The Building(s) that could change Houston Forever

[lockmat]

I have an idea for a downtown Houston development. I think it would put Houston at the forefront of everyone's minds when they think of skyscrapers and skylines.

Ok, so I hope I haven't hyped it up too much, but I think it would be awesome, personally

I really haven't used google sketchup so I can't figure out how to make it think that my walls are actually walls (for those who haven't used it, when it does, it automatically fills in the space to make it look like an actual surface). The curvature just won't let it, at least not the way I'm doing it. But I'm just so excited about this that I wanted to share it anyway. I'm not sure if y'all will be able to get a good idea of what it looks like with these still images. It's a lot better when you can see it 3D and able to revolve around it from all angles quickly.

But my idea is to have one building on 3 adjacent city blocks and they basically all come together at one point over the middle of the intersection. I'm not sure if this idea already exists. Maybe it does on ONE block, but does it on three different blocks? If so, then I've just wasted my time, haha.

You'll see two sets of towers in some of the screen shots. The one without any walls was my first attempt and the one with brown walls is my latest attempt to make it work. I left the first one in there for reference as the design is very slightly different.

Any Sketchup experts able to help me out with my problem?

What do y'all think. And don't be afraid to burst my bubble. (constructive criticism (on the idea) welcome)

ps - forgot to mention that it's 600 ft tall at the tip and the underbelly reaches 445 ft.

Street view

side view

back, or open side view

front view

straight over the top

side/top view

view from underneath

[20thStDad]

With our small blocks, maybe. Definitely would be neat. But how to you assign the address for the joined part! It's impossible, that alone should prevent it from ever happening.

[strickn]

Your experiment has a little of a 'cathedral of commerce' potential to it that not many arcologies do. Gaudi proposed a skyscraper hotel for Manhattan that might have been called an ancestor to your complex, but compared to the recent attempts in Beijing that descend from the building at the bottom of this page (link) yours would more likely draw comparisons to Burj Al Arab. The Umeda Sky Building and the Tuntex 85 Skytower might show you some directions not to go from here. Keep thinking about it! A skyline is not a sculpture garden, and a massive geometric looming underbelly is not a happy thing unless it's done very cathedrally - or unless you especially loved the Maxis programmers' Darco design in the computer game, which no user really had to get to know firsthand. So, while it's true that Houston was practically the test case that reestablished the attraction of an iconic corporate architecture when Hines had Pennzoil Place put up (or maybe it's true; not sure after all why Transamerica or the John Hancock Center are never mentioned when International Style architectural historians report that), you might want to take the true next step onward by thinking in terms of how people would experience various parts of it, and sketch bottom-up, not iconic top-down. If you do that, a high-rise may not be where you wind up.

[Highway6]

Structurally it could be done. In concept its not too far off from the Beijing CCTV bldg

Address-wise shouldn't be an issue. The Pavillions are on 3 different block; Houston center is on 2 blocks including the full height of offices over Caroline St.

Development-wise though, I think we've had plenty off threads discussing if 100 story could ever happen. While you may not be envisioning that high, I think building essentially 3 skyscrapers of 50+ stories might not be financially possible right now. I don't know.

Sketchup-wise. I'd have to look at your model, but remember the simplest plane is a triangle. Curved surfaces are a fun challenge. Solid that twist are an even bigger challenge. If you want your building to be visible as a solid, and not a wire frame, you'll need a couple thousand more triangles.

[ToryGattis]

I think it's pretty cool. I assume you've considered if straight shaft elevators could work all the way to the top in all 3 parts? Based on the side view, I christen it "The Banana" ;-)

[lockmat]

With our small blocks, maybe. Definitely would be neat. But how to you assign the address for the joined part! It's impossible, that alone should prevent it from ever happening.

Do y'all know how big downtown blocks are?

[lockmat]

strickn, thanks for such a thoughtful response, I appreciate it.

