nate
-
Posts
225 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by nate
-
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...
-
FYI, Discovery Tower will have 871,001 SF of office space (as of Feb. 8, 2008) http://marketing.cbre.com/houston/Listing%...%20Property.pdf
-
According to other posters, it is 29. 10 parking + 19 office
-
2200 POST OAK LP 109 N POST OAK LN STE 200 HOUSTON TX 77024-7789 -
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)?
-
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.""
-
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.
-
Suze, see the exemptions to the vesting statute in
-
Now imagine it right next door to River Oaks District Quite a transformation for that block.
-
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."
-
I decided to send another e-mail to the mayor and council. Let me know your comments.
-
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.
-
No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)
-
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.
-
It doesn't matter. The proposed ordinance applies to any development that "Is proposed to take any vehicular access from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic." Think about how broad this is. Any large residential development on Main street would be subject to this insane ordinance. That reference is not a direct quote. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he simply said "other developments" and ABC13 referenced 2727 Kirby for illustrative purposes.
-
Nope. "Section 3. The Provisions enacted by this Ordinance shall not be effective as to any proposed development for which a structural permit has been issued by the Building Official."
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home
-
I don't care if the developers loose money on account of a poor product or a market downturn. However, I am deeply troubled when losses are due to governmental fiat. I am also deeply troubled that you cannot see this. The property owners have invested substantial sums of money in reliance on current law, to the point of purchasing land, improving the sewererage system as required by the city, commissioning architects and applying for building permits. Because their project is politically unpopular, they are having all this effort taken away without compensation. All that money invested...gone. Turned into gallons of red ink. That potential $150 million project, the homes of 240 families...gone. All because some politicians didn't like the project, even though the developers followed the letter of the law as written. This is all extremely disturbing. As bad as the proposed ordinance is, at least future residential developers will be on notice that their property rights can be confiscated by political fiat. However, Buckhead was blindsided. They had no reason to think that their efforts would be wasted, that their investment would be stolen by the government. All they did was follow the law as written. We should all be extremely worried.
-
Nevermind what I said before, it looks like the city can stop 1717 Bissonnet if it passes this ordinance and the Director of Public Works and Engineering sides with the Mayor (he will). In my e-mail, I mentioned a finding in the proposed ordinance. The reason that is in there is to exempt the proposed ordinance from the Texas vesting statute, which apparently has no teeth at all in land use matters. See
-
Here is an e-mail that I sent to the mayor and council. I was in a hurry and wrote it quickly and unfortunately forgot to mention the Texas vesting statue, which would prevent the city from stopping 1717 Bissonnet, but it is decent.
-
Read the final recital in the ordinance. "Wheras, the City Council finds that the regulations proposed in this ordinance CONTROL ONLY THE USE OF LAND and do not affect landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park dedication, lot size dimensions, lot coverage, or building size;" If that is not zoning, I don't know what is.
-
To be fair, there will be a restaurant and market which will generate traffic. There will be employees of both the retail and apartment uses, as well as deliveries, service vehicles, etc. I don't think that 2000 additional cars per day is unreasonable. Anyway, this ordinance is an outrage. It is a naked power grab by the city. It will apply to just about every project outside of downtown, even on Main street in Midtown. It also will not stop 1717 Bissonnet. The developers will win in any legal battle with the city because rights in Texas vest when they apply for first of a series of permits required. The developers of 1717 Bissonnet have already applied for their foundation permit. This ordinance will not stop the project.
-
This was featured in today's WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119257756005161262.html
-
Yes and no. Big, politically connected developers embrace zoning because they can get their projects approved and use the zoning process to limit competition. New entrants and smaller developers may oppose. But the people that will really suffer under zoning will be average citizens who will have to eat the inevitable increase in the cost of housing/products and the reduction in choice.
-
I posted it a few days ago. http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...st&p=201501
