The Langley: Residential High-Rise At 1717 Bissonnet St.

[Jax]

How are we going to lose anything? The oaks will be there still. North blvd will be there still. The mansions aren't being torn down. You won't see the highrise from North or South blvd. To me it'll be no worse than Maryland Manor. The only difference for me will be that in the future I can take visitors for a bike ride under the oaks and then potentially stop off at a cafe or restaurant at the ground floor of the highrise for a snack.

[Dakota79]

I agree with you JAX. I think it will be fine once it's up, and furthermore would bet $$ that some of those that are complaining will eventually move into it when they downsize. Or maybe their kids or parents might move in to be close to them.

The views will be spectacular.

[Nate99]

Directly across Bissonnet from this project are a couple of houses converted to businesses with the front yards paved in to parking lots.  There were crappy apartments there before. This seems like a visual net plus to the neighborhood to me, unless you just don't like tall things. 

[KinkaidAlum]

Wait, what?

 

In what world will you not be able to see a 260 foot tower from 100 feet away? Do you know where South Boulevard is located? There are houses on South with backyard fences lining Bissonnet on the 1700 block...yeah, the very same block. But, you wont be able to see it or it wont be any "worse" than the Maryland Manor, a complex that was lower than the dozen or so trees that were clear cut for this proposal?

 

 

[KinkaidAlum]

Of course this is about height. The Deed restrictions on either side of this project limit structures to 35 feet. The scale is part of what makes for such a great area. 

 

You can't even build a full three story house in Boulevard Oaks (historic district) or Southampton. Third floor living space has to look like it was converted attic space. 

[Jax]

Isn't the tree canopy pretty thick? When I lived around the corner from there (Dunlavy and Milford) I could barely see the sky. Maybe it'll peek through in places, more likely in back yards than the street, but I doubt it will really affect the aesthetic of the area.

[Nate99]

Wait, what?

 

In what world will you not be able to see a 260 foot tower from 100 feet away? Do you know where South Boulevard is located? There are houses on South with backyard fences lining Bissonnet on the 1700 block...yeah, the very same block. But, you wont be able to see it or it wont be any "worse" than the Maryland Manor, a complex that was lower than the dozen or so trees that were clear cut for this proposal?

 

I think what he meant was, looking down South Blvd, you wouldn't see it. Like this:

 

 

Of course this is about height. The Deed restrictions on either side of this project limit structures to 35 feet. The scale is part of what makes for such a great area. 

 

You can't even build a full three story house in Boulevard Oaks (historic district) or Southampton. Third floor living space has to look like it was converted attic space. 

 

Can you convert your house in Southampton to a Barber shop with a striped pole the size of an oil drum or pave the yard for parking? They did that years ago right across the street. Scale may be your thing, but what if I liked grass in front of every house like structure I see and the absence of red, white and blue spirals?  

 

Restrictive boundaries have to end somewhere, when your property abuts (or is within sight of) that boundary, you take your chances with what might happen with the visual aesthetics around your property. Either that or you pay lawyers to find some way to effectively extend that boundary through any means they can come up with. All fair game I suppose, those attorneys can get quite creative when billing by the hour. 

 

It would be nice if we could all respect our neighbors' every wish, but it would also be nice if we could do what we want with the stuff that we own, sometimes the two niceties collide. 

[UtterlyUrban]

Whoah there. The city's declaring of Bissonnet as a "major thoroughfare" does not have any effect on deed restrictions.

And BTW, that part of Bissonnet has not been declared by the city to be a "major thoroughfare".

Kinkaidalum:

You have made a number of statements here which tells me that you are passionate about your dislike for this project. But, when you are challenged on some of your points, you sometimes don't respond and just move on to other points.

May I ask you to address this one? You made an unequivocal statement that the City of Houston's declaration regarding Bissonnett somehow eviscerated the neighborhood's Deed Restrictions. You might be correct or the poster above might be correct. Please be so kind as to present your facts regarding your very specific and unequivocal statement as I would like to better understand how this could have happened. Facts?

[Jax]

I hope I didn't start an argument. I didn't mean to. I just stated my opinion. Now let's all chill out and talk about something fun like the new high-rise at market square!

[IronTiger]

Instead of fighting the courts for years, it seems to me like a better solution would have been to get some sort of "special district" in the area to limit building heights out of the city. That way, it wouldn't risk setting an anti-development precedent or anything and we can all go home happy (even the developers, who manage to make some ultra-dense townhomes on the site instead)

[Triton]

Surprised better pictures haven't been posted yet:

 

 

[IronTiger]

You know, for what it's worth, I read that there was a gas station at the corner of Ashby and Bissonnet up into the 1970s. Can you believe the outcry if someone wanted to place a gas station there today, even a small one?

[Pumapayam]

Rise Ashby Rise!

[nativehoustonion]

I had to get a Kleenex.  LOL!  

