[lockmat]

sevfiv, on Monday, April 13th, 2009 @ 2:50pm, said:

Snail mail may be the only way..

ALABAMA & DUNLAVY, LTD.
Registered Agent: MATTHEW G DILICK
11144 FUQUA ST STE 200
HOUSTON, TX 77089-2544

Maybe "HAIF" can write a community letter and send it out?

[rsb320]

Maybe they'll incorporate an upgrade on Dunlavy for gutters. Those ditches always freaked me out.

[Dan the Man]

capnmcbarnacle, on Monday, April 13th, 2009 @ 2:22pm, said:

That, and it's too easy to come up with disparaging anagrams with his name.

[tacotruck]

A cyclone fence just went up around it. Could the bulldozers be on the way?

[Subdude]

Native Montrosian, on Monday, April 13th, 2009 @ 1:04pm, said:

Report from Nancy Sarnoff



A hotel flanked by two 2-lane streets, one 3-lane contraflow and a dead-ender??? Lord have mercy....or does he mean something like La Colombe D'or? Is this going to be the Lilliputian City Centre?

Yeah, a hotel doesn't seem right. I think it is best suited for small bungalow-style single houses.

[Dan the Man]

...or garden-style apartments, preferably with an Art Moderne aesthetic.

[KinkaidAlum]

I am with the others. I foresee a clear cut lot for years OR something along the lines of a Sawyer Heights type of development.

If faced with a choice of the two, I actually might choose option one.

[houston-development]

i saw matt's original designs and didn't think his concept was compatable with the surrounding neighborhood.

today, i seriously doubt he can get financing. i believe that hes just getting his ducks lined up for when things turned around.

while he demolishes an income producing stream (what little there was), IMO, he more than makes up for it by reducing taxes and cutting out on going maintenance, insurance, etc.

[rsb320]

houston-development, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 3:16pm, said:

i saw matt's original designs and didn't think his concept was compatable with the surrounding neighborhood.

today, i seriously doubt he can get financing. i believe that hes just getting his ducks lined up for when things turned around.

while he demolishes an income producing stream (what little there was), IMO, he more than makes up for it by reducing taxes and cutting out on going maintenance, insurance, etc.

Still, I hope it's not just left as a fenced off demo site until construction does begin. That would be very unappealing to the neighborhood. I wonder if the city would be interested in leasing from him for a temporary greenspace site.

[sid113]

rsb320, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 4:12pm, said:

Still, I hope it's not just left as a fenced off demo site until construction does begin. That would be very unappealing to the neighborhood. I wonder if the city would be interested in leasing from him for a temporary greenspace site.

seriously?? i really don't understand why any resident in this area would prefer these disgusting projects to remain standing as opposed to an empty lot....anything new that is erected on this plot is an upgrade compared to Wilshire Village so at least an empty lot holds this potential

[KinkaidAlum]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

IMO, Wilshire Village holds SO much damn potential. It has a beautiful park-like setting with mature live oaks and magnolias. It's scale/massing fits in nicely with the surroundings. Clean lines from the 40s (look at those stunning windows!!!). Parking that isn't the first thing you notice.

Now, compare that to something like what was put up on the corner of Richmond @ Wesleyan or Sawyer Heights Village. In my opinion, a lot of new construction just looks cheap. Cheap materials. Cheap labor. Public space as an afterthought. Cheesy design cliches. YUCK.

[sid113]

KinkaidAlum, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 5:00pm, said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

IMO, Wilshire Village holds SO much damn potential. It has a beautiful park-like setting with mature live oaks and magnolias. It's scale/massing fits in nicely with the surroundings. Clean lines from the 40s (look at those stunning windows!!!). Parking that isn't the first thing you notice.

Now, compare that to something like what was put up on the corner of Richmond @ Wesleyan or Sawyer Heights Village. In my opinion, a lot of new construction just looks cheap. Cheap materials. Cheap labor. Public space as an afterthought. Cheesy design cliches. YUCK.

i agree that the trees are beautiful. unfortunately, the rest is hideous and scares away potential buyers in the surrounding neighborhood.

[capnmcbarnacle]

sid113, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 4:38pm, said:

seriously?? i really don't understand why any resident in this area would prefer these disgusting projects to remain standing as opposed to an empty lot....anything new that is erected on this plot is an upgrade compared to Wilshire Village so at least an empty lot holds this potential

I can't agree that anything new is an upgrade. I'd rather have WV than a Tuscanized strip center with a Panera Bread and a Landry's. The reason I live in Montrose is to avoid that kind of crap.

