[lwood]

There is a sign on the property immediately west of Onion Creek. The rendering of the building shows 4 levels of parking with 9 levels of apartments above. "For lease information call Ed Rizk Properties 281-531-0808".

Have I been missing it or is this sign new? Any info available?

This post has been edited by lwood: Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 7:58 AM

[TheNiche]

lwood, on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 @ 9:21am, said:

There is a sign on the property immediately west of Onion Creek. The rendering of the building shows 4 levels of parking with 9 levels of apartments above. "For lease information call Ed Rizk Properties 281-531-0808".

Have I been missing it or is this sign new? Any info available?

http://www.rizk.us/about.html

I'm going to bet that he's just marketing the project for sale and that the rendering is just part of a 'visioning' ploy.

[tanith27]

The sign has been there for a while. I believe its just for the lot next to OC, so I can't imagine how they would get something so large in that area. Besides, if something large is intended for that area, I think you'll see Ashby High Rise related issues pop up all over again. I can't ever imagine something like that coming to the area, unless it was on the periphery along I-10 or 45. If it does, I'll be one of the first to picket.

[Porchman]

tanith27, on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 @ 10:25am, said:

...if something large is intended for that area, I think you'll see Ashby High Rise related issues pop up all over again. I can't ever imagine something like that coming to the area, unless it was on the periphery along I-10 or 45. If it does, I'll be one of the first to picket.

Let's get the yard signs and bumperstickers ready "StopRizkyBusiness.org"

[TheNiche]

tanith27, on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 @ 10:25am, said:

Besides, if something large is intended for that area, I think you'll see Ashby High Rise related issues pop up all over again.

Do any city council live nearby? Any important campaign contributors or uber-wealthy socialites?

That'd be your only hope, really.

[HeightsGuy]

White Oak is definitely zoned commercial, it would be hard to stop anything from going up there.

[heights_yankee]

HeightsGuy, on Thursday, June 19th, 2008 @ 11:41am, said:

White Oak is definitely zoned commercial, it would be hard to stop anything from going up there.

I thought Houston didn't have any zoning?

[HeightsGuy]

heights_yankee, on Friday, June 20th, 2008 @ 10:46am, said:

I thought Houston didn't have any zoning?

Houston doesn't have laws that require you to zone a property a certain way based on location, but Harris County property is definitely zoned. Look at your HCAD statement under land use.

[tmariar]

I hope they're not planning to put up a tall apartment building right on White Oak. I'll try to find the sign today, and see what it says.

I'm having a hard time picturing the property directly to the west of Onion Creek, though I can picture the little strip center a little further to the west. Onion Creek is 3106 White Oak. Per HCAD, the property immediately to the west is 3110 White Oak - land area 9,375 sq. ft., land use code "Residential Improved". First thing I see to the west of that is 3122 White Oak - same owner as 3110 White Oak - land area 15,625 sq. ft., land use code "Retail Multi-Occupancy". The building on 3110 White Oak is described as a 1920 (1992 sq. ft.) "residential duplex". The buildings on 3122 are a 1940 (2700-sq. ft.) structure described as "mixed retail with residential units" and a 1950 (4800 sq. ft.) structure described as a "neighborhood shopping center".

Maybe I'm not following HeightsGuy's point on zoning - I'd always thought even lots in residential portions of the Houston Heights could be used for commercial purposes because there is no zoning. And HCAD says that the land-use codes are just internal codes used for valuing the land.

This post has been edited by tmariar: Friday, June 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM

[RedScare]

HeightsGuy, on Friday, June 20th, 2008 @ 12:15pm, said:

Houston doesn't have laws that require you to zone a property a certain way based on location, but Harris County property is definitely zoned. Look at your HCAD statement under land use.

There is no city or county zoning. The "land use code" on HCAD is a code describing the current use of the property, not how it is zoned.

[tmariar]

Here are photos of the sign:





The sign is on the 3110 White Oak property, but it was recently sold together with the 3122 White Oak property (together totaling 25,000 sq. ft.):



The new property owner's name is Geoff Vaughan, and his mailing address is a unit at the Royalton on Allen Parkway.

