Jump to content

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


musicman

Recommended Posts

I hope the developers do exactly what suzerain suggests, coming in with larger, more expensive 133 units, and adds more retail to the project. A Houston Apartment Association spokesman said on the news that the ordinance is aimed squarely at residential, even though residential has a low impact on traffic. Commercial and retail has the biggest impact, yet it is not addressed by the ordinance.

concur. when the legal dept drafts ordinances, there are almost always loopholes from the ones i've been interested in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When stakeholders with any degree of power start acting unpredictably, the risk profile goes up, and so do prices. The only difference is the time horizon. What takes a couple hours on the NYMEX may take a couple years on MLS.

It's not the point for this topic, but liquid and illiquid markets are totally different, and there's no surer way to come to mistaken conclusions than by choosing to ignore that. Trust me on this one. Trying to equate the local real estate market to energy markets is - at best - misleading.

So what you're saying here is that zoning is a better solution than regulation by whim because it is more transparent (i.e. less risky) and can accomplish all the same things largely perceived--rightly or wrongly--as positives (i.e. neighborhood stability, good infrastructure, etc.). I'd agree with you. I'd rather have zoning than willy-nilly potshots taken at random by the local aristocracy. Governor Aggie and I are on opposing sides of the zoning issue, for instance, but we're both pissed off about this because it goes way way too far--we both want what we view as optimal policy, but we don't want this. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you'd defend it.

I wasn't defending the outcome, but recognizing that it is entirely legitimate for residents to resort to the political process to stop what they feel is inappropriate development. In Houston, lacking zoning, there is no other effective choice. Most people are far more concerned about protecting the quality of their neighborhoods than about fictitious "property rights" or optimal market clearing scenarios.

Houston isn't Bangladesh. If ever there was a need for an example of a weak analogy, you've just provided it.

Touch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is the story you were talking about musicman:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=5732553

And look, this guy Andy Teas said almost the same thing someone on here said; I think it was Niche. :ph34r:

The Houston Apartment Association says the traffic argument makes no sense.

"This really doesn't have anything to do with traffic," said Andy Teas with the association. "If it was, it would be about commercial properties. Residential properties generate very little traffic, but that's the only type of construction covered by this ordinance."

Teas is worried that other high rise projects like 2727 Kirby could be inadvertently affected by an ordinance that's essentially targeted at one development. The mayor says he's just trying to get something done.

How could 2727 be affected by this? It's already under construction.

Edited by lockmat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, 2727 Kirby appears to only be 85 units...below the 100 unit threshold, despite being taller than 1717 Bissonnet. Additionally, Kirby Drive is a 6 or 7 lane road, not 2 lane.

I do not think it fits the proposed Draconian legislation.

EDIT: Also, previously permitted projects appear to be exempted.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if it's not finished...size could be limited

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, Kirby Drive is a 6 or 7 lane road, not 2 lane.

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.

So Andy Teas is full of it.

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.

Edited by nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think about how broad this is. Any large residential development on Main street would be subject to this insane ordinance.

And is the city oblivious to these effects?

If it passes, I guess developers will have to get special permission to build projects like this in legitimate areas like downtown and pretty much anywhere else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CBD is specifically exempted from ordinances that apply to the rest of the city. For instance, setback and parking requirements that apply to the entire city do not apply to the CBD. I doubt that this ordinance will apply in the CBD, though it would apply to Midtown and the Galleria, and the Med Center. It is remarkably poorly thought out, considering the pro-development stance of the City.

Nate, as long as ingress and egress only occurs on Kirby, as opposed to side streets, it would not apply. However, this rule could actually make traffic on a multi-lane street WORSE forcing the parking lots and garages to empty onto the busy street, instead of having residents use the already existing intersection with the side street....more unintended consequences of poorly thought out legislation. I'm tellin' ya, I could have a field day with this ordinance. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Edited by RedScare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And is the city oblivious to these effects?

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.