[OkieEric]

houston-development, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 3:16pm, said:

while he demolishes an income producing stream (what little there was), IMO, he more than makes up for it by reducing taxes and cutting out on going maintenance, insurance, etc.

Yikes... Per hcad, looks like the appraised value went up another $6 million this year. From $5.4 million to $16.7 million since 2005? The Wilshire Village shopping center across the street has shot up from $2.8 million in '06 to $7.5 million this year. Seems a little extreme considering that there hasn't really been that much change in this area the past few years

It would sure be nice to see Wilshire Village turned into a park and the land under the shopping center redeveloped instead

[musicman]

OkieEric, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 8:37pm, said:

Yikes... Per hcad, looks like the appraised value went up another $6 million this year. From $5.4 million to $16.7 million since 2005? The Wilshire Village shopping center across the street has shot up from $2.8 million in '06 to $7.5 million this year. Seems a little extreme considering that there hasn't really been that much change in this area the past few years

hopefully she runs hers better than her bro did wilshire village.

[beetlemania]

OkieEric, on Tuesday, April 14th, 2009 @ 8:37pm, said:

Yikes... Per hcad, looks like the appraised value went up another $6 million this year. From $5.4 million to $16.7 million since 2005? The Wilshire Village shopping center across the street has shot up from $2.8 million in '06 to $7.5 million this year. Seems a little extreme considering that there hasn't really been that much change in this area the past few years

Southampton is encroaching from the south and River Oaks encroaching from the west. The area is changing, and the Dunlavy+Alabama intersection will be redeveloped in an "upscale" fashion at some point relatively soon. It's just a matter of when. The HCAD appraisers recognize this...

[sidegate]

Seriously! I mean how much longer can Fiesta and those other tenants hold on with appraisals going up like that? Not too long I think. Here's a scenario: Dilick waits it out to grab that property too, then petitions the City to close Dunlavy between Alabama and Richmond (see Sonoma), then the entire area turns into a biug mix-used development. Nancy's article did mention he thought shopping was appropriate for the site, but he's not known for building retail so conceivably will enter a partnership with someone else. So I would join those who say the lot will lie fallow for a while.

[marmer]

sidegate, on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 @ 8:34am, said:

Seriously! I mean how much longer can Fiesta and those other tenants hold on with appraisals going up like that? Not too long I think. Here's a scenario: Dilick waits it out to grab that property too, then petitions the City to close Dunlavy between Alabama and Richmond (see Sonoma), then the entire area turns into a biug mix-used development. Nancy's article did mention he thought shopping was appropriate for the site, but he's not known for building retail so conceivably will enter a partnership with someone else. So I would join those who say the lot will lie fallow for a while.

I think you might be on to something, but I find it hard to believe that the City would close Dunlavy. Especially since it goes several blocks farther north and has a fancy 59 bridge.

[capnmcbarnacle]

marmer, on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 @ 9:44am, said:

I think you might be on to something, but I find it hard to believe that the City would close Dunlavy. Especially since it goes several blocks farther north and has a fancy 59 bridge.

Can't do it with the Fire Station there Dunlavy and Richmond...

[sidegate]

Whoops a daisy, I meant just closing Dunlavy between Alabama and West Main. If you look at a map of the area, Sul Ross and Branard have already been cut off, dead-ending on the arse ends of both Wilshire Village and Fiesta. Presumably this was done when Wilshire was being developed in the 40s. The only private residences in that block of Dunlavy open out on to West Main. There's also that weird building just south of the Fiesta parking lot, who knows what that is.

As for the Fire Station you could have an exits on both the north and south end of this hypothetical development to accommodate emergency services. Even if it's not closed, it's conceivable that a developer would wait it out until the owner of the Fiesta complex sells out (only a matter of time), then integrate development on the two sides of the street. Anyway, I'm heartened to hear that mixed use is a possibility, fingers crossed it will be of the pedestrian-friendly variety.

This post has been edited by sidegate: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 at 12:03 PM

[musicman]

sidegate, on Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 @ 11:59am, said:

Whoops a daisy, I meant just closing Dunlavy between Alabama and West Main. If you look at a map of the area, Sul Ross and Branard have already been cut off, dead-ending on the arse ends of both Wilshire Village and Fiesta. Presumably this was done when Wilshire was being developed in the 40s. The only private residences in that block of Dunlavy open out on to West Main. There's also that weird building just south of the Fiesta parking lot, who knows what that is.

homes/businesses north of alabama will also be affected. there is life north of alabama too.