Your experiment has a little of a 'cathedral of commerce' potential to it that not many arcologies do.

I had no idea what arcology was until now (wiki definition). At first, I had no plans of it being something like this, but as I was thinking last night, I thought each tower could potentially be of different use; office, residential, hotel (which as Highway6 mentioned, this might make it more financially viable).

I googled Cathedral of Commerce. What type of potential are you referring that it might have in reference to this building? I thought you're probably referring to the threeish-type tier that this picture shows. Or am I off?

The Umeda Sky Building and the Tuntex 85 Skytower might show you some directions not to go from here.

Looked those up too; you're not a fan of them? They're rather flat and square. The Umeda reminds me of squatty, lego-like Heritage Plaza.

Keep thinking about it! A skyline is not a sculpture garden, and a massive geometric looming underbelly is not a happy thing unless it's done very cathedrally

I do really like the arches that come together on the outer part (I think you would describe them as cathedrally ). My first attempt does this better, especially at the underbelly, but the reason I made it with those circles (at the top and underbelly) is because I'm not sure it's practical enough (I know there are other pragmatic issues I haven't thought of either, haha) to have them come to a perfect point (unless that area would be rendered useless and for visual effect only).

As to the sculpture garden comment, are there different schools of thought as to when architects make a design? I'm sure there are designs for competitions only (some, done in a vacuum), and ones that are commissioned and then designed, in which the building is designed in context and for that particular site (what you might be referring to). But don't skyscraper architects sometimes do something like me, create a structure they like and then sell it, or no?

[Simbha]

Do y'all know how big downtown blocks are?

I believe it's 100m by 100m (330 ft x 330 ft) between street center lines. I don't know how much to take off for city streets and setbacks.

Cool idea, by the way. I'd like to see something like this come to fruition. Are there three adjacent empty (or, nearly empty) blocks you're thinking could be used?

[lockmat]

In concept its not too far off from the Beijing CCTV bldg

You're right, this building actually did come to mind as I was designing it, but it had no influence on my own.

Development-wise though, I think we've had plenty off threads discussing if 100 story could ever happen. While you may not be envisioning that high, I think building essentially 3 skyscrapers of 50+ stories might not be financially possible right now. I don't know.

I was thinking the exact same thing. My thought behind it was that it would have to be built in at least a semi-boom commercial real estate market. But like I said in my response to strickn, I wonder if each tower had a different use that it would help it get financing? I don't think I'd want it to be any shorter than 50-55 stories though, maybe 60, because if it is, I think it would look too squatty.

Sketchup-wise. I'd have to look at your model, but remember the simplest plane is a triangle. Curved surfaces are a fun challenge. Solid that twist are an even bigger challenge. If you want your building to be visible as a solid, and not a wire frame, you'll need a couple thousand more triangles.

I think I'm gonna have to practice with some more basic things. To do this with the whole push/pull concept is difficult for me. If you ever have the time and would really like to take a look at it, maybe I can email the file to you? I've been trying to upload and share it in the 3D Warehouse, but I keep getting an error message.

[Highway6]

Downtown blocks are 250'x 250' . Your footprint would be less to account for setbacks.

Assuming that each of your square footprints are roughly 200'x200', the proportions in your render make it appear your model would instantly be challenging for the tallest bldg in the world.

[lockmat]

I believe it's 100m by 100m (330 ft x 330 ft) between street center lines. I don't know how much to take off for city streets and setbacks.

Cool idea, by the way. I'd like to see something like this come to fruition. Are there three adjacent empty (or, nearly empty) blocks you're thinking could be used?

Thanks for the info.

As for finding three city blocks, that was my next task. I'm not real sure. I'd like to keep the integrity of the western view of the skyline. I was sort of thinking on the southeastern side of what the Downtown District calls the "skyline district." I've always been a fan of developing the southeastern part of downtown, too (at intersection of 45/59).

