Mickey Leland Federal Building At 1919 Smith St.

[mollusk]

Allright... slowly put the talking points down and back away...

 

I'm not going to address cost because I have no idea.  However, I'm pretty sure that any and all change orders took longer than they would on a similarly sized (not that big) private project precisely because they had to go through a few layers of review, specifically to make sure money wasn't wasted.

 

Ideologues, kindly choose one meme or the other.

[UtterlyUrban]

A few positives:

1) it took less time to construct than yucca mountain

2) it cost billions and billions less than yucca mountain

3) unlike yucca mountain, it actually got finished

[Purdueenginerd]

Yeah, I wouldn't call it slow because 'government' rah rah rah.

 

I'd call it slow, probably because the building was still occupied and operating while the project was ongoing. Which, might actually be an example of needed government efficiency. Does it cost more to phase in projects like that? Yes it does. 

 

http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/ConstructionManagementServies-SOW.txt

 

Documentation required for this structure above is extensive. 

 

 

[BigFootsSocks]

Yeah, I wouldn't call it slow because 'government' rah rah rah.

I'd call it slow, probably because the building was still occupied and operating while the project was ongoing. Which, might actually be an example of needed government efficiency. Does it cost more to phase in projects like that? Yes it does.

http://www.gsa.gov/graphics/fas/ConstructionManagementServies-SOW.txt

Documentation required for this structure above is extensive.

Exactly. All of this. If it was unoccupied why didn't the gut the exterior in the same way they refurbished 806 Main? These guys went floor by floor which means there were obviously people working inside at the time.

Just saying "oh it's slow because it's the government lol" is so overrated and cliche.

[mollusk]

Yes, there were a lot of people working in that building while the reconstruction was going on.  The amazing thing is that, at least whenever I was in there, there was less disruption due to construction mayhem than I've experienced during the buildout of adjacent office suites at work.

 

It's also interesting that the linked document is from a time before the proposals were submitted, but it had a planned substantial completion date of May 2014.  I've seen a lot more schedule slippage on private projects that weren't as big.

[BigFootsSocks]

I wonder towards the end, when construction was starting to ramp up in Houston, if it was harder to find workers. I assume private developers have no problem paying extra to get their project done quicker.

[Urbannizer]

Landscape work remains:

 

 

 

 

[monarch]

progress!  can't wait to view the completed project...

[Triton]

Mickey Leeland Federal Building by marclongoria, on Flickr

 

Mickey Leeland Federal Building by marclongoria, on Flickr

 

Mickey Leeland Federal Building by marclongoria, on Flickr

 

Mickey Leeland Federal Building by marclongoria, on Flickr

[Specwriter]

Appears to have been worth the wait.

[cloud713]

It does look tons better, but i heard this renovation was a nightmare. And obviously way over budget

[mollusk]

Further up the thread I posted some scoping materials from the start of the project.  There actually wasn't much schedule slippage.  

 

A full renovation is time consuming and ALWAYS runs into unexpected things - even when you've got as built plans (some of which could still be placed in the fantasy section).  The time line only gets longer when the building remains occupied throughout.

[Urbannizer]

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2015/07/before-and-after-downtown-houstons-passport-building/#34274101=0

 

 

[Sunstar]

It looks like they topped the parking deck off with solar panels.

 

I like the Snoop Dog avatar commentator schooling Nancy Sarnoff on the proper use of "catty corner."

[cloud713]

It looks like they topped the parking deck off with solar panels.

Why more people don't do this/it's not a requirement to put solar panels or green space on parking garages and flat roofs is beyond me.

[infinite_jim]

I can't read the article, but the solar panels were done early last summer in 2014.

[Nate99]

Why more people don't do this/it's not a requirement to put solar panels or green space on parking garages and flat roofs is beyond me.

 

It costs more than you will ever get out of it unless you get a hefty subsidy to do so.

 

Building and plaza look good though.