[houstontexasjack]

Rise Ashby Rise!

I can't help but think of the chant from 'The Dark Knight Rises'. :-)

[ricco67]

I can't help but think of the chant from 'The Dark Knight Rises'. :-)

really, I was imagining "arise, Lord Vader."

[Triton]

really, I was imagining "arise, Lord Vader."

Nooooooooooooooo.

[Triton]

Great article on Houston history and the Ashby highrise:

 

 

 

Sprawltastic Houston Is Densifying and the Courts Can’t Stop It

Houston’s reputation as a development free-for-all — it is by far the largest U.S. city without a zoning code — took a hit recently, when a judge upheld a jury award for “lost market value damages” to 20 single-family homeowners near a 21-story apartment building about to rise near Rice University. He denied the neighbors’ request for an injunction preventing construction of the Ashby high-rise at 1717 Bissonnet Street, but he did award them $1.2 million, ruling that the tower is indeed a nuisance. The decision was not well received by the local real estate industry, and led to headlines like Opposition Mounts to Houston High-Rises in the Wall Street Journal.

Though Houston is not quite as unplanned as its reputation — it doesn’t have zoning, but it does have a number of other planning rules — the city’s generations-long pattern of growing outward without densifying the core is starting to reverse itself.

 

 

http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/ashby-high-rise-lawsuit-houston-developers-sprawl

 

Edited May 24, 2014 by Triton

[Ross]

Nice to see an article where someone did some homework. We often forget how much impact the sewer moratorium had on inner loop development.

[citykid09]

Nice to see an article where someone did some homework. We often forget how much impact the sewer moratorium had on inner loop development.

 

Yes, they did homework. I had no idea about the restrictions the city had in the 1970s. imagine what the city would have looked like it had allowed all the development that wanted to come into the inner city.

[UtterlyUrban]

Yes, they did homework. I had no idea about the restrictions the city had in the 1970s. imagine what the city would have looked like it had allowed all the development that wanted to come into the inner city.

I am uncertain if the city would have looked much different had these restrictions not been in place. Sharpstown was already 15-20 years old at that point and had set the model for suburban sprawl.

I guess one could argue that the woodlands (started in the early 70's) and Kingwood (1970) might not have been established. But, I don't agree. IMO, Sprawl would have happened anyway. Many Families wanted to live in "master planned" communities (and many still do), these huge "towns" would have happened regardless of Houston's sewer issues.

[fernz]

does any one know if there's been any progress in the construction lately?

[LarryDierker]

does any one know if there's been any progress in the construction lately?

 

been about a week since I drove by, but looked like not much has happened since tritons pics in post 1032

[IronTiger]

Yes, they did homework. I had no idea about the restrictions the city had in the 1970s. imagine what the city would have looked like it had allowed all the development that wanted to come into the inner city.

Probably pretty nasty-looking, which could've only delayed the already-happened-in-the-East-Coast inner city exodus to the suburbs (and for what it's worth, inner Houston never got as bad as the East Coast cities did). You do know that the bayous were once completely filthy drainage ditches in the 1980s, right?

 

Anyway, on 1717 Bissonnet, I am disappointed, as the development just seems so out of place. It isn't in the major "edge cities" or downtown, but without zoning codes...

[JWW]

"To stand at the foot of South Boulevard in Houston is to look down what is perhaps the most magnificent residential street in America. Staged rows of soaring live oaks form the vaulted arches of a great Gothic cathedral over a grassy esplanade, lined with imposing yet graceful mansions from the 1920s by such eminent architects of their day as John F. Staub and Birdsall P. Briscoe."

 

This is what was written in The New York Times in 1987 about the area. Boulevard Oaks is a special place. It's one of the few largely unaltered places remaining that helps make Houston feel unique. I simply do not think this project is worthy of the location. It doesn't fit the area at all and it actually threatens one of the few jewels this city has. 

 

I don't live in Boulevard Oaks, but I've strolled down North and South many times. I've posed for family photos under the oaks. I've entertained out of town visitors with a walk that always amazes. 

 

We're about to lose this, and for what? A generic apartment tower built by people who don't even reside in the City of Houston?

They can build it.   Is there anything else to discuss?

[mfastx]

Any updates on construction?  I'd snap a pic myself if I weren't in DC 

Edited June 4, 2014 by mfastx

[LarryDierker]

Any updates on construction?  I'd snap a pic myself if I weren't in DC 

 

grassy field. good place to for a couple of cattle to graze.

[wxman]

I've pretty much lost all interest in this project. I don't care either way if it's built or not. Kinda tired of hearing about it. Anybody else feel that way?

[Montrose1100]

I've pretty much lost all interest in this project. I don't care either way if it's built or not. Kinda tired of hearing about it. Anybody else feel that way?

[wxman]

I literally just LOL'd