How did Houston end up with so many skyscrapers? (condo, live in)

[KoNgFooCj]

Houston has a fairly stagnant skyline. It's skyline is quite literally stuck in the 80s. Of the 25 tallest buildings in Houston, 20 of them were built before 1985. I'm curious as to why this is, and more importantly, why so few are planned or even proposed for the future.

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Houston has a fairly stagnant skyline. It's skyline is quite literally stuck in the 80s. Of the 25 tallest buildings in Houston, 20 of them were built before 1985. I'm curious as to why this is, and more importantly, why so few are planned or even proposed for the future.

Because Big Oil doesn't invest in it, more has shifted to the suburbs, though some high-rise living is occurring .... especially in the downtown. It still boast multiple skylines as its arrival.

Companies chose Houston to build working structures more cheaply and less taxing to regulations to state incentives. That does not create the idea of creating a structure to impress.

Some cores have the prestige and therefore aspects of grander. Also most tallest buildings built are residential in key cities today. Skyscraper living is not Houston, or competing for views and high-end living in these buildings that get much more costly .... after a certain height.

Again, Houston is the go-to cheaper city for Corporate America and others yes and no inventive to go too high.

Houston has pride in multiple skylines and numbers overall. But still not close to a NYC nor a Chicago or Toronto. Toronto is a example of multiple skylines connected by key corridors and zoning for high-rises or higher. It is the opposite of fast-growth upward over sprawl. Chicago is fully one core-centric but sprawls along its lakefront with it. NYC is its own beast.

All just opinion ..... nothing more.

[WRM20]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Houston has a fairly stagnant skyline. It's skyline is quite literally stuck in the 80s. Of the 25 tallest buildings in Houston, 20 of them were built before 1985. I'm curious as to why this is, and more importantly, why so few are planned or even proposed for the future.

The economics for very tall buildings are worse than for shorter ones. Buildings under 40 stories make more profit for the owners. There's also a trend to build away from Downtown for corporate campuses, which tend to be low to mid-rise.

[gwarnecke]

The only fields for which a downtown location offers a significant competitive advantage are legal (proximity to the courts) and possibly banking/finance and consulting (if clients are located on all sides of downtown). For most companies, whose employees live in the suburbs and spend much more time working with one another than with outside entities, it's more attractive to have a less-expensive low rise or mid rise office in the near (or even far) suburbs, closer to where employees actually live.

[eastriver]

It isn't unique to Houston. Almost no new Class A office space at those heights have been built anywhere in the U.S. in the past 20 years except at Hudson Yards, Grand Central Station, and to replace WTC. Los Angeles built something.

But here's the thing: Houston added a second office phase (1500 Louisiana) to the old 4 Allen within that span of time. Not a small project. But there's more: a new 1 million s.f. Hines office development--Texas Tower--is presently under construction on the old Houston Chronicle site. 47 stories. By far, more new CBD office construction than most other U.S. cities, including its TX rivals.

[LocalPlanner]

Yeah, it's not like Downtown isn't adding office space. As was noted by others, new buildings have been built, they're just not as tall, because the economics of going higher aren't there (you have to start adding elevator banks, your floor efficiencies suffer to accommodate building systems, etc.). If firms were willing to pay $60/sq.ft., you might see that, but only the newest, fanciest buildings downtown even get to the high $30s/sq.ft.

Also, taller means more office space brought to market at once - and our levels of office absorption are not sufficient. Even the new buildings downtown and elsewhere are basically leaching tenants from 1980s office towers. The risk is that our skylines will be dominated by tall 1970s-80s towers that are half-empty and don't earn enough rent to support Class-A-level maintenance requirements.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by WRM20

The economics for very tall buildings are worse than for shorter ones. Buildings under 40 stories make more profit for the owners. There's also a trend to build away from Downtown for corporate campuses, which tend to be low to mid-rise.

And that's true nationwide. Most of the high rises in the country are being built in one place-Manhattan.

On top of that, corporations are going to open floor plans and reducing the amount of space per worker.

Plus, Houston built in the 80s for $100/bbl oil. As it fell from $40 to $10/bbl, that lowered downtown rents and businesses that might have been in the suburbs found downtown affordable. As demand and prices in downtown increase, that will encourage those businesses to find cheaper rent elsewhere. So there's little need for new space.

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by KoNgFooCj

Houston has a fairly stagnant skyline. It's skyline is quite literally stuck in the 80s. Of the 25 tallest buildings in Houston, 20 of them were built before 1985. I'm curious as to why this is, and more importantly, why so few are planned or even proposed for the future.

At the very least, the newest downtown towers have good form and shape, and help contribute to the city's frame along the bayou (quickly becoming the best vantage of the city).

[snackdog]

Houston has skyscrapers because everyone wants to occupy the same part of lower downtown. Same reason that area had the first mid rise and low rise buildings 100 years ago. It is a tight space constrained the the bayou and now freeways. In the past it was constrained by residential housing to the south. Now it is constrained by too much empty office space downtown. Look at the old Exxon building. And the windowless holiday inn slash bagwan tower. I would guess in the next oil boom you could get a few new towers in 10 or 20 years.

What is crazier to me is the Transco Tower. Why a tall building in the middle of nowhere?

[eastriver]

Originally Posted by snackdog

What is crazier to me is the Transco Tower. Why a tall building in the middle of nowhere?

Because they could, and it's the neatest thing. A real searchlight scanning the atmosphere horizontally from the top.