Jump to content

JWW

Full Member
  • Posts

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

JWW's Achievements

(8/32)

13

Reputation

  1. So do we feel certain that the demo will not happen before 7am? Taking a few friends down and guess Prairie and Milam intersection is the best place to go
  2. JWW

    Discovery Tower

    Speaking of lighting, can someone explain the flashing lights on some of the upper floors that occurs nightly? Looks as if a fire alarm is going off...
  3. Regardless of Nate's prognostications and predilections for this tower, it is off the table. Confirmed.
  4. Yep, this 3.7 something acre site has already been under contract for a bit, now. Dean Patrinely - Patrinely Group - has the entire site tied up. For redevelopment. Residential, no surprise. Over 200$/ft.
  5. They can build it. Is there anything else to discuss?
  6. There are countless land-use restrictions in Houston, and under Bill White and Parker, those restrictions have jumped in number. This is not unusual, much less "highly unusual", at all.
  7. http://swamplot.com/ashby-highrise-developer-knocked-down-fence-was-on-our-property/2013-06-03/
  8. So, now that this thread has become a travesty of a worthwhile HAIF discussion, let's move on with the posts
  9. 1. Of course it would be "wise for the developer to obtain them". It would also be wise for the developer to get first right of refusal on a sale of the remaining McDonalds property. It would be wise for the developer to obtain any restriction he can on the adjacent property - and as I keep telling you, that was not going to happen - because of McDonalds having the LEVERAGE because the site has the value here. If you do not believe it, I could not care less. The only thing silly thing here is that you are talking academically about a deal with details that you do not know about and your generalizing is inaccurate. "Perfectly reasonable that the seller agree..." - not at all. McDonalds has too much leverage in the deal. "Who would probably pay a little more for its lot" - not at all, was not going to happen. Your academic generalizations do not accurately describe this deal and the leverage in it. Of course the buyer wants to institute every restriction he can on the McDonalds site. Of course the buyer wants to put in a height restriction. And, as I said in my post that you have continued to argue with - "No major oversight - no oversight, at all, actually. McDonalds has too much leverage in this deal. The site has the value. Not that it is impossible, but good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development....too many things a development can do that can adversely affect your adjacent development." You have gone from taking an academic and obvious approach at looking at how to buy a property to extrapolating what is "nonsense" in this deal, "perfectly reasonable" in this deal, that the buyer would "probably pay a little more" in this deal, and then trying to rebut my comment about "good luck preventing .....general 'adverse effect'..." by stating that some restrictions and covenants are implemented "all the time" - which does not rebut what I said, at ALL - I said good luck preventing GENERAL "adverse effect". When you use subjective "nonsense", "perfectly reasonable", and "probably pay a little more" claims in a deal that you obviously do not know about, that is when your argument goes awry. 2. Your request for a document between the seller and buyer to be posted on HAIF is not going to get any more of a response than this. Get serious.
  10. 1. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. It was not done, and for the exact reason I stated - the leverage. 2. Who claimed restrictions and covenants are not imposed "all the time" ? You, apparently, did not read or did not follow my statement - so I will repeat one line of it - "good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development. "GENERAL 'adverse effect' " - not specific. There is always a way an adjacent development can adversely affect your property.
  11. No major oversight - no oversight, at all, actually. McDonalds has too much leverage in this deal. The site has the value. Not that it is impossible, but good luck preventing a next-door development from general "adverse effect" of your development....too many things a development can do that can adversely affect your adjacent development. I would presume McDonald's owns the land and the franchisee rents from McDonalds. Regarding selling the land, remember the hackneyed Ray Kroc quote about McDonalds being in the real estate business. The best thing the new remaining McDonalds site has going for it is that it is not as large as these other sites - aka it is cheaper. The hard part will be getting something more profitable on that small site that is feasible to build/exist on it.
  12. I think 11 replies to refute Kinkaid's assertions and predictions are enough.... Does anyone see much of a market for mid/high rise condominium living off Post Oak or nearby at a lower density/higher price point than Astoria? (2727, Monetebello, Huntingdon).
  13. Someone know the listing price? Kinkaid Alum is not too prescient...and not familiar with this project's market. Very well put, each of your points.
×
×
  • Create New...