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

[LTAWACS]

I wish they would build this thing.

[swtsig]

I'm sorry to say this, but reading over some of the posts it seems to me that some of the expectations of the residents verge on the unreal. Think of it:

You own a million dollar house in one of the best neighborhoods in the city, and some developer decides he wants a high-rise behind your house. Are you going to think, "Gee, I'm really concerned that that high rise will destroy the value of my house and the quality of my neighborhood, but I better not say anything about it. After all, I'm sure the developers mean well, and if I protest they might lose money and I sure don't want that to happen. Besides, there are many people who live in poor areas and can't afford legal help, so it would be wrong of me to do so even if I can afford it. On top of everything, wouldn't speaking up be selfish on my part?"

Is this really how you would react? I don't think so.

i live in a $1M+ house in one of the wealthiest neighbrohoods in the city, have several very large high-rises (with several more on the drawing boards) w/in shouting distance, and have never heard or seen much of a protest by anyone at anytime.

[Subdude]

It's pure silliness to pretend these very same kinds of battles don't occur in cities that are zoned.

It is, and I wouldn't pretend that.

Land use disputes will always be with us; it would be na

[sevfiv]

First of all, zoning can provide a baseline to manage expectations on both sides. It can give developers reasonable (although not perfect) assurance that they are unlikely to waste vast amounts of money as happened here. It can give homeowners reasonable (but not perfect) assurance that their neighborhood is unlikely to drastically change in composition. The point is to save both sides a lot of time, money and heartache.

Second, land use laws can define the process for resolving disputes. This may not be pleasant, but at least it can be transparent, above-board and treat rich and poor equally. I just think this would address a lot of the concerns that posters have brought up here.

Well said - and even though we have lots of land use ordinances and individual areas can have deed restrictions, it obviously isn't working out so well (whether you call them whiny NIMBYs, greedy/thoughtless developers, and so on).

i live in a $1M+ house in one of the wealthiest neighbrohoods in the city, have several very large high-rises (with several more on the drawing boards) w/in shouting distance, and have never heard or seen much of a protest by anyone at anytime.

The only area that comes to mind like this is around Tanglewood/Post Oak/Galleria, but many of those buildings have Post Oak, Westheimer, San Felipe, and 610 to funnel traffic out...

[JWW]

The only area that comes to mind like this is around Tanglewood/Post Oak/Galleria, but many of those buildings have Post Oak, Westheimer, San Felipe, and 610 to funnel traffic out...

Have you read the anticipated % change in traffic due to this redevelopment ? (Would expect that you have)

[Houston19514]

It is, and I wouldn't pretend that.

Land use disputes will always be with us; it would be na

Edited January 15, 2009 by Houston19514

[KinkaidAlum]

Sorry, but why was this a bad business decision by the developers?

They bought land that was NOT bound by deed restrictions and offered up a very tasteful mixed-use tower in an area of town that is highly desired.

Said tower would have been located inbetween several other hi-rise residential towers (Museum Tower, The Robinhood, The Warwick) as well as adjacent to a major employment center (Texas Med Center), a major university (Rice) and a major cultural center (museum district). All 3 of those centers house tall structures already.

Again, there was nothing legally that could/should have been done to stop this tower and I am afraid that if this gets played out in court, the taxpayers of the City are going to come out on the losing end.

As an aside, I am a former home owner and dues paying member of the Southampton Neighborhood Association. Personally, I am GLAD this is not being built despite what I am writing on this board. My concern has to do with the legality of the battle and the likely overall outcome for all Houstonians.

Additonally, there are several million dollar + neighborhoods in Houston that have towers located either in or directly adjacent to them... River Oaks, Avalon Place, Crestwood, Montrose, Southampton, Tanglewood, Briargrove, Memorial, Old Braeswood, Southgate, Upper Kirby, and more all pop into mind.

[TheNiche]

Yes, but the residents didn't do anything wrong either. They were utilizing the means they had to protect their neighborhood. That's tough about the developers, but can we realistically always just expect residents to cave in to what developers want to do in their neighborhoods? It's certainly a valid question about whether the tower itself was appropriate. But once they decided that for whatever reasons it wasn't, the residents still had every right to protest it. Frankly I'm glad to see people stand up for something instead of letting themselves be bulldozed over. Are they supposed to feel regret because the developers lost money? Get real.

