[LTAWACS]

So wuts the status?

[CDeb]

LTAWACS, on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 @ 2:19pm, said:

So wuts the status?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5510359.html

DOH!!

Even the ordinance specifically targeted at this development wouldn't stop it.

[lockmat]

"James Reeder, the other co-chair of Stop Ashby High-Rise, said the ordinance is not the only tool the neighborhoods have. He said the organization would consider suing the developers, if necessary."

On what grounds could they sue them?

[LTAWACS]

So when does this thing start construction?

[TheNiche]

lockmat, on Monday, February 4th, 2008 @ 9:33am, said:

On what grounds could they sue them?

On the grounds that the neighbors have a lot of money and that a protracted lawsuit can bog down the project to the point that the lenders back out and kill the deal. Whether they have a valid legal position is not necessarily relevant.

CDeb, on Monday, February 4th, 2008 @ 9:18am, said:

DOH!!

Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

The document is so poorly written and is so utterly meaningless that I can't envision it being passed. If it were, the lawsuits that would entail (if the City chose to try to enforce it) would be almost hilarious.

[CDeb]

TheNiche, on Monday, February 4th, 2008 @ 2:39pm, said:

Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

I've read it too. What loopholes did you see for 1717 Bissonnet?

[TheNiche]

CDeb, on Monday, February 4th, 2008 @ 2:55pm, said:

I've read it too. What loopholes did you see for 1717 Bissonnet?

I'm not gonna say, publicly.

[LTAWACS]

TheNiche, on Monday, February 4th, 2008 @ 1:39pm, said:

On the grounds that the neighbors have a lot of money and that a protracted lawsuit can bog down the project to the point that the lenders back out and kill the deal. Whether they have a valid legal position is not necessarily relevant.



Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

The document is so poorly written and is so utterly meaningless that I can't envision it being passed. If it were, the lawsuits that would entail (if the City chose to try to enforce it) would be almost hilarious.

Coming from our city leaders this doesn't surprise me.

[ricco67]

The vote for the new Ordinance that is specific to this project has been delayed for 2 weeks....again.

[LTAWACS]

Ugh. Not good. I hope they hurry and build this thing.

[talltexan83]

This post has been edited by talltexan83: Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 10:52 AM

[ricco67]

talltexan83, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 10:51am, said:

I found this on the "Stop Ashby High Rise" website. It looks like the two sides are working towards a compromise without the city's help.

Kevin Kirton and Matthew Morgan requested a meeting with representatives of the Stop Ashby High Rise Task Force to discuss alternatives to the construction of the 23-story commercial/residential building at 1717 Ashby that they originally proposed. The meeting was held on Tuesday, February 5 at Buckhead Investments' office. At that meeting, the developers said they would consider two alternatives to the 23-story project:

• Reducing the height of the structure to 19 stories by building fewer, bigger condominium units, but they reserved the right to build as many units as originally proposed if they could not sell enough of the larger units.
  
• If they received a cash payment of $2.65 million, they would build a 6 story building consisting of two floors or parking and four floors of apartments
  

I know the neighborhood rejected these offers, but made a counter offer of some kind. Hopefully a suitable agreement can be reached.

Good catch.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

One thing I've been rather curious about is that The Museum Tower on Montrose is sorta like the proposed 1717 Building and what traffic is like in and out of the place

The reason why I ask is, while I don't know the occupancy rate of the Museum tower, I do know a couple of residences who are always out of town (Figure they live there for an avg of 5 days a month) and there are people who keep VERY odd hours. Having a chance to rethink my stance on the traffic on this, perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.
The demographic that would live here are work excessively long hours, are away on business travel, or have the means that they can pick and choose their hours or don't have to work at all.

[CDeb]

ricco67, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 11:08am, said:

perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.

The neighborhood itself will help traffic around the Ashby high rise. This isn't suburban neighborhood where there are only one or two ways in and out and through streets are spaced far apart. Southampton is an open grid with many through streets and access points. The traffic can distribute to several locations and can route around congested areas, quickly blending into the background traffic.

[sidegate]

CDeb, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 10:19am, said:

The neighborhood itself will help traffic around the Ashby high rise. This isn't suburban neighborhood where there are only one or two ways in and out and through streets are spaced far apart. Southampton is an open grid with many through streets and access points. The traffic can distribute to several locations and can route around congested areas, quickly blending into the background traffic.

Wroxton Court, the street immediately behind the proposed development, is a cul de sac, so pretty much useless for egress. The way the rest of the immediate grid is laid out there are a lot of T-junctions controlled by single stop signs, and all those streets have on-street parking. If I was a homeowner I'd fight entrances and exits into my hood tooth and nail, similar to how the locals restricted Trammel Crowe from barfing traffic into Winlow Place from the Alexan on Westheimer.

[sidegate]

ricco67, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 10:08am, said:

Good catch.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

One thing I've been rather curious about is that The Museum Tower on Montrose is sorta like the proposed 1717 Building and what traffic is like in and out of the place

The reason why I ask is, while I don't know the occupancy rate of the Museum tower, I do know a couple of residences who are always out of town (Figure they live there for an avg of 5 days a month) and there are people who keep VERY odd hours. Having a chance to rethink my stance on the traffic on this, perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.
The demographic that would live here are work excessively long hours, are away on business travel, or have the means that they can pick and choose their hours or don't have to work at all.