As far as I can tell, the combined property is shown by the red square in the below:





Is this really a large enough parcel for the project pictured on the sign?

If that is the plan, Vaughan has got to expect neighborhood opposition - that building is completely wrong for that location, in my opinion.

This post has been edited by tmariar: Friday, June 20, 2008 at 7:27 PM

[lockmat]

I actually really like that. I wonder if retail would be on the other side of the garage?

[tmariar]

Sorry - I posted the sign photos and then added the satellite photos later. The sides of the building shown in the rendering are the only street frontage - the four-story parking garage would tightly border Onion Creek on the White Oak side and houses on the other side, per the overhead shots. No retail, at least as far as I can tell.

Here's a rough panoramic of the area:

This post has been edited by tmariar: Saturday, June 21, 2008 at 1:41 PM

[jc281]

should be interesting...

[cottonmather0]

Do the residents in this area "know people who can get things done" as do the Ashby high rise opponents? LOL

[tmariar]

I would say yes, if there ends up being strong neighborhood opposition. It would seem that such a construction would raise many of the same concerns as the Ashby high-rise - and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about it yet. Maybe people don't know about it, maybe they are waiting for more information, maybe they don't care, or maybe they like the idea.

I don't like it. I wouldn't like the hassles of a major construction project on White Oak; I wouldn't like having something so out of place and out of scale on White Oak; I wouldn't like the effect of the construction or the building on Onion Creek; and I wouldn't like the extra traffic on White Oak, and on Studemont, Heights, and Yale. But more than anything I think it would move us further along the road (especially in the lower Houston Heights) to a neighborhood characterized more by new constructions than historic structures, which I think would be a loss for both the Heights and Houston. But who knows, maybe I'm in the minority in feeling that way, even in the Heights. But I'm guessing a lot of people don't know about it or are waiting for more information.

[tanith27]

I'm completely against this. I do recognize the need for high density dwellings in the area, this location is just wrong wrong wrong. I just sent a note to Adrian Garcias office so I'm curious what they have to say on the matter. Interesting that the Innerloopcondos group has been quiet for a couple of years now. I know there was some pretty good opposition to that and it was much closer to I-10.

[heights_yankee]

tmariar, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 10:52am, said:

I would say yes, if there ends up being strong neighborhood opposition. It would seem that such a construction would raise many of the same concerns as the Ashby high-rise - and yet there doesn't seem to be a lot of talk about it yet. Maybe people don't know about it, maybe they are waiting for more information, maybe they don't care, or maybe they like the idea.

I don't like it. I wouldn't like the hassles of a major construction project on White Oak; I wouldn't like having something so out of place and out of scale on White Oak; I wouldn't like the effect of the construction or the building on Onion Creek; and I wouldn't like the extra traffic on White Oak, and on Studemont, Heights, and Yale. But more than anything I think it would move us further along the road (especially in the lower Houston Heights) to a neighborhood characterized more by new constructions than historic structures, which I think would be a loss for both the Heights and Houston. But who knows, maybe I'm in the minority in feeling that way, even in the Heights. But I'm guessing a lot of people don't know about it or are waiting for more information.

i haven't heard about it via Heights Kids Group yet,so I am betting that the word hasn't spread yet.

I am also all for more density but this is the wrong location and the wrong type of project. i think that white oak will turn almost completely commercial eventually, which is great. this project looks all about ego to me. when will these builders realize what they are getting in to when they buy in the heights. they think it's a giant free for all up here and they are wrong (on the commerical side anyway).

[tanith27]

Adrian Garcias office just emailed me and said the Planning and Development Dept hasn't received any permit application or subdivision application for review on this. Seems to me the 'new leasing' part of this sign is quite a bit premature.

[tmariar]

Thanks for asking, and for the update.

[swtsig]

i'm also a strong advocate for promoting urban density and am also strongly in favor for the ashby high-rise, but i cant say i agree with what is being proposed here... that building doesn't fit at all in that area.