It's hard on everyone, but good development requires balancing the interests of residents and developers. Sometimes it's not a pretty process, and both parties rarely are going to get everything they want.

"Snotty activists"?! You sound almost bitter about it! How dare they have the temerity to complain!

Time for a highly-tangential trip down memory lane... Do you remember, in the first Ghostbusters movie, the scene on top of the highrise apartment building where Gozer, a freaky andogenous demon, opens a gateway to another realm, in the process causing much mayhem, and is then confronted by the team? Ray steps forward and very seriously describes in human terms the pathetic/trivial/irrelevent encroachments being committed by Gozer just by it having made itself present. Gozer asks, "Are you a god?" Ray responded no and the whole team was consequently struck by lightning which burst forth from Gozer's fingertips.

Well when you try and say that the current residents aren't doing anything wrong, you're defining morality and applying that definition as a premise to an argument. And so I ask you, "Are you a god?" If the answer is no, then you aren't in a position to define what is morally right or wrong and your premise is rendered invalid. Even if you are a god, I reject your premise and substitute it with my own...for you see...I am also god.

My last post indicated that I believe that the neighbors were acting rationally (if not especially genuinely) in response to a perceived threat. I also believe that in spite of the fact that this was in fact a very nice proposed highrise, certainly more sensitive to its surroundings than other highrises had been in similar situations, the neighbors rationally concluded that it was a threat to home values. Market prices are often the result more of perception than of reality, after all. Moreover, the market for homes in that price range is not a very deep one and even small percentage differences in price translate to plenty enough justification to hire lawyers, wage a PR campaign, or bribe politicians. So I do conceed that in every respect, the snotty neighborhood activists were acting rationally and in their own best interests.

But of course, you noticed that I do pass judgement. They bought into a neighborhood without deed restrictions which abuts highly desirable unrestricted neighborhoods, a growing university, and one of the fastest-growing employment centers in the country--yet they believe themselves deserving of neighborhood stability. FAIL. They believed themselves deserving of the right to limit new development and in so doing exclude other persons who might appreciate living in the neighborhood. They would be willing to essentially displace such persons; to disallow them a measure of satisfaction; to take up the addage that 'might makes right'. FAIL. They had the capacity to be aware of the infrastructure improvements that the developer undertook but either were unaware or were unconcerned. FAIL. Only after those improvements were complete did they seek to usurp a third party's property rights; they did not negotiate for the purchase of the property or for the purchase of air rights. Theft was preferable. FAIL. Their first attempt, to craft an ordinance regulating density, would've affected numerous other proposed developments throughout Houston--more or less on a random basis--and indeed did cause me personally some inconvenience, actually, even though my situation dealt with unrelated proposals. FAIL. So they argued, disingenuously, that traffic was the foremost concern. FAIL. They could not show their hand for the limited scope that it entailed because it wasn't strong enough to successfully leverage such a monumental theft of property. FAIL. So instead of compensating the offending property owner to rectify the situation, they compensated politicians for a favor. (SUCCESSFUL) FAIL.

And so when I refer to them as "snotty activists", you may rest assured that that phrase is merely a euphamism. The depth and bredth of my ill-will towards these activists is not bounded within the limits of the English language as would be permissible on HAIF. Just be happy that 'God' is showing you deference as a moderator.

[marmer]

Sorry, but why was this a bad business decision by the developers?

They bought land that was NOT bound by deed restrictions and offered up a very tasteful mixed-use tower in an area of town that is highly desired.

Said tower would have been located inbetween several other hi-rise residential towers (Museum Tower, The Robinhood, The Warwick) as well as adjacent to a major employment center (Texas Med Center), a major university (Rice) and a major cultural center (museum district). All 3 of those centers house tall structures already.

Again, there was nothing legally that could/should have been done to stop this tower and I am afraid that if this gets played out in court, the taxpayers of the City are going to come out on the losing end.

As an aside, I am a former home owner and dues paying member of the Southampton Neighborhood Association. Personally, I am GLAD this is not being built despite what I am writing on this board. My concern has to do with the legality of the battle and the likely overall outcome for all Houstonians.

