is something I found.

eco18

This building uses solar and geo-thermal as well as many other technologies to be eco-friendly.

While my motivation isn't necessarily a penchant for tree hugging but rather a desire to keep the building sustainable even in a time of crisis/disaster and to keep costs down over time, the techniques and technologies are still the fundamentally the same.

Here is an article about it.

First building to meet Tier Three status under Chicago's Green Permit Program.

[TheNiche]

As for 765,000 sf for $60 million, I'm stumped.

Me too, especially for something completed so recently. Steel and concrete prices have risen so much that I just don't see how this is possible, even using low-cost construction techniques like tunnel-form (think Mercer).

[musicman]

I'm no engineer but I imagine well water could be used to supply the building.

with subsidence so bad in houston because of wells, the city no longer allows it, at least for residential

[woolie]

I didn't intend natural gas or diesel for primary power generation. When talking about a building on the scale of 40 stories, there is plenty of room for photovoltaics and with proper engineering, wind turbine power could be used on the roof. I've done no research in to how much this would cost over traditional electric sources over time or what the impact would be on the construction budget. Geothermal technology could be used as well.

While it would be great to have a building completely self sustaining, I suppose the primary goal would be to just make it as sustainable as possible. Energy efficiency, low heat gain, alternative methods of heating and cooling.

Condo buildings are usually built as shells, but there is a per square foot allowance in the purchase price for basic build out. So there is a basic build out cost included in the construction of the building. The owners simply have to supplement that if they want anything that isn't part of the basic build out.

PV is extremely expensive and has a low capacity factor (it only produces electricity part of the time, and peak electricity an even smaller amount.) You'd be looking at a min. of 5x grid costs, and you'd still need to purchase from the grid for the majority of electricity use A wind turbine could provide enough electricity for a building, but you still have to deal with low capacity factor (about 30%), so most of the electricity would still be from the grid. If you wanted to just offset the electricity use of the building in renewable generation without providing actual direct power to the building, it'd be simpler just to place it outside the city where the wind is strong and have it just contribute to the grid. I'm not sure there's any potential geothermal energy in the area, not enough to generate electricity anyway. You could use passive geothermal as a heat sink to help reduce HVAC costs. In the same way you could use solar water heating to reduce gas costs.

Not to sound like I'm not for green building; I am, but I think expectations need to be realistic. I want contained systems. I want conservation. I want to phase out natgas and coal power and replace it with wind and nuclear. I think the best opportunities for green building in Houston are mostly in regard to site specific design and insulation techniques that reduce the need for A/C, which is one of the main components of power use that could be reduced in a reasonably simple way.

What someone referred to above is a gray water system. A second wastewater system is built to separate out reusable water (bathtubs, sinks, washing machine, etc.) from toilet water. The water is minimally treated or allowed to settle. Then it's used for yard purposes or whatever. But personally I think even having grounds that need watering in the first place is completely contradictory to any environmentally based design. It's like people who live in 3000sf houses in Kingwood on quarter acre lots who think they're environmentally responsible because they drive a hybrid SUV to their job. Completely miss the point.

Anyway... I'll stop my thread derailment.

[woolie]

(on the best damned internet provider on the planet, but that's another thread).

COVAD?

[GovernorAggie]

Btw the architects for this are Pickard Chilton. They also designed the unbuilt AIM tower in Greenway Plaza, which would have been nice. There isn't a rendering on their site yet, but keep checking.

Pickard Chilton projects

Not to get off on a tangent, but I just had to say that the Pinnacle building that PC did in Buckhead (Atlanta) is ok. However, photo #5 of the uilding on their site just gave one of the best pictures of the Atlanta skyline that I've seen in a LONG time.

OK, back on topic I'll take the Columbus Office Tower (Miami), 1180 Peachtree (Atlanta), AIM Headquarters, or the 200 North Riverside Plaza (Chicago) designs for the Main St. tower!