Nate, as long as ingress and egress only occurs on Kirby, as opposed to side streets, it would not apply. However, this rule could actually make traffic on a multi-lane street WORSE forcing the parking lots and garages to empty onto the busy street, instead of having residents use the already existing intersection with the side street....more unintended consequences of poorly thought out legislation.

I am aware and even noted that possibility in the e-mail I sent to Tsar White and the Politburo which I posted earlier.

Edited by nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

good point....with the speed this was brought forth...they could also change it just as quickly. like i said earlier...the legal dept ordinances are not always written well.

Edited by musicman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are too many posts and not enough time to review them all. so if this was already covered, i apologize in advance.

this proposed ordinance, which has not been approved, means the project would have to go through an approval process if all three items are triggered:

1) if the density would increase by 100%+

2) comprise of more than 100 units

3) primary car access is from a two lane street

so if the development does not impact ALL THREE POINTS, the city cannot do a thing about it. if all three are triggered, it doesnt mean the deal is dead, just means you have to go through some red tape.

in other words, if this development were on kirby, main, westheimer, whatever, the proposed ordinance will NOT effect the development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee, I wonder why. Wouldn't have anything to do with an ex post facto kick in the jewels, would it, Mayor?

I am one of Mayor White's biggest supporters, and as I have stated before, I have no dog in this hunt, but this kind of below the belt legislation infuriates me. You just don't go changing the rules in midstream. It is cheap, sleazy and unethical.

I hope the developers do exactly what suzerain suggests, coming in with larger, more expensive 133 units, and adds more retail to the project. A Houston Apartment Association spokesman said on the news that the ordinance is aimed squarely at residential, even though residential has a low impact on traffic. Commercial and retail has the biggest impact, yet it is not addressed by the ordinance.

it would be really easy to do.

Randall Davis' last 2 highrises (the u/c Cosmopolitan and the proposed Titan) are both TALLER (315 feet for the Cosmo compared to 266 for 1717) and only contain 80 units.

How funny would it be to build a TALLER structure with 90-100 for-sale units that skirts this STUPID regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are too many posts and not enough time to review them all. so if this was already covered, i apologize in advance.

this proposed ordinance, which has not been approved, means the project would have to go through an approval process if all three items are triggered:

1) if the density would increase by 100%+

2) comprise of more than 100 units

3) primary car access is from a two lane street

so if the development does not impact ALL THREE POINTS, the city cannot do a thing about it. if all three are triggered, it doesnt mean the deal is dead, just means you have to go through some red tape.

in other words, if this development were on kirby, main, westheimer, whatever, the proposed ordinance will NOT effect the development.

No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)

Edited by nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)

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

Is proposed to take primary vehicular access from an abutting two-lane local or collector street with two-way traffic

and then goes on to say:

; and

4) Is either:

a. A high-rise structure, as defined in the City of Houston

Building Code; or

b. Constructed on a tract containing eight acres or more.

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

edited to add screen shot, just because..

highrisecodesforhoustonblah.jpg

Edited by houston-development
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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..

highrisecodesforhoustonblah.jpg

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.

Edited by nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I decided to send another e-mail to the mayor and council. Let me know your comments.

Dear Mayor White and City Council Members,

Since I last wrote you on Saturday morning, the proposed ordinance relating to high density multi-family development has been revised. I wish to relay to you my comments on the revised ordinance as well as comment on the process that the proposed ordinance has come about.

First, the final finding has been altered to exclude the reference to land use.

The 10/23 draft read:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also did not review every single post here but my 2 cents on this are that if the developer owns the property and at the time the highrise was proposed then no changes in ordinance should be made to retroactively kill the project. Driving in that area you see the "stop Ashby higrise" yellow sign in 90% of the yards.

I grew up not too far from that area and went to Poe and Lanier as a kid. The mentality of the homeowners was very snooty and this was back in the mid 80s. I think it must have gotten much worse by now and they just don't want outsiders to come move into their area. This is not a gated community or something like West U where it is a different world in there. BUT, I would say those people despise how someone who did not buy into the area when it was affordable or have the loot to buy a house more recently will be able to live there and have access to their community.

