buildingunbuildingrebuilding

Could be, although, other than the infamous and unreliable "common knowledge" nobody has shown that to actually be true. Seems like it might be, but I really don't know... In any event why do you insist on focusing only on the buildings built in the past 5-10 years? It seems likely that, if it's even true that Dallas and Atlanta have added more in the past 5-10 years, they are only now starting to catch up to the level Houston has had for quite some time. (And by the way, Houston wasn't the only city overbuilt in the 80s. Dallas was too, and they still haven't absorbed all of the overbuilt office space downtown.)

a quick web search yields the following: http://www.highrises.com/city_buildings.as..._keyword=dallas

Not all new, not all condo, not necessarily everything in Dallas. But if someone wants to do a comparison, feel free.

And you are correct that the downtown Dallas office market is still in terrible shape. Never meant to suggest that Dallas is in any way better than Houston or has a stronger overall real estate market, just that it has had more condo demand over the past several years. As has Atlanta. Doesn't make Houston a bad place- I like it or wouldn't live here- just not a condo mecca (and as investors who bought condos here 25 years ago know, buying a condo here ain't necessarily all that wise anyway).

Condo towers over 12 floors above ground that have been in Houston for over 20 plus years;

The Huntingdon (503 ft, 34 floors), Four Leaf Towers I (444 feet, 40 floors), Four Leaf Towers II (444 feet, 40 floors), The Spires (426 feet, 40 floors), The Parklane (390 feet, 36 floors), The Warwick Towers (361 feet, 30 floors), The Houstonian (310 feet, 28 floors), The Greenway I (300 feet, 30 floors), The Greenway II (300 feet, 30 floors), 2016 Main (296 feet, 26 floors), Bayou Bend Towers (246 feet, 22 floors), The Bristol (27 floors), The St James (25 floors), The Lamar Tower (23 floors), The Park Square (22 floors), 5000 Montrose (22 floors), Woodway Place (20 floors), The Oxford (20 floors), The Woodway (20 floors), Timber Top Condos (18 floors), The River Oaks (18 floors), The Conquistador (18 floors), 3525 Sage (17 floors), 1400 Hermann (17 floors), Inwood Manor (16 floors), The Tealstone (15 floors), The Sussex Tower I (15 floors), The Sussex Tower II (15 floors), The Willowick (15 floors), The St Clair (14 floors), The Regency House (13 floors), The Parc IV (12 floors), the Parc V (12 floors)

Nobody disputes a bunch of condos were built during the early '80s. Basically everything (apartments, office, retail, etc.. ) was overbuilt here then, as oil was on its way to $100 per barrell and Houston was the center of the world. And then the bust, over 100,000 people left town, and we had an overhang well into the '90s. But if we dispassionately look at the number of condos built- and their success- over the past 5-10 years, Houston lags behind its peer cites (Dallas and Atlanta, primarily).

Forget about highrise condo development from the 1980s to the late 1990s, can you name for me more than a handful of highrises (offices, condos, hotels, etc..) that were built during that time frame?

The City of Houston was in a MAJOR bust cycle. Almost NOTHING was built of any magnitude during that time outside of a few med center projects.

Additionally, while it is true that Atlanta has had more condo/apartment towers rise over the last few years, the same cannot be said of Dallas with any degree of certainty. In fact, outside of NYC, Miami, Chicago, Atlanta, and San Diego, I am not sure what other city has had more highrise residential growth than Houston. Here's a list...

501 foot 37 floor One Park Place under construction

405 foot 30 floor 2727 Kirby (crane on site)

400 foot 30 floor Mercer (2003)

360 foot 33 floor Royalton at River Oaks (2003)

359 foot 33 floor 1200 Post Oak (2003)

358 foot 29 floor Mosaic under construction

351 foot 31 floor Dominion (2004)

334 foot 30 floor The Mark (2001)

330 foot 30 floor Montebello (2004)

315 foot 24 floor Cosmopolitan under construction

308 foot 27 floor Villa d'Este (2000)

248 foot 20 floor Museum Tower (2002)

245 foot 21 floor Seven Riverway (2007)

195 foot 17 floor The Robinhood (2003)

191 foot 13 floor The Rise (2000)

Many of these, of course, are rental- One Park Place, Royalton (originally), 1200, Mosaic (???), Dominion, Museum, Riverway, off the top of my head. And the condos have generally struggled- Mercer, Royalton, Mark, Robinhood have all been troubled. Many others never got built. If you think Houston is a great condo market, I wish you luck. But I would have a hard time recommending high-rise condo in Houston to any developer except under ideal circumstances at an irreplacable location. Many a developer has tried and most have failed.