[RedScare]

cottonmather0, on Saturday, June 21st, 2008 @ 6:53pm, said:

Do the residents in this area "know people who can get things done" as do the Ashby high rise opponents? LOL

Umm....no. No, I don't.

[ricco67]

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:11pm, said:

Umm....no. No, I don't.

C'mon, Red. I am sure you know where the bodies are buried.


I know i'm going to get flak for this; But I think this is a better location than Asbury with a nice big road in front of it.

[RedScare]

ricco67, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:23pm, said:

C'mon, Red. I am sure you know where the bodies are buried.


I know i'm going to get flak for this; But I think this is a better location than Asbury with a nice big road in front of it.

Who told you about the bodies?


I'll probably be accused of being a Heights RINO (resident in name only), but that tower in and of itself does not offend me. It sure beats what is there now. However, I agree, it does not seem to fit the lot. Retail on the first floor of the garage WOULD be kind of cool, though. As for anything else, the Heights boundary is the eastern lot line of this parcel, so it is rather useless as anything fun, such as a bar or restaurant. Might as well be a highrise....or maybe a CVS or a mattress store.

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

[ricco67]

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:35pm, said:

Who told you about the bodies?


I'll probably be accused of being a Heights RINO (resident in name only), but that tower in and of itself does not offend me. It sure beats what is there now. However, I agree, it does not seem to fit the lot. Retail on the first floor of the garage WOULD be kind of cool, though. As for anything else, the Heights boundary is the eastern lot line of this parcel, so it is rather useless as anything fun, such as a bar or restaurant. Might as well be a highrise....or maybe a CVS or a mattress store.

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

I agree,its better than what is currently there. Besides, if they make the garage a floor higher and invite the residents in the immediate area for vehicle storage, I'm sure that would be enough of a bribe.

[tmariar]

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:35pm, said:

I'll probably be accused of being a Heights RINO (resident in name only), but that tower in and of itself does not offend me. It sure beats what is there now. However, I agree, it does not seem to fit the lot. Retail on the first floor of the garage WOULD be kind of cool, though. As for anything else, the Heights boundary is the eastern lot line of this parcel, so it is rather useless as anything fun, such as a bar or restaurant. Might as well be a highrise....or maybe a CVS or a mattress store.

Hope people will be respectful of others' opinions, especially locals of their neighbors' opinions. If there are people in the area who like the idea, I'm interested in their thoughts. I don't really mind what's there now. But I recognize that the long-term chances of the 1920's house being preserved as a residence are probably not great. Perhaps the chances of preserving the 1940's and 1950's retail buildings are also small - don't know whether the issue with getting good tenants there has been short-term leases or lack of interest. And I think you're right that the dry line runs somewhere just to the east of Oxford, but White Oak doesn't really need more bars or restaurants (better, maybe - but that's another topic). I wouldn't mind seeing some more neighborhood-oriented retail, though - I've generally liked the trend in new shops that have opened (the skate shop, scooter store, bike lab, skin-care place, McCain's, the antiques store, the bead shop, the cigar place, the art places, the pottery guild, etc.).

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:35pm, said:

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

I can imagine there would be a 6-story apartment building design I could live with and might even learn to like. If it were compact enough, I wouldn't even care if there wasn't retail on the first story - as long as it wasn't a parking garage. The problem is where to put the cars. If you could have retail or something fronting White Oak, and cars parked in the back, and a few stories of apartments above (whatever small number could be supported by the back-lot ground parking), that wouldn't be so bad - might even be good as a small part of the overall mix. Scale and the resulting 4-story parking garage are my major issues with what's on that sign.

This post has been edited by tmariar: Monday, June 23, 2008 at 8:39 PM

[digsdanaus]

OK - this is my first, which explains the blank post - I'm thinking that might just be that realtor's sign. I've called the number to find out. No answer, of course! I'm sure if there's a high-rise planned, the people who live on 6 1/2 and others close by will be visiting City Council. There was quite an uproar when O.C. opened.

