50 Story to Replace Landmark Tower
#101
Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:09 PM
#102
Posted 25 March 2005 - 11:45 PM
#104
Posted 26 March 2005 - 04:20 PM
#105
Posted 26 March 2005 - 07:29 PM
#106
Posted 26 March 2005 - 08:29 PM
Surplus, e-mail me the photograph.
#108
Posted 28 March 2005 - 12:43 AM
Austin developer Tom Stacy proposes a 680-ft., 41-story tower one block north of Austin's Frost Bank Tower on Congress Ave. between 5th and 6th Streets. The building would be taller than any in Fort Worth, but presumbaly would not be as tall as the potential 50-story XTO building.
Austin American-Statesman article
Not going to happen. Get real - why did they even publish that story?
#109
Posted 28 March 2005 - 06:41 PM
This project could get off the ground faster than some of you assume. Consider that Class A space in downtown is 97% leased and that rates at CC are approaching north of $25/sf. I cannot remember the BE rate for new construction (20+) stories, but seem to remember that it is somewhere between 25 and 28 (Andrew needs to come back and help me some). If XTO intends to fill 40% of a 50 story structure, that yields 30 more stories. So really, their "spec" cost is constructing a 30 story building and not the full 50. FW's class A market demand just about supports that from a borrowing standpoint. The difference with XTO (as opposed to why P1 or RS did not "overbuild"), is one of FCF and cash on hand. XTO very well could build the structure with current assets or at the very least utilizing only bridge debt.
Tcole,
As you know the real estate capital markets right now are foaming at the mouth for any decent, stable, credit-worthy deal, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a sale-leaseback of the building because of the low cap rates in the real estate market all over the world.
The market's fundamentals are what people will likely question here: modest size of market (about 30 million SF in FW area total, about 12 million SF downtown). I understand historical annual absorption numbers are so volatile they are difficult to use to underwrite the spec space. Will 300,000+ SF of tenants want to pay premium rates to be in this new high rise?
'dweller's right in that XTO, at its projected level of 600 employees should only need about 200,000 SF of office space, and that a 50 story office building would be approximately 1 million square feet. One explanation is that several of those floors will likely be parking.
Here's a scenario to illustrate how much of an impact the parking component has on such a building:
Office:
# Floors: 35
Avg Floor Plate: 22,000 SF
Total Office SF: 748,000 SF
Parking:
Parking Ratio: 1:450 SF
Total # Parking Stalls: 1662
Avg SF per Stall: 320 SF (I think that's pretty tight - assuming some small car spaces)
Avg Parking Floor Plate: 32,500
# Parking Floors Required: 16.5
Total # Floors in building under this scenario: 51 (this ignores retail - assuming it carries same parking ratio as office space, which would pose a problem for restaurants, cafe's etc)
Cost of structured parking: $8,000 - 10,000 per parking stall.
So the cost of the parking garage alone would be $13.3 - 16.6 million.
I don't have all the info necessary to know exactly what rents would be required to support the new construction, but I always assumed it was in the $25 gross range. Right now, concrete and steel prices are very high, which probably has a lot to do with the article's comment that $30+ rates would be necessary.
Those rates aren't outrageously high compared with other cities around the nation and the world. The problem is that our plentiful supply of developable sites outside of downtown will put downward pricing pressure on lease rates. They might still rise dramatically because downtown's appeal appears to be growing (presumably because talented employees prefer to work for companies in the heart of downtown rather than out in a suburban office park somewhere). The encouraging thing is that it appears that the spike in rates in downtown Fort Worth is caused not just by the reduction in supply (removal of class B and C space) but by an increase in demand to be downtown.
#110
Posted 28 March 2005 - 07:18 PM
#111
Posted 28 March 2005 - 07:28 PM
#112
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:07 AM
John, I think Andrew needs his post total adjusted to reflect his prior contributions.
#113
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:14 AM
#114
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:25 AM
#115
Posted 29 March 2005 - 07:45 AM
#116
Posted 05 April 2005 - 04:13 PM
He said he would be redoing the Ratkin Building, much like the Baker builing is being restored. He called himself an antique collector and like to restore the old buildings.
#117
Posted 05 April 2005 - 06:06 PM
pretty much what i expected tho
#118
Posted 05 April 2005 - 07:05 PM
#120
Posted 06 April 2005 - 03:29 AM
Did Simpson go to Baylor?
