Jump to content

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


musicman

Recommended Posts

I agree. And Houston is full of random highrises in places that aren't in Downtown. That seems to be what a lack of zoning does to a city. I don't see any difference in Southampton and other areas where highrises have been built outside of downtown (Mosaic on Almeda for example, also buildings in River Oaks, and along Alan Parkway) except that Southampton has more money than some of these other areas.

If Southampton residents want to push a zoning law citywide, I could understand that (I actually think Houston could use more planning). I don't however feel that Southampton should have special privileges just because they have more money and less tall buildings.

I actually wouldn't mind seeing a highrise there, as long as it is well designed at the ground level (retail and good landscaping rather than huge parking lot or something like that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some really pretty, dense buildings along Bissonnet (right near where this high rise is supposed to go). In particular I like the collection of white townhome-style buildings. I can understand the fear, given other high rise disasters, but there's no reason density in and of itself is unable to fit in with a particular neighborhood.

No, but the point is that whether or not density could "fit in", the local residents did fear that the proposal would damage the quality of the neighborhood and hurt resale values.

If Southampton residents want to push a zoning law citywide, I could understand that (I actually think Houston could use more planning). I don't however feel that Southampton should have special privileges just because they have more money and less tall buildings.

They don't have special privileges. Anyone has the right to petition the government to fix what they think are wrongs. It just happened that these residents were more successful at it. Again, given that there is no city-wide zoning law it seems like they chose the most effective strategy. I fail to see what is so bad about this. You can't just expect everyone to roll over and play dead in situations like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that part of Houston is stunningly beautiful but it is already being ruined every day.

Have you seen the builder homes that have been popping up over there? Have you seen the parking garage and new midrise health center on Sunset Blvd? What about the gorgeous homes that front Rice Blvd and their view of massive surface parking lot and upper decks of a stadium? What about the homes on Vassar that back up to US 59?

Again, I am not for or against this development per se, but it is laughable to think that well funded donors aren't the SOLE reason this hasn't moved forward. Drive down Bissonnet and you'll see Rice Graduate Apartments (these are much worse than the proposed high rise which will integrate restaurant/shop space with the sidewalk because it is gated and surrounded by driveways). You'll see the Rice Shuttle Bus. You'll see antique stores in converted homes. You'll see a convenience store with a gas station. You'll see an older strip mall with a restaurant. You'll see a Women's Health Clinic, yoga studios, doggie day care centers, etc...because the deed restrictions that do exist do NOT cover that area (Bissonnet @ Ashby).

This is Houston and that is the way we do things. I am not sure why the good folks of Southampton/Boulevard Oaks/Cresmere Place/etc... are any more deserving of protection that the residents of River Oaks/Avalon Place that have to put up with a much taller and more offensive neighbor like the Huntingdon Hi-Rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is Houston and that is the way we do things. I am not sure why the good folks of Southampton/Boulevard Oaks/Cresmere Place/etc... are any more deserving of protection that the residents of River Oaks/Avalon Place that have to put up with a much taller and more offensive neighbor like the Huntingdon Hi-Rise.

We don't have to do things the same way forever. It isn't that they are more "deserving" of protection, but they took the initiative and did something about it. Good for them. That is how we do things in Houston.

There's no particular virtue in remaining silent because other neighborhoods were screwed over. That doesn't even make sense. As ever, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's my rub; they haven't done anything for Houston.

There was no collective effort to raise awareness city wide about the need for greater building regulations. There was no movement to get these "Tower of Terror" folks aligned with saving historic structures. Hell, they haven't even used this opportunity to start an organized effort to do what the 6th ward did to protect themselves.

Do me a favor, go to Southampton and look around. You'll find that this is a single issue event. Folks don't seem to care about the Cheyne Walks, 7,700 square foot monsters being placed on 8,000 square foot lots, or the fact that builders like Southampton, Carrera, etc... are destroying older homes at a record pace. They don't care because many of the movers and shakers that live there PROFIT off of these things.

After you take that tour, then head over to Audobon Place in Deep Montrose and see what is happening there. It's a neighborhood also filled with yard signs but over there, it isn't about stopping LEGAL developments from going forward, it's about LEGALLY changing the way all future developments will take place. There's an active movement amongst neighbors to become the second neighborhood with the protective status granted to the Old 6th Ward. That is the RIGHT way to do things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's my rub; they haven't done anything for Houston.

After you take that tour, then head over to Audobon Place in Deep Montrose and see what is happening there. It's a neighborhood also filled with yard signs but over there, it isn't about stopping LEGAL developments from going forward, it's about LEGALLY changing the way all future developments will take place. There's an active movement amongst neighbors to become the second neighborhood with the protective status granted to the Old 6th Ward. That is the RIGHT way to do things.

sounds like audubon place is trying to help themselves, not houston. one neighborhood can't dictate how all future development will take place in houston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, but the point is that whether or not density could "fit in", the local residents did fear that the proposal would damage the quality of the neighborhood and hurt resale values.

