The Langley: Residential High-Rise At 1717 Bissonnet St.

[TheNiche]

Class warrior, eh? Trying to punish people for being successful?

I think his argument goes the other way around--that the wealthy are trying to punish people for not being wealthy. It is they that are class warriors. Nate's position is that he does not wish to interfere with anybody's property rights, wealthy or poor.

[TheNiche]

It's that the construction process will lead to a year or more of major inconvenience for the whole area, with no benefit to the neighborhood at all.

No benefit at all. Of course, nobody would willingly pay for condos or apartments there...because they provide no benefit at all...to anything in that neighborhood...including the prospective new residents of the condos or apartments.

[RedScare]

It would be really a stretch to make any kind of class warfare argument here. A group of wealthy residents is opposed to a wealthy developer's attempts to construct a condo tower where the units are only affordable to wealthy potential buyers. Therefore, they hire an attorney known for representing wealthy clients, who then establishes a dialog with a wealthy mayor in an effort to thwart the wealthy developer's attempts to construct housing for the wealthy.

No poor or middle class involved here. Have I missed anything?

Edited November 1, 2007 by RedScare

[TheNiche]

No poor or middle class involved here. Have I missed anything?

Wealth is relative.

...but I think that you're on to something, which is that they really don't have any particularly good reasons to dislike the tower.

Edited November 1, 2007 by TheNiche

[marmer]

No benefit at all. Of course, nobody would willingly pay for condos or apartments there...because they provide no benefit at all...to anything in that neighborhood...including the prospective new residents of the condos or apartments.

They don't provide any benefit at all to existing residents. None. That's why they're so strongly opposed and that's why there are so many yellow signs. Sure, if it's built it will probably be a reasonably sweet place to live even though Bissonnet is a pain just with existing traffic. It's like if your neighbor builds a new house. Unless it is really extreme in some way it won't affect you at all. You can live with construction for a couple months. What I'm talking about is dozens of 18-wheelers, hundreds of worker vehicles, and heavy equipment for several months. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that, and there's no way I could ever afford to live in Southampton.

[TheNiche]

They don't provide any benefit at all to existing residents. None. That's why they're so strongly opposed and that's why there are so many yellow signs. Sure, if it's built it will probably be a reasonably sweet place to live even though Bissonnet is a pain just with existing traffic. It's like if your neighbor builds a new house. Unless it is really extreme in some way it won't affect you at all. You can live with construction for a couple months. What I'm talking about is dozens of 18-wheelers, hundreds of worker vehicles, and heavy equipment for several months. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that, and there's no way I could ever afford to live in Southampton.

Oh, I know why existing residents aren't going to see any benefit. Is that a problem?

I also know that the new residents will receive benefit--otherwise, they wouldn't pay for it.

As for the construction activity, that too shall pass, and when it does, then they never have to worry about construction at that site again. At that point, they're pretty well ensured a stable neighborhood going forward. If the external effects from construction and any extra traffic are as bad as they claim, btw, then residents should be pressing for impact fees charged to the developer to ensure that things like this don't cause more harm to the existing residents than the benefit that is provided to the prospective new residents. And taking that approach would avoid any legal problems related to overt land use controls. Again, one way or another, what the existing residents want is unreasonable.

[RedScare]

They don't provide any benefit at all to existing residents. None.

If that were a valid reason for opposing new construction, I could oppose every new house built on my street....at least theorhetically. The fact is, the 3,500 foot behemoths provide upward pressure on existing home values, so the argument could be made that they help. Same applies here. If these condos are expensive enough to provide upward pressure on existing home values, it could be argued that the tower helps...again, at least theorhetically.

[marmer]

If that were a valid reason for opposing new construction, I could oppose every new house built on my street....at least theorhetically. The fact is, the 3,500 foot behemoths provide upward pressure on existing home values, so the argument could be made that they help. Same applies here. If these condos are expensive enough to provide upward pressure on existing home values, it could be argued that the tower helps...again, at least theorhetically.

In general, I oppose new construction. Strange, I know, from an architecture buff.

You're right of course about large new houses. They increase the nearby home values and tax bills. But the inconvenience caused by single-family house construction and the population increase (if any) on a single-house basis is usually insignificant to most neighbors. I doubt there are any real objections to the three or four architect-designed new houses being built in Southampton. This is an exponentially bigger construction project and increase in population density.

I could be all wrong, but I can't imagine the condo/apartments would be expensive enough to have any effect on existing home values.

[marmer]

Oh, I know why existing residents aren't going to see any benefit. Is that a problem?

Seems to be for them, judging from the unanimity of the yellow signs in the area.

I also know that the new residents will receive benefit--otherwise, they wouldn't pay for it.

Sure, it might be a nice place to live and make the developers a bunch of money, too. All I'm saying is that I can understand the residents' concerns, and they are not only (or even primarily) financial.

As for the construction activity, that too shall pass, and when it does, then they never have to worry about construction at that site again. At that point, they're pretty well ensured a stable neighborhood going forward.

I think you're both underestimating the construction activity and agreeing that it will have some negative effect on the neighborhood.