Both undergrad and grad school.
#121
Posted 06 April 2005 - 08:37 AM
At the Qtrly Baylor Business Luncheon, Bob Simpson CEO of XTO was the speaker and was asked about his plans for downtown. He noted there was a bunch of chatter about a high-rise. He said it was highly unlikely.
He said he would be redoing the Ratkin Building, much like the Baker builing is being restored. He called himself an antique collector and like to restore the old buildings.
#122
Posted 06 April 2005 - 08:40 AM
This project could get off the ground faster than some of you assume. Consider that Class A space in downtown is 97% leased and that rates at CC are approaching north of $25/sf. I cannot remember the BE rate for new construction (20+) stories, but seem to remember that it is somewhere between 25 and 28 (Andrew needs to come back and help me some). If XTO intends to fill 40% of a 50 story structure, that yields 30 more stories. So really, their "spec" cost is constructing a 30 story building and not the full 50. FW's class A market demand just about supports that from a borrowing standpoint. The difference with XTO (as opposed to why P1 or RS did not "overbuild"), is one of FCF and cash on hand. XTO very well could build the structure with current assets or at the very least utilizing only bridge debt.
Tcole,
As you know the real estate capital markets right now are foaming at the mouth for any decent, stable, credit-worthy deal, so I wouldn't be suprised to see a sale-leaseback of the building because of the low cap rates in the real estate market all over the world.
The market's fundamentals are what people will likely question here: modest size of market (about 30 million SF in FW area total, about 12 million SF downtown). I understand historical annual absorption numbers are so volatile they are difficult to use to underwrite the spec space. Will 300,000+ SF of tenants want to pay premium rates to be in this new high rise?
'dweller's right in that XTO, at its projected level of 600 employees should only need about 200,000 SF of office space, and that a 50 story office building would be approximately 1 million square feet. One explanation is that several of those floors will likely be parking.
Here's a scenario to illustrate how much of an impact the parking component has on such a building:
Office:
# Floors: 35
Avg Floor Plate: 22,000 SF
Total Office SF: 748,000 SF
Parking:
Parking Ratio: 1:450 SF
Total # Parking Stalls: 1662
Avg SF per Stall: 320 SF (I think that's pretty tight - assuming some small car spaces)
Avg Parking Floor Plate: 32,500
# Parking Floors Required: 16.5
Total # Floors in building under this scenario: 51 (this ignores retail - assuming it carries same parking ratio as office space, which would pose a problem for restaurants, cafe's etc)
Cost of structured parking: $8,000 - 10,000 per parking stall.
So the cost of the parking garage alone would be $13.3 - 16.6 million.
I don't have all the info necessary to know exactly what rents would be required to support the new construction, but I always assumed it was in the $25 gross range. Right now, concrete and steel prices are very high, which probably has a lot to do with the article's comment that $30+ rates would be necessary.
Those rates aren't outrageously high compared with other cities around the nation and the world. The problem is that our plentiful supply of developable sites outside of downtown will put downward pricing pressure on lease rates. They might still rise dramatically because downtown's appeal appears to be growing (presumably because talented employees prefer to work for companies in the heart of downtown rather than out in a suburban office park somewhere). The encouraging thing is that it appears that the spike in rates in downtown Fort Worth is caused not just by the reduction in supply (removal of class B and C space) but by an increase in demand to be downtown.
Andrew, welcome back.
#123
Posted 06 April 2005 - 08:54 AM
Hmm... well, I guess that trumps my conversation with my brother - who sales finish-out products to construction companies. He said he'd heard that XTO was leaning toward building the new tower... But, if the CEO says it isn't going to happen... Unless that's just a ploy to throw us off his trail.
Maybe that's why he is quiting soon...the board wants to build and he doesn't.
#124
Posted 06 April 2005 - 10:42 AM
#125
Posted 11 April 2005 - 08:48 AM
#127
Posted 11 April 2005 - 05:31 PM
YES or NO, Please!
"Baylor Girls B-Ball, they finally have a champion." - unknown
www.iheartfw.com
#128
Posted 18 May 2005 - 12:02 AM
#129 David Love
Posted 18 May 2005 - 10:12 AM
Sacrilege!
I know... to be honest the reasoning is totally aesthetics from my point of view, literally.
