U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:56 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 14,826,353 times
Reputation: 3545

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yokandyman View Post
First of all, this article referenced is 3 years old... And vacancy rates topped out in CBD during that time of the recession, amid several new construction completions for downtown areas for Dallas. This was not just in Dallas. Since then, construction has slowed but not stopped, and the economy has started to slowly recover. As of right now, the overall downtown vacancy rate is 26.4%, and class A vacancy (which means newest/best location of office space) is 24.6%. I know for a fact that 2 older office buildings there are currently in a conversion phase from being vacant to 1) a hotel and 2) residential mixed high-end and middle grade apartments. Dallas downtown/uptown is being reshaped into a place to live/visit and not just work, considering the fact that Dallas has to compete with Fort Worth and very large suburbs for office tenants. As the residential continues to fill overtime, the tenants will come back in droves... And you'll see even more skyscrapers going up.....then wonder why Houston's skyline looks virtually the same as it did 10 years before. Just wait and see.
Lmao.

You remind me of the poster skys the limit, who made all these crazy predictions that never came true. Houston downtown office occupancy for class A was nearly 90%. There are many towers planned and recently completed in downtown, especially the east side. MainPlace is taller than anything that had gone up in Dallas last decade, and it isnt even noticeable unless looking from the east or south. Downtown skyline growth isn't noticeable in Houston because downtown was already so large compared to Dallas, plus the growth happened on the less photographed side of Downtown. Your fantasy isn't going to happen.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 08-08-2012, 09:59 PM
 
563 posts, read 844,400 times
Reputation: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I agree. Manhattan is 99% unattractive buildings but it is the best skyline in the US just because of the mere massiveness. Dallasboi's list made me chuckle. LOL. clearly an untraveled list
Every one of their lists had NY at #1. How attractive do you think NY would be to them if we cut all of the buildings in half? Size does matter, fellas.

What's funny is none of their lists included Houston in the top ten so you know they had to be joking.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:04 PM
 
Location: ITL (Houston)
9,221 posts, read 14,826,353 times
Reputation: 3545
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileDave View Post
I think the point of Houston1197 first article was not the numbers but to show that high vacancy rates were even a problem before 2005 and are still a problem today. You guys still argue the residential conversions are making a large impact but the numbers are still the worst out of both cities. Remember, the recession mainly hit outside of Texas while the state remained the most prosperous throughout. This is not an argument you can use for your poor numbers.

Houston's Q2 overall vacancy was 14.5% and in the CBD was 14.3%. Class A for the CBD was 10.9% and suburban was 12.3%. Remind me again who is going to be throwing up buildings long into the future when any new building requires at least 50% of it to be leased before even breaking ground? Houston doesn't have to wait for anything because it is happening now.

Rents have increased tenfold down here and the demand for residential high rises is booming. We are not converting old buildings to residential because they are filled office space. We are constructing tons of new buildings from downtown to Uptown. For an example in 2010 I was pricing the One Park Place high rise in downtown and the cheapest apartment was around $1,300. I checked a few days ago and it is $2,500+. This is happening all up inside the loop with the biggest gentrification to start going down in EaDo.
The two cities arent really comparable here. Houston's core is just much larger than Dallas' more compact core (due to suburb competition). Like Yokandyman said in a thread in the Dallas forum, had the city been successful in annexing more cities early on, there would be highrises lining more of Dallas' freeways. Plus, Houston just went through a much larger skyscraper boom early on than Dallas did.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 30,416,547 times
Reputation: 7688
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileDave View Post

What's funny is none of their lists included Houston in the top ten so you know they had to be joking.
Well they did that because I didn't have Dallas in my top ten, but the cities I had in mine were legitimately better cities.

You can make a case for NY, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Honolulu etc etc all being ahead of Dallas, but did you see the cities Dallasboi had in front of Houston? LOl Austin, Charlotte? seriously???
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:42 PM
 
60 posts, read 125,245 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileDave View Post
I think the point of Houston1197 first article was not the numbers but to show that high vacancy rates were even a problem before 2005 and are still a problem today. You guys still argue the residential conversions are making a large impact but the numbers are still the worst out of both cities. Remember, the recession mainly hit outside of Texas while the state remained the most prosperous throughout. This is not an argument you can use for your poor numbers.

