cloud713 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) Damn you wxman... I agree with montrose's last statement.. Let's wait for something official. Why would Chevron make that announcement (or purchase the new land for that matter) a few weeks ago about the new parcel of land they purchased in downtown for future expansion/staging site for construction of tower 3, if they had intentions of abandoning downtown? They just bought the second tower of their downtown campus (1400) a couple years ago.. I'm sure they were we'll aware by that point of Exxons plans to move to spring and could figure out that downtown would be more expensive that the suburbs (common sense.. And you'd think they would of learned that from their relocation from San Fran to San Ramon..). Plus, if they were worried about future downtown expansion (looks like they were since they bought a 5th block downtown), they could always buy the soon to be vacated ExxonMobile tower, for even more room. But I don't see Chevron needing 6 towers any time soon...As for the Australian project running "severely over budget".. It's 2 billion over budget on a something like 56 billion dollar project. That's not even 5% over budget... Yes it's the reason they have decided to re manage their finances, but I don't think that will run them off to somewhere cheaper like the suburbs.I do hope you're at least partially right wxman, that Exxon does relocate corporate HQ in the next few years.. But as has been pointed out, over 2 million square feet from Chevron, over a million square feet from ExxonMobile, and 400,000 square feet from Shell 2 all hitting the market around the same time (roughly around 4 million square feet) would be a death blow to downtown. At least for the near future.. Downtown Houston would go the way of downtown Dallas and have extremely high vacancy rates and would be forced to convert empty buildings to residential. (The latter wouldn't be so bad but the former would be terrible)None of what wxman said explains why Chevron also put basically every other project they had around the world on hold as well.. Is that because the downtown campus is moving to the suburbs of Houston too? Edited January 11, 2014 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greens! Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 I would hope Chevron doesn't follow suit and move out to the suburbs. I know of several angry people who work/worked for Exxon and were living in the Pearland-Clear Lake area at the time who just saw 60 miles in peak traffic added to their daily commute. If they end up doing that I hope they at least have the sense to find some land closer in that is more easily accessible by commuters who aren't fortunate enough to live in far far north Houston. If they truly compete with Exxon or Shell for talent, it would make sense to have that option to recruit workers who want to work for a great company but either want to live in the city or don't want to move to the Woodlands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Screw waiting for anything official, I'm already panicking, guys. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 Tanglewoods has given us great updates on this project (he was one of the first to tell us Chevron would build downtown). He told us ahead of time the project would be placed on hold. He also told us Chevron is still committed to downtown, and about a week ago we hear Chevron purchased another block just two months ago. They've been planning to build downtown for years, I find it very unlikely they would change their minds all of a sudden; we heard from another great source that Chevron is planning a second tower as well. I wouldn't panic unless Tanglewoods tells us things have changed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 (edited) ^^^ HAHA, mfastx, me too man. me too... ugh i had just awoken from a perfectly satisfying nap to read wxmans post.BTW.. just running some numbers (i dont know everything, so forgive me for the mistakes and holes in some numbers.. i tried filling them in with information i could find online)..Exxons campus was estimated to cost over 1.2 billion dollars (according to the Chron.. but im not seeing a figure listed for the 385 acres of property in that break down, so it may be even more), a year and a half ago (and we all know how easy it is to run over budget).. it will hold 10,000 people.Chevrons campus so far consists of two buildings, one (1400) that cost 340 million, and another (1500) that cost somewhere around 300 million (i found reports of it costing anywhere from 200-340 million), and (according to the examiner) both towers together house around 10,000 workers.so it would appear the Chevron campus was actually much cheaper to build (or buy, whatever) than Exxons campus (around half the cost), while housing the same amount of employees.. why would Chevron leave downtown to build something twice as expensive in the suburbs, forcing numerous employees to have to relocate, or leave Chevron, when they have two (hopefully soon to be three) gleaming towers in the heart of the CBD? besides, i thought Chevron was enjoying the benefits of attracting quite a few employees from Exxon who didnt want to live the suburban/commuter life style?edit. as i pointed out earlier, Chevron could potentially build/own at least 6 skyscrapers in downtown (1400 Smith, 