If the external effects from construction and any extra traffic are as bad as they claim, btw, then residents should be pressing for impact fees charged to the developer to ensure that things like this don't cause more harm to the existing residents than the benefit that is provided to the prospective new residents. And taking that approach would avoid any legal problems related to overt land use controls. Again, one way or another, what the existing residents want is unreasonable.

I don't really have an argument against that because I don't know enough about how those kind of arrangements work. I do know how cranes go up and what an endless parade of dump trucks looks like, and that would be reason enough not to want it by my house. Even if it meant someone else could make a lot of money.

[Subdude]

If that were a valid reason for opposing new construction, I could oppose every new house built on my street....at least theorhetically. The fact is, the 3,500 foot behemoths provide upward pressure on existing home values, so the argument could be made that they help. Same applies here. If these condos are expensive enough to provide upward pressure on existing home values, it could be argued that the tower helps...again, at least theorhetically.

It may hurt or help, but the residents don't really need a "valid" reason to oppose construction. Who gets to define what is a "valid reason"? I'm sure they feel their reasons are sufficiently valid.

I don't buy that. I'm a constituent. What about my wishes? Sometimes, the best thing a politician can do to ensure an efficient political process is nothing at all.

Of course, but that depends on your personal view on whatever issue is at hand. Not everyone is going to be a winner. And political processes aren't meant to be "efficient." It's simply not the point of it. I don't know why that is so hard to see.

Nate's position is that he does not wish to interfere with anybody's property rights, wealthy or poor.

And just what are these "property rights"? To my knowledge, "property rights" aren't constitutionally guaranteed, like freedom of speech. They are an outcome of political processes, be it zoning, land use laws, or messy ugly regulations like this one. You can't just dream up "rights" from thin air and then expect the rest of the world to respect them. I may think I have a "right" to a high-paying job, but that isn't going to make it happen.

I don't like it when anyone, rich or not, tries to use the political process to prevent others from moving into their neighborhood.

First of all, you are assuming their goal is to prevent others from moving into the neighborhood. It's not rich v poor here, and the site already has residents. They just don't like the form of the proposed development. And of course they can use the political process to stop something they don't like. Do you seriously expect people to roll over and play dead when they feel there is development that will hurt their property values? Do you really want everyone to just silently accept whatever someone else wants to build? That is the whole point of the political process. There's nothing shameful about it. Have you never heard of the "right of the people to petition the Government for the redress of grievances"? Now there's a "right" for you.

[TheNiche]

It may hurt or help, but the residents don't really need a "valid" reason to oppose construction. Who gets to define what is a "valid reason"? I'm sure they feel their reasons are sufficiently valid.

Of course, but that depends on your personal view on whatever issue is at hand. Not everyone is going to be a winner. And political processes aren't meant to be "efficient." It's simply not the point of it. I don't know why that is so hard to see.

And just what are these "property rights"? To my knowledge, "property rights" aren't constitutionally guaranteed, like freedom of speech. They are an outcome of political processes, be it zoning, land use laws, or messy ugly regulations like this one. You can't just dream up "rights" from thin air and then expect the rest of the world to respect them. I may think I have a "right" to a high-paying job, but that isn't going to make it happen.

First of all, you are assuming their goal is to prevent others from moving into the neighborhood. It's not rich v poor here, and the site already has residents. They just don't like the form of the proposed development. And of course they can use the political process to stop something they don't like. Do you seriously expect people to roll over and play dead when they feel there is development that will hurt their property values? Do you really want everyone to just silently accept whatever someone else wants to build? That is the whole point of the political process. There's nothing shameful about it. Have you never heard of the "right of the people to petition the Government for the redress of grievances"? Now there's a "right" for you.

I'm speechless.

Think, man. Think.

[N Judah]

We need to get all the density we can get out of these non-deed-restricted areas. That's what I think.

[lockmat]

As residents of the upscale Southampton and Boulevard Oaks neighborhoods near Rice University fight the development of a 23-story high-rise planned on Bissonnet at Ashby, another building they tried to stop has broken ground.

0/1...soon to be 0/2?

Last Story on bottom of page

Edited November 5, 2007 by lockmat

[suzerain]

I was looking into the vesting statute as referenced earlier on this thread. My question is whether or not they have already filed their application. I am guessing that they have since all they have to do is give "fair notice" of the project to the city.

Also, looking at some of the case law, Mayor White's frustration with the recalcitrance of the builders is better understood. If he can convince the builders to change their plan, then they lose their rights under the vesting statute.

Because the term "project" is defined as an endeavor, rights vest in a particular project and are no longer vested if the project changes. City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2007).

So, the way I am reading it, if they can get the owners to change their plans after they enact the ordinance, the city wins. "

[musicman]

the ordinance is supposedly coming before council today. the mayor said that he wants to put a 90 day hold to ensure that the ordinance doesn't just affect a particular project but will help the city as a whole.

[suzerain]

the ordinance is supposedly coming before council today. the mayor said that he wants to put a 90 day hold to ensure that the ordinance doesn't just affect a particular project but will help the city as a whole.