[sidegate]

I know. I live there.

[diggity]

Quote

IMO, Wilshire Village holds SO much damn potential. It has a beautiful park-like setting with mature live oaks and magnolias. It's scale/massing fits in nicely with the surroundings. Clean lines from the 40s (look at those stunning windows!!!). Parking that isn't the first thing you notice.

Highest & Best Use

[Native Montrosian]

Okay, cry? Be sick? If this is true, it's a toss-up, no pun intended.

Flip it good!

This post has been edited by Native Montrosian: Thursday, April 16, 2009 at 1:23 PM

[sidegate]

Saw a big yellow Komatsu in one of the parking lots this morning on my way to work

[Native Montrosian]

From what I've heard regarding Dilick's concern about peoples' welfare in general, I half-expect another Enola Gay to be en route.

[OkieEric]

Uh oh...A "Demo Apt/Sewer" has been issued

Edit: It's listed under a "Plumbing" permit. Is this an actual demo permit?

Project Details


Project No: 09033561
Date : 2009/04/16 00:00:00
USE : DEMO APT/SEWER DISC
Owner/Occupant : *WILSHIRE VILLAGE APARTMENTS
Job Address : 1707 W ALABAMA ST 77098
Valuation : $ 0
Permit Type : 12
FCC Group : Demo; Apartments (5 units or more)
Buyer : SHELLY CHARLES
Address : 10606 SAGEBRIAR 77089
Phone : (281) 914-7295

This post has been edited by OkieEric: Friday, April 17, 2009 at 8:54 AM

[sevfiv]

^Yes, that's the first step (to disconnect the lines), then a regular 'ol demolition permit is issued.

[crunchtastic]

Over on Swamplot they're talking about how Historic Houston hads been trying to reach the owner to discuss salvage, to no avail.
What a shame that it all just goes into a landfill--all those floorboards, and the glass block alone. There may be no value in the building relative to the lot, but there damn sure is value in the building materials.

[houston-development]

crunchtastic, on Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 9:21am, said:

Over on Swamplot they're talking about how Historic Houston hads been trying to reach the owner to discuss salvage, to no avail.
What a shame that it all just goes into a landfill--all those floorboards, and the glass block alone. There may be no value in the building relative to the lot, but there damn sure is value in the building materials.

if lynne (sp?) really wanted to discuss salvage with matt, has she tried to call, email, or even go to his office? also, who knows if she really is attempting to contact him. for all we know, its nothing more than watercooler gossip.

matt really is a nice guy and its unfortunate that hes been stereotyped as an evil developer. that isnt the case for those who know him personally.

[EMME]

houston-development, on Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 10:00am, said:

if lynne (sp?) really wanted to discuss salvage with matt, has she tried to call, email, or even go to his office? also, who knows if she really is attempting to contact him. for all we know, its nothing more than watercooler gossip.

matt really is a nice guy and its unfortunate that hes been stereotyped as an evil developer. that isnt the case for those who know him personally.

I spoke to Lynn with Historic Houston directly yesterday afternoon and she is very anxious to talk to them about salvaging from Wilshire Village. She has called him and emailed him and gotten nowhere. She has crews ready who could start immediately. It is supposed to rain over the next couple of days, so hopefully, they will be unable to do any demolition and she and Mr. Dilick will somehow get to communicate. There is way too much beauty in the pieces over there to just let go into the landfill. What a shame that would be. Mr. Dilick would do well to partner with Historic Houston on this for goodwill and a show of good faith to this community. It doesn't always have to be contentious. OK, we would prefer this not be torn down, but once we accept that there is nothing more to do then let's work together to save what we can.

[sidegate]

This isn't the first time either. The Greater Houston Preservation Association tried calling him multiple times and failed, as did the River Oaks Examiner. I doubt the lack of a website reflects any ignorance of technology on his part - if you have a website you have to put information about your organization on it and that would be completely contrary to his MO. Certainly he has a right to privacy and doesn't have to say a word to any of these people, but when you put yourself in the public domain, there is an expectation of a reasonable level of candor which in his case is completely absent. It's what you don't say as much as what you do say that people form their opinions of you on.

[marmer]

houston-development, on Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 10:00am, said:

matt really is a nice guy and its unfortunate that hes been stereotyped as an evil developer. that isnt the case for those who know him personally.

