Jump to content


Full Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nate

  1. Very cool. I don't see anything recent on the HBJ site, so I assume that you are referring to the rendering in the February article? http://cll.bizjournals.com/story_image/110451-400-0-1.jpg
  2. More brilliance from my "wonderful" council member... "In a broader sense, Clutterbuck said, the months of meetings show how difficult it is to regulate land use in a city without zoning." That's the whole point of not having zoning!
  3. It means that the hotelier's obligation to build is only triggered by the occurrence of some event stated in their agreement with Wulfe. A contingency can be anything, but it typically is obtaining financing. e.g., hotelier is not obligated to build and operate until it obtains a loan in the amount of X dollars at Y% interest payable over Z months secured by a....
  4. 4 story, 400 space parking garage as well as 8 new classrooms according to today's Village News.
  5. An update on this one. I received the free throw around newspaper, the Village News (no website) this morning. They have a front page story on the proposed high rise. To summarize: In mid-May, permit applications were filed with the city for "site utilities and foundation for future high rise apartments" at 3816 W. Alabama. They were returned with a number of corrections, including a traffic study analyzing the impact of a high-density development on neighboring streets. The developers will not confirm their plans. The Highland Village Civic Club president, Jimmy Glotfelty, says the surrounding community supports lower-density development, but a high rise "would get a tremendous outburst" from surrounding neighborhoods. The State Grille's lease is up on July 31. All buildings will be torn down at the end of the summer. Looks like this is going to happen.
  6. There is a rendering of Five Allen Center on p. 12 in this report 1.2 million square feet, Q1 2013 completion. As for 1500 Smith, the only information is that it is planned to be 0.5 million square feet.
  7. This forum cracks me up. People just need to chill out. Hines is one of the best developers in the world. MainPlace is under construction. It will completed. When finished, it will the best office building in Texas and will likely command the highest rents in the state.
  8. Can we start with the homes near Bissonnet and Ashby?
  9. Is it really that hard to believe? Those parking lots produce a nice income stream. The 6 Houston Center lot is far more valuable as a parking lot than as a couple of houses...
  10. nate

    Discovery Tower

    FYI, Discovery Tower will have 871,001 SF of office space (as of Feb. 8, 2008) http://marketing.cbre.com/houston/Listing%...%20Property.pdf
  11. According to other posters, it is 29. 10 parking + 19 office
  12. 2200 POST OAK LP 109 N POST OAK LN STE 200 HOUSTON TX 77024-7789
  13. For what it's worth, I was reading documents on the city's HDO page and came across this. Document states "Boulevard Palace (Hanover)" as having 675,000 sq/ft of commercial space, 500 residential units and consisting of three towers (45, 45, 50). Also, perhaps some previously dead projects are still a go (Orion, Monaco)?
  14. The print edition has a mini site plan as well. I thought it was interesting that they are willing to build it on a spec basis. "Mirski said the development of the Azorim project is not dependent on preselling a portion of the units, which will all come completely finished. "We believe in the product," she said. "We're willing to move forward without sales.""
  15. Exactly. I took a course on land use law in law school, the most important thing that I took away is that the government almost always wins.
  16. A project in Dallas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_Park I visited it for the first time last night. Dined at N9ne steakhouse before the Rockets/Mavs game. Shame about the Rockets late collapse. It is a nice project. Not to my taste though. I wouldn't live there and will not return to dine.
  17. Amen. What has made Houston great is that (until this year) the government has generally allowed people to do as they please. I don't want a government that tries to cater to attract "elite" hipsters or tries to impose its view of the ideal lifestyle on citizens that don't want it.
  18. So, you think that it is ok for a regulator who has been given the authority to use his independent judgment as to the merits of proposal to be subject to pressure from elected officials to make findings not justified by the facts of the application? Isn't that contrary to the statute, and the "will of the people" as expressed in the vote by the city council? That doesn't seem to be very responsive. For example, if a big polluter who has connections is having issues with the TCEQ, I don't want the governor leaning on the Director of the TCEQ to make findings unjustified by the merits of the case. That benefits big polluter, but it isn't necessarily in the benefit of the public as a whole, only the narrow interests of the connected party. Perhaps you didn't read my e-mail carefully and/or don't know about the history of zoning in Houston. All three times zoning has been put to a vote of the people, it has been rejected. (1948, 1962, & 1993) However, state law grants city councils the ability to pass a zoning ordinance without referendum. Other cities in Texas, such as Beaumont, have held zoning referenda which failed, but the city council passed a zoning ordinance anyway against the wishes of the people. Houstonians knew that they could not trust the city council, so they amended the city charter to strip the city council of the power to regulate land use in 1994. The officials proposing this ordinance are not being responsive to the general wishes of Houstonians, they are towing the line of a few elites whose interests is directly contrary to the wishes of Houstonians revealed by the referenda of 1948, 1962, 1993, & 1994. Nothing against wealthy people. I plan on being filthy rich someday. I don't like it when anyone, rich or not, tries to use the political process to prevent others from moving into their neighborhood. Do you see any other logical reason why this is so controversial? It certainly isn't traffic, we know that is not possible due to the traffic study which found "no adverse impact."
  19. I decided to send another e-mail to the mayor and council. Let me know your comments.
  20. I suppose that it has been changed. I was looking at the version from 10/23 as published by the Chronicle: http://images.chron.com/content/news/photo...seordinance.pdf Found the newer version: http://stopashbyhighrise.org/site/wp-conte...0/gcd070571.pdf Still a stupid ordinance.
  21. No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)
  22. No, I don't think they are. The Houston City Council is no different than any other government in the fact that they will take every opportunity to enhance its own authority. It isn't the first time that the a government tries to seize additional power for itself in response to a perceived threat. I am aware and even noted that possibility in the e-mail I sent to Tsar White and the Politburo which I posted earlier.
  • Create New...