What Is Is With Houston's 300 Foot Mark?

[111486]

What is is with Houston's 300 foot mark? It seems like all of Houston's buildings that are proposed or approved have been around the 300 foot mark and not any taller. With the new skyscrapers that have gone up recently only 3 have been over 400 feet and the rest were 300 footers. Just look at some of the buildings that are proposed or approved, 1901 Holcombe, Shamrock Tower, Redstone, Monaco, Dominion at Post Oak(u/c), Orion towers, the condo in front of Doubletree in downtown, they are all at the 300 foot mark. Why is that? Personally, I would like to see downtown build a 700-800 foot hotel in downtown that will drastically change the skyline, because we all know the buildings that have been going up surely aren't going to do it. What do you think?

[The Great Hizzy!]

It's not a Houston thing. Most new structures going up in US Cities (minus Chicago, New York and, to a smaller degree, Miami) are modest skyscrapers at best and midrises at the worst. Most US Cities are new to the high-rise condo game and so developers are conservative about the size and scope of their projects. Large, trophy office buildings are a.) expensive and b.) hard to fill nowadays so a developer isn't going through with an Enron South size building unless they feel strongly that they have a lot of space preleased before construction begins.

Comparatively speaking, Houston's actually above average, but I agree that it would be nice to see conditions change to where you're seeing more 500-foot and taller buildings going up, like the proposed AIM tower that was cancelled earlier this year. That would've been close to 600 feet.

[citykid09]

I want taller building too, but I am just happy that Houston is still constructing buildings. Any that improves or adds to the skylines in Houston I am for.

[KinkaidAlum]

Hizzy is on the mark. Try and secure funding right now for a huge residential building in Houston! Almost all of the buildings you mentioned at the 300 feet mark are residential in nature and until Houston matures, we will continue to see "smaller" hi-rise development.

As for a 700 foot hotel downtown, forget about it right now. The market (not just in Houston but nationwide) for hotel lending is very weak. AND, considering we just opened a Hilton, Icon, Magnolia, Sam Houston, Ballpark, Residence Inn, Courtyard by Marriott and have a Club Quarters coming on-line soon, it just isn't needed.

That said, here's my dream development for downtown.

The Ritz-Carlton Towers

5 floors of underground parking.

3 Levels of retail (15 screen movie theatre, Sports Club LA, day car facility, 3 restaurants, Virgin Records, etc...) 55 feet

10 levels of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel. 190 rooms. 130 feet

5 levels of extended stay/corporate leasing units. 55 feet

15 levels of office space. 225 feet

17 levels of condos. 187 feet

652 feet and then throw in a 100 foot spire. Downtown Houston needs a spire!

Place the development on the northside of the proposed new park to take advantage of the proximity to the park, the Toyota Center, the Houston Center, and the Ballpark. Could become the eastside of downtown's signature tower!

[The Great Hizzy!]

Not bad, Kinkaid Alum.

[WestGrayGuy]

Don't forget the possible 9/11 factor. I think it is harder to build very tall structures these days. Of course, they are building the the new World trade Center in New York. This is more of a testament against the terrorists in my opinion.

I think elsewhere in the country it will be harder to build tall sturctures. I also agree, our supply outpaces our demand at this point. Houston does not need anything taller than 300 foot for the moment.

[111486]

Houston has opened a lot of hotels latley, but we are still very low considering the number of rooms. Even cities like St Louis and Indianapolis have quadruple the number of rooms that Houston has in its downtown.

[713 To 214]

Hizzy is on the mark. Try and secure funding right now for a huge residential building in Houston! Almost all of the buildings you mentioned at the 300 feet mark are residential in nature and until Houston matures, we will continue to see "smaller" hi-rise development.

As for a 700 foot hotel downtown, forget about it right now. The market (not just in Houston but nationwide) for hotel lending is very weak. AND, considering we just opened a Hilton, Icon, Magnolia, Sam Houston, Ballpark, Residence Inn, Courtyard by Marriott and have a Club Quarters coming on-line soon, it just isn't needed.

That said, here's my dream development for downtown.

The Ritz-Carlton Towers

5 floors of underground parking.

3 Levels of retail (15 screen movie theatre, Sports Club LA, day car facility, 3 restaurants, Virgin Records, etc...) 55 feet

10 levels of a Ritz-Carlton Hotel. 190 rooms. 130 feet

5 levels of extended stay/corporate leasing units. 55 feet

15 levels of office space. 225 feet

17 levels of condos. 187 feet

652 feet and then throw in a 100 foot spire. Downtown Houston needs a spire!

Place the development on the northside of the proposed new park to take advantage of the proximity to the park, the Toyota Center, the Houston Center, and the Ballpark. Could become the eastside of downtown's signature tower!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sounds kind of like what they've got going on in Dallas, but on a larger scale.

