ExxonMobil Spring Campus

[kdog08]

Exxon Mobil video with some awesome campus shots I saw on skyscraper forums:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsGjX1hhf0k

Edited November 8, 2011 by kdog08

[wxman]

That's bad ass! Too bad it'll be hidden by the trees and won't be seen from the freeway. However, the dozen or more cranes sticking up over the trees is pretty tight.

[TheNiche]

That's bad ass! Too bad it'll be hidden by the trees and won't be seen from the freeway. However, the dozen or more cranes sticking up over the trees is pretty tight.

Can someone who lives up there post some photos? You know how us HAIFers need our crane porn.

[wxman]

Can someone who lives up there post some photos? You know how us HAIFers need our crane porn.

HAHA! It's so true. I would but I am headed to Dallas shortly. Perhaps when I get back.

[Pleak]

Can someone who lives up there post some photos? You know how us HAIFers need our crane porn.

Yes. Please post some photos. Some people can't access videos at work.

[slfunk]

The article is stating something that we in the design industry have been seeing since the mid to late 90's, but now it has taken hold more so. There is a limit of about 10-15 miles that one lives from work when the lower cost of housing is offset by the time spent in a car and traveling costs. Back in the day our parents (the ones who grew up in the 50's and 60's) saw the 10-15 mile commute as 10-15 minute drive. That same drive could take 45mins to an hour nowadays because of the shear number of people on the roads today compared to the 70's - 80's when they were mid-career.

What we are seeing more and more is the younger generation (below 40) turning to living situations that put them closer to work. Major corporations study these demographics before investing in their relocation; decisions that are not taken lightly. In Dallas you have Legacy Town Center (poster child of this trend) located in the Plano suburb. Here EDS at the time along with a couple other coorporations up there, saw they were loosing talent to firms closer in. They along with an equity firm got together and developed the land around their coorporate campuses into a lifestyle center that would mimic many urban realm's found closer to downtown. In Exxon's case, I am sure they did the same sort of studies to determine where their talent pool would be best suited or currently lives. In the design industry, we are seeing a major uptick in housing for close in neighborhoods and will be one of the project types that will help drive us into the next development cycle. These are typically areas close to major employment centers. You will hear of more developments in and around city centers (within the sunbelt cities) in the coming years, because those areas still account for the largest percentage of employeers in a given metro. An exception may be Detroit, but it is not a sunbelt city and is also overcoming a big decline due to the deconcentration of the auto industry. Even with that said, take a look at Detroit's development thread on the skyscraper forum, because they have a number of companies making recent announcements moving back downtown and number of new housing in their downtown core.

This is not too say areas like the Woodlands are on the decline, or that there is no longer a market for the suburban lifestyle. That would be nieve, and there will be for a long time to come. This is to say that we are seeing a shift in demographics, a surge in housing for close in areas, and people in the 40 and younger crowd looking for a better quality of life. This will mean something different to everyone, we are just seeing an option taking a strong hold. One that is getting heavy investment, and has grown past being just a trendy thing. A trend only last a couple of years, and this demographic has been evolving for 20 plus years.

Edited November 16, 2011 by slfunk

[TheNiche]

The article is stating something that we in the design industry have been seeing since the mid to late 90's, but now it has taken hold more so. There is a limit of about 10-15 miles that one lives from work when the lower cost of housing is offset by the time spent in a car and traveling costs. Back in the day our parents (the ones who grew up in the 50's and 60's) saw the 10-15 mile commute as 10-15 minute drive. That same drive could take 45mins to an hour nowadays because of the shear number of people on the roads today compared to the 70's - 80's when they were mid-career.

What we are seeing more and more is the younger generation (below 40) turning to living situations that put them closer to work.

Forgive me for being blunt, but the "design industry" does not engage in site selection. It likes to play like it does, but they are mostly just ignored by developers, who have to remind architects constantly that their job is mostly just to maximize the efficiency of a site that has been selected for them...not to play Sim City all day. ...just one of my pet peeves.

It is worthwhile to remember that for every one new inner loop residence, twenty two are built elsewhere in our metropolitan area. That suburbanites are less affluent, are engrossed in the act of breeding and the raising of families, and that they consequently hire fewer (and different varieties of) design professionals seems to bias the design industry as a whole into thinking that the world is something other than it is.

