Chevron Skyscraper Proposal At 1600 Louisiana St.

[Avossos]

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.

[mollusk]

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. 

[swtsig]

capitol tower has a legitimate shot.

[tigereye]

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 August 18, 2015 by tigereye

[H-TownChris2]

Not sure if this is old news but says the project has been delayed until September 2016.

 

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/public/publicAction.jsp?action=showDashTwoForm&suppCaseNoticeID=256299912

 

[wxman]

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 October 15, 2015 by wxman

[H-TownChris2]

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.

[Houston19514]

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 October 15, 2015 by Houston19514

[bachanon]

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.

[cspwal]

I like the current park.  Chevron keeps it nicely mowed, and they haven't put up any signs (that I've seen) to keep off the grass

[Montrose1100]

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 October 16, 2015 by Montrose1100

[bachanon]

Taking a break from Will & Grace reruns to clean this up. Thanks...deleting everything off topic and issuing warnings for anyone who continues off topic after my post.

[lockmat]

Chevron putting a two year hold on their Australian tower too

 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa/a/29832619/chevron-wants-two-year-delay-on-elizabeth-quay-tower/

[astros148]

put a axe on this

[infinite_jim]

[astros148]

whats the point of posting that pic?

[jackie21love]

whats the point of posting that pic?

To compare with the HSPVA site. If you don't have a ready to go plan yet, at least make it clean and neat.

[H-TownChris2]

To compare with the HSPVA site. If you don't have a ready to go plan yet, at least make it clean and neat.

lol

[astros148]

With chevron leasing space in downtown its safe to say this is dead

[mollusk]

 

 

To compare with the HSPVA site. If you don't have a ready to go plan yet, at least make it clean and neat.

 

Which is what we are likely to see for a few more years yet.  

 

Nice lawn. 

[houstontexasjack]

Do they let folks play frisbee on the lawn?

[mollusk]

They might let your play frisbee with the proper Chevron ID and area clearance.

 

Seriously, though, this is at least better to look at than a surface parking lot.

[Texasota]

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

[cspwal]

^^^^^ yes this please ^^^^^^^^^

[H-TownChris2]

With chevron leasing space in downtown its safe to say this is dead

We still have 6 more months to find out.

Edited February 29, 2016 by H-TownChris2

[mollusk]

With chevron leasing space in downtown its safe to say this is dead

We still have 6 more months to find out.

 

[mkultra25]

 

[swtsig]

With chevron leasing space in downtown its safe to say this is dead

 

chevron has been leasing space downtown for years and years... totally irrelevant.

[Sparrow]

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.

[tangledwoods]

 

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"