"You'd better stop this thing, because I'm going to stop it unless you stop it." Bill White.

Wow. How inappropriate is that. He should know better than to make such comments in public. It only gives more fodder to any potential legal action by the developers. It makes it even more clear the ordinance is being passed to block this project despite the words spoken at the city counsel meetings. I think every delay makes it even more likely they are not going to win this fight.

The council's action came after the developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, agreed in writing not to seek any additional permits during the 90-day period.--Houston Chronicle.

This seems to me like they are vested in the project under the law since they already have applied for permits. I just hope they are aware they cannot change the project or risk falling under any new ordinances.

[nate]

"You'd better stop this thing, because I'm going to stop it unless you stop it." Bill White.

Wow. How inappropriate is that. He should know better than to make such comments in public. It only gives more fodder to any potential legal action by the developers. It makes it even more clear the ordinance is being passed to block this project despite the words spoken at the city counsel meetings. I think every delay makes it even more likely they are not going to win this fight.

The council's action came after the developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, agreed in writing not to seek any additional permits during the 90-day period.--Houston Chronicle.

This seems to me like they are vested in the project under the law since they already have applied for permits. I just hope they are aware they cannot change the project or risk falling under any new ordinances.

Suze, see the exemptions to the vesting statute in

Edited November 7, 2007 by nate

[suzerain]

Suze, see the exemptions to the vesting statute in

Edited November 7, 2007 by suzerain

[musicman]

i thought it would quiet down til after the election. didn't want to piss off the voters.

[nate]

I guess it may not since it only controls the number of units involved even though that is a de facto limitation on building size.

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.

[memebag]

23 story with five-level parking garage.

17 floors of apartments including

Any "Illuminatus!" fans out there?

23, 17 and 5 were all significant numbers in that trilogy. And this thing is being built at 1717 Bissonnet.

[suzerain]

where are you getting your information? mine is from the final draft, dated 10/29/07, which reads:

and then goes on to say:

but that was a given, so posting it would have been slightly redundant.

edited to add screen shot, just because..

I am sorry. This one concerns the law so I am fascinated by this. The developers could get a way out because the statute refers to collector and local streets.

The System uses several factors to classify streets into one of four categories: local, collector, thoroughfare, and principal thoroughfare. The factors include:

1. Length of Road

2. Existing and projected traffic volume

3. Character of adjacent properties

4. Possibility of expansion, including manmade and natural barriers

5. Need to preserve thoroughfare corridors

COH Planning Commission Definitions:

* Principal Thoroughfare: more than 5 miles long; connects freeways and other principal thoroughfares; more than 30,000 vehicles per day, usually spaced 3

[lockmat]

Christof Spieler's analysis: http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...-of-bad-policy/

To start with, the residential part of this project isn

[lockmat]

Since when was shade a bad thing in Houston?

Spring Shadow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCqAS7zRusI&NR=1

Winter Shadow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-UL1XCl4NI...feature=related

Summer Shadow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoy3HmhIL9w...feature=related

[lockmat]

Buckhead is fighting back!!!

They've added plenty of reading material on their website defending their position. It's a great read.

http://buckfund.com/1717%20Bissonnet/index.html

[RedScare]

So, are those shadow videos supposed to make me gasp in horror, or try to figure out how to get them over my house in the summer?

[Jax]

Cool. I like their comparison of what the building will look like at street level compared to some of the other high rises - certainly much nicer. I like the pedestrian oriented design. I also like the Mini Cooper coming out of the parking garage.

[sidegate]

i agree. high rise developers here are notorious to resorting to the dreaded L word (Landscaping) when it comes to tying their buildings into the surrounding neighborhood. Pros and cons of 23 stories aside, these renderings look like these guys are at least making an effort in that respect.

"We need to go up in order to take advantage of these spectacular views......". I've heard Houston called a lot of things, but never spectacular!

Edited January 15, 2008 by sidegate

[RedScare]

"We need to go up in order to take advantage of these spectacular views......". I've heard Houston called a lot of things, but never spectacular!

It wouldn't be the first time someone made that claim.

The area surrounding ZaZa is "the closest landscape in Houston to approximate the early 20th-century planning ideals of the City Beautiful movement," local architectural historian Stephen Fox noted.

The movement sought to achieve beauty and grandeur in cities by creating tree-lined boulevards and monumental buildings to contrast with common street patterns.

In the 1960s, when oilman John Mecom bought the hotel, hand-carved paneling originally commissioned for Palais de Versailles, Baccarat chandeliers and Louis XVI chairs were added.

Over the years, the hotel was host to the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Prince Rainier and Princess Grace of Monaco, the Shah of Iran, Imelda Marcos and Bob Hope.

Hope and the Warwick are forever linked. In 1979, NBC's Phil Donahue asked the entertainer to name the most beautiful view in the world.

"Donahue appeared slightly incredulous when Hope, after some consideration," named the Warwick, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Hope stayed in a Warwick suite facing south.

[sidegate]

truly one of the greatest comedians ever