Is Houston's Status As One Of The Tallest Cities Fading?

[RedScare]

Since I officed across the street from 1319 Texas for 5 years, I know a bit about it. It has a cracked foundation. Repairs to bring the building up to code are estimated to be $5 million. The building itself is only worth about $2 million, almost all of that land. Can you explain why someone should spend $5 million to rehab the foundation of a building rather than build new?

[porTENT]

I will give you an example. Just in the last couple of months, Swamplot said that a building (that is around 7 or 8 stories) near Minute Maid Park will be torn down because it is abandoned/not in safety code. A parking lot will replace it (if it has not already).

The Ben Milam Hotel? That's news to me.

[kylejack]

The Ben Milam Hotel? That's news to me.

I think he's talking about 1319 Texas, even though it doesn't quite fit what he said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/sarnoff/6878556.html

[KinkaidAlum]

The reality is downtown Houston does have a lot of surface parking. Another reality is that downtown Houston has a LOT less surface parking than your 40 year old photo shows. If that same angle was taken today, you'd see Minute Maid Park in the bottom right corner. You'd see the George R Brown Convention Center and Garage. You'd see The Discovery Green Park. You'd see One Park Place, Hess Tower, 5 Houston Center, The Fulbright Tower, Embassy Suites (rising), The Four Seasons Hotel, The Toyota Center, The Toyota Center Garage, The Holiday Inn Express, both Chevron Towers (Enron), the new YMCA, The Rise, Continental's Headquarters, a coupe of towers in Allen Center, and so much more.

[N Judah]

But that's not what the opinion defense referenced.

Actually that's exactly what it referenced.

Anyway, I think there would be fewer surface lots if we didn't have so many freeways pulling demand away.

[mfastx]

You asked at one point whether anyone could provide an example of any city that had more surface parking than Houston. Unless you already know of one and are disingenuously keeping that example to yourself so as to inflate the rhetorical effect, it would seem implied that you believe that Houston tops the list.

Well I am sorry if I implied that. It certanly is possible that a city has more surface parking in their downtown than Houston, however I am not aware of one ATM. I am just inviting someone to show me up with picture evidence.

[AtticaFlinch]

Actually that's exactly what it referenced.

No, it's not. The intent is even further clarified here:

I never said that Houston's downtown has more surface parking lots than any other city in the world, I said that Houston has more surface lots than MOST other cities in the US.

You see, this is in direct response to my post which has apparently ruffled your feathers so much. As such, it's more than reasonable to assume he understood my response to be to his entire contention which was that Houston's central business district has more surface parking lots than any other city (edit: most other cities). That said, and regardless, mine was an example. Even still, if you continue to insist the "opinion" label was applied only to the post in which it was used, then it still isn't an opinion. Saying that zoning caused surface parking lots isn't stating an opinion. It still isn't a fact, but that doesn't make it an opinion. Perhaps my lauding your opinion discerning skills was a bit premature.

For reference:

Exactly. The lack of zoning is responsible for the travisty that is in the above picture. It's no coincidence that nearly every other major city has zoning.

/thread hijack

This is my last response on this thread, I will let whoever disagrees with me have the last word. Remember this is MY opinion folks, I will agree to disagree.

Opinion: The above picture is a travesty.

Not an opinion: The lack of zoning is responsible for the travesty in the above picture.

[mfastx]

806 Main was not "abandoned". Tenants were ousted so that the renovation to hotel could begin. Domino's remains as a tenant right now, and possibly the Christian Science Reading Room too. Furthermore, at 92 feet (23 stories, not 13) 806 Main is not a midrise. So no, its not a midrise and no, it wasn't abandoned.

1319 Texas is probably a little too short to be a midrise with only 4 stories (not 7 or 8), but I can't find a height measurement.

So start from scratch.

OK you win. I did not do my research. However the fact remains that there are many largly unnocupied buildings in downtown. Also, my original post on this thread pointed out that there are many parking lots BECAUSE we have skyscrapers. If we would have built slightly smaller buildings, then we would need more of them, no? Therefore downtown would be more filled out.

Agree or disagree?

[mfastx]

So, in summary:

You believe that developers should have constructed a greater number of midrise structures in downtown so that we would not have surface parking lots. This is your opinion even though, by your own admission, tenants prefer 'other buildings' to midrises.

Well, that would certainly have made for an interesting CBD - a veritable ghost town of dense midrises.