Edited July 13, 2015 by Nate99

[cloud713]

Have the solar subsidies run out already or are they still ongoing? Yeah green space gets costly but damn it would be nice in the urban/completely paved over areas where run off and stuff can be a problem.

[BigFootsSocks]

Elon Musk and Solar City would like to have a word with you Nate...

[Sunstar]

It costs more than you will ever get out of it unless you get a hefty subsidy to do so.

 

Building and plaza look good though.

 

Are we talking the kind of subsidies that the O&G Industry gets, or just modest subsidies? 

[samagon]

It costs more than you will ever get out of it unless you get a hefty subsidy to do so.

 

Building and plaza look good though.

 

I'd love to see an ordinance that makes surface lot owners (where the sole purpose is as a pay lot), and parking garage owners have to put solar covering all exposed parking spaces.

 

It's not like they couldn't jack the rates to the people paying for parking to compensate.

 

on another note, I was driving home from Randalls last night in midtown and noticed the building, it really does look nice and adds a little extra to that side of downtown.

Edited July 14, 2015 by samagon

[monarch]

^^^ a really beautiful job on this building and exterior surfaces.

[Nate99]

Elon Musk and Solar City would like to have a word with you Nate...

 

Brilliant businessmen ahead of the curve on that one.

 

Are we talking the kind of subsidies that the O&G Industry gets, or just modest subsidies? 

 

We are talking the kind of subsidies without which an industry does not exist at all (read Solar City's IPO documents), not the "subsidies" of definitive deductible costs in the tax code. But everyone has a lobbyist.

Edited July 14, 2015 by Nate99

[Sunstar]

Brilliant businessmen ahead of the curve on that one.

 

 

We are talking the kind of subsidies without which an industry does not exist at all (read Solar City's IPO documents), not the "subsidies" of definitive deductible costs in the tax code. But everyone has a lobbyist.

 

True, the solar industry in this country would be virtually non-existent without these subsidies, but how much different would our public transportation infrastructure be if it it weren't for the tax-based subsidies that oil and gas companies have been getting for years to invest in domestic production? And how much further along would we be on alternative energy if it weren't for coal and natural gas subsidies. Before we dismiss alternative energy as being non-competitive, let's see what happens on a more level playing field. And of course there are much greater costs to the fossil fuel industry that never get taken into the equation, but I won't get into that.

 

To bring it back on topic, I agree with the sentiment that we should see much more of this kind of stuff in Houston, especially on parking decks. It would certainly make the business case for building them less attractive. 

[Nate99]

True, the solar industry in this country would be virtually non-existent without these subsidies, but how much different would our public transportation infrastructure be if it it weren't for the tax-based subsidies that oil and gas companies have been getting for years to invest in domestic production? And how much further along would we be on alternative energy if it weren't for coal and natural gas subsidies. Before we dismiss alternative energy as being non-competitive, let's see what happens on a more level playing field. And of course there are much greater costs to the fossil fuel industry that never get taken into the equation, but I won't get into that.

 

To bring it back on topic, I agree with the sentiment that we should see much more of this kind of stuff in Houston, especially on parking decks. It would certainly make the business case for building them less attractive. 

 

The tax code is a sausage factory, I wouldn't begin to try and explain any corner of it, much less defend one part of it against another on any kind of a relative moral basis. One man's "tax-based subsidy" is another man's textbook definition of a prudently incurred deductible expense; suffice it to say it is political.

 

My point is that you can make electricity much more efficiently using nearly any commercially available method other than roof top solar. Right now, for whatever reason, it is clearly non-competitive. Making it so as a public policy matter apparently costs more money than we've spent on it, and the location of that tipping point probably corresponds to whose lobbyist's client you're usually inclined to agree with, though both sides tend to go with "more", albeit messaged differently. 