Houston's Q2 overall vacancy was 14.5% and in the CBD was 14.3%. Class A for the CBD was 10.9% and suburban was 12.3%. Remind me again who is going to be throwing up buildings long into the future when any new building requires at least 50% of it to be leased before even breaking ground? Houston doesn't have to wait for anything because it is happening now.

Rents have increased tenfold down here and the demand for residential high rises is booming. We are not converting old buildings to residential because they are filled office space. We are constructing tons of new buildings from downtown to Uptown. For an example in 2010 I was pricing the One Park Place high rise in downtown and the cheapest apartment was around $1,300. I checked a few days ago and it is $2,500+. This is happening all up inside the loop with the biggest gentrification to start going down in EaDo.
It actually is an argument that can and will continue to be used. You don't know the history. Yes, vacancy was right around what it is right now before the recession and all of the new projects going up. So, it has basically evened out since the worse part of the recession and that's now factoring in new buildings of present day. You can't tell me that recession didn't affect the TX area, even though I'm fully aware that it was much worse in the rest of country. Houston wasn't the city in a building boom with developers interested left and right prior to this. It was Dallas. It's just something about our city that developers have come to love in recent years. They will not stay away.

You keep missing the main point here. Houston can boast numbers of 14% vacancy because "everything" landwise in which buildings sit is Houston! You don't have any direct competition down there. Plus, you have no zoning. You don't have all these massive projects going up on empty land in medium populated places like The Woodlands and Humble, because Houston has monopolized all the commercially viable land there for high-rises... Dallas is smaller in land size, and has all kinda zoning factors, plus an airport very close by downtown that prohibits buildings over a certain height. Office tenants tend to lease out spaces where population density is very high and affluent.. That is in Far North Dallas and very much so the suburbs of Plano, Frisco, Richardson, Addison, and Irving. This is how Dallas ended up with another business district in the far north. The Dallas CBD is in a recovery phase from about 2 decades of suburban suction. That same affluent population is relocating to the Dallas core presently. It takes time, but things are changing now.

And lastly, it doesn't matter what property is going for down there... You can come right up here and find those prices, plus more. Come on up and try it. But nevermind all this vacancy talk... That's a completely different topic of discussion. Not sure how and why you all deviated from the real matter at hand here... And the real matter is that Dallas has the best skyline...I don't care if every single building is zero capacity filled...
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-08-2012, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Washington DC
686 posts, read 1,084,703 times
Reputation: 665
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Well they did that because I didn't have Dallas in my top ten, but the cities I had in mine were legitimately better cities.

You can make a case for NY, Chicago, SF, Seattle, Honolulu etc etc all being ahead of Dallas, but did you see the cities Dallasboi had in front of Houston? LOl Austin, Charlotte? seriously???
It's pointless arguing. Let them define the parameters of what makes a skyline attractive and continue to believe that. Nobody's buying it but them. I guarantee you if we did a skyline poll on the city vs city forum, Houston would win in a landslide.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-09-2012, 02:24 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
1,518 posts, read 2,828,416 times
Reputation: 915
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yokandyman View Post
1. New York
2. Chicago
3. San Francisco
4. Seattle
5. Honolulu
6. Miami
7. Pittsburg
8. Philadelphia
9. Dallas
10. Atlanta
I can pretty much agree with this list, except I wouldn't put Honolulu that high. It doesn't stand out so much for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MobileDave View Post
Every one of their lists had NY at #1. How attractive do you think NY would be to them if we cut all of the buildings in half? Size does matter, fellas.
Size matters a little, not that much. New York's skyline is overwhelmingly huge compared to any other city in the country. Houston's skyline just isn't large enough to make up for it's dull appearance. Anyone who would put Houston above San Francisco or Seattle is clearly biased.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:22 AM
 
4,981 posts, read 6,356,269 times
Reputation: 2430
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenshi View Post
I can pretty much agree with this list, except I wouldn't put Honolulu that high. It doesn't stand out so much for me.