Anyone else notice how many buildings this company has done for Hines?

[wxman]

I'm really surprised that the Chronicle, khou, Hines, or the Downtown Houston websites have not picked up on it yet. When Discovery Tower was announced, it was on all the above. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, it's just a BIG project to get no media attention.

[Houston19514]

Modern elevators can be programmed to service different floors at different hours.

Also, elevator key systems are common, effective and easily used.

Not to mention, high-rise towers have multiple elevator banks anyway, each serving separate zones (height-wise) of the building.

[The Great Hizzy!]

I'm going to start calling this building Hines 47 until it gets an official name.

[dbigtex56]

Great! I'm assuming this is the block with the West Building and Montagu Hotel that Fernz was describing here.

Montagu Hotel topic.

Verified today that the Montegue has been sold (per the desk clerk, last week.)

There are "HOTEL CLOSED" and "NO VACANCY" signs posted on the front door. It appears that they're remaining open only until existing tenants can be relocated.

Adieu, Montegu...

It's chock-full of early 20th century fixtures - wonder if they'll be salvaged?

[editor]

COVAD?

No, a joint called A-Net. Best customer service ever. Tech support answers on the first ring and doesn't treat you like an idiot. You can say things like, "I'm getting long ping times on port 3900, can you reboot the routers on the 16th floor of my building?" and they'll do it. They're also one of the few ISPs left that have Usenet.

As for 765,000 sf for $60 million, I'm stumped. $78 per square foot just doesn't sound feasible, especially in an expensive market such as Chicago. I can only say that my architect friends tell me that office towers in Houston generally cost $200 per square foot to build (obviously, this is a VERY general figure).

Maybe I have the 60-million figure wrong. I'll see if I can find a second source.

[moni]

lol

[Mr. Chenevert]

excuse me if this has been discussed in another thread, but why do they have to pick a block with several historical buildings when dozens of surface lot blocks exist all around the proposed location?

As excited as I am that a new skyscraper will be in our skyline, it worries me that we will loose several historic buildings.

Who owns these surface lots and why in the world would they not be used up first?

[lockmat]

excuse me if this has been discussed in another thread, but why do they have to pick a block with several historical buildings when dozens of surface lot blocks exist all around the proposed location?

As excited as I am that a new skyscraper will be in our skyline, it worries me that we will loose several historic buildings.

Who owns these surface lots and why in the world would they not be used up first?

Are they having to tear down another building for this one?

[Mr. Chenevert]

From Houstonist...

"The 800 block of Main

Edited July 16, 2007 by Mr. Chenevert

[Jax]

Yes, there are currently buildings on that block. It has alreadyy been discussed in this thread.

Houstonist wrote about this today.

http://houstonist.com/2007/07/16/hines_plans_47s.php

"It's a shame to lose those buildings, all of which have the potential to become cool restoration projects, but Houston's never been known for treasuring its past

[sevfiv]

yep - the Bond Clothing Store, Beatty-West building and the Montagu (Hotel Cotton) will be demolished for this project.

more Bond pictures:

http://www.arch-ive.org/bond

and from the Houston deco/ghpa site:

http://www.houstondeco.org/1940s/bond.html

Edited July 16, 2007 by sevfiv

[KinkaidAlum]

My guess is $$$$$.

Most full blocks in downtown Houston are owned by groups only hoping to flip the properties and cash out big. With last week's announcement that class A space downtown is now about 93% occupied and with the oil/energy biz booming, I am sure the prices for high quality lots has soared.

It probably cost a lot less to buy out the old West, Montagu, and Bond.

Still, it's a real shame. Overhead views of downtown still show surface lots pretty much in every corner of downtown.

[Houston2010]

To be somewhat coy, and please do not ask how I know...but I know. I have very good information on the new Hines building, and some of the speculation here is somewhat unfounded, though some is quite correct.

1) The building has a skin unlike anything here in Houston, with sunshades on all facades and a glass facade that is absolutely amazing.

