Jump to content

Wells Fargo Center Progress


mikeas

Recommended Posts

On this last point, I quite agree. In this market, office towers will continue to have a blocky form: 20 to 22 stories in height and roughly 120 feet wide by 200 feet long. That is what the tenants in this market need, so that is what we will get from office towers. The trick is to take that basic form and make it as elegant as possible. And that is why we have hired a great architect with the design skill to accomplish this. And why we are in the process of hiring a construction company with whom we will work to ensure the architect's design is economically viable.

What would have to change in this region for tenants to want something other than blocky 20 to 22 story towers? What is this market lacking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Thanks for the break down. I think that this area will see more mixed use buildings and maybe this might put some of the buildings close to the 40 story mark one day. What do you think tomj?

I think that the most logical mixing of uses in one building will be hotel and condominium together, and retail on the first floor of all types including office. We considered incorporating a hotel on top of our office building, and the physical challenge of having a use with 20 separate bathrooms and HVAC systems on top of floors with a single bathroom location and HVAC system and having 2 separate elevator cores is extremely difficult to overcome. The legal and financial challenges of putting hotel or condo above office adds to the difficulty of mixing those uses. It can be done and it has been done, but the economic benefit of the mix would have to overwhelm the challenges I just outlined. Right now, the economics in our market do not do that.

Most mixed use developments that you will see in markets outside of places like New York will mix the uses horizontally, or vertically in mid-rise buildings, like residential over retail (which our project incorporates).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would have to change in this region for tenants to want something other than blocky 20 to 22 story towers? What is this market lacking?

Well, tenants don't want blockiness, they just want 20 to 25,000 square feet on one floor. And developers can't build a 500,000 square foot office building (which would take you over 30 stories) without several tenants of over 100,000 sf each who can afford high-rise rents. And that, as Glassoul pointed out in his point number 1, we do not have in Hampton Roads.

One thing about our conceptual design that I really like is that the glass walls of the tower on the top floors have the effect of "lightening" the top, or giving the tower a less top-heavy feel, and it kind of merges the top of the building and the sky. And that is a conscious effort on our part to distinguish the building with superior architecture. Glass curtain walls are significantly more expensive than masonry or pre-cast walls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and being truthful and up front about them. One question I have, and maybe you can't discuss this so feel free to tell me to shut up :lol:, but did the city ever mention or try to persuade you to build on the St. Pauls lot or participate in the RFP process? If not how do you feel an additional office tower on the St. Pauls lot will affect your development if at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would have to change in this region for tenants to want something other than blocky 20 to 22 story towers? What is this market lacking?

So basically it seems to boil down to what we knew all along. We need more fortune 500 companies. I think we could easily see a mixed use in Norfolk top 40 some day, Granby is 34 and pure residential so it's not too far of a stretch. If we're banking on an office tower to take us there though we'll be waiting for a long time. So the best we can hope for now, which tomj alluded too, is stepping up the architectural design of the buildings likely to come here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for taking the time to answer our questions and being truthful and up front about them. One question I have, and maybe you can't discuss this so feel free to tell me to shut up :lol: , but did the city ever mention or try to persuade you to build on the St. Pauls lot or participate in the RFP process? If not how do you feel an additional office tower on the St. Pauls lot will affect your development if at all?

Well, I'm at least as interested in this topic as the rest of you! The city did in fact ask us to consider the Snyder (St. Paul's) lot. But we and our tenants (of whom we're obviously one) strongly preferred this location. The proximity to the restaurants and bars of Granby Street, the Mall, the Wells Theater, Chryler Hall and Norva, and last but not least the light rail stop directly in front of this site, made this site a no brainer for us vs. the Snyder lot.

In my opinion, there will not be an additional office tower on the Snyder lot until we have completed construction and are fully leased. Office buildings cannot be built in today's economic environment without being more than majority pre-leased. And most if not all of the tenants in this market who want or need to move, and who can afford to be in a new high-rise, are either committed to our building or we are negotiating with them for space. The one caveat to this (again, in my opinion) is if the city is able to attract to downtown another major company like Dominion (Trader) who would need so much space that they could build an owner-occupied tower. And we, like you, would love to see that happen!

