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.
I definitely see some fallacies in their report when it comes to a few of their figures (Silicon Valley adding 8 million sf when it only has 8 million sf to begin with?!? I know the 8 million sf under construction is at minimum true (some of these campuses going up now are 1-3 million sf just themselves - the Apple 2 campus alone is 3 million sf and is costing $6 Bn to complete). They had Louisville at 44 million sf and Houston at only 43 million sf.
Largest downtowns according to this report.
City / Total / Class A / Under Construction
Manhattan / 504.2 million sf / 318.7 million sf / 4.8 million sf
Chicago / 157.9 million sf / 61.8 million sf / 3.6 million sf (class A space here seems low?)
Washington DC / 143.9 million sf / 89.5 million sf / 2.3 million sf
San Francisco / 88.9 million sf / 57.5 million sf / 5.2 million sf (seems hard to get to the UC number, but definitely something close)
Boston / 63.2 million sf / 44.1 million sf / 5.4 million sf (they got this wrong as they have 2 entirely different #s in 2 places)
Seattle / 56.5 million sf / 33.2 million sf / 7.1 million sf (I presume this is largely Amazon under construction?)
Atlanta / 50.4 million sf / 31.2 million sf / 0 sf (I think they are including DT, Midtown, and Buckhead)
Houston / 42.9 million sf / 30.3 million sf / 1.5 million sf (I think they are including only CBD)
Philadelphia / 42.5 million sf / 30.3 million sf / 2.0 million sf
Sorry if I didn't include your city, feel free to review and post on it yourself.
The report is like 4-5 years old. This isn't include recent office space built so San Jose's numbers are probably vastly different due to the rapid economic expansion it's has over the last 4 years or so.
The report is like 4-5 years old. This isn't include recent office space built so San Jose's numbers are probably vastly different due to the rapid economic expansion it's has over the last 4 years or so.
No the numbers I just posted above are from their Q2 report, which would be a quarter too old. San Jose's numbers are for CBD only and they conflated construction probably in some sort of definition of Silicon Valley with SJ CBD. SJ CBD is fairly small and does have less than 10 million sf of office space existing, and certainly doesn't have that much under construction now. Silicon Valley has an unbelievable amount of office space, and does have at least what they posted under construction.
This is the same report that shows Kansas City having more office space than Houston.
They don't make it very clear - are we talking CBD or suburban? For most of these, clearly CBD. But in SJ's case, they mixed CBD office space with suburban construction and called all the numbers SJ-Silicon Valley. Very confusing.
For Atlanta, for instance, they clearly use Downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead. So it's basically Atlanta city limits. But for Houston, clearly they only used CBD or Houston would blow past Atlanta all across the board. SF they used the entire city limits, Boston they used the entire city limits, but these are small cities with concentrated office.
Some useful information, and some not so useful information. The numbers for the top cities are probably more or less correct, barring Chicago's class A - that seemed really low.
Well, the report definitely isn't right because office space is definitely being built in Buckhead in Q2 2015. It says 0 office space was UC in Atlanta when that's not true.
For Atlanta, for instance, they clearly use Downtown, Midtown, and Buckhead. So it's basically Atlanta city limits. But for Houston, clearly they only used CBD or Houston would blow past Atlanta all across the board. SF they used the entire city limits, Boston they used the entire city limits, but these are small cities with concentrated office.
Regarding Atlanta, I think they consider Buckhead suburban, because there's a 500,000 sq. ft. office tower under construction there. That building isn't reflected in the downtown numbers.
Also for Philly that excludes U City, these always seem odd in what they include where but valuable (In looking at ATL I think they include DT, MT, and Buckhead while for Philly buildings 200 feet from each other are not)
Still Philly is laggard in office space when compared to other same sized places like DC, Boston, and SF
Even with UCity it only would add another 4 Million of pure office space and another 1 Million under construction, Of the 75K jobs there more are research related and labs etc. It has added 5 Million in lab/office space in the last 2 years I believe though and has more development than CC, which has more than in a long time
Philly still needs to ramp up the job creation quotient
Regarding Atlanta, I think they consider Buckhead suburban, because there's a 500,000 sq. ft. office tower under construction there. That building isn't reflected in the downtown numbers.
It was not under construction in Q2. I was by the site you're referring to last week and it's barely started (I saw some dirt).
Atlanta doesn't have 50 million sf between downtown and Midtown. It only does when Buckhead is added in. Besides, given everything else they blatantly missed in their report, they could have also just missed that construction and still included Buckhead in the numbers.
Downtown SFs YTD absorption is breathtaking. 1.2 million sq ft snapped up.
Downtown Detroit is booming too. 600,000 sq ft
On the flip side, Downtown Houston had a net1.6 million sq ft vacated
Downtown Houston (and all of Houston) is feeling the crunch of low crude prices. Downtown SF and all of the Bay Area will have its time to see space give backs too. So many companies that have yet to post a profit or show a sustainable business are taking globs of space. Some of that will tank, and it will be at a time when crude is super low and the financial sector and law firms continue cutbacks on premium space. Life sciences will be a savior then, and SF has not put enough eggs in that basket (in fact much of Mission Bay recently is given to tech companies like Splunk and Uber, and the Warriors, not to life sciences as it was originally planned).
Apparently there are issues (funding) plaguing Transbay Terminal and a developer just pulled out of a site there. So don't act like it's all rosy forever.
I can only find a report that takes into account rentable space.
San Antonio has 5.1 million square feet in the CBD. (only rentable space)
San Antonio has 26.8 million space total in the metro. (only rentable space)
That number for the metro total does not take into the largest buildings in the city:
USAA Building 4,463,170 sq ft
Valero HQ now at 600,000 sq ft
I'm siting in my company's building on the far westside that is 400K sq ft
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.
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.