I concur. But it's never really been about the traffic. The traffic is a front because Bill White doesn't want to confront the Z-word issue. These developers have come in and had the temerity to play by the City's own rules and have found that, well, those actually aren't the rules, because these wealthy, connected NIMBYs say so. I'm personally pro-zoning, and would much rather this turn into a debate on the merits or otherwise of zoning city-wide, but that's not going to happen.

Edit: found typo

This post has been edited by sidegate: Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 12:44 PM

[lockmat]

More good news for Ashby...

Houston seeks delay in rules for high-rises

City officials want to spend up to seven more months to consider ways to regulate traffic from high-density buildings, Mayor Bill White said Wednesday.

The announcement was discouraging for residents who want a quick resolution to the controversy over the proposed Ashby high-rise near Rice University.

White said he would prefer City Council hold off passing a new traffic study ordinance so the city can hold public hearings that could run through September.

"I think it's a public debate that needs to happen," White said. "To make sure we do this and we do this right."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5540504.html

This post has been edited by lockmat: Thursday, February 14, 2008 at 2:15 PM

[LTAWACS]

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

[CDeb]

LTAWACS, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 3:26pm, said:

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

Here is the developer's page:

http://www.buckfund....17%20Bissonnet/

[TheNiche]

CDeb, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 4:38pm, said:

Here is the developer's page:

http://www.buckfund....17%20Bissonnet/

Houstonians for Responsible Growth

http://www.houstongrowth.org/

[sidegate]

Good for them for snagging the "Responsible" tagline. Caught everyone else napping.

[talltexan83]

LTAWACS, on Thursday, February 14th, 2008 @ 3:26pm, said:

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

Please take the time to read through this thread before dropping another one line response. It offers nothing productive to the discussion.

As for the Ashby High rise, it is clear that most of us have have our opinions on the ideal outcome. Many of us (myself included), have strong opinions. But I think the recent developments are encouraging for all parties involved. We could reach a compromise between Buckhead and the nieghborhood........all while serving as a catalyst for the city to overhaul its approach to neighborhood developments.

[TheNiche]

talltexan83, on Friday, February 15th, 2008 @ 9:33am, said:

I think the recent developments are encouraging for all parties involved. We could reach a compromise between Buckhead and the nieghborhood........all while serving as a catalyst for the city to overhaul its approach to neighborhood developments.

I'd be extremely happy to hear of a done deal where the neighborhood bought out Buckhead. In my opinion, the negotiating table is where many if not most of these kinds of disputes ought to be resolved.

[Subdude]

[TheNiche]

Subdude, on Sunday, February 17th, 2008 @ 7:05am, said:

Personally I find it disturbing that residents are being expected to pay for neighborhood protection that people in other cities receive from their local governments.

I find it disturbing that residents in other cities expect local governments to provide neighborhood protection rather than them paying for it themselves.

[musicman]

[CDeb]

They're changing their strategy because their proposed ordinance wouldn't have stopped the high rise.

[houston-development]

CDeb, on Thursday, February 28th, 2008 @ 6:47am, said:

They're changing their strategy because their proposed ordinance wouldn't have stopped the high rise.

think the strategy was mentioned here before.

its been their back up plan for a while to protect the city from a possible lawsuit.

[woolie]

Is there still time to make it 50 stories?

Really, though, I think it's a beautiful structure. I'd be glad to have it anywhere in Houston. I'd love to have it across the street from my current rental in midtown, or the house I'm buying near Baldwin park further up in midtown. It's a high quality design with real attention paid to the street level. However, it's an inescapable fact that the TMC is booming, and everything close in should be redeveloped in this way. It's just silly for neighborhood residents to assume their neighborhood shouldn't change over time as density (destiny?) increases.

This post has been edited by woolie: Saturday, March 1, 2008 at 1:41 PM

[LTAWACS]

I agree. But humans assume silly things by nature... we shall see.

[Subdude]

[musicman]

wipe off the fans, it is about to get exciting.

This post has been edited by musicman: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 11:24 AM

[lockmat]

This whole time we thought something was in the works, and it wasn't. What are the possible reasons for the city not getting on the ball? Is it possible this whole time Mayor White was just paying the residents lip service, acting as if he cared?

And it seems to me that the developers are bending over backwards for them. They've done everything except sell the land, which isn't justifiable. They're even scaling it down when they don't have to.

[musicman]

lockmat, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 7:43am, said:

This whole time we thought something was in the works, and it wasn't.

LOL i guess you haven't been reading this thread

[LTAWACS]

This is good. I can't wait. I didn't know there were originally 2 towers to this...

[lockmat]

Buckhead is so all over this. They're providing information like crazy. The latest example is pictures of other residential highrises in neighborhoods in Houston that have done fine.