To those of you who long for taller buildings, I guess I may be raining on your parade (and it's just my opinion). But for those who are more interested in downtowns that are great on the streets, with lots of retail, restaurants, lots of condos and apartments, offices and hotels putting people on the street from morning through night, the Wachovia Center is going to be just what the doctor ordered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not raining on anyones parade, it's just the reality of the situation. The kid in me will always hope for more, that's just my nature :lol: I am very excited about this project, and what it will bring downtown however. I've always thought we were selling ourselves short by just concentrating everything on Granby. The addition of yet more residents downtown will be a major plus. Any additional retail on the street is a plus, even if it's not that much. MacArthur has kind of been a catch-22 for Norfolk. It draws people downtown, but when they're there it keeps them inside. It does nothing to add to the vibrancy of the street life outside, and I believe your project will help mitigate that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're not raining on anyones parade, it's just the reality of the situation. The kid in me will always hope for more, that's just my nature :lol: I am very excited about this project, and what it will bring downtown however. I've always thought we were selling ourselves short by just concentrating everything on Granby. The addition of yet more residents downtown will be a major plus. Any additional retail on the street is a plus, even if it's not that much. MacArthur has kind of been a catch-22 for Norfolk. It draws people downtown, but when they're there it keeps them inside. It does nothing to add to the vibrancy of the street life outside, and I believe your project will help mitigate that.

I actually think (hope) that our project will further Taubman's consideration of a mix of retail uses with active storefronts on Monticello, rather than a third department store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think (hope) that our project will further Taubman's consideration of a mix of retail uses with active storefronts on Monticello, rather than a third department store.

I would hope so too, but I don't know how realistic that is at this point. One of the store managers in MacArthur has posted some pretty detailed information on that note in this thread. As a synopsis though it looks as though Barnes and Noble student bookstore will take the slot nearest your development, with the rest of the space on that side utilized for community events such as the ice skating rink, etc. Construction of that store will start in March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lastly, to those who want to see more retail space, and who gave the example of the Market Common at Clarendon. I was pleased to see that given as an example, because it was one of the places I liked best when I was studying examples of mixed-use projects when planning Wachovia Center. And we did in fact study the possibility of a similar plan to maximize retail frontage. But the bottom line is that the Market Common sits on 17 acres, and this site is 4.5 acres, and we just could not accomodate more retail into the plan given the other needs that the project had to meet.

TomJ - It's refreshing to read your candid and honest commentary regarding R.E. Development in general, and your deliberation process regarding Wachovia Center specifically. I work in urban retail (could you tell?) and so I'm gonna return back to the issue of the retail programming at your project. Market Common at Clarendon is my favorite lifestyle center development and I'm pleased to read that you also studied it when you began conceptualizing Wachovia Center. I do realize that the Market Common site is much bigger than what you have to work with, but I know you could find room for more than 50,000 sf of retail space in a project that sits on a 4-acre plot.

Here's another example of a mixed-use development, also in the DC area, that is almost exactly comparable to your proposed Wachovia Center. Have you seen the Gallery Place development in downtown DC next to the Verizon (MCI) Center on 7th Street? I believe it was developed by the Akridge Company of DC. The development's lot size is no more than 2.5 acres versus your 4 acres, however, Akridge managed to squeeze 230,000 sf of class A office space (versus your proposed 250,000 sf), 250,000 sf of retail space (versus your proposed 50,000 sf), 192 residential condo units (versus your proposed 175 units) and parking for 750 cars (versus your proposed 2,000).

The amount of retail space in Gallery Place is of such a critical mass that 7th Street has become a true destination for shopping and entertainment. I'm not convinced that 50,000 sf of retail space on Monticello Ave is sufficient for a critical mass of retail that will convince many people to want to venture outside of Macarthur Center to shop. If the retailers in your 50,000 sf are not that productive, you can't command premium rents for the retail space. On the other hand, say you include more retail space, like in the neighborhood of 150,000-200,000 sf. Then you'll be able to attract one or two larger-format anchor tenants that can act as destination draws for the remaining in-line tenants.

And not all of that retail space has to be on the street level too. What about retail space in the basement or on the 2nd floor combined with a small street-level slot for a large-format anchor retailer and then offer that anchor a blended rental rate? Seriously - talk to Bed Bath and Beyond or Best Buy. The nearest stores for both these companies are at least 10 miles away in Pembroke. All either of these stores need is a minimal street-level space where they can hang their sign and that announces their presence and for vertical access to the basement level or 2nd floor where the bulk of the selling floor could be located. Then offer these anchor stores the discounted rents that will then be made up by the premium rents paid by the remainder of the ground-floor retailers that will feed off of the very high traffic brought in by the anchors. You then have very productive retail space of various formats - happy office tenants who have happy productive office workers - and happy condo owners who are productive in life without needing to get in a car for life's necessities - all because you have more retail space! :thumbsup:

From Gallery Place's website, here is a list of the retailers/entertainment that are located in that development:

Ann Taylor Loft 202.628.1224

Aveda Institute 202.824.1624

BB&T 202.628.7440

Bed Bath & Beyond 202.628.0002

Benetton 202.393.4441

City Sports 202.544.6083

Clyde's 202.349.3700

Haagen Dazs 202.783.4711

Lucky Strike Lanes 202.347.1021

Regal Cinema 202.393.2121, 1800FANDANGO Code 1721

Sushi-Go-Round & Tapas 202.393.2825

Thai Chili 202.393.2905

Urban Outfitters 202.737.0259

Washington Sports Club 202.737.3555

Zengo 202.393.2929

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern isn't so much with the building's height. Tall buildings make nice postcard photos, but what I (and I'd wager most others) remember a city by is what you experience on the street. The Pilot's comparison of Wachovia Center to VB's Town Center has worried me. My biggest criticism with urban retail centers is that they seem to take one of two forms:

1. Tacky, cheesy, schmaltzy, etc.

Example, The Grove in Los Angeles

grove4web.jpg

Example, Louisiana Boardwalk

314640153_924ceb0055_b.jpg

Another example is that god-awful thing in Arlington someone posted a page or two back.

2. Boring, nearly two-dimensional, "neat" look with the obligatory and identical 3' awning on each storefront in forest green (although some tenants are able to be EXTREME by having a powder blue or even yellow 3' awning!!!)

Nagle%20Avenue.jpg

See how each storefront looks identical? boring. walking by i wouldn't notice what stores were in here b/c there's nothing to keep your interest, just several hundred feet of the same windows and doors.

If heading in the "modern" direction, I hope the WC at street level can avoid being too cold/uniform/modern/impersonal without going overboard into the cheesy/tacky category or trying to force some whimsy or cartoonish/disney atmo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My concern isn't so much with the building's height. Tall buildings make nice postcard photos, but what I (and I'd wager most others) remember a city by is what you experience on the street. The Pilot's comparison of Wachovia Center to VB's Town Center has worried me...

If heading in the "modern" direction, I hope the WC at street level can avoid being too cold/uniform/modern/impersonal without going overboard into the cheesy/tacky category or trying to force some whimsy or cartoonish/disney atmo.

I completely agree. Any retail front that closely resembles that of TC in Va Beach is just a boring copy cat of soooo many similar mediocre developments that plague northern Virginia. I'm looking for store fronts set in neo-modernist design. I've used this example before but its exactly what i wish we had. I wish I could directly post pics but the pics are in flash. But this is Clayton Lane in Denver and it has won so many awards both locally and nationally. It won the 2004 Development of the Year award by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. I also agree with the idea of doubling retail space on the lower and upper level. It creates an exciting and different environment for shopping when you can look down upon the street through floor to ceiling glass. I've even seen some urban Target stores which make use of this concept.

As you click through, the middle pictures showcase the street level view of Clayton Lane.

http://www.claytonlane.com/gallery.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that a city should possess both vibrant street life and an attractive appearance. To me, a variety of building heights makes for an interesting and attractive feature of a skyline. Weighing one attribute aginst the other is beside the point. And I agree that we are most likely to see height achieved through mixed use projects, some of which are difficult to achieve. But office towers can be attractively placed above vertical garages as well as above retail space. Wachovia seems like it will be a fine project for Norfolk, but it won't add a central focus to the skyline. It also needs some more refinement. I respectfully submit that it is no better visually than the work of that certain aforementioned, local architectural firm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. Any retail front that closely resembles that of TC in Va Beach is just a boring copy cat of soooo many similar mediocre developments that plague northern Virginia. I'm looking for store fronts set in neo-modernist design. I've used this example before but its exactly what i wish we had. I wish I could directly post pics but the pics are in flash. But this is Clayton Lane in Denver and it has won so many awards both locally and nationally. It won the 2004 Development of the Year award by the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties. I also agree with the idea of doubling retail space on the lower and upper level. It creates an exciting and different environment for shopping when you can look down upon the street through floor to ceiling glass. I've even seen some urban Target stores which make use of this concept.

As you click through, the middle pictures showcase the street level view of Clayton Lane.

http://www.claytonlane.com/gallery.html

Are you proposing a sort of sleek modernist minimalist design? Looking at the Denver development that seems to be the overiding design standard. I think Pentagon Row in Arlington has incorporated this style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as the building doesn't have a boxy look, and has some original features that are memorable, I think I'd be happy. yes, I'd prefer 40 or 50 stories, but even that could look bad if the design is poor. Nevertheless, as someone said earlier, we're likely to see a few changes (both in height and design) before it's all through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A sweet deal for all players

On Jan. 5, S.L. Nusbaum Realty Co. announced its plans for a mixed use project just north of MacArthur Center mall in downtown Norfolk that will include a 22-story office tower, 175 apartments, 50,000 square feet of retail and 1,950 parking spaces. For developing and building the $150 million Wachovia Center, the city will pitch in the land, two parking garages and probably a few hundred feet of water and sewer lines.