[RedScare]

I might also point out that the 70s and 80s were the absolute worst times in Houston so far as commute times were concerned. I used to drive from Kuykendahl and FM 1960 to downtown in the later 70s and early 80s. That commute was routinely an hour and 20 minute drive. It is now never more than 45-50 minutes. It was 23 miles. Now, there are literally tens of thousands of Woodlands and Montgomery County residents commuting 35+ miles.

And, young people? The trend there is for them to stay in their parents' house for longer periods to save money, regardless where parents live.

You guys in the 'design industry' missed the trend.

Edited November 16, 2011 by RedScare

[mikehouston]

It is worthwhile to remember that for every one new inner loop residence, twenty two are built elsewhere in our metropolitan area. That suburbanites are less affluent, are engrossed in the act of breeding and the raising of families, and that they consequently hire fewer (and different varieties of) design professionals seems to bias the design industry as a whole into thinking that the world is something other than it is.

Stat / link for the 22 built elsewhere? There are a whole bunch of huge multi-family projects being built either inside the loop or in the Galleria areas - so I'd be surprised if only 4% of new residents are expected to be within the loop or near it. Personally I consider the entire West side from downtown to Beltway 8 to be "urban" versus the exurban communities that you are discussing. I'd be curious what the residential / business center of the city is - but I would think that both are somewhat west of downtown - maybe near the Galleria area.

Personally, I would not work for Exxon without moving to the Woodlands as well, and I know others who do work for Exxon who are contemplating just such a move. And if given a choice, I would prefer to work for someone else that is located closer to the city.

It was 23 miles. Now, there are literally tens of thousands of Woodlands and Montgomery County residents commuting 35+ miles.

Most of those people that I have talked to hate their commute still - and do things like go to work at 5 in the morning to avoid rush hour.

[TheNiche]

Stat / link for the 22 built elsewhere? There are a whole bunch of huge multi-family projects being built either inside the loop or in the Galleria areas - so I'd be surprised if only 4% of new residents are expected to be within the loop or near it. Personally I consider the entire West side from downtown to Beltway 8 to be "urban" versus the exurban communities that you are discussing. I'd be curious what the residential / business center of the city is - but I would think that both are somewhat west of downtown - maybe near the Galleria area.

The source is the University of Houston's Institute for Regional Forecasting, specifically its databook. The calculation was a decadal trend, not just what is getting constructed right now...which is just as well, because there are a whole lot of vacant housing units that are still getting backfilled by new households, and that process is less visible.

I calculated the population centroid of the Houston metropolitan area once, several years back. It was the 610/IH-10 interchange.

[mikehouston]

The source is the University of Houston's Institute for Regional Forecasting, specifically its databook. The calculation was a decadal trend, not just what is getting constructed right now...which is just as well, because there are a whole lot of vacant housing units that are still getting backfilled by new households, and that process is less visible.

I calculated the population centroid of the Houston metropolitan area once, several years back. It was the 610/IH-10 interchange.

OK - thanks. Is there something online?

I still think that this 4% figure may have been accurate in the past as Houston built outward, but since the recession and going forward it just does not appear to be the case. There is plenty of infill development and densification going on all around town. And anecdotally I have heard that certain exurban neighborhoods in the Sugar Land area are not doing so hot these days.

Of course Exxon will create a healthy demand for housing in Spring or wherever they are locating, and reverse-commuting is way better than commuting - at least if you are driving solo - so maybe corporations moving out to Energy Corridor and such is not a big deal. I do think this also reflects a failure of mass transit successfully getting people downtown, because otherwise downtown makes more sense for corporate locations in terms of being able to draw talent from all parts of the metro area.

[Houston19514]

I still think that this 4% figure may have been accurate in the past as Houston built outward, but since the recession and going forward it just does not appear to be the case. There is plenty of infill development and densification going on all around town. And anecdotally I have heard that certain exurban neighborhoods in the Sugar Land area are not doing so hot .

The population growth in inner loop Houston is almost insignificant in the context of the overall metro growth according to the 2010 census. The total population growth inside the loop was only 13,028. Even if we loook only at the growing side of the inner loop (the west side -- west of the North Freeway, west of the South Freeway and including the CBD), the net growth was only 29,704. That is only 20% of the city's population growth and less than 2.5% of the total metro population growth. (For every additional person added to the west inner loop during the decade, we added 39 additional people elsewhere in the metro area.). I would be interested to see any evidence that this trend has changed to any significant extent.