I've known lots of nice guys. Usually they are upfront about their plans and concerned about the welfare of their co-workers, employees, TENANTS, etc. When you try to contact them, they get back to you, usually with apologies if there have been delays. When they have something to communicate, they try to be as clear as they can and they make an effort to clarify when they need to. They certainly don't try to depend on poorly photocopied notes of uncertain provenance to pass on information that will be very important to others who depend on them in some way.

But I am glad that he is nice to you personally.

[sevfiv]

Thanks, Emme, for corroborating that Lynn has tried to contact Dilick.

From all evidence, he seems to be unwilling to communicate (not only to the public, but his tenants and the neighborhood), and that's a very bad thing.

I think it was mentioned elsewhere, but I wouldn't be surprised if he did a "smash-n-sell" on this property.

[Native Montrosian]

[EMME]

houston-development, on Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 10:00am, said:

if lynne (sp?) really wanted to discuss salvage with matt, has she tried to call, email, or even go to his office? also, who knows if she really is attempting to contact him. for all we know, its nothing more than watercooler gossip.

matt really is a nice guy and its unfortunate that hes been stereotyped as an evil developer. that isnt the case for those who know him personally.

When I was in my early 20s, there was a very successful company founder with a blackbelt in karate who over a period of a couple of years kicked in a passenger window in my car and the back windshield of my car. I didn't know him really, but I rebuffed him. Anyway, from everyone who knew him, he was a really nice guy. I believe that he was...to them. Until he was witnessed kicking in my windows, I wouldn't have believed it either. In fact, he seemed to take my rejection in stride. But he was seen and he eventually admitted it to me, right before he kicked in the second window.

My point is this...don't judge somebody else's experience based on your own. They don't always match.

I have not had a bad experience with Mr. Dilick personally, but his unwillingness to let them do salvage is giving me a bad impression of him. His having worked with Mr. Fertitta gives me a bad impression of him. None of this is based on any action from him. By simply acting positively to the community, he could change those impressions, but he has chosen not to. Hopefully, he will choose differently soon.

[sid113]

EMME, on Friday, April 17th, 2009 @ 12:21pm, said:

When I was in my early 20s, there was a very successful company founder with a blackbelt in karate who over a period of a couple of years kicked in a passenger window in my car and the back windshield of my car. I didn't know him really, but I rebuffed him. Anyway, from everyone who knew him, he was a really nice guy. I believe that he was...to them. Until he was witnessed kicking in my windows, I wouldn't have believed it either. In fact, he seemed to take my rejection in stride. But he was seen and he eventually admitted it to me, right before he kicked in the second window.

My point is this...don't judge somebody else's experience based on your own. They don't always match.

I have not had a bad experience with Mr. Dilick personally, but his unwillingness to let them do salvage is giving me a bad impression of him. His having worked with Mr. Fertitta gives me a bad impression of him. None of this is based on any action from him. By simply acting positively to the community, he could change those impressions, but he has chosen not to. Hopefully, he will choose differently soon.

Wow...how about EMME buys the property and then does whatever she wants with it. Maybe she will foot a half million dollar tax bill each year and then she can decide piece by piece to whom we would like to give each crappy seventy year old brick to. This is private property and the owner is under no obligation to do anything other than what he wants with it. As a nearby resident, I could not be more thrilled that this guy has finally chosen to tear down this terrible blight of the neighborhood.

I really cannot believe how so many people are villifying this developer. It is his investment and his decisions. If you don't like it then raise the money to buy it yourself. Clearly, their are very few business people here, looks more like far lefters (let's save the beautiful trees and glass blocks!). Frankly as an investment this guy has been spot on, the lot has practically doubled in value over the last decade and he has probably put next to nil in terms of additional capital into it.

[sevfiv]

^Please refrain from personal attacks on fellow contributors to this forum.

Also to note (and yes, we've heard the "if you care so much then buy it yourself" line quite a lot here), much of the outcry over Dilick's actions were because of his lack of communication to the residents about what was going on.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yes, it is private property. But damn if I don't get tired of the lack of respect people seem to have for others today. He would be doing the RIGHT thing by letting historical groups salvage parts of his building that would otherwise clog up our landfills. He'd also be doing the SMART business thing by at least appearing to be a man of some good will. And it certainly would hurt if he'd be a bit more upfront about his plans.

Now, as a businessman, you must know that p.r. is a part of the game. He's failing that part badly.

Lastly, your last sentence also sums up why I think he's a total putz. People were LIVING there. What kind of businessman refuses to keep up his property that others pay him to live on? A SLUM LORD. I'm glad you don't have problems with slum lords but I certainly do.