Uh, I'm not sure you quite understand. Have you read all of my posts on this thread? My original statement was that for the office space demand that we have, we are going to have a smaller number of buildings in downtown if they are skyscrapers. If we build slightly smaller buildings, we would need more of them, therefore filling out the CBD more. We also have surface lots because the overwhelming majority of people drive to work, and need a place to park. The percentage of people who ride mass transit is very small compared to cities of similar size.

[mfastx]

Wow. Nowhere in the world are businesses forced into substandard or unsafe buildings just so the cityscape MIGHT look better, yet you criticize "Houston" for not doing so (the quotes are due to the fact that I don't know who should have forced the tenants into those midrises, the government or the building owners). But, there are more problems with your lament. The midrises that were demolished were replaced with bigger buildings which increased downtown's density...usually considered a good thing...and, more importantly, the area that you claim should have had midrises built on them was not downtown at all at the time. It was next to downtown, but not downtown. Downtown in the 1958 photo is the area of dense midrises (and a few highrises) with few parking lots. The area of 1 and 2 story buildings and apartments and single family residences was the East End. In the 1960s, US 59 was built through the area, cutting it in half. The western half was annexed into downtown as it was a natural fit. The eastern half remained commercial and industrial. The area of parking lots that you so loudly whine about was simply the clearing of land for the expansion of downtown. If not for the oil bust of the mid-80s, that area may very well be filled with midrises and highrises today. As it were, the expansion into east downtown was simply delayed by 15 years due to the bust.

I find it interesting that you complain that Houston developers built unneeded highrises, and that Dallas and Atlanta did it right. It is HOUSTON that had a nearly single digit vacancy rate just prior to the recession, and DALLAS that has a vacancy rate in the mid-20 percent range. Atlanta also has a higher vacancy. Miami has dozens of empty highrises. If anything, those cities did it wrong. Houston did it RIGHT.

I am not "lamenting," I am simply pointing out that the reason we have many lots in the CBD is because of the large skyscrapers. People need somewhere to park, and we have a small percentage of commuters that use mass transit. IN MY OPINION, I think downtown would look nicer if there was a larger amount of buildings, even if they are slightly smaller. A mass transit system would have helped with the parking lots. Trust me, I am not as mad as you think, I am just making (quite possibly biased) observations. I have seen the glaring differences between Houston and other cities of similar size. But I see you are very knowledgeable about Houston's history, so thanks for explaning why there are so many surface lots.

BTW, the "loudly whining" is just keys on the keyboard.

One more question for you: Do you think Houston should have a subway system, and do you think that we would not have nearly as many surface lots if we DID have a subway system?

[N Judah]

Wrong again.

"When the photo I previously posted was taken, in my opinion the condition of downtown Houston, compared to other cities, was a travesty."

[skwatra]

We also have surface lots because the overwhelming majority of people drive to work, and need a place to park. The percentage of people who ride mass transit is very small compared to cities of similar size.

Have you ever ridden a commuter bus downtown from a park and ride? From Clear Lake they run every 7 minutes during peak hours, and are often completely full. All people that are not driving downtown. Houston's ridership (all of Metro) is over 600K daily (actually an old Metro news release, its probably higher), while Dallas DART is just over 200K. MARTA (Atlanta) is around 500K. I know this is not all going to downtown, but its obvious your statement is wrong.

And I think we all agree here that we're not comparing Houston to cities in the NE, and we're talking similar size and similar style city.

[Coaster]

From many angles DT Houston has one of the most attractive and impressive skylines in the world. If those towers are the reason that DT has too many surface lots then I'll gladly take the surface lots. If the only way Houston could have avoided having all those surface lots was to have a lot of dull, possibly dilapidated or abandoned (we'll never know) mid-rises in place of those mighty, iconic and sometimes architecturally significant skyscrapers, then I think things turned out pretty well.

It may be happening at a snail's pace, but eventually all those surface lots will be replaced with something. Perhaps not in our lifetimes, but at least in the future when DT's all built out, there will still be that awesome view of DT from the north (unless, of coarse, another skyline pops up in front of it one day). Who cares if grandpa had to deal with hundreds of ugly parking lots back in the stone age. It was worth it.

[N Judah]

So there's literally nothing there they can put in the meantime that pulls in more money than a surface lot?

[citykid09]

Not true at all. All the cities that developed along with Houston during the age of the automobile are very similar. Older East Coast cities and a couple West Coast cities are about the only cities in the US that aren't similar to Houston.

I was being very, very sarcastic. The contention that building midrises exclusively would have eliminated surface parking is ridiculous.

I use to think the exact same thing, until I visited other southern cities and was shocked. I thought all southern cities were extremely car oriented until I explored cities like Atlanta. I thought it was going to be like Houston, everybody driving and no people on the street, but there where lots of people walking around, street vendors, stores, people heading to the subway, etc. I remember thinking this is what city life is supposed to be. And from what I have seen of Dallas, it is the same way.