What about this location, straddling the rail line? The inner edges of the buildings could come up flush to the Main and Bell streets, leaving room on the opposite sides of each block for park space. This would also bring the towers closer together to make it easier on practical space and elevators.

[lockmat]

I think it's pretty cool. I assume you've considered if straight shaft elevators could work all the way to the top in all 3 parts? Based on the side view, I christen it "The Banana" ;-)

Thanks, I did think some about the elevators, not much. To get to the top, one might have to get off an elevator and onto another which would take them the rest of the way.

And yes, I was wondering what other names it might be called or looked like. A tripod, a sci-fi monster, a rocketship...but yeah, I can see banana, too haha

[lockmat]

Downtown blocks are 250'x 250' . Your footprint would be less to account for setbacks.

Assuming that each of your square footprints are roughly 200'x200', the proportions in your render make it appear your model would instantly be challenging for the tallest bldg in the world.

Eh, I'm embarrassed to say the footprints are much smaller than 200x200. I need to revise it. However, the main thing I wanted to share was the idea of using three blocks to create "one" tower. Also, the building is 600 feet tall at it's peak.

[Highway6]

Eh, I'm embarrassed to say the footprints are much smaller than 200x200. I need to revise it. However, the main thing I wanted to share was the idea of using three blocks to create "one" tower. Also, the building is 600 feet tall at it's peak.

I'm not saying they have to be 200'; they can be smaller. I was just using that information to guess the height.

_____________________________

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, And B.T.H.O. t.u. !!!!

[lockmat]

I'm not saying they have to be 200'; they can be smaller. I was just using that information to guess the height.

_____________________________

Happy Thanksgiving everyone, And B.T.H.O. t.u. !!!!

I know, but they are WAY smaller than 200' haha I think I'm gonna make 'em about 130 feet. How wide are the streets downtown?

Also, I hope Texas loses, too.

[Highway6]

Is this what you had in mind?

I've seen concept proposals similar to this before, and while I don't know the feasibility of a project like this... I do agree it would be a city defining project if realized.

Ps.. Thanks for the excuse to break out the sketchup this morning.

[lockmat]

YES! lol

YOU did that? Grrr, haha, good job! How??!!

Don't you think if it was multi-use that it would make it more feasible? I think it would probably be best if two towers were office and the other was a hotel/condo mix. The fact that it would be so unique would want many to rent space in it, don't you think? Or no? This would be a once in a lifetime place to be. If it was the first, nobody would really know if it would be duplicated, which it may or may not be. I think this would certainly make tenants reconsider a Energy corridor, Galleria, Greenway or suburb location. To say you worked, lived or stayed in this complex would be "it."

One, this project would move expiring leases to this building, including "new" tenants for office, would bring in Houston condo buyers who were "on the fence" on the decision to buy a condo, international buyers who frequent Houston and a tourist attraction to stay in for visitors. It would be a big draw, I think.

In this economic climate for sure it would not work...what does?

Is this what you had in mind?

I've seen concept proposals similar to this before, and while I don't know the feasibility of a project like this... I do agree it would be a city defining project if realized.

Ps.. Thanks for the excuse to break out the sketchup this morning.

[Simbha]

Is this what you had in mind?

I've seen concept proposals similar to this before, and while I don't know the feasibility of a project like this... I do agree it would be a city defining project if realized.

Ps.. Thanks for the excuse to break out the sketchup this morning.

I wish I had this kind of talent/skill. It may not even be difficult, for all I know. All I'm good for is to read these forums sometimes - and I don't even do that all that well...

[TheNiche]

Don't you think if it was multi-use that it would make it more feasible? I think it would probably be best if two towers were office and the other was a hotel/condo mix. The fact that it would be so unique would want many to rent space in it, don't you think? Or no? This would be a once in a lifetime place to be. If it was the first, nobody would really know if it would be duplicated, which it may or may not be. I think this would certainly make tenants reconsider a Energy corridor, Galleria, Greenway or suburb location. To say you worked, lived or stayed in this complex would be "it."

