Which city will build the next tallest building in the state? (Houston: architecture, buildings)

[Mr. Clutch]

I honestly don't see any buildings taller than the Chase Building (the old Texas Commerce Tower) being built anytime soon in any of the metros. Austin probably has the best chance just due to land constraints in the CBD and the greater demand for a central location when compared with Houston or especially DFW. There's no real constraints to high buildings there other than respecting the Capital view corridor.

Downtown Dallas has FAA issues - I do not believe they will ever allow a 1000 ft' + building in Downtown Dallas as long as Love Field is around. Corporations have shown they prefer the DFW suburbs over downtown Dallas anyway.

With respect to Houston, I just don't know who would occupy such a building. Even if, for example, Chevron was to move to Houston, they already have their downtown space. Houston's office vacancy is too high right now to consider anything like that. When the market recovers though, who knows - there's no fundamental reason that something higher couldn't be built.

Still though, I don't see it.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Mr. Clutch

I honestly don't see any buildings taller than the Chase Building (the old Texas Commerce Tower) being built anytime soon in any of the metros. Austin probably has the best chance just due to land constraints in the CBD and the greater demand for a central location when compared with Houston or especially DFW. There's no real constraints to high buildings there other than respecting the Capital view corridor.

Downtown Dallas has FAA issues - I do not believe they will ever allow a 1000 ft' + building in Downtown Dallas as long as Love Field is around. Corporations have shown they prefer the DFW suburbs over downtown Dallas anyway.

With respect to Houston, I just don't know who would occupy such a building. Even if, for example, Chevron was to move to Houston, they already have their downtown space. Houston's office vacancy is too high right now to consider anything like that. When the market recovers though, who knows - there's no fundamental reason that something higher couldn't be built.

Still though, I don't see it.

Agreed, the economics of tall office buildings are extremely precarious, and the Houston economy especially is unlikely to remotely support development of anything over 40 stories for quite awhile - you have to be assured of rapid, large-scale absorption of space at very high rates. That's unlikely when the energy industry is in a long term slump.

Dallas perhaps near Klyde Warren Park, on either side of the buried freeway. If I had to bet however, I'd guess downtown Austin, because that's where the absorption is most rapid and the lease rates the highest. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were residential units in the building as well.

Let it be said, however, that the aftereffects of COVID-19 have put tremendous uncertainty into future office space absorption period, because no one really knows how much the opposing effects of more personal workspace vs. more folks working at home on a given day will play out in terms of occupancy needs.

[Dallas12]

I highly doubt that Dallas would build a high-rise due to economic reasons. Too much competition with the suburbs and too much available land will discourage really tall development. Someone also mentioned FAA restrictions.

I'm not sure if Austin is overbuilding or not, but the boom they're experiencing is definitely geared towards the tech industry. It's possible, but they already have so much office space in the pipeline.

Houston has a combination of a more diverse economy (not as much as Dallas) and has the right business climate to build something really tall. My choice is Houston.

[Mr. Clutch]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Agreed, the economics of tall office buildings are extremely precarious, and the Houston economy especially is unlikely to remotely support development of anything over 40 stories for quite awhile - you have to be assured of rapid, large-scale absorption of space at very high rates. That's unlikely when the energy industry is in a long term slump.

Dallas perhaps near Klyde Warren Park, on either side of the buried freeway. If I had to bet however, I'd guess downtown Austin, because that's where the absorption is most rapid and the lease rates the highest. And I wouldn't be surprised if there were residential units in the building as well.

Let it be said, however, that the aftereffects of COVID-19 have put tremendous uncertainty into future office space absorption period, because no one really knows how much the opposing effects of more personal workspace vs. more folks working at home on a given day will play out in terms of occupancy needs.

I think even before Covid-19 a lot of companies were moving towards more flexible work schedules that require less commuting and I agree that this will accelerate the idea that not everyone needs to be in the office every day. I don't think it will result in a mass reduction in space, but rather a gradual lessening in the amount of office space required per worker.

I've already seen this in a previous company where the company grew from 25 employees to around 100 employees using the same physical space. As the company continued to add people, they made the workspace more flexible via a combination of doubling/tripling the number of workers per office, only requiring one or two in-office days per week for most workers, and buying smaller form factor desks/cubicles throughout the office. It bought them a lot of time until they could move into a bigger space, but you can rest assured that they will continue many of those space-saving practices even after they move.