In return, the city will receive $53 million in taxes and parking revenues, and an additional $2.7 million in indirect spinoff from purchases made by residents and workers, over a decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually think (hope) that our project will further Taubman's consideration of a mix of retail uses with active storefronts on Monticello, rather than a third department store.

Hey tomj, it appears that things have changed considerably since information first came out. You may want to look at this post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey tomj, it appears that things have changed considerably since information first came out. You may want to look at this post.

That is interesting. I can't say I know what is going on at the mall, except that it seems to be getting better retailers and posting higher sales lately. In any event, we're working hard on Wachovia Center, moving it forward.

Reading responses to the SOC address, I hope people can understand that construction costs and the softening condo market are going to have a major impact on the viability of announced projects. An announcement does not equal a development. There are several of the announced projects whose economics I do not understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tomj,

As others have said- Thanks for being here. It's great that your doing this.

I am a musician and was very intersted in the concert hall component that I read out in the Virginian Pilot. I there any information that you can provide on that?

Metalman

Actually, we have reserved a site within the project that can accomodate a 1700 seat, "shoebox" style, music performance hall. However, it will not be constructed as a part of the project. The symphony board would have to lead and successfully complete a major fundraising drive to raise a large portion of the construction cost, and then work with the city to get it built. This reserved site of about a half-acre is another reason why we could not incorporate more retail into the project, but I do believe it will be good for the city and our project to have the possibility for the symphony to find a permanent and better home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another example of a mixed-use development, also in the DC area, that is almost exactly comparable to your proposed Wachovia Center. Have you seen the Gallery Place development in downtown DC next to the Verizon (MCI) Center on 7th Street? I believe it was developed by the Akridge Company of DC. The development's lot size is no more than 2.5 acres versus your 4 acres, however, Akridge managed to squeeze 230,000 sf of class A office space (versus your proposed 250,000 sf), 250,000 sf of retail space (versus your proposed 50,000 sf), 192 residential condo units (versus your proposed 175 units) and parking for 750 cars (versus your proposed 2,000).

I am familiar with Gallery Place as well. When you take into account the office building footprint, potential symphony site, and central parking garage site, we only have about 1.3 acres left for the developement of all of the retail and residential. The largest component by far is the central parking garage.

Therefore, you can see the limitations we face versus Gallery Place, and the reasons are this: in DC all parking is underground. In HR, because the water table is only six feet underground, it is physically impractical and financially infeasible to construct underground parking. And DC, especially right there at the MCI center, has HUGE transit, which we do not. Now, we will soon have light rail, but it is not the DC metro, and it will be many years before our light rail system can support retail without on-site parking.

Anyway, keep your comments coming, I really do welcome them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am familiar with Gallery Place as well. When you take into account the office building footprint, potential symphony site, and central parking garage site, we only have about 1.3 acres left for the developement of all of the retail and residential. The largest component by far is the central parking garage.

Therefore, you can see the limitations we face versus Gallery Place, and the reasons are this: in DC all parking is underground. In HR, because the water table is only six feet underground, it is physically impractical and financially infeasible to construct underground parking. And DC, especially right there at the MCI center, has HUGE transit, which we do not. Now, we will soon have light rail, but it is not the DC metro, and it will be many years before our light rail system can support retail without on-site parking.

Anyway, keep your comments coming, I really do welcome them.

Thanks for commenting. We are all trying to learn every aspect of development and we much appreciate your time and effort to explain it to us. We all want gleaming extra tall skyscrapers but we do understand the economics play a big roll as to why we don't get what we desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is interesting. I can't say I know what is going on at the mall, except that it seems to be getting better retailers and posting higher sales lately. In any event, we're working hard on Wachovia Center, moving it forward.

Reading responses to the SOC address, I hope people can understand that construction costs and the softening condo market are going to have a major impact on the viability of announced projects. An announcement does not equal a development. There are several of the announced projects whose economics I do not understand.

Going into the SOC I already knew that it would not be a banner year for Norfolk like it was the previous year. Even with the Hilton, which I am somewhat disappointed with how things transpired, I cannot say that the outcome was unexpected. I must say that my greatest disappointment by far was with the Ghent South Towers (Now Fort Norfolk plaza) project. I understand that there was no way the condos would've survived in this climate (even Granby Tower was saved by a hail mary pass) but the thing that really gets to me is the redesign. Did it have to be this hideous?

fortnorfolkplaza-1.jpg

You hear a lot of us rant about the architecture in this city and this is a primary example of what gets to many people. Less expensive does not necessarily equate to ugly and uninspiring. The developer started off with a good concept, and even though certain aspects of it did not make any financial sense, I think they could've put a little more thought into it than this. They went before the design review committee today and I can only hope that some objections were raised...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.