[sidegate]

The trait that identifies extreme opinions on both sides of the political spectrum is the tendency to frame an argument in broad strokes, black and white, with us or against us. There are myriad possibilities here that lie between "let's save the beautiful trees and glass blocks" (sic) and the compulsion to throttle every last cent out of a business investment. They just aren't being given the light of day.

[Dan the Man]

I estimate that there is at least $10K worth of architectural salvage in the Wilshire Village buildings. It seems like a missed opportunity to not offset some of the demolition costs by selling some of the material, or at least donating it to HH and taking the tax credit.

[OkieEric]

Dan the Man, on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 @ 12:02am, said:

I estimate that there is at least $10K worth of architectural salvage in the Wilshire Village buildings. It seems like a missed opportunity to not offset some of the demolition costs by selling some of the material, or at least donating it to HH and taking the tax credit.

From a developer's standpoint, is the lot worth more with trees, or completely bulldozed? I would think with trees, but I have no idea about the cost of removal of so many like at Wilshire Village. If someone is to eventually develop a new box-style apartment complex there I guess it would be better to start with an empty lot

I'm just hoping that the demo will JUST be the buildings for now, giving a future developer (should Dilick sell) the opportunity to use the trees in his plans

The whole bulldoze and sell thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Sure, maybe he can sell the land for more once clear of the old buildings, but he's having to pay for the demo. He could either incur the cost now and sell for more, or just sell it w/ buildings at a slight discount - wouldn't it pretty much be a wash?

[sevfiv]

It will take a small fortune (or not small to a developer, perhaps) to bulldoze and haul off everything, but paying taxes and insurance on the existing structures would add up, especially if the property sits for an extended period of time.
Also, it would be easier for him to sell as an empty lot.

[sevfiv]

I was also curious what Commerce Equities other projects are - the address for the company is at its Settlers Ranch Apartments property, CE also rebuilt the Bayou Bend apartments at 5201 Memorial, and he worked as real estate director for Landry's from about 1994 to 2001 while operating Commerce equities.

Anyone know of others?

Also, here's the 2005 Chronicle article about Wilshire Village and Dilick:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive....id=2005_3870543

[OkieEric]

sevfiv, on Saturday, April 18th, 2009 @ 12:00pm, said:

It will take a small fortune (or not small to a developer, perhaps) to bulldoze and haul off everything, but paying taxes and insurance on the existing structures would add up, especially if the property sits for an extended period of time.
Also, it would be easier for him to sell as an empty lot.

At this point, I just hope they save the trees...I'm sure the value of salvageable materials is insignificant to Dilick, but it would go a long ways to ease the perceived animosity (at least on Houston forums) towards him. I'm not sure the general public is aware, or even cares about what happens to WV - it seems many just view it as a slum, with little or no knowledge of its history

True about taxes and insurance - though until this year, the value of the "improvement" on the property was nil. I guess the insurance could add up, especially if it takes quite a while to unload the property. I assume it will in this market

[Specwriter]

Insurance may be exactly the reason driving the owner's apparent desire to demolish the buildings. It must be less expensive to insure land (with or without trees) than to insure several vacant buildings. Remember, some of the structures were legitimately (I believe) condemned because of their condition. All in all it is a pity though.

[GREASER]

My friend moved in approx 20yrs ago and was there till the end. The vacant apts. have been used for repairs to other apartments by removing sinks etc. Not much left. The place was busted when he moved in..I still remember looking at the bottom apt seeing water dripping from the ceiling on the blinds...it was everywhere. Of course no one lived there.
Not sure why the owner never allowed the tennants to make outside repairs...they could do whatever to the inside, but not the outside.
He always said the owners sister owned the prop across the street (Fiesta), and felt he was trying to hurt the value of her property. He said they hated each other, and were always trying to piss the other off.

[sevfiv]

Today they were pulling the gutters off of some buildings - by attaching one end of a small rope to the gutter, the other end to the bumper of a van, and then driving forward to remove it.

[GREASER]

when these were built, my parents said there were copper lines running on the side of the building..guessing for water, said it looked really nice. For those that havent been inside, I still remember the polished aluminum staircase railing. Very art deco and expensive looking. The peeling pink plastered walls was always intruiging as you could see the many yrs of different paint colors.

[musicman]

sevfiv, on Sunday, April 19th, 2009 @ 5:45pm, said:

Today they were pulling the gutters off of some buildings - by attaching one end of a small rope to the gutter, the other end to the bumper of a van, and then driving forward to remove it.

thieves have been doing this for several yrs and selling it to the scrap dealers.