[Tiko]

digsdanaus, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 8:50am, said:

I'm thinking that might just be that realtor's sign.

I don't think so. I've heard that someone has gone to some local merchants and solicited them as tenants for the building.

[bounce]

I've lived in the Heights since 1995, in both Houston Heights and Woodland Heights. I have a tough time seeing highrise/midrise apartments springing up like this. The opposition will be OVERWHELMING if this thing really took off, if you don't believe me just go check out the way Woodland Heights organizes against prevailing lot sizes. I know the apartments off the 10 feeder made it, but those are only 3-stories I think. And location made a big difference there since it was on the perimeter. And does anyone remember the used car lot that tried to go in on Studewood a few years ago? I think that lasted less than 2 months. Does Starbucks ring a bell? It ended up on the 610 frontage, a long way from where they first targeted.

I certainly understand the urban density comments, but there are NUMEROUS apartment/condo complex options on the perimeters and within a couple miles (see also Studemont/Washington intersection). If this thing were to go in, it starts to set a precedent and before you know it you'll have similar buildings, townhomes, etc. Just can't risk it if you want to maintain the historical integrity.

The traditional Heights independents will NEVER let this type of structure go up.

And from an urban planning standpoing, the next largest structure to this is on Allen Parkway or off 610 North. It could be the prettiest building in town, and would just be an eyesore in what is primarily a residential neighborhood.

I think it's much ado about nothing...and if it's not, I guarantee the neighborhood sleeping giants will eventually make sure it is.

I would like to see more retail, problem is all the guys that own the White Oak frontage have priced it out of reach for someone trying to put in local shops, and a "strip" center would again have difficulty getting past the watchdogs.

Besides, is it so bad that we've got a quiet little area that's 10 minutes from all the things we're talking about? Don't know about most, but that's EXACTLY what I want - to be close, not next door.

[musicman]

bounce, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 9:39am, said:

Just can't risk it if you want to maintain the historical integrity.

I'm not sure White Oak is the best example of historical integrity.

[Zippy]

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:35pm, said:

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

I think the thing about the areas of 19th st to 24th and Yale or so already have the assisted living/hospitals/hospices/office buildings which are multi-floor buildings. I would not and don't have a problem with a 6 story building there..

Now around White Oak.. this is pretty much smack dab in the middle of a neighbourhood.. play nice or go home. This place would stand out like buck teeth.. Let's hope this is just for illustrative purposes and not a real project.

[heights_yankee]

Zippy, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 10:32am, said:

I think the thing about the areas of 19th st to 24th and Yale or so already have the assisted living/hospitals/hospices/office buildings which are multi-floor buildings. I would not and don't have a problem with a 6 story building there..

Now around White Oak.. this is pretty much smack dab in the middle of a neighbourhood.. play nice or go home. This place would stand out like buck teeth.. Let's hope this is just for illustrative purposes and not a real project.

my thought exactly.

if this building was going to be 4 stories, i might be able to accept it, but 13 is too much, esp when all you'll see if you're on the street is parking.

[Porchman]

RedScare, on Monday, June 23rd, 2008 @ 5:35pm, said:

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

My concern would be the same, Red. Retreat at the Heights is an improvement to Yale, no doubt. However, it's not an improvement to the neighborhood on W. 22. I would argue that this is not only because of scale, but also due to the fact that there is no "breathe" space. It comes right up to the street and the property to the West. ( See the Google image of the Retreat construction site.) It's also all parking on the lower level. While a building like the one being discussed here might go on White Oak, it would not be kind to the neighbors on Oxford as such a devlopment would have to use this small footprint very efficiently.

Zippy, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 10:32am, said:

I think the thing about the areas of 19th st to 24th and Yale or so already have the assisted living/hospitals/hospices/office buildings which are multi-floor buildings

True. However, per my observation above, they have space around them. These buildings have frontage and are not parked on top of the nearby residents. I never get the feeling these buildings encroach upon the neighborhoods around them thet much (not even Heights Tower which takes ugliness to a bold, new level).