If they sell the apartments and have a maintenance fee my guess would be about $300-400 per square foot for buying and maybe 75-99 cents per sq ft for maintaining things each month. This would price it out of the range of Rice students but would appeal to the 30 somethings who do not want to buy a house and deal with maintaining it. It will be a total disaster for the surrounding homes and kill the way the whole area looks.

A prime example of a highrise near expensive homes is in River Oaks where the highrise on Westheimer overlooks the $2+ million homes to the north. Of course, Westheimer is mostly commercial and the highrise is isolated from the homes.

The homeowners near the site of Ashby Highrise need to plant live oak trees that will block the view of their homes and backyards to have more privacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they sell the apartments and have a maintenance fee my guess would be about $300-400 per square foot for buying and maybe 75-99 cents per sq ft for maintaining things each month. This would price it out of the range of Rice students but would appeal to the 30 somethings who do not want to buy a house and deal with maintaining it. It will be a total disaster for the surrounding homes and kill the way the whole area looks.

You just gave me an idea. What if they changed it over to seniors housing? Its near the TMC, is in a nice quiet neighborhood, seniors don't have to climb stairs, and given that the average age of residents in that neighborhood is already pretty high, this would give them a transitional option once their palacial home becomes too much for them.

Besides, who'd dare take a stance against seniors housing? Not only are old people generally more agreeable neighbors, but they know how to get out the vote! No politician wants to go up against that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Director is subject to political pressure and is accountable to his employer, the elected officials.

I'm still not seeing it. Isn't it a good thing that the elected officials are being responsive to the wishes of their constituents? Isn't that what we all want from elected officials? If anything, oughtn't we be happy that the political process is operating effectively?

Again, I don't like the specificity and ex post nature of the statute, but I see nothing wrong with responsive government.

Wealthy Houstonians are using their political connections to exclude undesirables from their neighborhood

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing it. Isn't it a good thing that the elected officials are being responsive to the wishes of their constituents? Isn't that what we all want from elected officials?

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.

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

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."

Edited by nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it has anything to do with "undesirables" or people who can't afford to buy a house. As far as I know the tenants of Rice Graduate Apartments, the tenants of Maryland Manor, the tenants of the lovely art-deco apartments on Wroxton and Bolsover, and the many renters of garage apartments are not made to feel unwelcome. 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. Here at Rice, we're enduring several major construction projects and believe me the noise and construction traffic as well as the blocked access to many areas are a cause for complaint. Nonetheless, the Rice community supports it because they know what a benefit it will be. Same thing, sorta, with the medical garage on Sunset. It's out of scale with the area but hopefully it will improve traffic and parking when it's done. But what do you think will happen when that big crane is delivered and erected? I can't imagine that it wouldn't make Bissonnet a one lane street for at least a day. Same thing with steel deliveries, pipe, you name it. Oh, and how about the noise and dust?

Telling people in Southampton to plant more live oak trees is like trying to sell coals in Newcastle. There is already a big tree canopy. But the proximity and geometry of this extremely tall thing is going to make it plenty visible over the tree canopy. They're going to lose their sky.

The Huntingdon and the one on San Felipe (River Oaks?) work, sorta, because they have enough space around them not to intrude quite so much on the surrounding neighborhoods, and they are both on major multi-lane through streets.

But I haven't heard anyone say anything good about this project except to say the rendering is pretty and to complain that the city is trying to screw the developer, which they clearly are because the project will be a disaster for the whole area. Or they like the idea of high-rises in general as an efficient use of land. I doubt that this will have any real effect on anyone's house value

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not seeing it. Isn't it a good thing that the elected officials are being responsive to the wishes of their constituents? Isn't that what we all want from elected officials? If anything, oughtn't we be happy that the political process is operating effectively?

I don't buy that. I'm a constituent. What about my wishes? :rolleyes:

We should never be happy if politicians are just doing things, as though the act of doing is necessarily a sign that they give a damn. Sometimes, the best thing a politician can do to ensure an efficient political process is nothing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...