Chevron Skyscraper Proposal At 1600 Louisiana St.

[ricco67]

okay, this is really the only thing I know, I tried to pry information out of him but I couldn't get much out of him.

The new Tower is going have at LEAST 30+ floors.

The first two floors are going to be an "urban concept."

They are debating on the top, but they are leaning towards a "crown" of some sort and there are 3 different options they're looking at.

IF it's built, it's going to be hooked into the tunnel system.

IF it is built, it will be built in that small piece of green space that was circled by "UrbaNerd."

IF things go well, construction should be built and completed within 5 years. It is therefore possible that this could get rolling in a couple of years.

I wasn't able to look at the drawings again, but it looked to me like something with an interesting facade that looked like a combo of concrete and glass, but I couldn't tell in my 5 second glance.

From what I can tell, he looked like he was in a good mood afterwards.

Edited March 2, 2007 by ricco67

[Trae]

Sounds good. I hope it is at 50 stories, with a crown. We need to light that skyline up at night!

[KinkaidAlum]

First thought, the rendering for the Roche Dinkeloo project may have been for the 1000 Main Tower that went up a few years ago by Century Development. If so, we lost out as a city as the Roche design is much more cutting edge than the box we got.

Second thought, what a total waste to build a garage only facility across from the Heritage Park. That spot would most likely have western views that would never be taken away unless we tore down the Pierce Elevated. It is a prime spot for not only an office tower but also a condo tower as the potential residents would have access to the park, downtown, and an easy escape via car down Allen Parkway.

I know that before this site was recently sold, there was a general proposal floating around for a 30 story residential tower. While I understand the need for the garage space to market the Heritage Plaza Tower, I can only hope that the current downtown office market (10% vacancy) encourages someone to build a garage and tower on that spot! It would be a shame to have an ugly garage facing Sam Houston Park/Heritage Park.

[H-Town Man]

First thought, the rendering for the Roche Dinkeloo project may have been for the 1000 Main Tower that went up a few years ago by Century Development. If so, we lost out as a city as the Roche design is much more cutting edge than the box we got.

Remember that Century also owned the block across from the Humble Bldg. for awhile (that is now part of Houston Pavilions) and was planning to build a skyscraper there after 1000 Main. This may have been planned for that. But I agree, it is much better than what they built at 1000.

[Houston19514]

First thought, the rendering for the Roche Dinkeloo project may have been for the 1000 Main Tower that went up a few years ago by Century Development. If so, we lost out as a city as the Roche design is much more cutting edge than the box we got.

Second thought, what a total waste to build a garage only facility across from the Heritage Park. That spot would most likely have western views that would never be taken away unless we tore down the Pierce Elevated. It is a prime spot for not only an office tower but also a condo tower as the potential residents would have access to the park, downtown, and an easy escape via car down Allen Parkway.

I know that before this site was recently sold, there was a general proposal floating around for a 30 story residential tower. While I understand the need for the garage space to market the Heritage Plaza Tower, I can only hope that the current downtown office market (10% vacancy) encourages someone to build a garage and tower on that spot! It would be a shame to have an ugly garage facing Sam Houston Park/Heritage Park.

Hopefully, they will at least build an attractive garage that can later have an office and/or residential tower added on top.

What is the actual status of this proposed garage anyway? Does anyone know? Perhaps with the tightening office market they will build a garage and tower... (could they build enough garage there to handle the parking needs of Heritage Plaza and a new tower, I wonder?)

[fernz]

okay, this is really the only thing I know, I tried to pry information out of him but I couldn't get much out of him.

The new Tower is going have at LEAST 30+ floors.

The first two floors are going to be an "urban concept."

They are debating on the top, but they are leaning towards a "crown" of some sort and there are 3 different options they're looking at.

IF it's built, it's going to be hooked into the tunnel system.

IF it is built, it will be built in that small piece of green space that was circled by "UrbaNerd."

IF things go well, construction should be built and completed within 5 years. It is therefore possible that this could get rolling in a couple of years.

I wasn't able to look at the drawings again, but it looked to me like something with an interesting facade that looked like a combo of concrete and glass, but I couldn't tell in my 5 second glance.

From what I can tell, he looked like he was in a good mood afterwards.

ricco, did you get a chance to see who the architect is?

[ricco67]

ricco, did you get a chance to see who the architect is?

I'm afraid not. We exchanged names, and promptly forgot it. It was only after he was looking back at the skyline and I was inquiring if something was wrong when he started to tell me the details.

[houstonfella]

Well, HAIFers, I can't imagine Houston going for long without a new office tower of 50+ floors. If you work downtown as I do, you immediately notice the lack of parking, the buildings are totally leased out and while Class A space is available, it is in smaller increments, not huge blocks any more. That is a good thing that I believe will bring a brand new, totally desirable 21st century tower that law firms and corporations will be licking their chops to move into. I believe downtown is ready for 2 or 3 50-80 story buildings to move into the 21st century. Let's think back a few years ... say 1997 ... now I view downtown Houston as progressive, getting better and ready to roll.