[maya-arch]

A few notes of clarification on the building being discussed:

a. The structure, as currently envisioned, will include first floor retail and parking, probably two floors of parking and six to seven floors of office/studio lease space. The top floor of the garage will be designed for an art gallery, or similar space, with the roof of the garage as outdoor terrace areas.

b. The project is in a very, very early design stage and will be a Class-A "green" structure with early 20th-century details. Equivalent-scaled structures might be the Lancaster downtown or The Plaza in Montrose.

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

f. This is the only information available at this time. Further postings will come in the near future.

Thank you for your interest.

[TheNiche]

maya-arch, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 5:48pm, said:

Thank you for your interest.

And thank you for all the juicy details! I wish you the best of luck in seeing this building to fruition. I'm sure that it'll be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood.

Do you think you could make the building a little more slick and modern, though, if only to piss off the squares?

[tmariar]

Maya-arch: Thanks for the information, and the promise of updates.

There are elements of the proposed building that sound like they might appeal to me and (if I had to guess) to many other Heights residents - the "green" aspect, the period detailing, the ground-floor retail, and the target tenants, for example.

I remain concerned, though, about the scale of the building - both its overall height and the size of the lower four stories of the structure. (If I understand your post correctly, the current plan is to have a lower 4-story structure topped by a 6- to 7-story structure. The bottom floor of the 4-story structure would be retail/parking, the second and third would be parking, and the fourth would possibly be gallery space.)

Again, the updates here will be very much appreciated - but is there any kind of meeting contemplated with local residents during the planning stages in which we would have an opportunity to learn more, ask questions, and offer feedback?

This post has been edited by tmariar: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 at 7:50 PM

[jc281]

maya-arch, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 5:48pm, said:

A few notes of clarification on the building being discussed:

a. The structure, as currently envisioned, will include first floor retail and parking, probably two floors of parking and six to seven floors of office/studio lease space. The top floor of the garage will be designed for an art gallery, or similar space, with the roof of the garage as outdoor terrace areas.

b. The project is in a very, very early design stage and will be a Class-A "green" structure with early 20th-century details. Equivalent-scaled structures might be the Lancaster downtown or The Plaza in Montrose.

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

f. This is the only information available at this time. Further postings will come in the near future.

Thank you for your interest.

Build it! We will come!

[ricco67]

jc281, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 1:55am, said:

Build it! We will come!

that depends on the size of the crane.

[lockmat]

maya-arch, on Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 @ 5:48pm, said:

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

[OkieEric]

lockmat, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 8:27am, said:

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't really understand c.) - don't most people who work out of home do so to save money, be around their families, etc? Why would these people want to lease space somewhere? I would expect the money-saving/being at home issue to dominate any commute issues; the Heights isn't exactly BFE

And no, I don't understand the office space market. Are there any similar projects in the city? That newer midrise around Montrose and Richmond comes to mind, but the proposed mix here sounds more interesting if they can pull it off

Anyway, sounds like a cool proposal, but it definitely seems like it'd be way out of scale

[TheNiche]

OkieEric, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 8:54am, said:

I don't really understand c.) - don't most people who work out of home do so to save money, be around their families, etc? Why would these people want to lease space somewhere? I would expect the money-saving/being at home issue to dominate any commute issues; the Heights isn't exactly BFE

If you have more than one or two employees, working at home becomes very difficult. And vendor and client meetings are always at least a little akward, especially if your home isn't a showpeice or you aren't Mr. Clean. Also, a lot of office buildings that serve numerous small tenants (sometimes dubbed 'executive offices') provide common secretarial service.

But a lot of people just need to seperate business from home and family. A short commute and change of venue gives them a chance to shift mindset out of one life and into another.

[Zippy]

lockmat, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 8:27am, said:

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't think I got anything in the mail for my consideration...

As well thought out as this may or may not be, having a midrise on white oak is is honestly going to stick out poorly. There are no other buildings around this area more than 3 stories.

This is not exactly a "commercial district" either. Yes, there are mostly businesses directly fronted on white oak, but they butt up against residences in the rear.