Additonally, there are several million dollar + neighborhoods in Houston that have towers located either in or directly adjacent to them... River Oaks, Avalon Place, Crestwood, Montrose, Southampton, Tanglewood, Briargrove, Memorial, Old Braeswood, Southgate, Upper Kirby, and more all pop into mind.

Good points, KA. Having lived, or gone to school, or worked in the area for nearly thirty years, I can echo the feelings of everyone I've talked to about it -- regardless of financial concerns or even construction inconvenience, it's just not right for the area. It doesn't fit in at all. _That_ was the developer's mistake. It's a lovely building, judging from the renderings, and I'm sure it would be a nice place to live and shop. But that is such a tremendously suburbanized area that its urbanizing benefits are not the least bit attractive to anyone who lives in the area. And it's not just Southampton -- Broadacres and Shadowlawn don't want it either.

I mean, seriously, I'm no real-estate expert, but if you stopped me on the street before any of this had been planned and said, out of the blue, "Hey, would it be a good business decision to build a high-rise apartment building where Maryland Manor is?" my first response would be "Are you crazy? On Bissonnet? In that neighborhood?"

Sure, there are lots of high rises near desirable neighborhoods. Near, but not as close as this would be. And Bissonnet at Ashby is no Kirby, or Memorial Drive, or Holcombe, or Post Oak, or Westheimer. I mean, look at it, except for the little shopping center where Picnic is, the businesses are in old houses. And, yes, Rice and the Museum District and the Med Center have tall buildings, but all of those institutions have been there a long time and they are not literally right on top of the Southampton houses and they all exist to serve the public good, not to make money for a private developer.

[memebag]

Good points, KA. Having lived, or gone to school, or worked in the area for nearly thirty years, I can echo the feelings of everyone I've talked to about it -- regardless of financial concerns or even construction inconvenience, it's just not right for the area. It doesn't fit in at all.

But neighborhoods change. It seems logical and almost inevitable that single family houses so close to the Medical Center will be replaced with more dense housing. Who gets to say when change is allowed and when it isn't? And is it wise to delay this change?

[TheNiche]

Good points, KA. Having lived, or gone to school, or worked in the area for nearly thirty years, I can echo the feelings of everyone I've talked to about it -- regardless of financial concerns or even construction inconvenience, it's just not right for the area. It doesn't fit in at all. _That_ was the developer's mistake. It's a lovely building, judging from the renderings, and I'm sure it would be a nice place to live and shop. But that is such a tremendously suburbanized area that its urbanizing benefits are not the least bit attractive to anyone who lives in the area. And it's not just Southampton -- Broadacres and Shadowlawn don't want it either.

I mean, seriously, I'm no real-estate expert, but if you stopped me on the street before any of this had been planned and said, out of the blue, "Hey, would it be a good business decision to build a high-rise apartment building where Maryland Manor is?" my first response would be "Are you crazy? On Bissonnet? In that neighborhood?"

Sure, there are lots of high rises near desirable neighborhoods. Near, but not as close as this would be. And Bissonnet at Ashby is no Kirby, or Memorial Drive, or Holcombe, or Post Oak, or Westheimer. I mean, look at it, except for the little shopping center where Picnic is, the businesses are in old houses. And, yes, Rice and the Museum District and the Med Center have tall buildings, but all of those institutions have been there a long time and they are not literally right on top of the Southampton houses and they all exist to serve the public good, not to make money for a private developer.

Are you trying to flamebait me? The developer is a member of the public. If he is made better off, ceteris paribus, so is the public by that precise amount. Never mind that the building would've provided a venue for new businesses providing services to the neighborhood, that the construction project would've created hundreds of jobs and supported dozens of local construction and supply businesses in what are otherwise very difficult times for them, or that so many more people would have the opportunity to live in such a nice neighborhood as this.

Realistically, I doubt that more than a few dozen households would be adversely impacted. The traffic argument is bogus. And the privacy argument only holds water for a short distance until the tree canopy obscures views of the ground. If anything, what this controversy exemplifies is a special public screwing over the general public.

[marmer]

Are you trying to flamebait me? The developer is a member of the public. If he is made better off, ceteris paribus, so is the public by that precise amount. Never mind that the building would've provided a venue for new businesses providing services to the neighborhood, that the construction project would've created hundreds of jobs and supported dozens of local construction and supply businesses in what are otherwise very difficult times for them, or that so many more people would have the opportunity to live in such a nice neighborhood as this.