Houston has lots of potential, but it needs leaders the lead it in the right direction for that potential. Imaging if Houston had built a rapid transit system back in the 70s where it would be in the world today. I believe that Downtown would be a lot more vibrant than it is.

[TheNiche]

So there's literally nothing there they can put in the meantime that pulls in more money than a surface lot?

If you mean a one- or two-story building...no, not typically. New structures take a long time to pay for themselves, particularly net of lost contract parking revenues.

[TheNiche]

I use to think the exact same thing, until I visited other southern cities and was shocked. I thought all southern cities were extremely car oriented until I explored cities like Atlanta. I thought it was going to be like Houston, everybody driving and no people on the street, but there where lots of people walking around, street vendors, stores, people heading to the subway, etc. I remember thinking this is what city life is supposed to be. And from what I have seen of Dallas, it is the same way.

Houston has lots of potential, but it needs leaders the lead it in the right direction for that potential. Imaging if Houston had built a rapid transit system back in the 70s where it would be in the world today. I believe that Downtown would be a lot more vibrant than it is.

There's a big difference between living/working in Atlanta and merely visiting Atlanta. And as for Dallas (particularly the CBD), I just haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about; it's damn depressing is what it is. And each of those cities' CBDs pales in comparisons with Houston's, by nearly any objective metric.

[RedScare]

OK you win. I did not do my research. However the fact remains that there are many largly unnocupied buildings in downtown. Also, my original post on this thread pointed out that there are many parking lots BECAUSE we have skyscrapers. If we would have built slightly smaller buildings, then we would need more of them, no? Therefore downtown would be more filled out.

Agree or disagree?

Name one.

[RedScare]

We also have surface lots because the overwhelming majority of people drive to work, and need a place to park. The percentage of people who ride mass transit is very small compared to cities of similar size.

Umm, wrong again. 40% of downtown workers commute by bus, train, van and carpool. It is not overwhelmingly car by any stretch of the imagination.

Has it occurred to you at all that all of your views are based on wrong assumptions, no research and no facts?

[AtticaFlinch]

Wrong again.

Oh, ok. Stating one true opinion therefore changes all non-opinions to opinions and eliminates accountability? I think I get it now.

I use to think the exact same thing, until I visited other southern cities and was shocked. I thought all southern cities were extremely car oriented until I explored cities like Atlanta. I thought it was going to be like Houston, everybody driving and no people on the street, but there where lots of people walking around, street vendors, stores, people heading to the subway, etc. I remember thinking this is what city life is supposed to be. And from what I have seen of Dallas, it is the same way.

Houston has lots of potential, but it needs leaders the lead it in the right direction for that potential. Imaging if Houston had built a rapid transit system back in the 70s where it would be in the world today. I believe that Downtown would be a lot more vibrant than it is.

Interesting. I guess you and I have been to different Atlantas and different Dallases.

[mfastx]

Have you ever ridden a commuter bus downtown from a park and ride? From Clear Lake they run every 7 minutes during peak hours, and are often completely full. All people that are not driving downtown. Houston's ridership (all of Metro) is over 600K daily (actually an old Metro news release, its probably higher), while Dallas DART is just over 200K. MARTA (Atlanta) is around 500K. I know this is not all going to downtown, but its obvious your statement is wrong.

And I think we all agree here that we're not comparing Houston to cities in the NE, and we're talking similar size and similar style city.

There was a study recently that revealed that 93% of people in the Houston area don't use public transit. I consider 7% to be a small percentage.

[citykid09]

There's a big difference between living/working in Atlanta and merely visiting Atlanta. And as for Dallas (particularly the CBD), I just haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about; it's damn depressing is what it is. And each of those cities' CBDs pales in comparisons with Houston's, by nearly any objective metric.

I guess when I talk about Dallas, I'm talking about the Uptown area. And when talking about Atlanta's CBD, I include midtown, and Atlantic Station, because its all connected. Atlanta's CBD is lively. Not on the level of NYC, but it still is. In Atlanta though, a lot of the development is concentrated around Peachtree St. So that ads to the urban feel of the city because it goes on and on all the way to Buckhead. Houston's Downtown has more depth.

[mfastx]

Umm, wrong again. 40% of downtown workers commute by bus, train, van and carpool. It is not overwhelmingly car by any stretch of the imagination.

Has it occurred to you at all that all of your views are based on wrong assumptions, no research and no facts?