One, this project would move expiring leases to this building, including "new" tenants for office, would bring in Houston condo buyers who were "on the fence" on the decision to buy a condo, international buyers who frequent Houston and a tourist attraction to stay in for visitors. It would be a big draw, I think.

In this economic climate for sure it would not work...what does?

I like the general concept from the outside, and it does appear scalable to some extent, so that perhaps only the core tower would take up the entire developable block, while the two flying-buttress-like towers might just shoot up from a quarter-block footprint. Making the tower have more volume (but not insanely much) on a smaller footprint of land might help with site selection and feasibility.

What concerns me, however, is that portions of the building's exterior that feature a overhead curve which could create functionally impaired interior spaces; this is a problem with the higher floors of Pennzoil Place, where headroom becomes a problem. I'd imagine that the problem could be circumvented if the rents were high enough, for instance by making the areas impacted by overhead curves double-high spaces overlooked by the next highest floorplate. But of course, that comes at a cost of rentable square footage.

The idea strikes me as being entirely reasonable, but not for here. It'd require the high rents of New York, London, Tokyo, or like cities to compel a developer to try something so bold.

[Jeebus]

Wow! What a concept. Something like this would definitely set us apart, and might even invite competition in future construction.

[Simbha]

The idea strikes me as being entirely reasonable, but not for here. It'd require the high rents of New York, London, Tokyo, or like cities to compel a developer to try something so bold.

I've often wondered why cities such as those (along with others such as Chicago) get the most striking architecture. I suppose this is one case where Houston's reputation as a 'low-cost city' really does hurt us, eh? But, isn't rent only reflective of the cost of land and construction - and, so, is that ratio of rent-to-cost (or whatever) much lower here than in some other cities?

[TheNiche]

I've often wondered why cities such as those (along with others such as Chicago) get the most striking architecture. I suppose this is one case where Houston's reputation as a 'low-cost city' really does hurt us, eh?

Downtown Houston does not have a reputation for cheap office rents by any means. We're more expensive than average in that category for a sunbelt city of our size and stature. Our average Class A office rents are $36.17 psf, whereas Dallas' are at $21.70, Atlanta's are at $20.73, Phoenix's are at $26.88, and San Antonio is at $21.41. Austin, Denver, and Miami are more on par with us. But no city on this list gets really striking architecture because the rents still aren't high enough.

You mentioned Chicago. Their downtown Class A office rents average $37.56; for all intents and purposes, the same as Houston. Chicago has higher taxes and horribly difficult unions. They have gotten around this in the past by providing direct government subsidy. (I'm sure that Editor could expound on this a bit.)

Now, compare to Manhattan, which averages $63.95 per square foot. Relatively cheap rent can be had near Battery Park, at $37.89. But consider also that there's a sizable market for ridiculous crazy-ass rents in the vicinity of Fifth & Madison, where 20.5 million square feet of space average $94.89 per square foot. That's what makes New York a special case (at least, within the United States).

Even still, in the pantheon of global cities, NYC actually kind of sucks. Consider, for instance, that office space for the entire City of London averages $110.07 per square foot. That's including all classes and all submarkets. London's most desirable submarket, the West End, averages $182.94 psf.

Downtown Hong Kong averages $153.20 psf, Inner Central Tokyo averages $143.99 psf, Mumbai averages $125.76 psf, Moscow averages $125.10 psf. And bear in mind that rents in most of these cities have fallen by 20% to 25% from their highs. (Stated another way, rents in top-tier cities have fallen by about as much as anybody would need to pay to lease space in a city like Houston.)

But, isn't rent only reflective of the cost of land and construction - and, so, is that ratio of rent-to-cost (or whatever) much lower here than in some other cities?

Yes, perhaps, in an economically stable world economy with no price controls, no geographic or regulatory barriers to entry, no property taxes, no direct government subsidy, product homogenization, absolute labor mobility, absolute capital mobility, and perfect information. Which is to say...no. Never. Not quite.

