Development List For Buildings In Houston

[Houston19514]

I checked how dense Houston is compared to other cities.

 

In 2010 there were 3,501 people per square mile

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html

 

Compared to some other cities you might be interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

 

New York City - 27,778

San Francisco - 17,246

Boston - 13,321

Chicago - 11,868

Philadelphia - 11,233

Miami - 10,160

Washington DC - 9,856

Seattle - 7,250

Dallas - 3,517

Atlanta -  3,154

Austin - 2,653

Anchorage - 171

 

*My thoughts are that all large Southern Cities seem similar to Houston. Dallas is essential identical. It seems like it will be a long time to hit 4,000 per square mile. You would have to look at a subset of Houston to get higher numbers and say, "Hey that is dense." I don't know what the subset would be. Where is the densest place to live in Houston?

 

It's probably not going to be all that long before we hit 4,000 per square mile.  Based on the 2013 population estimate, we're already up to 3,662 per square mile.  At the recent rate of growth, we should break through the 4,000 per square mile mark before the end of the decade (approximately late 2018).

 

[H-Town Man]

I checked how dense Houston is compared to other cities.

 

In 2010 there were 3,501 people per square mile

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4835000.html

 

Compared to some other cities you might be interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density

 

New York City - 27,778

San Francisco - 17,246

Boston - 13,321

Chicago - 11,868

Philadelphia - 11,233

Miami - 10,160

Washington DC - 9,856

Seattle - 7,250

Dallas - 3,517

Atlanta -  3,154

Austin - 2,653

Anchorage - 171

 

*My thoughts are that all large Southern Cities seem similar to Houston. Dallas is essential identical. It seems like it will be a long time to hit 4,000 per square mile. You would have to look at a subset of Houston to get higher numbers and say, "Hey that is dense." I don't know what the subset would be. Where is the densest place to live in Houston?

 

This is based on city limits, which is not very useful for understanding urbanization. Some of these cities, e.g. Boston and San Francisco, are very hemmed in by suburbs so that only the real urban core, comparable to Houston's inner loop, is in the city limits. Whereas the city of Houston has annexed huge outlying areas (all the way to Kingwood) and thus has some pretty low-density areas within its limits, especially as you head towards Beltway 8.

 

A better understanding could be had if you pulled population data for the 1,3, and 5 mile radii from each city's downtown, which can be done here:

 

http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/caps10c.html

 

Only weakness is that adjustments must be made for cities with large bodies of water near the center.

 

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[Luminare]

New York City - 27,778 *on several islands*

San Francisco - 17,246 *peninsula* 

Boston - 13,321 *peninsula* 

Chicago - 11,868 *big arse lake*

Philadelphia - 11,233 *large river and right up against New Jersey*

Miami - 10,160 *between national parks/wetlands, and a large ocean*

Washington DC - 9,856 *restricted boundary and a large river*

Seattle - 7,250 *in a valley between several foothills and next to a large body of water*

 

In these examples it was essential for these cities to become denser because of geography (and of course many other factors), but geography really does impact how a city sprawls.

We are on miles upon miles upon miles of flat land with narrow bayous so why not sprawl was the mentality. It's like playing Sim City and playing the Ultra large flat map lol.

[Houston19514]

This is based on city limits, which is not very useful for understanding urbanization. Some of these cities, e.g. Boston and San Francisco, are very hemmed in by suburbs so that only the real urban core, comparable to Houston's inner loop, is in the city limits. Whereas the city of Houston has annexed huge outlying areas (all the way to Kingwood) and thus has some pretty low-density areas within its limits, especially as you head towards Beltway 8.

 

A better understanding could be had if you pulled population data for the 1,3, and 5 mile radii from each city's downtown, which can be done here:

 

http://mcdc.missouri.edu/websas/caps10c.html

 

Only weakness is that adjustments must be made for cities with large bodies of water near the center.

 

Agree that city limits density is not very useful for understanding urbanization, especially relative to other cities/metro areas.  That is why I think it's most useful to look at urbanized area densities:

 

As of 2010:

 

Houston - 3,501 (city)   2,978 (urbanized area)

New York City - 27,778 (city)   5,319 (urbanized area)

San Francisco - 17,246 (city)   6,266 (urbanized area)

Boston - 13,321  (city)   2,232 (urbanized area)

Chicago - 11,868 (city)   3,524 (urbanized area)

Philadelphia - 11,233 (city)   2,746 (urbanized area)

Miami - 10,160 (city)   4,442 (urbanized area)

Washington DC - 9,856 (city)   3,470 (urbanized area)

Seattle - 7,250 (city)   3,028 (urbanized area)

Dallas - 3,517 (city)   2,879 (urbanized area)

Atlanta -  3,154 (city)   1,707 (urbanized area)

Austin - 2,653 (city)   2,605 (urbanized area)

 

 

Interestingly, of the 51 urban areas with more than 1 Million population, only 18 have higher densities than Houston.