I don't know how tall the Lancaster is, but the Plaza on Montrose was built in 1920 as a hotel and is some 11 stories. The neighborhood eventually built in around it, not the other way around. Plus there are many other multi story complexes around it.

I'll reiterate: this project, if the Heights was the targeted demographic and area, would be much better suited for 19th-24th..

I do see a Ashby-style fight going on here. I'd suggest scale back, or move to another location.

Thanks

---
Edit: Yes. there are 3 story buildings.. this changes everything

This post has been edited by Zippy: Thursday, June 26, 2008 at 1:46 PM

[sevfiv]

The Plaza and Lancaster (which is akin to the old William Penn Hotel and probably about 10-11 stories) are both classic twenties Houston architecture (and both from Joseph Finger who I really like) - if this goes through it will be interesting to see how their version of a '20s "downtown" building goes with the suburban (back then) residential of the same era.

But yeah, gut reaction to this project is "not that, not there."

Oh - "their" is this group, I believe:
http://www.cisnerosdesignstudio.com/

[TheNiche]

Zippy, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 11:55am, said:

As well thought out as this may or may not be, having a midrise on white oak is is honestly going to stick out poorly. There are no other buildings around this area more than 2 stories.

There aren't any 3- or 4-story townhomes at all around there? That doesn't seem right.

Zippy, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 11:55am, said:

This is not exactly a "commercial district" either. Yes, there are mostly businesses directly fronted on white oak, but they butt up against residences in the rear.

Yeah, commercial districts do tend to be spatially finite. And residential areas pick up where they leave off. That's how it works.

[Tiko]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 1:40pm, said:

There aren't any 3- or 4-story townhomes at all around there? That doesn't seem right.



Yeah, commercial districts do tend to be spatially finite. And residential areas pick up where they leave off. That's how it works.

And districts tend to be one lot deep?

[TheNiche]

Tiko, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 1:45pm, said:

And districts tend to be one lot deep?

In older neighborhoods, yes, that is very common (i.e. 19th Street, the Westheimer curve, Harrisburg Road, Dowling Street, Upper Almeda, and in places like Austin you have South Congress and S. Lamar, and in San Antonio you have Frederickburg Road, and in Dallas you have the Greenville Road District).

Suburban areas usually have at least some separation, such as a major thoroughfare...I can't understand why an arrangement such as that might be more preferable to you...but if that's what you like, I'd suggest you look for housing in a more contrived neighborhood somewhere in the suburbs. The Woodlands might be to your liking.

[Tiko]

TheNiche, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 3:12pm, said:

In older neighborhoods, yes, that is very common (i.e. 19th Street, the Westheimer curve, Harrisburg Road, Dowling Street, Upper Almeda, and in places like Austin you have South Congress and S. Lamar, and in San Antonio you have Frederickburg Road, and in Dallas you have the Greenville Road District).

Suburban areas usually have at least some separation, such as a major thoroughfare...I can't understand why an arrangement such as that might be more preferable to you...but if that's what you like, I'd suggest you look for housing in a more contrived neighborhood somewhere in the suburbs. The Woodlands might be to your liking.

So, just to be clear, you're switching from talking of commercial "districts" to individual streets. And you think White Oak is a district in the vein of the Museum District or the Theater District.

[TheNiche]

Tiko, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 3:54pm, said:

So, just to be clear, you're switching from talking of commercial "districts" to individual streets. And you think White Oak is a district in the vein of the Museum District or the Theater District.

I don't follow what you're getting at, exactly.

I think that the Lower Greenville Entertainment District in Dallas is a really strong analogy. And look at aerial photos. It is a corridor that is only partially commercial but which is defined entirely by the commercial presence. And it has similar issues with customers parking along residential streets, too.

http://www.greenvilleavenue.org

http://maps.live.com...&...1&encType=1

[tmariar]

lockmat, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 8:27am, said:

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't think that's fair to say because (at least as far as I know) there has been no meeting or other coordination with residents yet. How can our views have been taken into careful consideration if they haven't been solicited? In fact, it looks like all the Heights residents that have posted here so far have some reservation about the project as currently planned.