1500 Louisiana, 1600, the daycare block, the new block purchased just south of ExxonMobile, and the ExxonMobile tower itself [which would unify the campus better as currently the garage for ExxonMobile is in between 1600 and the block Chevron just purchased]..) they have around 10,000 workers in 2 towers. if they built out/bought 6 towers on that campus, that could easily house over 30,000 people, which is around one out of every two Chevron employees in the world. i dont think they are hurting for space/room for expansion to grow downtown..so if its not about the money.. and its not about the room for growth.. why exactly would Chevron be moving from downtown again?also, what companies have the largest presence in downtown? i assume JP Morgan is probably #1 since they have a whole little cluster of buildings, but Chevron doesnt seem like it would be too far behind.. maybe #2-3? them leaving would be a huge loss for downtown. Edited January 12, 2014 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Yeah, sorry wxman, but the fact that Chevron just bought another block of downtown just last week pretty much kills off the likelihood of that rumor having any validity. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Thanks wxman. Fascinating contribution and information. It's staggering to consider both Chevron and Shell moving from downtown. I think you did a great job/service getting info out of your contact. That's the kind of info that makes this forum interesting and worth reading. Even if it's sometimes disappointing. I'm just hoping it turns out to be mostly wrong. Keep digging. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 haha, i think all of us (with the exception of people in the Woodlands area benefiting from skyrocketing housing prices) are hoping he is mostly wrong..it just doesnt add up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Cost overruns on an Australian LNG project will make chevron want to move to the burbs? That makes zero sense. One project is many billions and another could never reach that magnitude. Sounds like your well connected friend is speculating to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself.Not trying to bust your chops. I like the inside info on this site. But sometimes rich people think they know everything. Here's an example both of us might appreciate. A few weeks ago a bunch of rich people swore nick Saban or job gruden were going to be head coach in Austin. ; ) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself.dont take it personally.. we are just trying to keep calm by convincing ourselves of the many reasons you might be wrong. heh.. thanks for providing some possibly significant insight.. i just wish it was better news like "THE NEW TOWER IS HAPPENING AND ITS GOING TO BE A SUPERTALL!!!" or something of the likes.. lmao 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 on a somewhat related note.. how is Shell getting out of its lease at 2 Shell Plaza before its 2025 expiration? didnt Chevron just sign a new lease in one of the neighboring towers to house some of its new/relocated employees? if so, i wonder if Chevron can back out of that agreement similar to however Shell is getting out of 2SP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jt16 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 on a somewhat related note.. how is Shell getting out of its lease at 2 Shell Plaza before its 2025 expiration? didnt Chevron just sign a new lease in one of the neighboring towers to house some of its new/relocated employees? if so, i wonder if Chevron can back out of that agreement similar to however Shell is getting out of 2SP.You don't get out of a lease. You try and sublease 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself. I hope you don't. Everyone here is reacting negatively because it is possibly bad news, not because they don't appreciate the info. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sellanious Caesar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 They will build downtown. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well the good news is he said nothing is for certain. It just appears that they are leaning hard one direction currently (campus on the north side) but nothing is inked by any means. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) I sure as he'll hope not... I have no idea why they would want to relocate from downtown to Conroe.. I could MAYBE (besides all the reasons we listed after your original post today) understand a move to the EC or the woodlands/spring area, but Conroe? That's like 40 miles.. (My map program says it's about a 50 minute drive, assuming there isn't bad traffic or a wreck). 