[The Great Hizzy!]

If we're talking 80 stories, we're likely talking another thousand footer, which seems a very remote possibility at best given economic concerns and general preferences by large firms these days in lieu of the 9-11 tragedy. 80 stories also would equate to somewhere around 2.0 - 2.2 million square feet, I suppose, depending on how much of it is dedicated to office space and how much of it to parking, retail and/or residential. Again, seems unlikely but not impossible.

What seems more likely is a couple of new towers in the 40-50 story range. A good 50-story building could get you in the 700-foot range, which would certainly have a significant impact on the skyline.

But this all seems a ways off. The key is to maintain the current vacancy rate that we have (or improve upon it) over the next 12-24 months. That would almost guarantee significant new construction starting before the next decade.

Edited March 2, 2007 by The Great Hizzy!

[H-Town Man]

The economics of the downtown market favors 30-40 stories. Going over forty stories your costs start increasing much faster than returns on rent - elevators take up a bigger footprint, weight requires more steel, etc. Usually when a tower over 40 stories gets built, it's because a company is looking to make a statement, and most energy companies aren't looking to do that right now what with all the criticism of them raking in profits. Even Enron, which was more visionary than anyone in the last twenty years as far as wanting to enhance Houston architecturally, only chose a 40 story design when they built their tower. I'll be happy if we get one 40 story building in the next year or two.

[bachanon]

i've had more fun reading this thread than any from recent memory. the speculation, the "spies" and the insiders really are keeping this thread interesting. it will be great fun when a new tower is announced.

thanks ricco.

[ricco67]

i've had more fun reading this thread than any from recent memory. the speculation, the "spies" and the insiders really are keeping this thread interesting. it will be great fun when a new tower is announced.

thanks ricco.

Not a problem, I just wished I could have been able to pry more information out of him, but you could tell he was anxious to tell someone. It was only after I casually mentioned the vacancy rate downtown his jaw drop and became more talkative.

I read people quite well and I knew that if I phrased things carefully I could get quite a bit of info from him and I think he shared more than he intended to.

Now if I could have gotten him to tell me what the benchmark dates, we could have had other people have an ear to the ground for any other signals.

[houstonfella]

30 story bldg. ...

Downtown requires 60+

30 floors... ha ha ha

[HtownWxBoy]

I'd like to see at LEAST 50 stories... anything smaller (30 to 40 stories) is nice, but it just doesn't stand out as much. I love how Philly (my former home) is building a new "tallest"... the Comcast Center. They don't even really need all of the office space... they are actually turning floors in one of their other tall office buildings (Liberty 1 or Liberty 2) into condos!

[lockmat]

Ricco...any new info on this that you're allowed to release?

[maceo9903]

This my sound like a dumb question, but if none of you mind, humor me. With all the new towers proposed, what keeps these firms from just building one or two 80-90 story towers?

Houston needs at least ONE iconic building and I think that is a way to do it. Im all for density, but I think you can make density by putting stores, bars ,or what have you in DT. Also, with the sudden willingness to build residential towers DT, the density will come. So again, I ask, why not 1 maybe 2 80-90 story office towers?

Second, what keeps developers here from desinging something iconic (just in design, not height) here in Houston. We have more than enough boxes. What wiil it take for someone to come in and just totally redefine the Houston skyline?

[woolie]

This my sound like a dumb question, but if none of you mind, humor me. With all the new towers proposed, what keeps these firms from just building one or two 80-90 story towers?

Houston needs at least ONE iconic building and I think that is a way to do it. Im all for density, but I think you can make density by putting stores, bars ,or what have you in DT. Also, with the sudden willingness to build residential towers DT, the density will come. So again, I ask, why not 1 maybe 2 80-90 story office towers?

Second, what keeps developers here from desinging something iconic (just in design, not height) here in Houston. We have more than enough boxes. What wiil it take for someone to come in and just totally redefine the Houston skyline?

cost increases exponentially per floor.

[ricco67]

First thing, can a Mod rename this for me to 1500 Smith (proposed)?

woolie got it on the head.

The only place where I think just building higher when possible is currently feasible (even with its increased costs per floor) is in the medical center. Just about every building that is put up, it is immediately gobbled up.

Besides, our insurance pays for most of it anyway.

[moni]

This my sound like a dumb question, but if none of you mind, humor me. With all the new towers proposed, what keeps these firms from just building one or two 80-90 story towers?

Houston needs at least ONE iconic building and I think that is a way to do it. Im all for density, but I think you can make density by putting stores, bars ,or what have you in DT. Also, with the sudden willingness to build residential towers DT, the density will come. So again, I ask, why not 1 maybe 2 80-90 story office towers?

Second, what keeps developers here from desinging something iconic (just in design, not height) here in Houston. We have more than enough boxes. What wiil it take for someone to come in and just totally redefine the Houston skyline?

Sounds good, like the Arch in St. Louis. Doesn't serve any real purpose, but defines a city. You can see it for miles too, so you know...see the Arch and think: St. Louis!

