HOUSTON | Development Thread II - Page 33

Major AWACS · #**641** Posted **May 19, 2007, 10:33 AM**

/\ NO kidding, what a tower. Chase should have 5 extra stories but it hit height problems from approaches to Hobby.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, A Houston tradition since 1975

rdavis4559 · #**642** Posted **May 19, 2007, 1:59 PM**

Does that mean there is a CBD height limit in effect?

Trae · #**643** Posted **May 19, 2007, 3:04 PM**

Most likely.

RocTX · #**644** Posted **May 19, 2007, 4:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capt AWACS

/\ NO kidding, what a tower. Chase should have 5 extra stories but it hit height problems from approaches to Hobby.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, A Houston tradition since 1975

I've heard that about Chase. However, this article says that Bank of the Southwest was planned for 83 stories, plus a spire. I wonder why would there have been a height limit for Chase and not for this building?

JManc · #**645** Posted **May 19, 2007, 7:34 PM**

chase tower was planned in late 70's while BSW was planned in early 80's so i would imagine the FAA changed their policy.

RocTX · #**646** Posted **May 19, 2007, 7:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMancuso

chase tower was planned in late 70's while BSW was planned in early 80's so i would imagine the FAA changed their policy.

Good point. You know, another thing about that article that caught my eye was that DT office vacancy in 1981 at the height of the boom was at around 5%, and towers were going up despite the high interest rates at that time. Aren't we at 5% vacancy now? The overall business climate also seems more favorable as compared to 1981. Why aren't we seeing more DT offices going up now?!!

ChiPsy · #**647** Posted **May 19, 2007, 9:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocTX

I was Googling for images and ran across this article. It's loaded with pictures and it's a fascinating account from that time period.

Great find with that article, RocTX! What a fascinating "recent historical" perspective to read. I had to laugh out loud at her assertion about the tall buildings precipitating cloud formation, though!

Fun stuff

rdavis4559 · #**648** Posted **May 19, 2007, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocTX

Good point. You know, another thing about that article that caught my eye was that DT office vacancy in 1981 at the height of the boom was at around 5%, and towers were going up despite the high interest rates at that time. Aren't we at 5% vacancy now? The overall business climate also seems more favorable as compared to 1981. Why aren't we seeing more DT offices going up now?!!

I know the vacancy rate is low but I don't think its as low as 5%. I thought I remembered the number being discussed here but I went all the way back to the 13th page and found nothing. From my memory (and I could be wrong) the vacancy rate was somewhere around 9-12%.

Trae · #**649** Posted **May 19, 2007, 9:38 PM**

I remember an article stating it is lower than 10% now.

Here are more photos of One Park Tower (from HAIF):

guess · #**650** Posted **May 19, 2007, 10:14 PM**

right across from the new park and the hilton

http://www.westaveriveroaks.com has new images
pavilions, what could have been.

Trae · #**651** Posted **May 19, 2007, 11:03 PM**

I like it!

Here is the new Metro Solutions plan. It is a lot better than before, too:

Metro Solutions Plan 2007

Trae · #**652** Posted **May 19, 2007, 11:28 PM**

What stores will be in West Ave?

RocTX · #**653** Posted **May 20, 2007, 2:50 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trae

I like it!

Here is the new Metro Solutions plan. It is a lot better than before, too:

Metro Solutions Plan 2007

Thanks for the Metro update. I'm glad to see that they'll start turning dirt petty soon. I saw this article recently saying that Union Pacific officials are casting doubts about the feasibility of running communter rail through the proposed transit center. I wonder if this will affect Metro's planning in any way.

RocTX · #**654** Posted **May 20, 2007, 3:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by rdavis4559

I know the vacancy rate is low but I don't think its as low as 5%. I thought I remembered the number being discussed here but I went all the way back to the 13th page and found nothing. From my memory (and I could be wrong) the vacancy rate was somewhere around 9-12%.

You're right. The most recent data I can find comes from Grubb-Ellis and it has the CBD office vacancy rate at 16.7% as of the first quarter 2007. The good news is that Nancy Sarnoff at the Chronicle reported that absorption during 2006 through Nov. 1 of that year was at 2.8 million square ft, which was second highest in the city's history after 1981 (at 3.7 million sq ft). The really good news is that this is almost all existing office space vs. 1981, which was mostly new construciton. The more we soak up all of that existing office space the greater the probability of a new tower popping up sometime in the near future.

RocTX · #**655** Posted **May 20, 2007, 3:14 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChiPsy

Great find with that article, RocTX! What a fascinating "recent historical" perspective to read. I had to laugh out loud at her assertion about the tall buildings precipitating cloud formation, though!

Fun stuff

Yeah, that was pretty funny. I bet that idea originated from a bunch of NIMBYs!!!

rdavis4559 · #**656** Posted **May 20, 2007, 9:46 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocTX

You're right. The most recent data I can find comes from Grubb-Ellis and it has the CBD office vacancy rate at 16.7% as of the first quarter 2007. The good news is that Nancy Sarnoff at the Chronicle reported that absorption during 2006 through Nov. 1 of that year was at 2.8 million square ft, which was second highest in the city's history after 1981 (at 3.7 million sq ft). The really good news is that this is almost all existing office space vs. 1981, which was mostly new construciton. The more we soak up all of that existing office space the greater the probability of a new tower popping up sometime in the near future.

Great article. Also from the same article is "Stewart Robinson, principal of commercial real estate firm Conine & Robinson' saying that downtown vacancy rate should be close to 10 percent by year-end. And to some, that means it's time to start building new space. But nothing's been announced yet."

Owlhorn · #**657** Posted **May 20, 2007, 10:24 AM**

The thing I noticed that got things jumpstarted in Dallas was demand for big blocks of office space, which are more rare in inner cities. But, these also have to be inquiries, which these days come from only certain sectors of business. So you could have 1% vacancy and still have a hard time finding enough inquiries to those big blocks. Once you get a few of these, you start getting speculative building. Yes, speculative, but still based on something.

Xeelee · #**658** Posted **May 20, 2007, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RocTX

Thanks for the Metro update. I'm glad to see that they'll start turning dirt petty soon. I saw this article recently saying that Union Pacific officials are casting doubts about the feasibility of running communter rail through the proposed transit center. I wonder if this will affect Metro's planning in any way.

They need to divert UP traffic to the northern outskirts of Houston and NOT in the middle of downtown. The Texas Railroad Commission is chock-full of corrupt old-line good-ol boys. They will never agree to such a move.

weatherguru18 · #**659** Posted **May 21, 2007, 3:24 AM**

Why doesn't METRO make it just one big transit center, including Amtrak? Our Amtrak station in Houston is a sorry excuse...it's a dang bus station placed underneith a freeway. Just a thought.

Trae · #**660** Posted **May 22, 2007, 2:27 AM**

Team and the City agreed to terms...

70 Million dollar Stadium going up just east of Minute Maid Park..

The team owners will pay most of the cost for the stadium..

in the pre-design it showed the stadium in a diagonal direction from 59 and it will keep some distance from 59 at least in the pre-design at least. Stadium looks dwarfed by MMP though =X