HoustonIsHome

Some places don't count antennae in height counts it would have to be a spire or crown.

I would add a nice hat atop the building with disco lights that spin around. But the building itself I would leave as is.

Its odd how the chase tower looks so much less significant from the east. Its too glaringly prominent from the north and still strong from the west. It would be nice if the tallest didn't ask shoulder west. A nice group of 800+ footers along main, fannin and San Jac would have been nice. Our skyline looks so much more sparce than it really is because a wall of tall buildings block out the rest of the skyline. A hefty tower at 609 main would fill in nicely, but building more of a wall to join shell and BOA... I dunno

although I share your optimism, it is highly unlikely that they will turn a perfectly upgraded building back into a significantly smaller (7.1%) building that a lot of people didn't like in the first place.I can imagine the effort it would take the architect to convince the owners to spend all that money to decrease lessable space in an effort to make the building look outdated. Ruining a historic building to increase leasing potential makes financial sense. Messing with a modern building by making it smaller in an attempt to recreate a not so popular style makes no sense whatsoever. I would love it, but there would be no way to justify it

If I can remember correctly, With the medical center space included Houston was at about 200M sq feet while the metroplex was at about 170M Last I checked DTD had only about 25Msq ft of space. For some reason market reports combine DTD with the office Space of DTFW so while it may show up as Downtown Dallas -37M sq ft you have to keep in mind that that includes two downtown. Uptown and TMC are both large than DTD, and DTH is almost twice as large as DTD

It's funny cause I am getting the exact opposite feeling. I looked at the building at first and I immediately liked it. But more and more I am looking at it and thinking is just another glass box. I think the building as is is one of the five buildings that I can't picture downtown without. I am thankful that they are not blowing it up, and I do understand that the need for making it more marketable, but that still won't stop me from clinging to prominent fixtures in our skylines. Together with BOA, Heritage, Pennzoil and The former Continental building, the Humble/Exxon building stands out as the most representative of the buildings I associate with downtown

If I remember correctly both Macys and the city wanted the store to stay. Owners of Foleys wanted a different use of the space. As for not renewing, I don't think the lease was even up yet. I trunk Macys was in the middle of a ten year lease

It doesn't matter when they knew Macys was closing or how much the mayor supports the Dallas corridor. The project was anchored by Macys and isnt much without it. Corridors like these need major tenants to pull it together. A couple of small clothing retailers, a deli and coffee shop will do nothing to build a string retail district. It doesn't matter what hilcorp does, unless they can pull of a Macys or even something lesser like a Target, the area isn't going to evolve as planned. Parker can support the area till she is blue in the face but she cant dictate where the market heads. Undoubtedly she will improve the area, but I don't think the reality will be anywhere near what was planned. MACY'S is gone, Sarcowitz (sp) will remain a parking garage. Don't mean to sound like a downer but I don't think the project can be anchored by greenstreet. To me, too much depends on commitments from other parties. Like I said, I do believe that downtown will develop a strong retail component, I just don't think it's going to be on Dallas. I think it's going to be in a newer area of downtown. Walking around Dallas up to the shops at Houston center is rather depressing. So many concrete walks instead of store fronts. Conversions are going to be expensive, parking is a problem... I just think that newer developments will build wiser and incorporate retail components at ground level and that will be the area that retail will make a resurgence

Ha ha, they are right side up in my phone, I guess I need to knock them over before I post

I was thinking the same thing. Its not the height that worries me (tge area has quite a few one or two storied buildings. What worries ne is the red brick. THAT will look out of place. I guess if there were ten others in the works it won't stand out as much, but something tells me this will be the only one in the area for sometime. The height is fine, they just need to cgange the look of the exterior

Agreed. As I said, my only disagreement was the statement that remodeling never added value.

These pics are a week old, but just wanted to comment on how nicely this building is fitting in. I was a bit scared earlier on because of the comments about the skyhouse buildings not being anything to shout about, but I like the scale in relation to Houston House and Savoy, and I like how it blends in to the area. I would not mind it one but if we got 20 more slightly altered Skyhouses downtown.

I see your point but disagree on the ever adding value part.The value of repurposing is in maintaining continuity. Like Arche said the purpose must be considered. If you destroy all department store structures and replace them with modern buildings, we not only lose our, history and culture but we also lose the multifaced nature of our downtown. How are we going to fit in department stores and large groceries if we only build structures geared to the 9-5ers? In terms of the Texas tower, the value would have been in its beauty, but since that is gone there is not much vslue in renovation. Many tourists like taking architectural tours of downtowns. The Texas Tower would havevalue there over a shiny glass box, but because of what was done to it, the shiny new tower will have more value in this case

In the end I think Dallas will be abandoned as the future retail corridor. I think Macys was the anchor or glue for the plan. We will bounce back, but now it will be new construction which would more than likely involve city incentives to lure another Macys type store in an ignored section of downtown. I think Lower downtown is a much better location to develop retail/ pedestrian activity than the tunnel dominated mainstreet square. MSS I believe is the busiest rail station, but who is to say that that won't change. I keep hearing that the best ... is on THE rail line, but there isnt going to be THE rail line fir much longer. Anyway, before skyhouse started I noticed that in a 3 block radius around Bell Station there were 16 empty or near empty (lot is less than 25% built over) lots. With all the residential/ hotel units popping up on the south end of downtown, I think that is the best place for a resurgence of retail downtown.

I agree. The original pics show a rather attractive building, why on earth did they remove all its finery? I guess its a good thing for progress, it would have been harder to accept demolition if the building still looked attractive. At least we are getting a bigger, attractive replacement.

I am no expert but from what I heard it is more costly to demo and rebuild a similar size structure but the work involved in renovating is more than building new. Tearing down a ten floor building to build a 35 floor one is a different story, however. Some government funded projects adhere to a rule that if renovation cost more than 2/3s the price of a new build then they opt for new building. I think that there are so many things to consider that an outsider lacking info of the building may not be qualified to make a decision as to which route (reno or rebuild) would be more prudent. Things I would consider: 1. Structural integrity 2. Ease of conversion 3. Leasable Space especially in relation to market 4. Historical Value 5. Aesthetic considerations 6. Perception (converting mental institution into condos) Foleys looked like a structurally sound building so renovating would be cheaper in this regard than new construction of a similar capacity structure. The owners seemed to be more inclined to commercial real estate so ease of conversion may have been a problem. If I was faced with coming up with a plan to either convert a windowless cube to a marketable office building or start fresh, I am sure I would go the lazy route and convince the owners that new construction is the way to go. Finally, pride and ownership in our surroundings is something that we lack here. I think nostalgic value of structures factor in costs. To be honest, I don't think the Foleys building was good looking. It wasn't an eyesore (I hate how this word is overused) but it wasn't architecturally special in my eyes. The value I placed in it was purely nostalgic. Plain and simple: it was an old building where many fond memories were had by many Houston residents. I would not like it much if Houston was overly attached to every single building as they are in San Antonio, but it would be nice if we kept some of our memories and culture. Saying all of that, however, I like the drawings for the new structure. I wish we could have had both but if I had to choose one, I would go for the look of the new one. The same goes for the old Texas tower vs the new Hines Tower. The Ben Milam Hotel and Houston club are different stories. I do not really care for what is replacing those structures. But a win win scenario for me would have been increasing the height of the Foleys building, Keeping Macys as a tenant while adding new office space AND building the proposed new tower down the street.