80 more miles/an hour and 40 minutes tacked onto employees commutes who live on the south side of town... And I thought Exxons move to spring was harsh on its southern employees. Ha.Edit: ****... Just looked at how far San Ramon is from San Fran. Over 35 miles away.. Granted there's really no such thing as west San Francisco since it's on the coast, so they didn't have the same problems they would face here of people having to commute from the other side of town. Edited January 12, 2014 by cloud713 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) Well the good news is he said nothing is for certain. It just appears that they are leaning hard one direction currently (campus on the north side) but nothing is inked by any means. In the words of an esteemed board contributor earlier in this very thread, "I'll take what you say as rumor for now. Perhaps at the end of the day you DO know something the rest of us don't but your credibility is on the line if it all falls apart ;)" To further quote the same esteemed contributor, again from earlier in this very thread, "Finally, I'm not going to call you out or call you a liar. If you say you have a [wealthy] friend [whose father has connections], then by all means, I'm all ears. However, what you say doesn't make any sense so perhaps you can keep us updated?" (See post #405) ;-) Edited January 12, 2014 by Houston19514 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I don't fault him for relaying what his source said. He considers him reliable, especially considering his position. I'll admit though, it doesn't seem to add up, but let's see. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt since according to his source, they're just considering it, nothing firm, so if it doesn't happen it doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 All I know is that he told me that his firm is working on a campus for Chevron that is very large. He said they are well into the design of the campus. I never meant to imply that they will build a campus in place of a tower, but according to my friend the scale and scope of Chevrons campus is quite large. Again - he didn't know about Chevrons plans for a downtown tower until I told him. I think others have misunderstood what I said "Chevron could go either way? I understand they are looking to build a suburban campus like Exxon out near Spring Woods/The Woodlands - if that happens perhaps they move from Downtown? If that does happen, then perhaps they will vacate both fromer Enron buildings? That would leave 2 40 floor towers virtually empty and place little need for something like Stream to move forward." [that is from post 256] I never said "The tower is off" or "They won't build the tower because of the campus" I was just speculating that they may perhaps do one or the other. That was all. Sorry for mentioning anything... but since this is a forum and most of the posts on here are just speculation and opinions I felt I could maybe mention it. Boy was I wrong.lol.. same story, same outcome, just a different day. im not sure if the fact weve heard about this from someone else is a bad thing, or if its just a case of wxmans guy knowing the same people arches guy does...im hoping all of this is just a big misunderstanding/people speculating that Chevron would abandoned downtown after hearing of plans for whats hopefully just a new campus for the joint ChevronPhillips corporation up north. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Exxon, according to my source, has set the example and both Shell and Chevron have taken notice. According to 'him', Exxon has shown that it is cheaper to build in the burbs, with the ability to spread out and own adjacent parcels of land for later expansion than it is to build in the CBD. His words, not mine. This makes sense that Chevron would be looking for cheaper capital investment projects since they're Australian project is running way over budget.Btw, he also said the HQ of Exxon will relocate to the new campus in the next few years. He said this campus was built and designed strictly for that purpose. He also mentioned that a new high-rise of some sort will be erected near the campus as an "architectural marvel" when the HQ is relocated.I'm going to focus on this for a minute since it is pretty much the only positive thing from your post, lol..Does Exxon own the land at the northwest corner of springwoods village parkway and i45, right across from the Hardy flyovers? That would be the place to put an "architectural marvel" that's close to the campus, but visible for all to see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClutchCity Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 lol.. same story, same outcome, just a different day. im not sure if the fact weve heard about this from someone else is a bad thing, or if its just a case of wxmans guy knowing the same people arches guy does...im hoping all of this is just a big misunderstanding/people speculating that Chevron would abandoned downtown after hearing of plans for whats hopefully just a new campus for the joint ChevronPhillips corporation up north.Yea I had a feeling this was Déjà Vu. All I can do is hope with you that it's just a confusion of similar sounding companies, but if Chevron picks up shop and goes North that would be a death blow to Downtown's office market until at least the end of the decade. 