150 replies to this topic

[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?

Edited by lwood, Tuesday, July 1, 2008 at 7:58 AM.

[TheNiche]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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.

Edited by tmariar, Friday, June 20, 2008 at 2:53 PM.

[RedScare]

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.

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:

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.).

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.

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]

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]

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.