Sure. We're way off on a tangent anyway...but actually, I should thank you because your responses helped me to articulate something that I've been needing to say for a long time. Whether anyone agrees with me or not, it is good to have been inspired by the moment.

I think that's the first time I've ever seen anyone agree with you!

Well, for the record, here are her exact words: "While luxury high-rise condominiums are commonplace in big cities - where land is scarce, forcing developers to build up instead of out - they've been slow to develop in Houston, where most folks prefer single-family homes." Quoted from her June 19, 2005 "report" about 2727 Kirby.

Does that sound like someone who is aware of the dozens of high-rise condominium buildings that have existed in Houston for decades? If she is aware, she is apparently intent on casting a negative light on Houston (which does seem to be the case of most Chronicle reporters). Not sure which is worse, ignorance (of that level) or dishonesty.

Except that she is right.

There were certainly several condo towers built in the '70s and early '80s, but there were almost no high-rise condominiums built in Houston from the mid '80s to the late '90s. Since then there have been but a handful; Borlenghi had done well, but very few others (Randall with his midrises, of course). When you look at the number of townhomes built in the Inner Loop and Galleria during the past decade, and compare that to the number of high-rise condos, its hard to say that this is a high-rise city. How many upscale condo projects have been anounced and cancelled? Obviously some of this happens in every city, but Houston has seen far less high-rise condo construction in the past decade than Atlanta or Dallas. Wishing it were otherwise doesn't change matters. Some of the anounced deals will come to fruition, but its not as if we are the only city with condos on the drawing board.

It is easy to pick on Nancy or the Chronicle, and obviously they don't know everything that is in the pipeline because developers don't want the public to know about their projects until they are ready. But Nancy is more knowledgable about what is going on in the Houston real estate market than just about any reporter I have known over the past decade. She is a solid journalist, trustworthy to not burn a source, competent and discreet. And unlike some online real estate sites, her articles are clearly written and not utter fabrications.

Calm down man. I asked for examples because I just don't know, and without seeing examples I'm not willing to accept "common knowledge" because "common knowledge" is very often wrong. (For example, it is "common knowledge" that Houston has the dirtiest air, the fattest people and the worst traffic in America... None of those are true.)

I realize Ms. Sarnoff mentioned that in the recent article. That was in fact the genesis of my inquiry. But remember, Ms. Sarnoff is the same "reporter" who told us that with the construction of 2727 Kirby, Houston was at long last beginning to catch up with Dallas and Atlanta with high-rise condominiums, apparently oblivious to the dozens of high-rises that have been scattered around central Houston for decades. Sorry, but I need a more reliable source than Sarnoff.

Is anybody else here familiar enough with Dallas or Atlanta (or Austin or Phoenix, two other cities that, according to Sarnoff are ahead of Houston) to be able to throw out some examples of the mixed-use projects in those cities?

Dallas seems to have more mixed use- Victory and West Village are examples of fiarly large projects in the city, along with Mockingbird and their Galleria. Once you get out to the suburbs Southlake has an extensive town square, Legacy Town Center, Richardson is building one near transit, Frisco near the minor league ball park. This is just off the top of my head.

Austin gets mixed use because they want it, and with their tight zoning and strong neighborhood groups they can better dictate development.

Both Dallas and Atlanta seem to have a much more vibrant hirise condo market, although both are in danger of being overbuilt. Scottsdale (suburban Phoenix) has a rediculous amount of new or anounced condos, but Phoenix isn't really any more urban of a city than Houston.

I wouldn't put expansion of medical and educational institutions in the same realm of uncertainty as mixed-use projects and urban developments. People on this board tend to be pessimistic because urban projects have a horrid time getting off the ground in this town. There has started to be a few successes, but those of us who watched one proposal after another fail for Main St. in Midtown can understand why an urbanist in Houston can be pessimistic. A recent Chronicle article about the financial difficulties of mixed-use projects and how Houston has fallen behind peer cities is not encouraging either. But I hope you're right, and that this and other proposed projects will get built.