Many companies will have this experience in the near future and I expect some stagnation in new office space demand across the country, even after the current recession is over. I also expect the trend toward high-rise residential living to cool a bit for obvious reasons (though certainly not permanently).

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Occupancy isn’t the issue. A building in Houston of 1000+ ft will find its occupancy. In 2020, no since the entire economy (both oil and non oil). But when the recovery phase comes around, it will find its occupancy. There’s a reason most new buildings are mixed use now.

The problem is that’s not what companies are particularly looking for anymore. And even though vertical living is gaining momentum, a 20-30 story building is just as desirable as a 70 story building. But this is why a mixed used development would come in. The problem is that the price for building tall makes it less desirable for real estate company versus building two 35 story buildings instead.

If anyone takes the nod though, I only give it to Houston for being the home of Hines. But I don’t see it any time soon.

[brock2010]

I remember hearing about a couple of years ago about several projects that were proposed for Dallas. 70-80 story twin towers, Dallas skyscraper district and the Perot super tall proposal. Haven't heard anything since. Anyone have any updates on those?

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Occupancy isn’t the issue. A building in Houston of 1000+ ft will find its occupancy. In 2020, no since the entire economy (both oil and non oil). But when the recovery phase comes around, it will find its occupancy. There’s a reason most new buildings are mixed use now.

The problem is that’s not what companies are particularly looking for anymore. And even though vertical living is gaining momentum, a 20-30 story building is just as desirable as a 70 story building. But this is why a mixed used development would come in. The problem is that the price for building tall makes it less desirable for real estate company versus building two 35 story buildings instead.

If anyone takes the nod though, I only give it to Houston for being the home of Hines. But I don’t see it any time soon.

Why would a 1,000+ ft building "find its occupancy"? Most firms know that vanity buildings don't look good to shareholders. Also, the required lease rates would be way beyond what even the nicest current buildings are at, and to be financially feasible absorption rates would have to be quite high. I just can't see those conditions coming together in a feasible way, really anywhere in TX (even Austin), and especially not in Houston where absorption is going to be weak for a long time to come.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

Why would a 1,000+ ft building "find its occupancy"? Most firms know that vanity buildings don't look good to shareholders. Also, the required lease rates would be way beyond what even the nicest current buildings are at, and to be financially feasible absorption rates would have to be quite high. I just can't see those conditions coming together in a feasible way, really anywhere in TX (even Austin), and especially not in Houston where absorption is going to be weak for a long time to come.

If done as a mixed-used development, then yes it will. Not right now. But give it a few years when the economy is booming again and the building will find its occupancy. People always look at a recession and assume things will forever change then the economy booms until it collapses and people will say the same thing. I don't know why people keep falling for the cycle.

Occupancy isn't the issue, if investors invest in a super tall, it's going to be a long term investment regardless. Whether it be because the economy is weak, because occupancy is slow to fill or because they take a long time to build.

The reason it's unlikely for a super tall to be built in Texas right now is part due to the recession. But mostly because it's not the trend for businesses anymore. They prefer larger more spacious campuses.

[Pro1000]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

200 meters is considered the upper limit for low-rises in Houston. North America is not a hotbed of skyscraper construction that it was 50 years ago when the Sears Tower was built. Most of the supertalls are now in Asia, the current hotspot for skyscraper construction.

Condos/apartment buildings aren't considered (true) skyscrapers.

The business community in DFW and Austin has been hostile to skyscrapers, preferring the suburbs. The Tech industry prefers the low-rise suburban corporate campus overwhelmingly--Apple's newest HQ being the premier example.

The last company to locate in a CBD within the Metroplex was AT&T moving from S.A. in 2008. Toyota and State Farm notably chose to locate in the suburbs.

The Energy industry has long preferred to lease space in skyscrapers and office buildings in DT Houston, Galleria, and in the suburbs. From the urban form and layout, Houston lacks the low-rise corporate campus that most cities in the U.S. accumulate in their suburbs.

And a lot of those are only half filled currently. I believe they are going to cut back on the mega talls in the near future


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgkgBZfLu2I

[kemahkami]

Originally Posted by Pro1000

And a lot of those are only half filled currently. I believe they are going to cut back on the mega talls in the near future

Especially in light of the pandemic, along with the surge of remote working. In fact, skyscrapers as a whole might very well become obsolete, apart from very-compact communities, as well as with potential hydroponic projects.