 

Whatever roof top solar is able to generate needs to be redundant to supply that is available when the sun is not shining. Dispatching RTS power to serve peak load on hot sunny days is not yet feasible and may never be.  More places don't have them because they are not yet paid enough to do so.  Passing along the cost is certainly possible, but the consequences of mandating that are more than nothing.

[BigFootsSocks]

All well & true, and for the first time ever the US has used some other source of energy other than coal in our history this year, yet it's 2015. It's not unreasonable to compel ourselves to use an alternative, renewable energy source to satisfy our energy demands if it means less carbon pollution is emitted into our atmosphere. 

 

Sure, that's a naive thing to say when you're an oil tycoon or coal investor/CEO but sometimes it's better to prepare our planet for future generations, rather than worry about our financial interests in the moment.

[Sunstar]

I think given time and R&D funding, alternatives will be competitive. But without subsidies it will never happen and that would be a real shame.

[Nate99]

All well & true, and for the first time ever the US has used some other source of energy other than coal in our history this year, yet it's 2015. It's not unreasonable to compel ourselves to use an alternative, renewable energy source to satisfy our energy demands if it means less carbon pollution is emitted into our atmosphere. 

 

Sure, that's a naive thing to say when you're an oil tycoon or coal investor/CEO but sometimes it's better to prepare our planet for future generations, rather than worry about our financial interests in the moment.

 

It's all a matter of cost, at some price that, compulsion is unreasonable to everyone. Future generations may benefit even more if we used the funds dedicated to solar panel development for medicine, schools or food (to say nothing of a growing private economy and reliable infrastructure) than they would from forestalling a half of a degree warming or quarter inch of sea level rise, but politics has to sort it all out. Yuck. Placing a cost on the carbon pollution is as politicized an issue as you will find. Whatever the outcome there, I feel certain it will be achieved for the wrong reasons.

 

The big solar complex out in Arizona that is being developed by a Spanish company (can't remember the name) is some multiple more expensive over its lifetime per MW generated than a gas fired unit, even with free fuel. There's something non-renewable going in to everything that is more expensive than the alternative, else it would not be as scarce and valuable. 

 

I'm all for new tech and alternatives, I just don't trust the .gov to be a good investor there. I also see a difference between setting a federal royalty stake taken from production revenues to be internationally competitive or defining what a deductible cost will be on one hand and subsidized startup loans and paying consumers to buy a product on the other. Both approaches have certainly been massaged to benefit friends of .gov, hence my wariness around the motives of inefficient solar panel mandates. 

[Nate99]

I think given time and R&D funding, alternatives will be competitive. But without subsidies it will never happen and that would be a real shame.

 

I wouldn't sell them short. I think a breakthrough could come from some technology that is not dependent upon billion dollar loans or electric luxury cars.  If anyone finds it, they've got a trillion dollar idea that people will be lining up to willingly pay for.

 

If someone were to make a battery that could efficiently store really big quantities of power (Mr. Musk and others are trying), that would move things way down that path.  I'm no visionary here, so I have no particular insight, but I do think whatever might bring wind/solar in to competitiveness is more likely to be something no one has yet contemplated as it is something that a city ordinance can contemplate and encourage.  

[samagon]

...forestalling a half of a degree warming or quarter inch of sea level rise... 

 

Let's not minimize the expected impact (assuming you believe climate scientists).

 

Most are predicting 1C rise in temps and 1Meter rise sea levels.

 

This isn't trivial. 

 

In the past, geologists have uncovered that with a temp rise of 1-2C there's been as much as 20meters sea level rise.

 

Here's a fun picture:

 

As a Houstonian living near downtown, this is a boon, cause I'll be 15 minutes from the coast instead of an hour. People in the 'Fe would really make out great, they'll have oceanfront property (George Straight should change his song: ocean front property in santa fe)

 

Anyway, I am of the opinion that whether or not we're the cause of the current climate change, the climate change is real and it's too late now to fix it, may as well just use all the oil while we can.