Our lack of zoning actually contributes to the dearth of mixed use project as opposed to other cities. The difficulty in getting zoning approval in some cites lets cities steer the kind of develoment they want. Here we can build whatever makes most economic sense (not that this is a bad thing), which means we go with what we know can get done and be profitable. But once land prices reach a certain level, we are seeing developers trying to get creative to ring maximum value out of sites like BLVD Place. We shall see whether it works.

Did you mean it Sounds like Shamrock

or Redstone

or Orion

or Westcreek?

Just trying to keep perspective on pessimism....

TNJ

Anyone who knew the developer knew Shamrock wouldn't get built. Orion should have been built, but the 2 codevelopers had a major falling out and it got all screwed up. I wouldn't count out Westcreek just yet, although that is going to take some time.

Is this Uptown? I know some folks that might not think so...

Let us also not forget that a retail component of this size is no small feat as of right now (today), but that the market will be even more competitive as this nears completion. This will be no walk in the park.

BLVD Place is Uptown, judging by the flying saucers hanging from the intersections. Oaks District doesn't have the UFOs hovering, so perhaps not. Considering its proximity to West Loop as well as Highland Village/River Oaks, however, its situated pretty well.

On-site residential won't support many retail tenants by itself. I reviewed some numbers in response to some HAIFers being upset about losing the residential component of Houston Pavilions, and even under unreasonably optimistic assumptions, only a small fraction of the retail component would've been supported by on-site residential. Hotels are supportive as well, but really only of certain types of retail for the most part. Oaks has to be a destination, and that will be the challenge.

I've said too much...

Point is that with part of each site dedicated to residential and hotel there is not that much additional retail, it is at great location in cool projects, and will be a couple years minimum before the bulk of it comes online. I would expect these would be a destination. Let's not forget that Galleria is Houston's #1 tourist venue. People get excited about retail downtown, but Uptown is Houston's top retail zone.

The only thing that I'd be concerned about is whether BLVD Place or the Oaks District is able to break ground first. The one would likely negate the other. ...but right now, my money is on BLVD Place.

Oaks District is about 2 years out, at least. Considering they are both planning luxury hotel and residential, I would think there is plenty of retai l to go around.

Both these developments will really add to the overall strength of the Uptown area- right now other than Galleria itself there is really not that much upscale retail in Uptown when compared to other cities our size (Uptown Dallas, Lenox/Buckhead in Atlanta, for instance).

Shoot, I'm for as many tall buildings as we can get. I don't care where they are. The more tall buildings we have the more urban we become. Critical mass, that's what we're looking for.

Personally I'd like to see them pop up in the middle of Afton Oaks. Make them wish they had rail.

Fights over stupid ____.

its almost worth it if it brings that avatar of yours back to the thread!

Okay, well I think of lifestyle complex as something that has everything, but think of malls as basically stores and restaurants with no bars, clubs, or dancing.

How long until we have a new buzzword? When every shopping center with a Crate & Barrel or Linens n Things claims to be a lifestyle center, methinks its time for a new moniker.

Article indicates Class A vacancy downtown is still 10%. It was 3% in early 2001, pre-Enron, Allison, 9/11, and everything else. Most of the older buildings are really not viable as Class A space, even with renovations.

The downtown condo market is really overrated- there are very few sold each year. Houston is not a great condo town in any sense, but to the extent that condos work in Houston the Galleria market is far stronger. We all talk about walkable environment, you really can get that in parts of Uptown- groceries, restaurants, bars, shopping, etc. I know the traffic stinks and there are other drawbacks, but it also offers far more than downtown to the average resident.

I fail to see how a condo development just off the freeway merits a comparison to the Holocaust, melodrama or not. Somehow that doesn't strike me as a way to increase the credibility of your position.

This project has been a complete disaster. The 2 original developers- Day and Tarragon- had a huge falling out and blame each other for killing the condo project. I couldn't tell from the HBJ article which one is actually doing this, although it sounded like probably Tarragon. This is a neat site, but the lack of visibility could hinder the apartments. I wish them luck- at this point, they seem entitled to some.