[mikehouston]

The population growth in inner loop Houston is almost insignificant in the context of the overall metro growth according to the 2010 census. The total population growth inside the loop was only 13,028. Even if we loook only at the growing side of the inner loop (the west side -- west of the North Freeway, west of the South Freeway and including the CBD), the net growth was only 29,704. That is only 20% of the city's population growth and less than 2.5% of the total metro population growth. (For every additional person added to the west inner loop during the decade, we added 39 additional people elsewhere in the metro area.). I would be interested to see any evidence that this trend has changed to any significant extent.

See page 11:

http://www.h-gac.com/community/socioeconomic/forecasts/archive/documents/2035_regional_growth_forecast.pdf

The areas inside Beltway 8 account for 16% of our expected population growth and 44% of our expected employment growth.

Yes, if you look at just the loop, it accounts for 5% of our expected population growth, but areas like the Galleria, CityCentre, Chinatown, and even Gulfton which are urban but are not inside the loop should be included if we want a better picture of the growth of the urban parts of Houston. Even Beltway 8 does not encompass all of Chinatown.

The point being - building something 45 miles out from the city center is still not necessarily the best strategy if you want to appeal to the largest labor pool. I'm sure Exxon has done their homework, and I'm sure they understand they are going to lose some folks during their move - and they are OK with that.

[slfunk]

Forgive me for being blunt, but the "design industry" does not engage in site selection. It likes to play like it does, but they are mostly just ignored by developers, who have to remind architects constantly that their job is mostly just to maximize the efficiency of a site that has been selected for them...not to play Sim City all day. ...just one of my pet peeves.

It is worthwhile to remember that for every one new inner loop residence, twenty two are built elsewhere in our metropolitan area. That suburbanites are less affluent, are engrossed in the act of breeding and the raising of families, and that they consequently hire fewer (and different varieties of) design professionals seems to bias the design industry as a whole into thinking that the world is something other than it is.

Blunt or not, pet peeve or not; you are incorrect. Architects are engaged by developers to identify sites, capacity studies, test fits... etc. to aid their decision on site selection. Architecture firms aid in site selection, have in-house urban planners, or bring on urban planners as consultants. I'd understand if you are thinking of interiors, landscape, small residential architects, but for us architects at larger firms its a common practice we are part of.

Edited November 16, 2011 by slfunk

[Houston19514]

1. As you know, those are projections into the future. As such, they do not provide evidence of any significant change in growth patterns having occurred. What portion of the 2000-2010 population growth was inside the beltway? Even if this projection turns out to be correct, would it demonstrate a significant change from the 2000-2010 growth pattern?

2. You changed the subject from "inside the loop" to "inside the beltway" and STILL only get a projection showing population increases of more than 5 people outside the beltway for every person added inside the beltway.

3. Sticking to the subject of "inside the loop" your linked source projects only 5% of the population growth to be inside the loop. Pretty close to the numbers the Niche initially posited.

Again, I would be interested to see any evidence of any significant change in the growth patterns and it's apportionment between inside and outside the loop.

[Ross]

The point being - building something 45 miles out from the city center is still not necessarily the best strategy if you want to appeal to the largest labor pool. I'm sure Exxon has done their homework, and I'm sure they understand they are going to lose some folks during their move - and they are OK with that.

The XOM campus isn't 45 miles from the center of town. It's 24 from my house in Timbergrove.

[mikehouston]

1. As you know, those are projections into the future. As such, they do not provide evidence of any significant change in growth patterns having occurred. What portion of the 2000-2010 population growth was inside the beltway? Even if this projection turns out to be correct, would it demonstrate a significant change from the 2000-2010 growth pattern?

2. You changed the subject from "inside the loop" to "inside the beltway" and STILL only get a projection showing population increases of more than 5 people outside the beltway for every person added inside the beltway.

3. Sticking to the subject of "inside the loop" your linked source projects only 5% of the population growth to be inside the loop. Pretty close to the numbers the Niche initially posited.

Again, I would be interested to see any evidence of any significant change in the growth patterns and it's apportionment between inside and outside the loop.

1) Fine. Let's look at the present. 40% of the Houston population lives within Beltway 8 according to my source. And 50% of the jobs are within the Beltway.

2) I said from the start that I consider the Beltway to be a better metric for Houston's core than the loop. The loop is just a random area - and then it ignores a good chunk of the core that is growing that is west of the city center.