2.5 mil sq ft from the Enron towers, 1.4 mil from the renovated Exxon building, and 1 mil(albeit state-of-the-art) sq ft from Hines and that sounds like a recipe for a very slow office pipeline downtown. and here I am holding out hope that Chevron will choose downtown, which might in turn induce more demand for space similar to how the Woodlands was affected by Exxon's campus. Pipe dreams just like the 102 story tower I guess haha 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ya that makes perfect sense. Prior to Exxon, I don't think any company ever considered the potential benefits of a suburban campus.Signed,Shell's Woodcreek campusChevron's San Ramos HQBP's Westlake campusConoco's energy corridor HQ campusHalliburton's North Belt campusAnadarko's Woodlands HQPhillips66 HQ westchase campusCameron's Westchase campusFMC's North Belt HQ campusBMC's Westchase campusFluor's sugar land campusChesapeake's suburban okc HQ campusApple's Cupertino HQMicrosofts suburban Seattle HQDell's Round Rock HQ campusState farm's suburban Dallas HQ campusOracle's suburban San Fran HQ campusThe 1000's of other large-scale commercial office campuses around the worldBtw I'd be more worried about chevron simply buying 1600 smith in lieu of a new tower than I'd be about them moving their operations to Conroe. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonIsHome Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Lol Exxon employees sitting rumors about Chevron hitting the burbs too so that workers who don't want to make the 6hr trip to work will still trying to jump ship to Chevron.In all seriousness, chevron seemed to have been doing well downtown. Ever expanding, seems an odd time to move. Its not like the burbs all of a sudden got attractive, plus downtown is on the rise. Send they would want to stake out they'd little corner and own it instead if being lost on the woods. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Well say what you want and criticize away. im just passing along the info from a very, very reliable source who is close to the negotiations. Next time, I'll keep it to myself. When you get a chance, could you ask your source why Chevron bought the parcel bounded by Milam/Leeland/Travis/Pease just a couple weeks before announcing they are delaying the tower at 1600 Louisiana.http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Chevron-buys-another-parcel-downtown-5112259.php Just spending somewhere around 10 million dollars as a head fake? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I don't fault him for relaying what his source said. He considers him reliable, especially considering his position. I'll admit though, it doesn't seem to add up, but let's see. I'll also give him the benefit of the doubt since according to his source, they're just considering it, nothing firm, so if it doesn't happen it doesn't mean they weren't thinking about it.Sensible post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 HAIF, I am disappointed in you guys. TWO PAGES of yall taking this TROLL'S bait? Cmon, yall are smarter than that.... First of all, did you all forget, just a couple of pages back that wxman (who is the woodlands biggest champion and promoter, to the point of outlandish exaggerations, one of the few making the baseless claim that pretty much ALL of "Big Oil" is relocating to the woodlands/conroe, and also a downtown/urban hater, check his posts) got all BUTTHURT that we said the woodlands was in the boondocks (which it is). Butthurt to the point that he cussed us all out and Urbannizer had to edit/delete the posts (thanks urb). ....So now, to exact his revenge on all you Downtown Houston, city slicker, Inner loop, skyscraper loving posters who called his precious woodlands "the boonies", he posts this made up story about "a guy i know, who knows this guy, who cousins sister in laws dentist went to school with the neighbor of this extremely rich guy who i "had to squeeze information out of" and it was so difficult to get this information (which he explicitly states is NOT FACT and ALL HEARSAY to cover his lie when it is exposed as a bunch of hogwash when chevron actually builds the tower downtown, which they have all but guaranteed they are) it was like "pulling teeth". Why would a bunch of speculation nonsense and possibly false hearsay be such a "big secret" anyway? Dumb. Anyhow, all you guys need to relax, Chevron has said as recently as a couple weeks ago that the tower is still a go, just delayed until 2015, and THAT IS FROM THE HORSES MOUTH, so until CHEVRON says otherwise, this project is still happening. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Ya that makes perfect sense. Prior to Exxon, I don't think any company ever considered the potential benefits of a suburban campus.Signed,Shell's Woodcreek campusChevron's San Ramos HQBP's Westlake campusConoco's energy corridor HQ campusHalliburton's North Belt campusAnadarko's Woodlands HQPhillips66 HQ westchase campusCameron's Westchase campusFMC's North Belt HQ campusBMC's Westchase campusFluor's sugar land campusChesapeake's suburban okc HQ campusApple's Cupertino HQMicrosofts suburban Seattle HQDell's Round Rock HQ campusState farm's suburban Dallas HQ campusOracle's suburban San Fran HQ campusThe 1000's of other large-scale commercial office campuses around the worldA shameful list indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ig2ba Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Speaking of trolls No kidding. Getting people to discuss a rumor which is most likely false is one thing. Not the best thing, but HAIFers would sometimes rather discuss BS (this) or fantasy (what's your favorite transit plan for the exurbs?) then a new topic. I get that. Calling a person/place/thing a name with the goal of getting people angry and swearing, necessitating moderator intervention ... that's a whole 'nother level of unpleasantness. Pretty much the textbook definition of trolling. Oh, the irony! 1 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.