Fortune 500 In Houston

[Subdude]

From the Big Picture:

Link

[barracuda]

Impressive. And Texas is #1.

[lockmat]

Wow, the margin between NY and Houston, and Houston and Dallas/others is huge.

[LTAWACS]

The numbers have changed drastically since 2 years ago, no? This is cool.

[ToryGattis]

It is an impressive margin, but it's a city-limits game. Note LA+SF=13, but there are 51 in CA, almost all of whom are in those two metro areas. Houston+Dallas=41 out of 64 Texas, and most of those missing 23 are in the Metroplex, including #1 Exxon (although I think Houston metro still comes out ahead overall).

But Houston does deserve a lot of kudos for managing to keep almost all of its metro F500s inside the city limits and contributing to the tax base. I think that can be chalked up to aggressive annexation, no zoning (allowing multiple skyscraper job centers, inc. dt, uptown, TMC, Westchase, Energy Corridor, Greenspoint, etc.), and strong freeway construction/expansion allowing employees in the far suburbs to have reasonable commutes to the core.

[citizen4rmptown]

i dont like how we are grouped up with the Southwest, but whatever...

Haven't we've been #2 for a while?

[RedScare]

It is an impressive margin, but it's a city-limits game. Note LA+SF=13, but there are 51 in CA, almost all of whom are in those two metro areas. Houston+Dallas=41 out of 64 Texas, and most of those missing 23 are in the Metroplex, including #1 Exxon (although I think Houston metro still comes out ahead overall).

But Houston does deserve a lot of kudos for managing to keep almost all of its metro F500s inside the city limits and contributing to the tax base. I think that can be chalked up to aggressive annexation, no zoning (allowing multiple skyscraper job centers, inc. dt, uptown, TMC, Westchase, Energy Corridor, Greenspoint, etc.), and strong freeway construction/expansion allowing employees in the far suburbs to have reasonable commutes to the core.

In most cities, zoning CREATES these business districts. Interesting that you think that Houston's lack of zoning did it. As for strong freeway construction, I fail to see how the West Loop and Katy Freeways kept any corporations in the Galleria and Westchase/Energy Corridor, considering those were our two most congested freeways until a year ago.

I think I would chalk it up to our energy capital status myself.

[ToryGattis]

In most cities, zoning CREATES these business districts. Interesting that you think that Houston's lack of zoning did it. As for strong freeway construction, I fail to see how the West Loop and Katy Freeways kept any corporations in the Galleria and Westchase/Energy Corridor, considering those were our two most congested freeways until a year ago.

I think I would chalk it up to our energy capital status myself.

In most cities, they create one major biz district - downtown - and try to push all skyscrapers there. If a large employer doesn't find that convenient, they often will move outside of the city limits to find or build the building or campus size they want (as I noted in my previous post: most are in the metros, not the core cities - NYC and Houston being major exceptions). Without zoning, we ended up with multiple large job/business centers to choose from within the city limits. If we had gone with the typical 'one downtown' zoning approach, I believe a lot more of our F500 HQs would be in Sugar Land and The Woodlands.

The West Loop and the Katy Fwy have been major problems until recently, as you point out. But before them were the 59 expansions (north and south) and the Hardy and Beltway 8 toll roads (not to mention multiple 45 widenings over the years), which substantially improved accessibility to the core and the major job centers from the far suburbs.

The energy capital status gives us the F500s in the metro, but doesn't force them to be inside the city limits. Most auto companies/suppliers are not inside the Detroit city limits, nor tech companies in SF, nor entertainment or aerospace companies inside LA city limits.

[RedScare]

In most cities, they create one major biz district - downtown - and try to push all skyscrapers there. If a large employer doesn't find that convenient, they often will move outside of the city limits to find or build the building or campus size they want (as I noted in my previous post: most are in the metros, not the core cities - NYC and Houston being major exceptions). Without zoning, we ended up with multiple large job/business centers to choose from within the city limits. If we had gone with the typical 'one downtown' zoning approach, I believe a lot more of our F500 HQs would be in Sugar Land and The Woodlands.

The West Loop and the Katy Fwy have been major problems until recently, as you point out. But before them were the 59 expansions (north and south) and the Hardy and Beltway 8 toll roads (not to mention multiple 45 widenings over the years), which substantially improved accessibility to the core and the major job centers from the far suburbs.

The energy capital status gives us the F500s in the metro, but doesn't force them to be inside the city limits. Most auto companies/suppliers are not inside the Detroit city limits, nor tech companies in SF, nor entertainment or aerospace companies inside LA city limits.