3) Fine. Niche was correct that only ~5% of new population growth is expected to occur within Loop 610 - as of the latest projections the HGAC has made available. I still think this is mostly meaningless as far as where it makes sense to locate huge corporations, as the larger talent pool will always be more accessible closer to the center of the geographic area - at least in Houston where we have few natural limits to our growth. And I think the Beltway is a better measure of our urban growth, as I've stated again...

I still think if you build an office campus in one of our exurbs you are basically hoping to get people to move to that exurb, or you already have a large talent pool out there, and then you hope to get some reverse commuters. Overall it does not make as much sense to me as locating near the center of the population / jobs, but perhaps in certain cases it makes sense. Exxon is also moving a large number of people in from out of town right (?), so they should be able to influence where those people choose to live through their site selection. But I think in the long run, it is probably not the best strategy for them.

[RedScare]

Stat / link for the 22 built elsewhere? There are a whole bunch of huge multi-family projects being built either inside the loop or in the Galleria areas - so I'd be surprised if only 4% of new residents are expected to be within the loop or near it.

Well, consider this. Houston's population increased 125,000 from 2000 to 2010. The Houston MSA increased in population by 1,231,000 during that same period. 90% of the population growth occurred outside the City of Houston. Now, consider that only one-fourth of Houston's population resides within the loop. Seeing these numbers, what do YOU think the ratio of inside vs. outside the loop housing starts is?

(Note: I have seen Niche post the link previously, but I'd still like to know what you think a more accurate number would be.)

[RedScare]

I still think if you build an office campus in one of our exurbs you are basically hoping to get people to move to that exurb, or you already have a large talent pool out there, and then you hope to get some reverse commuters. Overall it does not make as much sense to me as locating near the center of the population / jobs, but perhaps in certain cases it makes sense.

The Exxon site is not an exurban site. It is within Harris County. There is an entire county of nearly half a million people located north of the site. The site is 24.6 miles from downtown Houston, and only 11 miles from your self-described "Houston core" of the beltway.

Hardly a definition of exurban.

[TheNiche]

OK - thanks. Is there something online?

I still think that this 4% figure may have been accurate in the past as Houston built outward, but since the recession and going forward it just does not appear to be the case. There is plenty of infill development and densification going on all around town.

I'm afraid that Databook Houston is not a free resource, and it is the only resource that I know of that breaks things down by freeway loop.

It is poor form to use construction from only two or three very chaotic years as a proxy for a secular trend. Most of what is breaking ground right now are apartment projects that have been proposed for much longer than your period of interest. Where the fundamentals are concerned, they're the leading edge of demand in a recovery, as roommates disband and young folks start moving away from home again. But it is also important to point out that apartment construction is only picking up right now because the global capital markets favor them; there's a flight to investment quality, and the financial and operating characteristics of apartments make them highly attractive as an asset class...and even then, really only in the top tier of sites. You might notice that townhome construction remains fairly stagnant; they get financed in a similar manner as suburban subdivisions, their risk profile is different, and the capital markets don't yet favor them. It doesn't mean that consumer tastes have changed, however.

I'll run some Census data for you, though. Here are the results, comparing the incorporated City of Houston to the ten-county Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land CMSA. I would caution that areas within the City that are generally south, far west, and up along Lake Houston have experienced some suburban-style growth, and that the inner loop is only about one sixth of the land area in the City, but this is as close as I can get using the Census for an urban versus rural comparison.

Total Occupied Housing Units

Metro Area:

1,656,799 in 2000

2,072,625 in 2010

Difference: 415,826

City:

717,945 in 2000

782,643 in 2010

Difference: 64,698

I have heard that certain exurban neighborhoods in the Sugar Land area are not doing so hot these days.

Many neighborhoods around town are entering a new phase of their life cycle. Missouri City is on a particularly steep decline, similar to Spring but with a different demographic profile. Clear Lake and north Katy are also facing more difficult times. Cest la vie. It happened to Sharpstown and Sunnyside before them. There's more land, newer development, and better schools further out.

Where construction is concerned, the exurbs are fairly quiet. Its much the same with inner loop townhomes, as I mentioned previously. It doesn't make a secular trend.

Of course Exxon will create a healthy demand for housing in Spring or wherever they are locating, and reverse-commuting is way better than commuting - at least if you are driving solo - so maybe corporations moving out to Energy Corridor and such is not a big deal. I do think this also reflects a failure of mass transit successfully getting people downtown, because otherwise downtown makes more sense for corporate locations in terms of being able to draw talent from all parts of the metro area.