Please check out the following:

http://www.ritzcarlton.com/corporate/press...ses/dallas.html

PRESS RELEASE

The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas To Open 2007; Renowned Architect Robert A.M. Stern Will Design 21-Story Building Featuring 70 Luxury Residences

For additional information about this press release contact:

Vivian Deuschl

Corporate Vice President, Public Relations

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC

4445 Willard Avenue

Suite 800

Chevy Chase, MD, 20815

USA

Phone: (703) 941-6225 / Mobile: (202) 255-5786

Fax: (703) 941-7492

vivian.deuschl@ritzcarlton.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. announced plans to open its first luxury hotel in the state of Texas. The 216-room Ritz-Carlton, Dallas will open in 2007 in the city's prestigious Uptown area on McKinney Avenue. The Residences at The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas will be 70 private condominiums, atop the hotel. The owner of the project is Crescent Real Estate Equities Limited Partnership, and will be designed by the renowned architect, and Dean of The Yale School of Architecture, Robert A.M. Stern.

The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas will be situated on the first eight floors of the building, and will include one restaurant, 14,000 square feet of meeting space, including a 10,000 square foot ballroom, and a 12,000 square foot spa and fitness center, with indoor swimming pool. The condominiums are expected to range in price from $800,000 up to $6 million for the 6,700 square foot penthouse overlooking the city. Owners of the condos will be able to access all the services of the hotel, including housekeeping, catering, room service, and concierge.

Robert A.M. Stern's proposed design for The Ritz-Carlton, Dallas will evoke landmark hotels built in the 1920s in cities including New York and Chicago. Other design team members include Dallas-based architects HKS, Inc., Hayslip Design Associates, Inc. of Dallas, KM+P Architects of Houston and acclaimed interior designer Frank Nicholson. Based in Boston, Mr. Nicholson has designed several Ritz-Carlton hotels and resorts around the world.

"We are delighted to add a location in Dallas, one of the most frequently visited cities for corporate business travelers and groups, as well as leisure guests. We believe there will be a strong market for The Ritz-Carlton as the city's economy continues its recovery and adds even more commercial business in the years ahead," said Simon Cooper, president and chief operating officer of The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company. "The Uptown area is at the heart of Dallas' downtown commercial district and a very strategic location for this hotel." "This project will be top of the market in Dallas," predicted Denny Alberts, president and chief operating officer of Crescent Real Estate Equities Company, based in Ft. Worth. "If you want to live in a luxury residence in Dallas, you will want to live in The Ritz-Carlton", said Alberts.

The only hospitality company honored twice with the coveted Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, L.L.C. is headquartered in Chevy Chase, Md. and operates award-winning hotels and resorts around the world.

[Montrose1100]

Don't forget the possible 9/11 factor.  I think it is harder to build very tall structures these days.  Of course, they are building the the new World trade Center in New York.  This is more of a testament against the terrorists in my opinion.

I think elsewhere in the country it will be harder to build tall sturctures.  I also agree, our supply outpaces our demand at this point.  Houston does not need anything taller than 300 foot for the moment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9/11 is a major factor at this point...

And not to mention the priced of steel has skyrocketed over the past few months (Thank you China). But its not there fault there booming so quick they don't know height limits...

It seems, as time goes on, skyscrapers get more, "pretty" or "high-matinence"... so that ever some of the smaller structures today, are just as pricy of those taller then it.

And then there just the fact we don't need it, but I bet, within the next 10-15 years, we will have another 70's effect. The younger population in this country is mild, but considering Houston, its WAY above average. And they'll need jobs come time there looking, so, the job demand will be really high... (Thats just my educated guess)...

[h-townrep]

Houston has opened a lot of hotels latley, but we are still very low considering the number of rooms.  Even cities like St Louis and Indianapolis have quadruple the number of rooms that Houston has in its downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How do you know that Houston (CITY) is lower than those two. Houston has a lot of Rooms in the City. I'm not sure about the Metro but we rank pretty high when it comes to city. Do you have a source that ranks this?

[h-townrep]

Ooops, I meant to say that Houston has quite a few in the City but I noticed that you said downtown and I just wanted to know the source.

[jmancuso]

9/11 is not so much of a factor anymore. besides the freedom tower in NY, they're about 7 others undersontsruction that are above the 600' mark and chicago has 3 1,000 + footers planned.

[111486]

Ooops, I meant to say that Houston has quite a few in the City but I noticed that you said downtown and I just wanted to know the source.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.indydt.com/hotelsresultstemplate.asp?Type=All

[Montrose1100]

9/11 is not so much of a factor anymore. besides the freedom tower in NY, they're about 7 others undersontsruction that are above the 600' mark and chicago has 3 1,000 + footers planned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

9/11 might not be a factor for those two cities, but you know its in the back of everyone's mind...