Cypress is much more of a land speculator/value adder than they are a vertical developer. They are fantastic at identifying a site, cleaning it up, creating a vision, and then selling it off to someone else who will actually develop it. I question whether they ever intended on doing much more on this site than they have.

The problem with Gross' Metronexus site is access. If you are coming from south of the site, you can't access it from either highway or feeder road. You have to access from north and U-Turn under freeway (or access from back roads, which is a tough way to drive leasing traffic). The plans are to connect the feeder road accross the railroad track, but even when that happens- several years from now- by the time the traffic crosses the tracks its almost past the site (check out TXDOT plans and you will see what I mean) and TXDOT doesn't want to have people cutting accross traffic (from U-Turns) so it limits access even then. Great visibility, neat neighborhood, but until they get access figured out it will be tough for any developer to make a go.

And last I heard the mall was for sale. Anyone have an update on that?

When I first moved to Houston, nearly 20 years ago, like many newcomers I would get lost in this large city. The one thing that always got me oriented was Bissonnett, as it seemed with its diagonal orientation, wherever I was all roads led to Bissonnett.

Our absorption is still skewed because of the hurricanes. We added an extra 20,000+ units filled in 2005 because of evacuees. As some of them left, 2006 was negative. There will continue to be more leaving, although they are leaving much slower than they came. The number I would focus on is Class A absorption- if we get 4-5,000+, that is solid growth (albeit less than construction). If we get less than this, we have a problem.

Only 32 of the 92 listed Under Construction and Proposed projects have been updated within the last 30 days.

35% ≠ 80-to-90%

Fair enough. The percentage was overall. The properties on the proposed and under construction list are updated less, as until they start leasing the key points are when/if they broke ground and when leasing starts. If a property broke ground today and no leasing until fall, no need to update every month.

And as you stated in an earlier post, O'Connor does track tax credit and seniors projects, but ADS tracks some as well, if not comprehensively. And true, Class A and Tax Credit aren't the same, but the new Tax Credit projects suck tenants out of Class B and C properties, undermining Class A indirectly as market rents adjust across all classes to reflect a new equilibreum. No subset of the housing market exists in a vacuum.

True. The new Class A product has really hurt some of the older Class A and nicer Class B products in areas of high construction. The Tax Credit products tend to be in areas without as much Class A product, although there is overlap in certain areas (greater Med Center, for example). The Tax Credit properties seem mostly to negatively impact the Class C and some Class B properties.

While it would be nice for developers to exercise some restraint on Class A, the capital markets tend to do that eventually. The Tax Credit development scares me more. Not only are many of these products struggling, they really hurt the older properties and that decay can drag down a neighborhood more than the new Tax Credit property improves it. The state really needs to reevaluate where they incentivize developers to build Tax Credit properties.

Yes, that is a partial explanation. But, scanning through the list, there were many projects listed as under construction by both O'Connor and ADS that had already started leasing. There are also quite a few listed in ADS that O'Connor doesn't have at all. And by the way, O'Connor may be able to post updates in real time, but they certainly don't gather information for each project in real time.

O'Connor is on a 30-day survey cycle, so theoretically every project gets updated each month. They actually post the update date now, so you can see how close they get. Its typically between 80-90%. But you are right, both of them occasionally miss properties. Its nice to have access to BOTH services, but even then some things are still missing!

ADS and O'Connor classify projects differently. ADS breaks out separately properties that are leasing and open but not finished, while O'Connor tracks whether they are open and leasing but does not have a separate category for that. Because of this, you also get more detail on projects under construction from O'Connor.

And your ADS list is, I believe, a quarterly list. O'Connor shows them under construction because its updated real time and hence more current.

Anyway you slice it, quite a bit of units. Houston is about the easiest market in the country for apartment development.As mentioned, some of the proposed projects won't get built (at least this year), but most will.

The flip side of the Houston development coin is that since it takes much less time to get a project approved, the market responds quicker. You don't have projects that have been in predevelopment for 2 years that you are afraid to pull the plug on because of all the invested time. We get overbuilt quicker than most markets, but we get back in balance quicker (albeit our balance is at an occupancy rate a few points below most everywhere else).