And out of all of those prerequisites for a perfectly competitive real estate market, probably the most critical to this discussion for the United States is the product homogenization assumption. In a city with as large and as wealthy a tenant base as NYC, there are large niche markets that demand premium space. They can be targeted and catered to. Doing so in Houston in a post-boomtown era requires smaller buildings and is a more tedious and high-risk endeavor than opting to merely construct a box.

[WAZ]

I've often wondered why cities such as those (along with others such as Chicago) get the most striking architecture. I suppose this is one case where Houston's reputation as a 'low-cost city' really does hurt us, eh? But, isn't rent only reflective of the cost of land and construction - and, so, is that ratio of rent-to-cost (or whatever) much lower here than in some other cities?

Houston gets as much or more striking architecture than they do. My impression, however, is that we don't usually get striking skyscrapers. Granted, there are a few: Penzoil Place for one. But most of our really striking buildings seem to be small office buildings and houses.

There might be economic reasons for it, but I think a lot of it is psychological. Houston has always been a laissez-faire, 'do your own thing' City. Companies in Houston don't want to be beholden to landlords. So they buy land and build small buildings for themselves. Of the five architecture firms that I've worked for since coming to Houston in 1998, three are in buildings they designed for themselves. None of the firms I worked for in New York City had them.

[Simbha]

Houston gets as much or more striking architecture than they do. My impression, however, is that we don't usually get striking skyscrapers. Granted, there are a few: Penzoil Place for one. But most of our really striking buildings seem to be small office buildings and houses.

There might be economic reasons for it, but I think a lot of it is psychological. Houston has always been a laissez-faire, 'do your own thing' City. Companies in Houston don't want to be beholden to landlords. So they buy land and build small buildings for themselves. Of the five architecture firms that I've worked for since coming to Houston in 1998, three are in buildings they designed for themselves. None of the firms I worked for in New York City had them.

Thanks for the correction. You're right that I was referring specifically to skyscrapers. And, I didn't mean to ignore the examples in our city. I suppose that, as a proportion of the total skyline, we may contend with other large cities in this respect. However, I - like many on this forum, I think - would like to see more, more more!

[LTAWACS]

This needs to be started on right away/

[Highway6]

I just thought of something.. Your project would actually require the purchase of some if not all of the 4th block. You'd be building over about 1/3 of that 4th block, thus prohibiting full use by another landowner.

But i think you'd want that full block anyways, whether you make it a public plaza/park land, or a smaller entrance tower to the other 3 bldgs, you'd want control of that lot.

[LTAWACS]

Wasnt there a proposed arch or the like very similiar to this? What happened to that?

[lockmat]

I just found a similarly proposed skyscraper for Houston, although this one looks much larger in scale and it has a building in the center, too. Looks like it's about 4 or 5 cityblocks wide.

http://www.evolo.us/architecture/tripod-skyscraper-in-houston/

[Simbha]

I just thought of something.. Your project would actually require the purchase of some if not all of the 4th block. You'd be building over about 1/3 of that 4th block, thus prohibiting full use by another landowner.

But i think you'd want that full block anyways, whether you make it a public plaza/park land, or a smaller entrance tower to the other 3 bldgs, you'd want control of that lot.

Good point.

[editor]

It's an interesting idea, and a good way to turn several lower-value plots into a single high-value plot.

The biggest political challenge would be air rights, though recent developments like Houston Pavilions show that's not impossible to overcome.

You're going to have naysayers complaining about the risk of glass or whatever the facade is made out of falling on people below, especially in hurricanes.

I think the biggest physical challenge, though, is elevators. Depending on how steeply the buildings bend, you're going to lose precious space to sky lobbies and utilities.

I think you did the right thing by making these only 600 feet or so. If you'd gone the 1,000+ route you'd have people crawling out of the woodwork to call you a loon.