Realistically, I doubt that more than a few dozen households would be adversely impacted. The traffic argument is bogus. And the privacy argument only holds water for a short distance until the tree canopy obscures views of the ground. If anything, what this controversy exemplifies is a special public screwing over the general public.

Niche, I am not trying to flamebait you. If I have not made it clear before now, please let me say that I have great respect for your perspectives, your articulateness, and the knowledge and facts you bring to the table. Your posts are often among the most informative and enjoyable in this community. The fact that we often disagree is one of the reasons I have withdrawn from this particular discussion for several weeks. I know better than to poke a bear with a pointy stick.

But I was responding to a specific post from KA about tall buildings at Rice, the Med Center, and the Museum District and the term "the public good" was just a concise way of saying "longstanding non-profit institutions whose worth to the community is not seriously questioned." I don't think one can equate their tall structures with this proposed tower, nor do I think that you are trying to do that.

I do have my doubts about the viability of any new small retail or restaurant spaces in the area given how many of them have failed in the last decade. (expanding "the area" to include Shepherd up to about Westheimer.) I also have doubts about displacing the Rice students, med students, and young middle-income tenants of Maryland Manor in favor of twice as many wealthier people. (unless the rents would be lower than I think they will be.) And I think it wouldn't take very many cars at all to make Bissonnet, not to mention Sunset and Rice Boulevard, a lot worse. And it seems perfectly reasonable for the few dozen adversely affected households you mention to fight it. And if you, being one of the most passionately pro-development participants here, can see that, then the developer certainly shouldn't have been surprised by it. Especially since, IIRC, they were Rice alums and should have known the area well.

[TheNiche]

But I was responding to a specific post from KA about tall buildings at Rice, the Med Center, and the Museum District and the term "the public good" was just a concise way of saying "longstanding non-profit institutions whose worth to the community is not seriously questioned." I don't think one can equate their tall structures with this proposed tower, nor do I think that you are trying to do that.

So how do you think it is that these non-profit institutions are able to fund their mission? You think it might have anything to do with weathy people, possibly including developers? If you value the MFAH, you should value those that make it possible, the means by which they've made their wealth--which they choose to share--and not snub them simply because their chief motive to create jobs and build communities is profit.

I do have my doubts about the viability of any new small retail or restaurant spaces in the area given how many of them have failed in the last decade. (expanding "the area" to include Shepherd up to about Westheimer.)

Many have failed. Many have been replaced. Many have succeeded. It is a mixed bag. That is the nature of neighborhood retail. The worst outcome for the neighborhood is that they go long periods without a retail service being there; essentially there is no difference as compared to now. Any other outcome is an improvement.

I also have doubts about displacing the Rice students, med students, and young middle-income tenants of Maryland Manor in favor of twice as many wealthier people. (unless the rents would be lower than I think they will be.) And I think it wouldn't take very many cars at all to make Bissonnet, not to mention Sunset and Rice Boulevard, a lot worse.

People who pay higher rents to live somewhere are indicating how much they value the opportunity. The marginal increase in rent revenue from redevelopment of the Maryland Manor site is an indicator of the benefit that could have been. Those relatively wealthy people (greater in number than the current population and otherwise unable to afford living in such a neighborhood) would otherwise have occupied lesser spaces in other neighborhoods and crowded out others that might have enjoyed those spaces rather than the lesser-still spaces where those others end up instead.

Earier in this thread Redscare provided an analysis of the marginal impact of the traffic. It is a cut-and-dry non-issue. ...and you know what? Even if it were a legitimate cause of congestion, I'd still not really consider it a valid objection to the development. People who buy into this neighborhood took on particular risks associated with living in between massive urban activity centers, and with or without this building, traffic volume and congestion is going to happen.

And it seems perfectly reasonable for the few dozen adversely affected households you mention to fight it. And if you, being one of the most passionately pro-development participants here, can see that, then the developer certainly shouldn't have been surprised by it. Especially since, IIRC, they were Rice alums and should have known the area well.