Quote

There are already a number of existing successful high-rise developments in Houston located in residential neighborhoods that have not undermined the quality of life therein. Following is another series of aerial photographs showing examples of several such high-rises that were built during the period ranging from 1965 to the 2002:

http://www.buckfund....omparisons.html

----

Also, so much attention to the building itself has been diverted b/c of this 'controversy', but I just love this building and all the components it will bring. Too bad it's location isn't in a more dense area.

This post has been edited by lockmat: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 11:29 AM

[Jax]

I just hope they get rid of those "tower of traffic" signs. Those things in my opinion are more of a visual blight on one of Houston's nicest neighborhoods than a classy highrise ever will be.

[CDeb]

Jax, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 11:40am, said:

I just hope they get rid of those "tower of traffic" signs. Those things in my opinion are more of a visual blight on one of Houston's nicest neighborhoods than a classy highrise ever will be.

Maybe this one is better:

[Jax]

Haha where'd you see that?

This post has been edited by Jax: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 11:56 AM

[CDeb]

http://www.offthekuf...ves/010501.html

[talltexan83]

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

These "residential highrise" comparisons don't really help their argument. All of these properties are bordered by wide 4+ lane streets (Montrose, Kirby, Westheimer, etc.) and bordered more by parks, schools and churches than single family homes. If anything, this comparison proves that their really is no precedent in Houston for putting a 23-story structure in the middle of a residential area.

[LTAWACS]

talltexan83, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 12:20pm, said:

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

I don't think it's costing them that much at all. They are spending what they think is worth to spend. Besides it's nothing that a little positive cash stream won't soon fix. This is why Houston is such a good city in which to live.

[TheNiche]

talltexan83, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 11:20am, said:

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

Its easy to win an argument when you're right on the mark. Doesn't cost much, either.

talltexan83, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 11:20am, said:

These "residential highrise" comparisons don't really help their argument. All of these properties are bordered by wide 4+ lane streets (Montrose, Kirby, Westheimer, etc.) and bordered more by parks, schools and churches than single family homes. If anything, this comparison proves that their really is no precedent in Houston for putting a 23-story structure in the middle of a residential area.

So you think that it is preferable to add to the number of driveways fronting major thoroughfares? You might want to think that one through. It is far better from a congestion management standpoint to dump the traffic into neighborhood streets so that they can queue up along a limited number of access points.

And you also think that its OK to loom over public spaces, but not OK to shade private residences? Why is that, exactly? Is the general public more immune to the horrific terrors of shade than is the special public?

[lockmat]

It's gonna look great. Added to the wiki list: http://www.towrs.com.../1717_Bissonnet

[LTAWACS]

lockmat, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 1:10pm, said:

It's gonna look great. Added to the wiki list: http://www.towrs.com.../1717_Bissonnet

You're getting faster and faster.

[lockmat]

LTAWACS, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 2:17pm, said:

You're getting faster and faster.

It all depends on how hard the math problem is they give me to save the changes I made. The ones I put up quickly are addition

[ricco67]

LTAWACS, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 2:17pm, said:

You're getting faster and faster.

lockmat, on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 @ 2:28pm, said:

It all depends on how hard the math problem is they give me to save the changes I made. The ones I put up quickly are addition

He puts in a good platform to put in a considerable amount of info. Now if I can justreplace my camera, I can start uploading before during and after pictures. Little *ucker caught on quick.

[musicman]

Latest high-rise proposal denied
Ashby project developers must supply more data on traffic impact

City officials have rejected the latest permit applications for the controversial Ashby high-rise, saying the developers must provide more information about traffic impact and take other steps before the project can be approved.

In returning the plans for the 23-story building to developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., city engineer Mark L. Loethen said they must supply more data about anticipated traffic volumes, including figures about traffic generated by similar projects in other parts of Houston.

Loethen also expressed concern that a planned driveway into the project at 1717 Bissonnet might cause problems, including encroachment into the westbound lanes of Bissonnet by large trucks backing into the driveway.

full article

[wxman]

musicman, on Friday, March 28th, 2008 @ 5:01pm, said:

Latest high-rise proposal denied
Ashby project developers must supply more data on traffic impact

City officials have rejected the latest permit applications for the controversial Ashby high-rise, saying the developers must provide more information about traffic impact and take other steps before the project can be approved.

In returning the plans for the 23-story building to developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., city engineer Mark L. Loethen said they must supply more data about anticipated traffic volumes, including figures about traffic generated by similar projects in other parts of Houston.

Loethen also expressed concern that a planned driveway into the project at 1717 Bissonnet might cause problems, including encroachment into the westbound lanes of Bissonnet by large trucks backing into the driveway.

full article

I'm waiting on these developers to pull the plug on the whole thing and moving it to Dallas, Atlanta, or Phoenix. As usual, Houston will shoot themselves right in the foot.

[CDeb]

They city is about to set a bad precedent. The traffic on this project has been studied to death. It just ain't there.

[JWW]

While reading over some of the arguments on third-party websites regarding 1717 Bissonnet, I have not been able to find a decent and 'simple' explanation of the differences between use-based and form-based zoning AS WELL as well as a few examples of implementation of EACH (FAR, setbacks from street, etc.) Would you guys mind giving your definitions as well as some examples of implementation for both, please?