[westguy]

The materials to build these have been very costly because of steel tariffs, a supply shortage (China produces most of the steel, and now they are using it), and a weak dollar.

[Houston19514]

I think you exaggerate. Downtown Houston currently has 4,597 hotel rooms. Quadruple that number would be 18,388 rooms.

According to the Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce, the entire Indianapolis Metropolitan Area has 21,500 hotel rooms. I doubt that more than 85% of the metro's hotel rooms are in downtown.

According to the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission, the entire St. Louis area has 35,000 hotel rooms and there are 7,600 within one mile of their downtown convention complex. (Anything further than one mile would be stretching the definition of downtown St. Louis beyond reality)

As you can see, both of these cities have well below 18,388 downtown hotel rooms.

That being said, I agree with the overall point that downtown Houston still has a smaller number of hotel rooms than one could expect in a city of its size.

Houston has opened a lot of hotels latley, but we are still very low considering the number of rooms.  Even cities like St Louis and Indianapolis have quadruple the number of rooms that Houston has in its downtown.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[713 To 214]

9/11 is a major factor at this point...

And not to mention the priced of steel has skyrocketed over the past few months (Thank you China). But its not there fault there booming so quick they don't know height limits...

It seems, as time goes on, skyscrapers get more, "pretty" or "high-matinence"... so that ever some of the smaller structures today, are just as pricy of those taller then it.

And then there just the fact we don't need it, but I bet, within the next 10-15 years, we will have another 70's effect. The younger population in this country is mild, but considering Houston, its WAY above average. And they'll need jobs come time there looking, so, the job demand will be really high... (Thats just my educated guess)...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC Events Didn't Cloud Skyscraper Construction

By ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE

http://www.realestatejournal.com/pr...7-huxtable.html

The conventional wisdom has it that the desire to build tall received a serious setback from the World Trade Center disaster. As usual, the conventional wisdom has it wrong. The reality is that we are building higher than ever, with buildings in construction, or on the boards, that dwarf everything we know now.

Superskyscrapers are proposed or rising in London, Paris, Vienna, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing and Mexico City; they already exist in Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai and Taipei. While the earthbound argue about fear and safety, Asia has outstripped the West, using the most advanced structural technology and safety features for buildings already completed and occupied; Malaysia's twin Petronas towers became the world's tallest in 1998 at 1,483 feet, and the 101-story, 1,667-foot Taipei 101 tower broke that record when it opened in Taiwan this year. There is no turning back. This is the way it will be in the 21st century.

These dramatic additions to the international skyline are being designed by the familiar high-wire performers -- Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano and Santiago Calatrava are all represented, while seasoned skyscraper pros like Henry Cobb, Cesar Pelli and William Pederson have been quietly producing the first generation of superbuildings. They are all working with structural engineers who have so radically transformed the possibilities that the name "skyscraper" has become old-fashioned.

At least, that is the judgment of Terence Riley, the Philip Johnson chief curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, and Guy Nordenson, a structural engineer and Princeton professor, the co-organizers of the exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. They prefer to call it "Tall Buildings," because they find the word skyscraper a romantic throwback to an earlier age when one considers the conceptual possibilities and structural innovations of today's enormous towers.

The 25 examples being shown in models, sections and elevations are on display at MoMA's temporary outpost in Queens, where they will remain until Sept. 27, after which the museum returns to Manhattan and its own new tall building at its old site on West 53rd Street. They range from a modest 187 feet for an office building in Santiago, Chile, chosen for its ingenious engineering, to a proposal for Chicago at 2,000 feet and 108 stories that would have been the world's tallest building if it had been constructed -- a title as fleeting as the clouds above.

All have been designed within the past 10 years, although only six have been built, with another half-dozen under construction; the rest were conceived as projects or for competitions. Three were finalists for the World Trade Center site: a pair of "kissing" towers by Norman Foster that meet as they rise and are a marvel of suavely expressed technology; a forest of connected leaning towers by an international consortium of Dutch, British and American architects that say come with me to the precipice and leap into the arms of tomorrow; and a matched set of minimalist towers joined with orthogonal precision by a prestigious New York team that included Richard Meier, Charles Gwathmey, Peter Eisenman and Steven Holl.

It is safe to say that as long as architects are possessed by a timeless obsession to build tall -- a universal ambition that can make even the most modest fancy themselves masters of the universe -- and developers pursue ways to wring every ounce of profit out of expensive land, the race for height will continue, limited only by how high practicality and this alliance will take them. And that is discounting symbolism, hubris and dreams.