I am unaware of any city that has done this. Perhaps you could give us some examples. I do know that several of Houston's closest competitors as far as population have NOT done this. Dallas, Atlanta and Miami have numerous districts with midsize office buildings similar to Houston's Galleria, Greenspoint and Westchase.

A quick look at the location of the Houston HQs reveals that 15 of the 27 F500 companies are located in downtown. There is no rational argument that they would not be there if Houston had 'forced' everyone into one downtown. They choose to be downtown regardless. Of the other 12 HQs, 4 are in the Galleria and 4 in the Energy Corridor. 4 are located next to their manufacturing plants, such as on Hardy Road or NW Beltway 8. None of your arguments applies to these companies.

Frankly, it sounds like you simply chose this topic to tout more freeways and no zoning, when they have little or nothing to do with it. Even your aggressive annexation argument is weak, as no F500 companies are located in Kingwood, Clear Lake or even Greenspoint. The locations of all of Houston's HQs appear to have been Houston addresses for decades.

EDIT: The F500 HQs in Sugarland and The Woodlands moved there after the freeways were expanded. That being the case, how is this an argument that aggressive freeway expansion kept them in Houston?

Edited December 2, 2009 by RedScare

[RedScare]

In the interest of accuracy, I must point out that Sugarland's CVR Energy only entered the F500 this year, and does not appear to have even existed prior to 2007. So, Anadarko is Houston's lone suburban F500 company that moved.

[Subdude]

I am unaware of any city that has done this. Perhaps you could give us some examples. I do know that several of Houston's closest competitors as far as population have NOT done this. Dallas, Atlanta and Miami have numerous districts with midsize office buildings similar to Houston's Galleria, Greenspoint and Westchase.

A quick look at the location of the Houston HQs reveals that 15 of the 27 F500 companies are located in downtown. There is no rational argument that they would not be there if Houston had 'forced' everyone into one downtown. They choose to be downtown regardless. Of the other 12 HQs, 4 are in the Galleria and 4 in the Energy Corridor. 4 are located next to their manufacturing plants, such as on Hardy Road or NW Beltway 8. None of your arguments applies to these companies.

Frankly, it sounds like you simply chose this topic to tout more freeways and no zoning, when they have little or nothing to do with it. Even your aggressive annexation argument is weak, as no F500 companies are located in Kingwood, Clear Lake or even Greenspoint. The locations of all of Houston's HQs appear to have been Houston addresses for decades.

EDIT: The F500 HQs in Sugarland and The Woodlands moved there after the freeways were expanded. That being the case, how is this an argument that aggressive freeway expansion kept them in Houston?

Yeah, I would agree it comes off as a bit of an ex post justification. We have a lot of Fortune 500 companies, so all of our growth policies must therefore be optimal. "Post hoc ergo propter hoc." All for the best in this best of all possible worlds!

[ToryGattis]

I am unaware of any city that has done this. Perhaps you could give us some examples. I do know that several of Houston's closest competitors as far as population have NOT done this. Dallas, Atlanta and Miami have numerous districts with midsize office buildings similar to Houston's Galleria, Greenspoint and Westchase.

A quick look at the location of the Houston HQs reveals that 15 of the 27 F500 companies are located in downtown. There is no rational argument that they would not be there if Houston had 'forced' everyone into one downtown. They choose to be downtown regardless. Of the other 12 HQs, 4 are in the Galleria and 4 in the Energy Corridor. 4 are located next to their manufacturing plants, such as on Hardy Road or NW Beltway 8. None of your arguments applies to these companies.

Frankly, it sounds like you simply chose this topic to tout more freeways and no zoning, when they have little or nothing to do with it. Even your aggressive annexation argument is weak, as no F500 companies are located in Kingwood, Clear Lake or even Greenspoint. The locations of all of Houston's HQs appear to have been Houston addresses for decades.

EDIT: The F500 HQs in Sugarland and The Woodlands moved there after the freeways were expanded. That being the case, how is this an argument that aggressive freeway expansion kept them in Houston?

I think Dallas' and Atlanta's relatively loose/easy zoning - including allowing multiple business districts - is also part of why they rank so well. I'm not arguing the 15 downtown would not be there, but that might be all we'd have - about the same as Dallas, coincidentally. As far as annexation, I am including the many decades of expansion, including the "freeway arms" that have protected the ETJ. Otherwise, I think we'd have our own equivalents of Plano, Richardson, Las Colinas, etc. relatively close-in that would have attracted multiple HQs, just as they did in Dallas. Freeway expansion didn't stop all from going to Sugar Land, The Woodlands, etc. - but it kept most.