Size matters a little, not that much. New York's skyline is overwhelmingly huge compared to any other city in the country. Houston's skyline just isn't large enough to make up for it's dull appearance. Anyone who would put Houston above San Francisco or Seattle is clearly biased.
My point exactly!!...Yes NY does have alot of dull looking buildings people ...BUT...the cool buildings make it hard for you to even pay attention to the ugly ones causing it to balance out perfectly.(Houstons buildings are ugly all by themselves). NY also gets my vote for #1 because of the geographical shape of the Manhattan floor. Cramming all of those buildings on a small penninsula surrounded by water on 3 sides makes it not even matter if you cut the buildings in half Mobile dave,it would still have the same impact(picture uptown Dallas)....Oh and Htowne the fact that you put Detroit and pittsburg ahead of Dallas made me chuckle.Your endless attempts to dig Dallas' grave flatters me...Dowtown Houston is 20 times the size of Austin's skyline(Dallas,Seattle,Miami,LA,Atlanta's too)...but austin still looks better to me....along with all the others I just listed...good day peeps.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-09-2012, 06:38 AM
 
Location: Denver
15,299 posts, read 22,631,139 times
Reputation: 10807
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Miami
4. Houston
5. Seattle
6. Honolulu
7. Atlanta
8. Philly
9. SF
10. Dallas/LA/Charlotte
10.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-09-2012, 08:05 AM
 
563 posts, read 844,400 times
Reputation: 674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yokandyman View Post
It actually is an argument that can and will continue to be used. You don't know the history. Yes, vacancy was right around what it is right now before the recession and all of the new projects going up. So, it has basically evened out since the worse part of the recession and that's now factoring in new buildings of present day. You can't tell me that recession didn't affect the TX area, even though I'm fully aware that it was much worse in the rest of country. Houston wasn't the city in a building boom with developers interested left and right prior to this. It was Dallas. It's just something about our city that developers have come to love in recent years. They will not stay away.

You keep missing the main point here. Houston can boast numbers of 14% vacancy because "everything" landwise in which buildings sit is Houston! You don't have any direct competition down there. Plus, you have no zoning. You don't have all these massive projects going up on empty land in medium populated places like The Woodlands and Humble, because Houston has monopolized all the commercially viable land there for high-rises... Dallas is smaller in land size, and has all kinda zoning factors, plus an airport very close by downtown that prohibits buildings over a certain height. Office tenants tend to lease out spaces where population density is very high and affluent.. That is in Far North Dallas and very much so the suburbs of Plano, Frisco, Richardson, Addison, and Irving. This is how Dallas ended up with another business district in the far north. The Dallas CBD is in a recovery phase from about 2 decades of suburban suction. That same affluent population is relocating to the Dallas core presently. It takes time, but things are changing now.

And lastly, it doesn't matter what property is going for down there... You can come right up here and find those prices, plus more. Come on up and try it. But nevermind all this vacancy talk... That's a completely different topic of discussion. Not sure how and why you all deviated from the real matter at hand here... And the real matter is that Dallas has the best skyline...I don't care if every single building is zero capacity filled...
Look, I am one of the last people here on CD you want to have an argument about the recession with. So instead of getting condescending with your falsities I will leave it at that.

These are the (large) buildings that were built in Houston during the recession. Houston was in a building boom and is in a building boom.



The only reason I brought up rents was to show you how the demand for residential urban buildings has dramatically increased. Not to have some kind of monetary battle. I don't care what the rents are there because without the numbers from a few years ago it is irrelevant. When the quantity of a good demanded exceeds the quantity supplied the price must adjust upward, right? This leaves you with developers flooding the market to cash in on this incredible demand.

Your middle paragraph basically argues why Houston's skyline will remain superior for the next umpteen years. I know the vacancy rates make Dallas look really bad but you can't yell "not fair" and say it's off topic. This topic is the bread and butter of a successful and growing skyline. The mods are really quick to edit off topic comments on these vs. forums and the fact that 3 of you have whined about it and they are still here should tell you homers something. You being a Dallas resident not worried about zero capacity is not only hilarious but is the reason why Dallas will remain years behind Houston in the skyline department.

It's still amazing to me that you guys think your skyline is "pretty" when there are some very ugly buildings in it. Not only that but they are all so far apart and cowtown looking. Reunion Tower has to be the ugliest building on American soil. Until you guys level that hideous atrocity there is not much you can do. I hate that people outside of Texas have to see it because it shines a horrible light on the states architectural prowess.
Rate this post positively
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top