I agree that the Exxon news is overstated.

Downtown's biggest drawback is the expense of it. Class A office space leases at a premium over any other submarket, and on average is about a third more expensive. The newest buildings are far more pricey. That makes a big difference in a tenant's bottom line, making it prohibitive for most small and mid-sized firms...with exceptions being a few categories of professional service providers, particularly lawyers.

The other thing about downtown is that it is an office submarket. Houston is a very blue collar city; it has a low amount of office space per employee, comparatively speaking. A lot of our jobs simply cannot be downtown, or really anywhere near it.

[TheNiche]

See page 11: http://www.h-gac.com/community/socioeconomic/forecasts/archive/documents/2035_regional_growth_forecast.pdf

I would caution that the HGAC forecasts were largely arrived at by interview processes with local government officials, and allocations were made haphazardly. Notice how Harris County gets built out to the county lines at Waller and Liberty, and then drops off a cliff? Yeah, that's not gonna happen like that. (This is something I had asked HGAC about when they first came out with it.)

[TheNiche]

Blunt or not, pet peeve or not; you are incorrect. Architects are engaged by developers to identify sites, capacity studies, test fits... etc. to aid their decision on site selection. Architecture firms aid in site selection, have in-house urban planners, or bring on urban planners as consultants. I'd understand if you are thinking of interiors, landscape, small residential architects, but for us architects at larger firms its a common practice we are part of.

Capacity studies and test fits, YES. Site selection, NO. No! No! No! Architects are to site selection what the English are to food.

[Houston19514]

The other thing about downtown is that it is an office submarket. Houston is a very blue collar city; it has a low amount of office space per employee, comparatively speaking. A lot of our jobs simply cannot be downtown, or really anywhere near it.

At the risk of side-tracking the discussion, isn't the view of Houston as a "very blue collar city" a couple decades out of date? Would be interested to see stats. Office space per employee is an interesting stand-in for a count of white-collar employment, as you suggested. I did a quick comparison to DFW (commonly and I believe outdatedly perceived to be much more of a white collar metro area):

Houston has 219,064,500 square feet of occupied office space and total employment of 2,605,800 = 84.068 square feet per employee.

DFW has 237,246,970 square feet of occupied office space and total employment of 2,922,700 = 81.174 square feet per employee.

[TheNiche]

At the risk of side-tracking the discussion, isn't the view of Houston as a "very blue collar city" a couple decades out of date? Would be interested to see stats. Office space per employee is an interesting stand-in for a count of white-collar employment, as you suggested. I did a quick comparison to DFW (commonly and I believe outdatedly perceived to be much more of a white collar metro area):

I ran calculations a few years back based on Grubb & Ellis market reports and BLS employment data. Dallas isn't that different. The industries are, but space requirements are not. Most people fail to realize the extent to which Dallas is a hub for distribution and transportation.

[slfunk]

Capacity studies and test fits, YES. Site selection, NO. No! No! No! Architects are to site selection what the English are to food.

If this is what you believe, then you don't know or understand the role of architects in the industry. Good luck to you.

Edited November 17, 2011 by slfunk

[TheNiche]

If this is what you believe, then you don't know or understand the role of architects in the industry. Good luck to you.

I apologize for being rude earlier; it seemed funny at the time but not in retrospect.

In all seriousness, though...I don't doubt that you are sincere, but maybe you're strictly referring to public sector analysis. Its always just been my experience that architects don't understand the motivations of private industry.

There are boutique shops that do nothing but site selection and economic consulting; and most developers have at least one person that all they do is talk to brokers, find sites, and evaluate them. To that end, these people confer with architects on a small fraction of the sites that they look at if those sites show reasonable promise, and they do this in order to fine-tune their financial model (for size, density, cost, unit mix, etc.) before pitching it to prospective investors.

Although an architect's input is an important step in the process, a developer should never source the whole site selection function directly to an architecture firm. There is a disconnect between the two firms' motivations that is both financial and sociological in nature.

[Pleak]

Most of those people that I have talked to hate their commute still - and do things like go to work at 5 in the morning to avoid rush hour.

30 miles door - to - door for my commute. Leave at 7 am. Don't mind it a bit. Let's me live in a place where I don't have neighbors close enough to knock on my window asking for toilet paper while they are still sitting on their john.

....