[RedScare]

I think Dallas' and Atlanta's relatively loose/easy zoning - including allowing multiple business districts - is also part of why they rank so well. I'm not arguing the 15 downtown would not be there, but that might be all we'd have - about the same as Dallas, coincidentally. As far as annexation, I am including the many decades of expansion, including the "freeway arms" that have protected the ETJ. Otherwise, I think we'd have our own equivalents of Plano, Richardson, Las Colinas, etc. relatively close-in that would have attracted multiple HQs, just as they did in Dallas. Freeway expansion didn't stop all from going to Sugar Land, The Woodlands, etc. - but it kept most.

OK, so zoning did not affect anything, since 'relatively loose/easy zoning' can apparently retain as many F500 HQs as no zoning does. As for the 15 downtown HQs being "all we have", could you explain how zoning and freeway expansion created the Galleria and Westchas/Energy Corridor, since both of those districts were created prior to any freeway expansion? You noted that US 59 was upgraded, yet ironically, no F500 HQs are located along 59. To be blunt, you never miss a chance to tout no zoning and more freeways as the solution to every problem. Now, you are claiming they are the reason for Houston's multitude of F500 companies. Since 23 of those companies are located in downtown, Galleria and Energy Corridor, I want to know how your two holy grails caused it. I want specifics, not generalities. And, since no F500 companies reside in any location annexed in the last 30 or 40 years, I doubt THAT theory as well.

You know, you COULD explore the possibility that our oil companies prefer traditional downtown locations, while Dallas' telecoms...having sprung up in the 80s...prefer campus style HQs. That type of insight would make sense. But, attributing everything to your two favorite charities, even when there is no evidence to back up the claim lacks credibility.

[VicMan]

However the headquarters of UPS and Home Depot are not in the Atlanta City limits. UPS is in Sandy Springs, and Home Depot is in Cobb County.

[LTAWACS]

However the headquarters of UPS and Home Depot are not in the Atlanta City limits. UPS is in Sandy Springs, and Home Depot is in Cobb County.

They should move here.

[ToryGattis]

OK, so zoning did not affect anything, since 'relatively loose/easy zoning' can apparently retain as many F500 HQs as no zoning does. As for the 15 downtown HQs being "all we have", could you explain how zoning and freeway expansion created the Galleria and Westchas/Energy Corridor, since both of those districts were created prior to any freeway expansion? You noted that US 59 was upgraded, yet ironically, no F500 HQs are located along 59. To be blunt, you never miss a chance to tout no zoning and more freeways as the solution to every problem. Now, you are claiming they are the reason for Houston's multitude of F500 companies. Since 23 of those companies are located in downtown, Galleria and Energy Corridor, I want to know how your two holy grails caused it. I want specifics, not generalities. And, since no F500 companies reside in any location annexed in the last 30 or 40 years, I doubt THAT theory as well.

You know, you COULD explore the possibility that our oil companies prefer traditional downtown locations, while Dallas' telecoms...having sprung up in the 80s...prefer campus style HQs. That type of insight would make sense. But, attributing everything to your two favorite charities, even when there is no evidence to back up the claim lacks credibility.

Actually, loose/easy zoning (Dallas, Atlanta) retained far fewer HQs than no zoning (Houston), but more than other cities with tighter zoning (LA, SF). Freeway expansion didn't create Galleria/Energy Corridor (although it did create Westchase, which would not exist without Beltway 8), but it did enable employees from suburbs all over to get to them easily, allowing them to grow (same with 59 feeding the core). The lack of zoning allowed them to develop how they wished - whether towers (Galleria) or campuses (Energy Corridor).

[RedScare]

Actually, loose/easy zoning (Dallas, Atlanta) retained far fewer HQs than no zoning (Houston), but more than other cities with tighter zoning (LA, SF). Freeway expansion didn't create Galleria/Energy Corridor (although it did create Westchase, which would not exist without Beltway 8), but it did enable employees from suburbs all over to get to them easily, allowing them to grow (same with 59 feeding the core). The lack of zoning allowed them to develop how they wished - whether towers (Galleria) or campuses (Energy Corridor).

Your ability to type that with a (presumably) straight face is awe inspiring.

[AtticaFlinch]

It is an impressive margin, but it's a city-limits game. Note LA+SF=13, but there are 51 in CA, almost all of whom are in those two metro areas. Houston+Dallas=41 out of 64 Texas, and most of those missing 23 are in the Metroplex, including #1 Exxon (although I think Houston metro still comes out ahead overall).