Here is the complete list in rank order:

 

1) Los Angeles, CA:   6,999

2) San Francisco-Oakland, CA:  6,266

3) San Jose, CA:  5,820

4) New York, NY-NJ-CT: 5,319

5) Las Vegas, NV:  4,525

6) Miami, FL:  4,442

7) San Diego, CA: 4,037

8) Salt Lake City, UT:  3,675

9) Sacramento, CA:  3,660

10) New Orleans, LA:  3,579

11) Denver, CO:  3,554

12) Riverside--San Bernardino, CA:  3,546

13) Portland, OR-WA:  3,528

14) Chicago, IL-IN:  3,524

15) Washington, DC-VA-MD:  3,470

16) Phoenix, AZ:  3,165

17) Baltimore, MD:  3,073

18) Seattle, WA:  3,028

19) Houston, TX:  2,978

20) San Antonio, TX:  2,945

21) Dallas--Fort Worth, TX:  2,879

22) Detroit, MI:  2,793

       Virginia Beach--Norfolk, VA:  2,793

24) Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD:  2,746

25) Columbus, OH:  2,680

26) Austin, TX:  2,605

27) Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI:  2,594

28) Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL:  2,552

29) Orlando, FL:  2,527

30) Milwaukee, WI:  2,523

31) Buffalo, NY:  2,463

32) St. Louis, MO--IL:  2,329

33) Cleveland, OH:  2,307

34) Kansas City, MO--KS:  2,242

35) Boston, MA--NH--RI:  2,232

36) Rochester, NY:  2,221

37) Providence, RI--MA:  2,185

38) Memphis, TN--MS--AR:  2,132

39) Indianapolis, IN:  2,108

40) Oklahoma City, OK:  2,098

41) Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN:  2,063

42) Louisville, KY:  2,040

43) Jacksonville, FL:  2,008

44) Richmond, VA: 1,937

45) Pittsburgh, PA:  1,915

46) Hartford, CT:  1,791

47) Nashville, TN:  1,721

48) Raleigh, NC:  1,708

49) Atlanta, GA:  1,707

50) Charlotte, NC--SC:  1,685

51) Birmingham, AL:  1,414

 

 

Very interesting that on both a city and urbanized area basis, the sprawl capital of Texas is... Austin.

Edited May 28, 2014 by Houston19514

[H-Town Man]

Agree that city limits density is not very useful for understanding urbanization, especially relative to other cities/metro areas. That is why I think it's most useful to look at urbanized area densities:

As of 2010:

Houston - 3,501 (city) 2,978 (urbanized area)

New York City - 27,778 (city) 5,319 (urbanized area)

San Francisco - 17,246 (city) 6,266 (urbanized area)

Boston - 13,321 (city) 2,232 (urbanized area)

Chicago - 11,868 (city) 3,524 (urbanized area)

Philadelphia - 11,233 (city) 2,746 (urbanized area)

Miami - 10,160 (city) 4,442 (urbanized area)

Washington DC - 9,856 (city) 3,470 (urbanized area)

Seattle - 7,250 (city) 3,028 (urbanized area)

Dallas - 3,517 (city) 2,879 (urbanized area)

Atlanta - 3,154 (city) 1,707 (urbanized area)

Austin - 2,653 (city) 2,605 (urbanized area)

Interestingly, of the 51 urban areas with more than 1 Million population, only 18 have higher densities than Houston.