I did not say that it was unreasonable for them to fight it. In fact, in above posts I have described at length just how rational they're acting and even admit that their concerns over adverse impact are to some extent justified. However, I still think that their behavior is assinine for reasons that I have already enumerated and I'm calling them out on it publicly because they deserve such scrutiny for having committed an act which is tantamount to theivery.

Also, whereas I used to like Bill White, I now speak of him as I would a total douchebag. The political outcomes involved in this controversy are especially regrettable.

[N Judah]

TMC is increasing in size, and the population of Houston will be increasing too. Here comes urbanity/density/traffic/displacement -- fair warning --

[LTAWACS]

Realistically, I doubt that more than a few dozen households would be adversely impacted. The traffic argument is bogus. And the privacy argument only holds water for a short distance until the tree canopy obscures views of the ground. If anything, what this controversy exemplifies is a special public screwing over the general public.

This is what I've been saying all along... that our leaders in city government are nothing short of larks.

TMC is increasing in size, and the population of Houston will be increasing too. Here comes urbanity/density/traffic/displacement -- fair warning --

The more the better.

[AJB857]

I was driving around Southhampton today and all I can say is that the 476825363894736872 yellow signs in everyone's yards and on everyone's fences are a helluva lot more ugly than the building is going to be.

[Houston19514]

I was driving around Southhampton today and all I can say is that the 476825363894736872 yellow signs in everyone's yards and on everyone's fences are a helluva lot more ugly than the building is going to be.

No joke. I had the same thoughts a couple weeks ago while driving around that area.

[TheNiche]

I was driving around Southhampton today and all I can say is that the 476825363894736872 yellow signs in everyone's yards and on everyone's fences are a helluva lot more ugly than the building is going to be.

Maybe the City should outlaw the signs, then retroactively fine each violator $500,000 even if their signage was permitted previously without question. That'd be poetic justice.

[Jax]

the 476825363894736872 yellow signs in everyone's yards and on everyone's fences are a helluva lot more ugly than the building is going to be.

Haha I said the same thing last time I drove through Southampton.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Jax

[KinkaidAlum]

I am going to be a resident of this hood. I had to meet with the neighborhood association about my rehab and some variance requests and I told them "I really hope you support me or I might have to build a tower of terror on my lot."

They didn't think it was funny! I had a nice chuckle though. The FIRST thing I am going to do is get rid of the mini billboard tower of traffic sign someone has posted on my lot.

[Urbannizer]

From

http://swamplot.com/ashby-highrise-shiftin...2-27/#more-6888

Since March of last year, [Matthew] Morgan and [Kevin] Kirton have submitted various versions of their permit application eight times, and the city has rejected it eight times.

Since one definitition of insanity is taking the same action repeatedly and expecting a different result, some observers have speculated that the developers were building a record for a lawsuit. The language in their timeline shows they

[Urbannizer]

Houston city council once again rejected the proposal of the Ashby Highrise, for the 9th time...

[TheNiche]

Houston city council once again rejected the proposal of the Ashby Highrise, for the 9th time...

What was their stated reason?

[Urbannizer]

What was their stated reason?

The Concern of Traffic Problems, the reason they rejected the proposal so many times before.

[TheNiche]

The Concern of Traffic Problems, the reason they rejected the proposal so many times before.

In at least one of the last submittals, the City found that the traffic study was questionable and inadequate. Surely a new traffic study has been presented. What are the problems now, specifically?

[rsb320]

In at least one of the last submittals, the City found that the traffic study was questionable and inadequate. Surely a new traffic study has been presented. What are the problems now, specifically?

Political clout!

[infinite_jim]

It wasn't for submitting different plans i.e. design changes?

[Urbannizer]

Plans for the Ashby Highrise were rejected by the city for the 9th time last week. But . . . this rejection appears to be a bit kinder than the others have been.

How much kinder? The West U Examiner

[LTAWACS]

http://swamplot.com/ashby-highrise-the-9th...3-27/#more-7758

Cliffs please?

[IronTiger]

The STOP ASHBY HIGH-RISE signs recently weren't nearly as prevalent as my spring trip to Houston was one year ago. At that point, you could drive up any given street in the area near Rice University and shoot a gun at the right place, a bullet would pierce every one. It's a relatively low-rise area, and if a high-density tower was built in MY neighborhood, I wouldn't be happy about it. Upupup, why are you unhappy the Ashby high-rise building won't be built?