Jump to content

Chevron Skyscraper Proposal At 1600 Louisiana St.


ricco67

Recommended Posts

No doubt this is dead. What will be interesting is to look back at this thread years from now and see how the development changed if something goes up years from now. It may have missed this boom but it *may* resurrect in the future. The same for Capitol Tower and International Tower.

It's not always the case but look at 609 Main site. 10 years ago, that was the failed Shamrock Tower. It may have took 10 years but the city got something better in the end thankfully.

Capital tower is not dead. They are pouring the foundation are in lease discussions.

Not a good idea to speculate.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capitol Tower is a whole different type of critter, in part because Skanska is an integrated operation, and in part because of its location.  Also, while there certainly are a lot of cranes downtown, there isn't really that much office space being built - it's mostly residential.  The only two big ones that are going up now are 1111 Travis, which Hilcorp is building for itself, and 609 Main.  Of the other four commercial sites announced but yet to start on the July map, Chevron is toast for the time being, as is 6 Houston (again), and 800 Bell is going to take a very special type of anchor tenant because of its distance from pretty much everything except Chevron, residential, and the remnants of the Parking District... leaving Capitol Tower. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Capital tower is not dead. They are pouring the foundation are in lease discussions.

Not a good idea to speculate.

Wasn't speculating - just didn't know they were in discussions with anyone.

I'm honestly rooting for it as it cuts off my tunnel access to Chase Tower.

Edited by tigereye
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

No way this project is getting out of the ground by then. Oil prices aren't expected to recover in 2016 and even if they DID, they're not going to move dirt the moment oil tops $70 or $80 a barrel. I suspect this project is either DOA or still 5+ years away and will likely be reduced in size. I'm talking out my a $ $ currently, I admit, but I suspect that's what will happen.

Edited by wxman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way this project is getting out of the ground by then. Oil prices aren't expected to recover in 2016 and even if they DID, they're not going to move dirt the moment oil tops $70 or $80 a barrel. I suspect this project is either DOA or still 5+ years away and will likely be reduced in size. I'm talking out my a $ $ currently, I admit, but I suspect that's what will happen.

I mean, they did submit the extension June 29, 2015. Maybe you're right but it just caught my eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No way this project is getting out of the ground by then. Oil prices aren't expected to recover in 2016 and even if they DID, they're not going to move dirt the moment oil tops $70 or $80 a barrel. I suspect this project is either DOA or still 5+ years away and will likely be reduced in size. I'm talking out my a $ $ currently, I admit, but I suspect that's what will happen.

 

 

I mean, they did submit the extension June 29, 2015. Maybe you're right but it just caught my eye.

 

As H-TownChris2 suggested, it seems pretty obvious that the project is not DOA.  If it were DOA, they would not be wasting their time filing for extensions with the FAA.  Also noteworthy:  they are only allowed one extension.  If they don't start construction by September 2016, they will have to start over with the FAA.

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My guess is that Chevron saw the cheap oil days coming. Cheap oil means increased downstream opportunities. Chevron builds new refineries to capitalize on cheap oil and gas (temporarily redirecting capital spending). Hence, delay in non-income producing sunk cost projects.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDITED

At the risk of being warned for feeding the trolls, all of these projects were financed before the oil slump, whether there was dirt moved or not is irrelevant.

Sure a few projects will get off the ground moving forward, but the rich tend to stay and continue getter more rich regardless of the economy. That and along with foreign investors buying and funding condos left and right.

The developments that "got off the ground" after the prices sank were already years in the pipeline.

I know about this process as much as you, but I've been paying attention to what those who do know have had to say.

If Chevron moves forward with this tower, it would likely be completed when prices are better. They could also take advantage of cheaper construction prices as more and more buildings get completed and no longer need crews.

Chevron bought the YMCA years ago. They will plan something here eventually.

Edited by Montrose1100
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

You know, if this is going to sit for a while, I wonder if the downtown district couldnt convince chevron to use it as a short term park. As soon as the new residential buildings start coming on line, it would be cheap and easy to throw up some temporary volleyball nets, fencing for a dog park etc. I suppose its usefulness would depend somewhat on what (if anything) actually gets purchased for use as a permanent south downtown park

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if this is going to sit for a while, I wonder if the downtown district couldnt convince chevron to use it as a short term park. As soon as the new residential buildings start coming on line, it would be cheap and easy to throw up some temporary volleyball nets, fencing for a dog park etc. I suppose its usefulness would depend somewhat on what (if anything) actually gets purchased for use as a permanent south downtown park

 

I wonder if Chevron can convince the City to "lease" the grass lawn for a symbolic $1/year to allow the city to use the land as a temporary park. One would think Chevron would reap the benefits of either reduced property tax exposure or perhaps an in-kind donation allowing use of the land would provide a tax break.

 

Perhaps someone more versed in corporate tax law would be able to lay out any tax advantages of a temporary Chevron Green Park. The benefit to the city--more succinctly the people of the city--is rather straightforward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wonder if Chevron can convince the City to "lease" the grass lawn for a symbolic $1/year to allow the city to use the land as a temporary park. One would think Chevron would reap the benefits of either reduced property tax exposure or perhaps an in-kind donation allowing use of the land would provide a tax break.

 

Perhaps someone more versed in corporate tax law would be able to lay out any tax advantages of a temporary Chevron Green Park. The benefit to the city--more succinctly the people of the city--is rather straightforward.

 

The problem with turning this into a park is PR.  While it would be a nice gesture, 4 years from now the headlines would read "CHEVRON DESTROYS CITY PARK" and all of the environmental folks would jump on and turn it into a negative for Chevron.  These companies are allergic to any perceived or real environmental incidents and I would be really surprised to see them do anything that encourages the use of this land other than "FUTURE OFFICE BUILDING"

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...