If you include Denton in DFW, then 12 of those 23 are in the Metroplex. Without Denton, it's eleven more. Houston still comes out ahead, even if you don't include Angleton or Galveston in our metro. Three or four are in the middle of BFE and the others pepper I-35 from Roundrock to San Antonio.

The more you know...

[IronTiger]

Did it mention what those companies were? I have a feeling that many of Houston's companies are large but not really recognizable names...

[crunchtastic]

Did it mention what those companies were? I have a feeling that many of Houston's companies are large but not really recognizable names...

off the top of my head:

Conoco-Philips

Continental

Anadarko

Baker Hughes

KBR/Halliburton

Marathon Oil

Cameron

CenterPoint

Sysco

Are those not recognizable names in their fields?

[ToryGattis]

Here's the list: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2009/states/TX.html

[Houston19514]

You know, you COULD explore the possibility that our oil companies prefer traditional downtown locations, while Dallas' telecoms...having sprung up in the 80s...prefer campus style HQs. That type of insight would make sense. But, attributing everything to your two favorite charities, even when there is no evidence to back up the claim lacks credibility.

Your ability to type that with a (presumably) straight face is awe inspiring. ;-)

Of DFW's 25 Fortune 500 companies, I count only 3 in anything close to the telecom industry. All three of them are in Dallas (which is, of course the defining point of the discussion, not whether they are in a "traditional downtown location")

Didn't really take long to explore and demolish the theory that Houston's higher in-town concentration of Fortune 500's is caused by oil industry's preference for traditional downtown locations vs. telecoms' preference for suburban campuses.

Do you have any other theories?

If you include Denton in DFW, then 12 of those 23 are in the Metroplex. Without Denton, it's eleven more. Houston still comes out ahead, even if you don't include Angleton or Galveston in our metro. Three or four are in the middle of BFE and the others pepper I-35 from Roundrock to San Antonio.

The more you know...

What Fortune 500 company is in Denton?

Edited December 5, 2009 by Houston19514

[RedScare]

Your ability to type that with a (presumably) straight face is awe inspiring. ;-)

Of DFW's 25 Fortune 500 companies, I count only 3 in anything close to the telecom industry. All three of them are in Dallas (which is, of course the defining point of the discussion, not whether they are in a "traditional downtown location")

Didn't really take long to explore and demolish the theory that Houston's higher in-town concentration of Fortune 500's is caused by oil industry's preference for traditional downtown locations vs. telecoms' preference for suburban campuses.

Do you have any other theories?

You are correct. I engaged in the same off the cuff, pull it out of my ass guessing in that reply that I was mocking in Tory's remarks. My only redemption is that I did not have an agenda in mind when I engaged in my ass-pulling.

My apologies for not looking before I typed.

[AtticaFlinch]

What Fortune 500 company is in Denton?

Disregard all that I wrote. I didn't stop at 500. The Denton company is number 700 something.

[N Judah]

I think that any city that comes up with tax breaks and incentives to attract corporate HQs can have lots of Fortune whatever companies too.

Edited December 6, 2009 by N Judah

[Jeebus]

You are correct. I engaged in the same off the cuff, pull it out of my ass guessing in that reply that I was mocking in Tory's remarks. My only redemption is that I did not have an agenda in mind when I engaged in my ass-pulling.

To not have an agenda is an agenda in of itself. And by your post-for-post replies, I'd say you definitely have one.

I applaude Tory for remaining polite however, in the face of your rude replies.

Back on topic.. I'm curious how many we would have if we DID have traditional zoning laws, a much smaller city and many incorporated communities surrounding us.

Edited December 7, 2009 by Jeebus

[samagon]

They should move here.

There is one good reason home depot should not move their headquarters to Houston.

Imagine how many day laborers would be milling about their office building!

[Houston19514]

2012 Fortune 500 list is out:

Houston Metro area moved up from 23 HQs in 2011 to 25 HQs in 2012.

Houston city moved up from 22 to 23. Downtown Houston moved up from 13 to 14. (That is surely the 2nd largest concentration of HQs, after Manhattan.)

No doubt we are still the No. 2 city, after NYC, FWIW.

More important, Chicago metro stayed at 28 HQs, so we are still the no. 3 metro for Fortune 500 companies, after NYC and Chicago.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Houston19514

[rsb320]

its only the Shell Oil Division HQ's here

Same with BP. Well, I think Houston is HQ to North American Operations.

[Houston19514]

Same with BP. Well, I think Houston is HQ to North American Operations.

Yes. and the same for Shell