Here is the complete list in rank order:

1) Los Angeles, CA: 6,999

2) San Francisco-Oakland, CA: 6,266

3) San Jose, CA: 5,820

4) New York, NY-NJ-CT: 5,319

5) Las Vegas, NV: 4,525

6) Miami, FL: 4,442

7) San Diego, CA: 4,037

8) Salt Lake City, UT: 3,675

9) Sacramento, CA: 3,660

10) New Orleans, LA: 3,579

11) Denver, CO: 3,554

12) Riverside--San Bernardino, CA: 3,546

13) Portland, OR-WA: 3,528

14) Chicago, IL-IN: 3,524

15) Washington, DC-VA-MD: 3,470

16) Phoenix, AZ: 3,165

17) Baltimore, MD: 3,073

18) Seattle, WA: 3,028

19) Houston, TX: 2,978

20) San Antonio, TX: 2,945

21) Dallas--Fort Worth, TX: 2,879

22) Detroit, MI: 2,793

Virginia Beach--Norfolk, VA: 2,793

24) Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD: 2,746

25) Columbus, OH: 2,680

26) Austin, TX: 2,605

27) Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI: 2,594

28) Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL: 2,552

29) Orlando, FL: 2,527

30) Milwaukee, WI: 2,523

31) Buffalo, NY: 2,463

32) St. Louis, MO--IL: 2,329

33) Cleveland, OH: 2,307

34) Kansas City, MO--KS: 2,242

35) Boston, MA--NH--RI: 2,232

36) Rochester, NY: 2,221

37) Providence, RI--MA: 2,185

38) Memphis, TN--MS--AR: 2,132

39) Indianapolis, IN: 2,108

40) Oklahoma City, OK: 2,098

41) Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN: 2,063

42) Louisville, KY: 2,040

43) Jacksonville, FL: 2,008

44) Richmond, VA: 1,937

45) Pittsburgh, PA: 1,915

46) Hartford, CT: 1,791

47) Nashville, TN: 1,721

48) Raleigh, NC: 1,708

49) Atlanta, GA: 1,707

50) Charlotte, NC--SC: 1,685

51) Birmingham, AL: 1,414

Very interesting that on both a city and urbanized area basis, the sprawl capital of Texas is... Austin.

This seems to give average density across most of the metro area (they give a population of 4,944,000 for Houston's urbanized area). It's not as helpful if you want to compare the densities of the urban cores. Hence, LA and San Jose have higher densities than New York due to New York's sprawling suburbs, and Chicago is below many cities for the same reason. Edited May 29, 2014 by H-Town Man

[Houston19514]

This seems to give average density across most of the metro area (they give a population of 4,944,000 for Houston's urbanized area). It's not as helpful if you want to compare the densities of the urban cores. Hence, LA and San Jose have higher densities than New York due to New York's sprawling suburbs, and Chicago is below many cities for the same reason.

 

Yes, it gives average density for the contiguous urbanized (developed) area. 

[lockmat]

I see the point though. I have read that a large part of the increase in apartment construction - not just in Houston but nationwide - is driven by the wave of retirees wanting smaller quarters more conveniently located. Owned housing seems to be considered much less of a sure thing financially than it once was.

Also less people getting married or putting it off longer. More women in the workforce.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[Houston19514]

It will look quite a bit different in 2015!

[Triton]

The growth explodes:

 

 

 

http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/building-permits-total-73b-for-twelve-months-ending-in-may/

[Luminare]

The growth explodes:

 

 

 

http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/news/building-permits-total-73b-for-twelve-months-ending-in-may/

 

What the.......darn it! Where are you.....Al Gore did you mess with this chart? Did you put all these hockey sticks on here???

[Timoric]

-

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[Specwriter]

I know inflation has been pretty flat for the last decade but even if that has not been taken into account this chart looks pretty encouraging.

[Triton]

New development map. Not much has changed.

 

Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/231432894/DT-MAP

Edited June 27, 2014 by Triton

[Marcus Allen]

That map of the vast parking spaces in DT only made me foam at the mouth fantasizing about the potential development for that area. I am going to be optimistic and say by 2020, we will have a markedly urban and residential friendly DT. By 2030, we will all laugh that it took so long for Houston to get on board with close proximity urbanity, and the 20 somethings will be scrambling to live DT.

[HoustonIsHome]

By 2030 we might have far less surface parking but we will still be plagued by unpleasant warking experiences as in not much to look at but blank walls. Sorry to crap on your dreams for the core, they are mine too, but the way buildings are built here are not geared to urban living

[Urbannizer]

Bruce Merwin, who just joined Thompson & Knight as a partner, predicts Houston will start to look more like NYC—he's got lots of high-rise condos in his pipeline, and he's seeing proposals for vertical mixed-use with residential over hotel over retail. (He thinks those'll pop up in the Galleria and Downtown soon.)

http://www.bisnow.com/commercial-real-estate/houston/2221-no-reason-to-stop-building/

[Timoric]

-

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[Triton]

The list needs quite a bit of updating really. 