I still think that this 4% figure may have been accurate in the past as Houston built outward, but since the recession and going forward it just does not appear to be the case. There is plenty of infill development and densification going on all around town. And anecdotally I have heard that certain exurban neighborhoods in the Sugar Land area are not doing so hot these days.

....

Since we are speaking anecdotally...

I live in an exurban neighborhood...other side of Rosenberg and work in the Galleria. I am in Rosenberg and Sugar Land daily. They are exploding. But I only see this anecdotally of course. As fast as those houses are thrown up - they are filled. There WAS a lull for about two years. But now new roads are being poured in the subdivisions that had been on hold. And new subdivison are going up west of the grand parkway all the way to north of I-10. I just got through voting unsuccesfully against a $250 million bond issuance last week by Lamar Consolidated ISD last week to build yet another high/middle school complex for all those people that apparently aren't moving out here. (anecdotally ).

[Houston19514]

I ran calculations a few years back based on Grubb & Ellis market reports and BLS employment data. Dallas isn't that different. The industries are, but space requirements are not. Most people fail to realize the extent to which Dallas is a hub for distribution and transportation.

You have piqued my interest in this topic. Compared to what cities is Houston "very blue collar"? Using Transwestern's office inventory numbers and BLS employment numbers, and your (the Niche's) office space per employee as a proxy for white collar employment, it would appear that, far from being "very blue collar", Houston may just be more white collar than most cities. In this sampling of cities, only Denver appears to be more white collar than Houston.

Houston:

2,605,800 employees in 219,064,500 square feet of occupied office space = 84.068 square feet per employee

DFW:

2,922,700 employees in 237,246,970 square feet of occupied office space = 81.174 square feet per employee

Atlanta:

2,235,000 employees in 109,865,000 square feet of occupied office space = 49.157 square feet per employee.

Chicago:

4,296,600 employees in 333,961,000 square feet of occupied office space = 77.727 square feet per employee.

Denver:

1,202,300 employees in 123,613,000 square feet of occupied office space = 102.805 square feet per employee.

LA:

5,140,800 employees in 130,398,000 square feet of occupied office space = 25.365 square feet per employee

Minneapolis St. Paul:

1,715,800 employees in 62,105,000 square feet of occupied office space = 36.196 square feet per employee

Baltimore:

1,280,200 employees in 82,041,000 square feet of occupied office space = 64.085 square feet per employee

Edited November 18, 2011 by Houston19514

[TheNiche]

You have piqued my interest in this topic. Compared to what cities is Houston "very blue collar"? Using Transwestern's office inventory numbers and BLS employment numbers, and your (the Niche's) office space per employee as a proxy for white collar employment, it would appear that, far from being "very blue collar", Houston may just be more white collar than most cities. In this sampling of cities, only Denver appears to be more white collar than Houston.

Houston:

2,605,800 employees in 219,064,500 square feet of occupied office space = 84.068 square feet per employee

DFW:

2,922,700 employees in 237,246,970 square feet of occupied office space = 81.174 square feet per employee

Atlanta:

2,235,000 employees in 109,865,000 square feet of occupied office space = 49.157 square feet per employee.

Chicago:

4,296,600 employees in 333,961,000 square feet of occupied office space = 77.727 square feet per employee.

Denver:

1,202,300 employees in 123,613,000 square feet of occupied office space = 102.805 square feet per employee.

LA:

5,140,800 employees in 130,398,000 square feet of occupied office space = 25.365 square feet per employee

Minneapolis St. Paul:

1,715,800 employees in 62,105,000 square feet of occupied office space = 36.196 square feet per employee

Baltimore:

1,280,200 employees in 82,041,000 square feet of occupied office space = 64.085 square feet per employee

That's interesting. While you were doing that, I redid my calculations Grubb & Ellis' most recent inventory stats and matching BLS data. Houston was at 55 square feet of office space occupied per employee. Boston (66), Denver (75), Washington DC (87), and San Francisco (133) ranked higher. NYC and Philly bleed together, so I couldn't run them.

[Houston19514]

That's interesting. While you were doing that, I redid my calculations Grubb & Ellis' most recent inventory stats and matching BLS data. Houston was at 55 square feet of office space occupied per employee. Boston (66), Denver (75), Washington DC (87), and San Francisco (133) ranked higher. NYC and Philly bleed together, so I couldn't run them.

I would not use Grubb & Ellis numbers for this purpose because, IIRC, they do not include owner occupied or single tenant properties.