[maceo9903]

^^^ Exactly. Dont get me wrong, I know Houston has it's gems like BoA, Texaco, and Penzoil. Those are buildings that skyscraper geeks like us know. I want something that the average person who dosen't give a flip about buildings can see on tv and go, that's Houston. Like Spaceneedle=Seattle, TransAmerica=San Francisco, Sears Tower=Chicago, and as you said Arch=St. Louis.

[editor]

^^^ Exactly. Dont get me wrong, I know Houston has it's gems like BoA, Texaco, and Penzoil. Those are buildings that skyscraper geeks like us know. I want something that the average person who dosen't give a flip about buildings can see on tv and go, that's Houston. Like Spaceneedle=Seattle, TransAmerica=San Francisco, Sears Tower=Chicago, and as you said Arch=St. Louis.

Builidng on your theme...

Eiffel Tower = Paris

Saint Basil's Cathedral = Moscow

Empire State Building = New York

Hollywood Sign = Los Angeles

But not all great cities are defined by one iconic element. Some are defined by their melange of street-level urbanism (holy crap, did I just write that?). Good examples are Tokyo, Vancouver, and Miami.

I wish Houston had something that really defined it to the outside world. But it's an evolutionary process. I'm starting to sense a shift in perception that Oil = Houston, which is fine. Previously Oil/Cowboy Hats = Dallas, but Dallas (mostly because of the TV series) seems to be becoming more defined as cowboy hats while Houston is becoming more seen as the energy capital it aspires to be. The Iraq war and H'burton are really helping with that. More and more when I talk to people around the world their minds go Iraq -> Oil -> Texas -> Houston instead of automatically thinking Texas = Dallas like they used to.

But that's just an outsider's viewpoint.

[maceo9903]

cost increases exponentially per floor.

So like I asked, why can't 2 or 3 firms that were going to build 2 or 3 30 story towers, join together and build one 90 story tower?

As for oil, most people are anti oil these days, so I dont want Houston to be realized solely for that. I want some good publicity for this great city for a change.

[strickn]

A start would be for all of us to start referring to Houston as the engineering capital of the world instead of as the energy capital.

[editor]

A start would be for all of us to start referring to Houston as the engineering capital of the world instead of as the energy capital.

I don't think most people could really wrap their brains around that. Engineering what? Bridges? Tin cans? Military coups?

People know what oil is. They know what energy is. They interact with it every day.

[strickn]

Well, if you're giving people the proper amount of credit, and most just don't rub shoulders with any engineers often, then Houston must have slurped up more engineers from everywhere else than even I thought...

[TheNiche]

I want something that the average person who dosen't give a flip about buildings can see on tv and go, that's Houston.

Why?

Don't mean to sound flippant; this is a serious question.

[TheNiche]

So like I asked, why can't 2 or 3 firms that were going to build 2 or 3 30 story towers, join together and build one 90 story tower?

Woolie already told you. The marginal cost of each additional floor increases exponentially.

If several firms needing several buildings at the same time got together on it and split costs of the total project evenly, it would only increase the total outlay paid by each firm, at the same time increasing the wait before the space became available, increasing the time spent by their employees in elevators, decreasing the useful size of each floorplate because more of it would be comprised of elevator shafts, and as a cherry on top, only one firm could get naming rights--not all that went in on the project.

I'd like having a supertall in Houston too, but the bottom line is that its just hard to justify without office rents becoming outrageous and vacant lots becoming unavailable.

[editor]

Well, if you're giving people the proper amount of credit, and most just don't rub shoulders with any engineers often, then Houston must have slurped up more engineers from everywhere else than even I thought...

I think that's exactly right -- Houston has more engineers than most other cities. Think of the types of projects that the city's dominant companies engage in: oil drilling, rig building, detecting materials underground, building barges, floating oil rigs, etc...

Just like New York is loaded with bankers and Hollywood is loaded with plastic surgeons, Houston seems to have more than its share of engineers. Which is a good thing.

I'm sure there is a census database somewhere which quantifies this.

[woolie]

Besides, our insurance pays for most of it anyway.

Everyone in the TMC is nonprofit. Building funds often come from fundraising efforts (e.g. last month BCM received both $100m and $30m gifts for their new hospital) or government grants / direct spending if it's a gov't institution.

[jt16]

Woolie already told you. The marginal cost of each additional floor increases exponentially.

If several firms needing several buildings at the same time got together on it and split costs of the total project evenly, it would only increase the total outlay paid by each firm, at the same time increasing the wait before the space became available, increasing the time spent by their employees in elevators, decreasing the useful size of each floorplate because more of it would be comprised of elevator shafts, and as a cherry on top, only one firm could get naming rights--not all that went in on the project.

I'd like having a supertall in Houston too, but the bottom line is that its just hard to justify without office rents becoming outrageous and vacant lots becoming unavailable.

This may not be the appropriate forum for an economics lesson, but can somebody explain why the marginal costs of each additional floor increases exponentially? In my business (midstream energy) we build plants. The cost to mobilize on site almost always justifies building bigger. Sorry if this is too far off topic.