There is, however, a significant difference between the tall buildings of the past and those of this new Skyscraper Age. Radical changes in architecture are the result of radical advances in technology. High-speed computer calculation and modeling of structural systems has changed the rules of the game. Surreal and sculptural shapes now rival more traditional towers of increasing decorative complexity.

The romance of great height is still there, whether in Calatrava's futuristic twisting Turning Torso, or Petronas's fairy-tale fruitcakes piercing the sky. The M

[713 To 214]

^see

[Montrose1100]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WTC Events Didn't Cloud Skyscraper Construction

By ADA LOUISE HUXTABLE

http://www.realestatejournal.com/pr...7-huxtable.html

The conventional wisdom has it that the desire to build tall received a serious setback from the World Trade Center disaster. As usual, the conventional wisdom has it wrong. The reality is that we are building higher than ever, with buildings in construction, or on the boards, that dwarf everything we know now.

Superskyscrapers are proposed or rising in London, Paris, Vienna, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing and Mexico City; they already exist in Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai and Taipei. While the earthbound argue about fear and safety, Asia has outstripped the West, using the most advanced structural technology and safety features for buildings already completed and occupied; Malaysia's twin Petronas towers became the world's tallest in 1998 at 1,483 feet, and the 101-story, 1,667-foot Taipei 101 tower broke that record when it opened in Taiwan this year. There is no turning back. This is the way it will be in the 21st century.

These dramatic additions to the international skyline are being designed by the familiar high-wire performers -- Frank Gehry, Rem Koolhaas, Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano and Santiago Calatrava are all represented, while seasoned skyscraper pros like Henry Cobb, Cesar Pelli and William Pederson have been quietly producing the first generation of superbuildings. They are all working with structural engineers who have so radically transformed the possibilities that the name "skyscraper" has become old-fashioned.

At least, that is the judgment of Terence Riley, the Philip Johnson chief curator of architecture and design at the Museum of Modern Art, and Guy Nordenson, a structural engineer and Princeton professor, the co-organizers of the exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. They prefer to call it "Tall Buildings," because they find the word skyscraper a romantic throwback to an earlier age when one considers the conceptual possibilities and structural innovations of today's enormous towers.

The 25 examples being shown in models, sections and elevations are on display at MoMA's temporary outpost in Queens, where they will remain until Sept. 27, after which the museum returns to Manhattan and its own new tall building at its old site on West 53rd Street. They range from a modest 187 feet for an office building in Santiago, Chile, chosen for its ingenious engineering, to a proposal for Chicago at 2,000 feet and 108 stories that would have been the world's tallest building if it had been constructed -- a title as fleeting as the clouds above.

All have been designed within the past 10 years, although only six have been built, with another half-dozen under construction; the rest were conceived as projects or for competitions. Three were finalists for the World Trade Center site: a pair of "kissing" towers by Norman Foster that meet as they rise and are a marvel of suavely expressed technology; a forest of connected leaning towers by an international consortium of Dutch, British and American architects that say come with me to the precipice and leap into the arms of tomorrow; and a matched set of minimalist towers joined with orthogonal precision by a prestigious New York team that included Richard Meier, Charles Gwathmey, Peter Eisenman and Steven Holl.

It is safe to say that as long as architects are possessed by a timeless obsession to build tall -- a universal ambition that can make even the most modest fancy themselves masters of the universe -- and developers pursue ways to wring every ounce of profit out of expensive land, the race for height will continue, limited only by how high practicality and this alliance will take them. And that is discounting symbolism, hubris and dreams.

There is, however, a significant difference between the tall buildings of the past and those of this new Skyscraper Age. Radical changes in architecture are the result of radical advances in technology. High-speed computer calculation and modeling of structural systems has changed the rules of the game. Surreal and sculptural shapes now rival more traditional towers of increasing decorative complexity.

The romance of great height is still there, whether in Calatrava's futuristic twisting Turning Torso, or Petronas's fairy-tale fruitcakes piercing the sky. The M

[danes75]

My dream tower would be a thin sliver of a building with 88 floors divided into retail and office space, a W Hotel, and at the top condos, all connected with exterior elevators. The perfect location: the corner of Allan Parkway & Montrose where the old Robinson Warehouse is.....

mmm.... makes me drool.

[HeightsGuy]

I have felt (and read too, so not my original thought;) that there are two main divers at play in building 600'+ skyscrapers, the need for a trophy and/or land scarcity. Neither of which are in play in Houston right now. A problem I've always seen for DT Houston is too few trophies surrounded by too much land. I would much rather see Houston in the near-term fill 2 spaces with 300 footers than 1 space with a 600'.

NY and Chicago have their share of 300' buildings too.