2) The building will be LEED Silver at a minimum.

3) The building has a 10 story garage underneath the building as a podium.

4) The sky garden is a very unique feature, and should be a tenant item. With the high dollar skin, this is clearly the defining feature of the building.

5) While there are plenty of surface lots downtown, none of them are conducive to a development of this magnitude due to location or price.

6) The cost for new highrise buildings is well over $300 per square foot. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't have a clue.

7) Discovery Tower doesn't hold a candle to their building. The renderings being shown to the broker community are a glass cube, and is very boring given its location on Discovery Green. Houston Center 6 is even worse.

8) Don't be surprised if Hines doesn't develop two buildings downtown. They have already hired an architectural team for the 2nd building. I have not seen any renderings of this building yet, though I have heard some rumors about the design.

Enjoy!

[gwilson]

with subsidence so bad in houston because of wells, the city no longer allows it, at least for residential

I just put a well in at a job in the city in November of last year. CoH permitted as well.

[gwilson]

I see no problem with doing some house cleaning and getting rid of some old buildings. Being old does not equate being historic. We have sort of a pack-rat mentality about things like this. We cannot continue to grow without weeding out some of the old. There isn't anything particularly historic about this block. Sure, the buildings were cool looking, but they will be remembered long after they are gone for nostalgias sake.

Quick sort of off topic question:

When these 600-1000+ foot tall structures outlive their life expectancy, how will they be demolished? Just collapse/implosions? Have we had any examples of really tall towers being brought down with controlled demo in an urban area before?

[TheNiche]

To be somewhat coy, and please do not ask how I know...but I know. I have very good information on the new Hines building, and some of the speculation here is somewhat unfounded, though some is quite correct.

1) The building has a skin unlike anything here in Houston, with sunshades on all facades and a glass facade that is absolutely amazing.

2) The building will be LEED Silver at a minimum.

3) The building has a 10 story garage underneath the building as a podium.

4) The sky garden is a very unique feature, and should be a tenant item. With the high dollar skin, this is clearly the defining feature of the building.

5) While there are plenty of surface lots downtown, none of them are conducive to a development of this magnitude due to location or price.

6) The cost for new highrise buildings is well over $300 per square foot. Anyone who tells you differently doesn't have a clue.

7) Discovery Tower doesn't hold a candle to their building. The renderings being shown to the broker community are a glass cube, and is very boring given its location on Discovery Green. Houston Center 6 is even worse.

8) Don't be surprised if Hines doesn't develop two buildings downtown. They have already hired an architectural team for the 2nd building. I have not seen any renderings of this building yet, though I have heard some rumors about the design.

Enjoy!

So, to be clear, we're talking about 47 stories of office (≈14' * 47) plus 10 stories of parking (≈8' * 10)? Adding to about 738 feet. Is that about right?

Can you say what you've heard rumored about the possible second tower? We'd uncovered a rendering by Kobi Karp a couple months ago that showed a building that looked like what would result if the Dallas and Chicago Mandarin Orientals had a baby. Sleek and angular. Looked to be 50+ stories.

I just put a well in at a job in the city in November of last year. CoH permitted as well.

I think that there is a state law in effect that new developments (and this may not apply to single homes on single lots) can only go on wells if the average lot size is a half acre or more.

[Houston2010]

47 stories includes the garage, not excludes the garage.

[editor]

Quick sort of off topic question:

When these 600-1000+ foot tall structures outlive their life expectancy, how will they be demolished? Just collapse/implosions? Have we had any examples of really tall towers being brought down with controlled demo in an urban area before?

I think it depends on what's around it. If you're out in Vegas with nothing else around you can make a big noise and lots of dust and be done with it. But when the neighbors are tall and occupied, you've got different problems.

There's an older building of about 30 stories being torn down near where I live. The demolition crew is pretty much disassembling it brick by brick because it's bounded on all sides by other skyscrapers.