[Timoric]

-

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2019 by Timoric

[lithiumaneurysm]

I was thinking about Loop 610 and how big it was compared to Manhattan.

 

Manhattan is 33 square miles.

Inside the Loop is 96 square miles.

 

About 450,000 people live inside the loop.

About 1,624,000 people live in Manhattan.

 

http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/Loop610Website/population.html

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan

 

I guess you can kind of visualize Manhattan taking up the middle 1/3 of the loop, just lined with skyscrapers if you can extrapolate that to what Houston might become in many many decades that is kind of a way to think about the sizes.

 

Another interesting comparison I've been thinking about recently:

 

Paris' 20 arrondissements cover 41 square miles.

As you said, Loop 610 encircles an area of 96 square miles.

 

2,234,105 people live in the 20 arrondissements.

450,000 people live inside the loop.

 

Inner-city Paris doesn't even have a significant number of skyscrapers – those are located in La Defense, outside the arrondissements. A vast majority of central Paris is densely packed 4-6 story apartment buildings with ground level retail. That's why I don't think Houston necessarily needs more high-rise residential – mid rise developments, even at only 4 or 5 stories, will make a huge difference.

[Triton]

I'm on mobile right now so I can't post any quotes but this is a great article from CBRE which warns about overbuilding....http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2014/07/office-multifamily-and-industrial-markets-continue-to-see-gains/

[arche_757]

^Nice find...

 

So in a nutshell:

 

CBRE thinks another spec office tower will happen, but would personally hate to be the lender.

They also see historical rental rates for office space in DT.  And, more importantly there is little upside to having a "new" or "planned" tower, since much of the existing square footage is charging at or near the same price.

 

They think the Super Bowl bid = confidence in DT

Also, that more residential oriented retail will happen to support the growth in that sector of DT.

Edited July 15, 2014 by arche_757

[lockmat]

I don't see the connection between having a super bowl and developer confidence in new office construction. Can someone explain that one to me?

 

Also, he's sure another DT building will break ground, but where does he leave off from the one that he has confidence in? 609? HC6?

[arche_757]

He said something like - Getting the superbowl allowed developers to have more confidence in DT.  I'm guessing he was talking about hospitality?  Not sure.

 

Lack of confidence is in any new spec office building DT.  That doesn't meant 6 Houston Center or 609 Main, it means International Tower or 5 Allen Center.  At least that's my take on it.

 

These were tweets.

[lockmat]

He said something like - Getting the superbowl allowed developers to have more confidence in DT.  I'm guessing he was talking about hospitality?  Not sure.

 

 

Ah, you're probably right. The tweet is among other residential/hospitality comments/tweets.

 

But I still fail to see how a weeks worth of full occupancy and exposure justifies building a multi million dollar tower.

Edited July 15, 2014 by lockmat

[arche_757]

You've got me.  Perhaps its gamesmanship of sorts?  What does CBRE have in Downtown?  Perhaps they're trying to instill some fear among their "lesser" peers who may heed their advice (from afar - if you will), and chase away someone who might add 900k sq ft to the market that would further drive rental rates down, thereby lowering profit for any and all in the market.

[cloud713]

True. The GRB CC has wanted more hotels downtown though, the Super Bowl just happens to be a great reason to move forward with them. The additional hotels will supposably make for more/larger conventions so they can support more people. I'm not sure about the JW though, or the Hilton Garden Inn, since those aren't near the CC or anything. I guess those just feel downtown has been under served or got a great location (JW.. Right at the crossroads of 2 light rail lines in the middle of downtown).

[TBooze]

Ah, you're probably right. The tweet is among other residential/hospitality comments/tweets.

 

But I still fail to see how a weeks worth of full occupancy and exposure justifies building a multi million dollar tower.

 

Perhaps the expectation is that the entire country, and the world for that matter, will see Houston in a new light with all the projects taking place, including the improvements to the GRB Convention Center, Avenida de las Americas, and all the shiny new buildings. These buildings will include approximately 2400 additional hotel rooms, most likely 5000 plus new residential units and the population to fill them by the date of the Superbowl, plus additional retail/restaurants. These improvements can and most likely will entice more convention planners to consider Houston as their convention city. So the hotels will fill up for the Superbowl, which will then highlight Houston and, in a symbiotic manner, keep the rooms full thereafter.  At least that's my opinion as to where the confidence may be coming from.