It would be disingenuous to dismiss our opinions as NIMBYism given that (1) the target tenants are apparently local residents (meaning this isn't a case of one neighborhood not wanting to host a project that would benefit a larger area), and (2) the more obvious reason why there might be opposition from residents is that many people who live in the Heights do so because they prefer its character to that of neighborhoods in which this project wouldn't be so out of place.

I acknowledged before that there appears to have been some attempt made to take the neighborhood character into consideration in planning this project - perhaps more of an attempt than many developers would make. And yet, no other developer is proposing to build an 11-story building in the middle of White Oak.

I respect the opinions of the non-residents who like the sound of the project - that's great, and I'm sure there are locals who would support it as well. But it does seem reasonable to hope that the developers of a project of this size - especially one targeted for use by current residents - would hold a public information meeting of some kind to provide residents with more information and an opportunity for questions and feedback. If a project was planned for your neighborhood that was exponentially larger than anything previously built there in the past 100+ years, would you not hope for the same?

Here's another photo of the sign that shows the property in relation to Onion Creek, for those who haven't driven by yet:

This post has been edited by tmariar: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 at 10:04 PM

[TheNiche]

tmariar, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 9:00pm, said:

I don't think that's fair to say because (at least as far as I know) there has been no meeting or other coordination with residents yet. How can our views have been taken into careful consideration if they haven't been solicited?

tmariar, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 9:00pm, said:

I acknowledged before that there appears to have been some attempt made to take the neighborhood character into consideration in planning this project - perhaps more of an attempt than many developers would make.

Well there you go. Even if a developer has not initiated meetings with a neighborhood group (and btw, those meetings are always a fiasco comprised of people that hate the project with very few that show up that are indifferent even if such people are numerous) it is possible for the developer to forsee and overcome the most likely objections in the design phase. It looks to me like you acknowledge that.

And if you're at all familiar with the political situation in Austin, you might be thankful that a developer would do this of their own volition rather than be essentially forced to hire an ex-politician at exhorbitantly high cost to go out and wine and dine the planning department and city council for the necessary backing. That's an alternative I don't much care for.

tmariar, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 9:00pm, said:

It would be disingenuous to dismiss our opinions as NIMBYism given that (1) the target tenants are apparently local residents (meaning this isn't a case of one neighborhood not wanting to host a project that would benefit a larger area), and (2) the more obvious reason why there might be opposition from residents is that many people who live in the Heights do so because they prefer its character to that of neighborhoods in which this project wouldn't be so out of place.

It may be short-sighted to underestimate the scope of their market area. There are not many buildings of the sort that exist, after all, so they may very well be reaching into the Washington Avenue, Montrose, and many other areas. In fact, taking your subsequent statement into account, which was:

tmariar, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 9:00pm, said:

If a project was planned for your neighborhood that was exponentially larger than anything previously built there in the past 100+ years, would you not hope for the same?

...it seems like your interpretation of what constitutes the neighborhood is exclusive of the midrises on 19th and 20th Streets. I can assure you that that is too small a market area to draw from...and if we are going to get into it over semantics, I might point out that the person that interjected on this thread with the plans did not identify themselves and may only be the architect or some random consultant; we cannot take their word as that of the developer.

tmariar, on Wednesday, June 25th, 2008 @ 9:00pm, said:

I respect the opinions of the non-residents who like the sound of the project - that's great, and I'm sure there are locals who would support it as well. But it does seem reasonable to hope that the developers of a project of this size - especially one targeted for use by current residents - would hold a public information meeting of some kind to provide residents with more information and an opportunity for questions and feedback.

That is not uncommon in other cities, albeit done under threat of credible political opposition. It is effectively unheard of in Houston unless it is a local government entity seeking federal funds. If you don't like that and would like to change it, I'd still oppose such a policy position, but would welcome you to try. But the reality is that such meetings are still not really expected or required by residents or project stakeholders.