In the Houston area, 93% of people drive to work, and a whopping 7% of people use public transit. I was talking about the overall city when I said that we would benefit from a mass transit system. Of course, it is rediculous that the in the CBD of the 4th largest city in the nation, over 50%(!) of people drive to work, therin lies the need for surface lots.

[N Judah]

I hate to say it but I think Houston's downtown surface lots are pretty cheap compared to other cities I've parked in, which makes it seem like there isn't as much demand. I'm beginning to think the decision to put surface lots in to the exclusion of any other possible use might have something to do with the way property taxes are calculated, but I don't really have any idea.

[livincinco]

In the Houston area, 93% of people drive to work, and a whopping 7% of people use public transit. I was talking about the overall city when I said that we would benefit from a mass transit system. Of course, it is rediculous that the in the CBD of the 4th largest city in the nation, over 50%(!) of people drive to work, therin lies the need for surface lots.

Well part of that is due to the fact that only 17% of workers in the Houston metro area work downtown. BTW, Los Angeles Metro Rail does an average of 300,000 daily roundtrips in a Metro of over 10 million. That's a whole lot less than 7%.

[RedScare]

In the Houston area, 93% of people drive to work, and a whopping 7% of people use public transit. I was talking about the overall city when I said that we would benefit from a mass transit system. Of course, it is rediculous that the in the CBD of the 4th largest city in the nation, over 50%(!) of people drive to work, therin lies the need for surface lots.

93% of Houstonians do not work in downtown, either. What's your point?

And, ridiculous compared to what? What is Dallas' percentage? Atlanta's?

EDIT: Breaking news! We already have a mass transit system. Oh, and it is bigger than Dallas and Atlanta's.

[TheNiche]

I guess when I talk about Dallas, I'm talking about the Uptown area. And when talking about Atlanta's CBD, I include midtown, and Atlantic Station, because its all connected. Atlanta's CBD is lively. Not on the level of NYC, but it still is. In Atlanta though, a lot of the development is concentrated around Peachtree St. So that ads to the urban feel of the city because it goes on and on all the way to Buckhead. Houston's Downtown has more depth.

Sweet unintentional double entendre on that last sentence. Houston does have more depth, figuratively and literally. We have plenty of vibrancy, not that a drive-by tourist can see it...and not that most of us that live here care. And that's exemplary of how we do things around here; efficiency, subtly, pragmatically, and usually ascetically.

[KinkaidAlum]

ZOMG. I see stupid people!

If our downtown is so full of empty office towers, then why is our overall vacancy rate in the CBD so much lower than the national average?

Houston's downtown had a vacancy rate of 11.9% at the mid point of 2009. Here are some comparison figures;

12.1% Philadelphia

13.5% Miami

13.8% Baltimore

14.0% San Francsico

14.3% Los Angeles

14.4% Austin

14.4% Columbus

14.6% Seattle

14.6% Chicago

14.7% Denver

15.8% San Diego

15.9% Pittsburgh

16.4% Phoenix

16.5% Minneapolis

16.8% Tampa

17.9% Cincinnati

18.4% Nashville

18.7% St Louis

18.8% Orlando

19.5% San Antonio

20.2% Milwaukee

20.6% Las Vegas

20.6% ATLANTA

20.6% Cleveland

21.9% DALLAS

23.0% Kansas City

24.9% San Jose

26.0% Oklahoma City

29.9% Detroit

[Subdude]

I hate to say it but I think Houston's downtown surface lots are pretty cheap compared to other cities I've parked in, which makes it seem like there isn't as much demand. I'm beginning to think the decision to put surface lots in to the exclusion of any other possible use might have something to do with the way property taxes are calculated, but I don't really have any idea.

I would agree. It stands to reason the lots would be cheap - despite the development in downtown over the last 15 years, there is still a lot of surface parking. I don't think I've ever seen another city as given over to parking as is Houston.

The reason so many property owners downtown turned low-rises into surface parking was probably purely economic. The old apartments and small businesses that used to be downtown were getting rundown and likely becoming money losers, whereas making a parking lot would bring in income at relatively low cost and maintenance. Lacking zoning, probably the only way to reduce the amount of surface lots would be to change the economics. A tax on parking places might do the trick.

[kylejack]

There was a study recently that revealed that 93% of people in the Houston area don't use public transit. I consider 7% to be a small percentage.

You said compared to other cities. So you're not right until you post data for other cities that aren't named New York. Also, since you have misstated many many many facts in this thread, I'm going to have to ask you to cite your sources for any more facts you choose to post.

For example, I don't doubt the 93% figure, but where does it come from?