#130
Posted 18 May 2005 - 05:28 PM
#131
Posted 18 May 2005 - 06:13 PM
#132
Posted 19 May 2005 - 05:08 PM
To be honest I wouldn't be too heartbroken if they didn't build a 50 story, but if they do it had better look really cool.
Sacrilege!
I know... to be honest the reasoning is totally aesthetics from my point of view, literally.
So, are you saying you'd rather have a view of the ugly Landmark Tower than a new 50 story tower? Or that you'd just rather have the open space? I personally think the FW skyline is sad and needs a new tower to improve the look of the overall skyline. As for looks, I seriously doubt that XTO would build something ugly. Then again, we have several tall buildings that prove that it is possible that XTO would build something ugly... (Burnett Plaza, SBC, Landmark Tower, etc)
#133 David Love
Posted 19 May 2005 - 09:45 PM
Was to close in late June, have everything set up to be out of my house then but recently found out I won’t be doing a walk through until July 1st, closing around the 10th maybe. So I’m going to be homeless for a couple of weeks.
Once I have everything built and installed I will be hosting a couple get-togethers. Too bad it won't be over the 4th though.
#134
Posted 30 May 2005 - 08:54 PM
#135 David Love
Posted 30 May 2005 - 09:07 PM
it shows that it's 50 stories and proposed.
#136
Posted 30 May 2005 - 09:46 PM
#137
Posted 20 June 2005 - 09:40 AM
click here
#138 David Love
Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:14 AM
#139
Posted 20 June 2005 - 07:52 PM
#140
Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:34 AM
#141
Posted 21 June 2005 - 10:37 AM
#142
Posted 22 June 2005 - 11:27 AM
#143
Posted 22 June 2005 - 12:52 PM
I think you are referencing Fluor. They are an engineering/project management company. They only anticipate moving 100 employees here and possibly hiring another 70. Does not exactly bode for a need for 200,000 sf though, so maybe you are thinking of some other company.
#144
Posted 23 June 2005 - 01:17 PM
#145
Posted 03 August 2005 - 04:58 AM
Below is a link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...ss/12291475.htm
He also announced that the company has bought the two story building where the Pour House and Mikado Sushi are located. XTO now owns this entire block and now has three contiguous blocks between 5th and 8th Streets along Throckmorton and Houston. They also own the 1/4 block site of the Baker Building and the 1/2 block site of the Binyon-O'keefe Building. What do you think they are up to?
#146
Posted 03 August 2005 - 07:07 AM
#147
Posted 03 August 2005 - 07:21 AM
On the plus side, maybe now developers who have been skeptical about the market supporting more than a 50 story tower will relax a little and maybe even build some new midrise office towers. I know, wishful thinking...
#148
Posted 03 August 2005 - 08:22 AM
#149
Posted 03 August 2005 - 08:53 AM
An executive vice president of XTO stated in a Building Owners and Managment Association lunch yesterday that it is now very unlikely that a replacement building will be constructed on the site of the Landmark Tower once it is demolished. Please remember this is nothing that is "official", just a statement by one of their executives, similar to the comment on the 50 story building.
Below is a link to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article:
http://www.dfw.com/m...ss/12291475.htm
He also announced that the company has bought the two story building where the Pour House and Mikado Sushi are located. XTO now owns this entire block and now has three contiguous blocks between 5th and 8th Streets along Throckmorton and Houston. They also own the 1/4 block site of the Baker Building and the 1/2 block site of the Binyon-O'keefe Building. What do you think they are up to?
#150
Posted 03 August 2005 - 03:20 PM
Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Downtown, XTO Energy, Proposed, Tallest Building
Downtown
Architecture →
Historic Buildings and Preservation →
Interior Photos of the Tarrant County CourthouseStarted by John T Roberts, 15 Jan 2024 Downtown |
|
|||
Projects and New Construction →
Ideas and Suggestions for Projects →
Filling Empty Spaces in DowntownStarted by Jeriat, 26 Jun 2023 Sundance Square, Downtown and 8 more... |
|
|||
Downtown
Projects and New Construction →
Residential →
Oil and Gas BuildingStarted by eastfwther, 05 Jan 2023 Downtown, 309 W. 7th |
|
|||
Downtown
Architecture →
Local History →
Implosion of the Worth Hotel - Oct. 29, 1972Started by John T Roberts, 29 Nov 2022 Downtown |
|
|||
Downtown
Planning →
City Issues →
New QT's traffic problem?Started by johnfwd, 22 Sep 2022 Downtown |
|
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users