Well, that's what I"m saying...there could be options that work out for everybody. Situations involving development of high-rises/density/whatever aren't always zero-sum games, but apparently someone has convinced that crowd that that is the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that's what I"m saying...there could be options that work out for everybody. Situations involving development of high-rises/density/whatever aren't always zero-sum games, but apparently someone has convinced that crowd that that is the case.

At the outset of the game, the neighborhood activists did not have a regulatory leg to stand on and the developer had basically no historical precedent to work from that suggested that the City government would be more friendly towards any particular NIMBY group than the City had been to any other group of NIMBYs fighting a previously proposed development. In fact, the City had already been quite willing to grant permits to the developer for utility work that would only conceivably be done in preparation for high-density redevelopment.

At that juncture, the snotty neighborhood activists did not pose a credible threat. They could not merely strike a bargain such that the tower would be considered objectionable on the basis of height but that they would grant their permission to proceed if the developer promised to repave all the sidewalks within a half-mile radius, or something like that. The snotty neighborhood activists did not have any kind of bonafide objection which might grant them leverage in such a negotiation. Their permission was unnecessary.

Under these conditions the game is zero-sum. The snotty neighborhood activists had to find or create from scratch some kind of legal technicality that would give them leverage. Only, they knew that sweeping changes would be more difficult and time-consuming to usher forth, and certainly they didn't want to turn it into a situation where a broader issue was perceived as snotty rich people vs. everybody else. (Even snotty people that want city-wide zoning or more stringent city planning should probably be thankful that this particular situation was not escalated to that level.) And so by process of elimination, it pretty much became traffic technicalities or bust. And once such an avenue was discovered, for what reason would they back down? Backing down (or rather, having their puppets at the City back down for them) for some kind of concession from the developer to the neighborhood (and not the City) would only have incited the wrath of the popular press, perhaps reversing whatever advantage they'd gained.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could have backed down because they weren't against density per se, they were against density that hurts resale value. There exists density that helps, not hurts, resale value. The real question is whether or not the angry neighbors know this.

Prove it.

I don't mean that snippily, but this is thrown out there every time a homeowner is against something, and not only is it rarely true, but often times the exact opposite is true. But, it never seems to stop the argument, and predictably, it was used in this case as well. The fact is, a condo tower full of extremely expensive units, occupied by extremely wealthy neighbors, probably HELPS resale value, not hurts it. This tower would logically have no effect on any homes more than a couple hundred yards away, yet they talk like homes six or eight blocks away will be plunged into darkness. And no one calls them out on it. Why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The snotty neighborhood activists had to find or create from scratch some kind of legal technicality that would give them leverage. Only, they knew that sweeping changes would be more difficult and time-consuming to usher forth, and certainly they didn't want to turn it into a situation where a broader issue was perceived as snotty rich people vs. everybody else. (Even snotty people that want city-wide zoning or more stringent city planning should probably be thankful that this particular situation was not escalated to that level.) And so by process of elimination, it pretty much became traffic technicalities or bust. And once such an avenue was discovered, for what reason would they back down? Backing down (or rather, having their puppets at the City back down for them) for some kind of concession from the developer to the neighborhood (and not the City) would only have incited the wrath of the popular press, perhaps reversing whatever advantage they'd gained.

arturo michel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove it.

I don't mean that snippily, but this is thrown out there every time a homeowner is against something, and not only is it rarely true, but often times the exact opposite is true. But, it never seems to stop the argument, and predictably, it was used in this case as well. The fact is, a condo tower full of extremely expensive units, occupied by extremely wealthy neighbors, probably HELPS resale value, not hurts it. This tower would logically have no effect on any homes more than a couple hundred yards away, yet they talk like homes six or eight blocks away will be plunged into darkness. And no one calls them out on it. Why?

Actually I have no idea what was going through their minds as they opposed the project. I relied on Subdude to give me the scoop:

No, but the point is that whether or not density could "fit in", the local residents did fear that the proposal would damage the quality of the neighborhood and hurt resale values.

It is possible that the tower could be like that horrible thing on Richmond near the Galleria, which no one in their right mind would want to live near. But I am sure the developers want to make money, not destroy everything that attracted them to the site in the first place.

The thought also crossed my mind that the homeowners envision themselves living in that neighborhood for the long term and simply don't want to pay increased property taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that's my rub; they haven't done anything for Houston.

There was no collective effort to raise awareness city wide about the need for greater building regulations. There was no movement to get these "Tower of Terror" folks aligned with saving historic structures. Hell, they haven't even used this opportunity to start an organized effort to do what the 6th ward did to protect themselves.

Do me a favor, go to Southampton and look around. You'll find that this is a single issue event. Folks don't seem to care about the Cheyne Walks, 7,700 square foot monsters being placed on 8,000 square foot lots, or the fact that builders like Southampton, Carrera, etc... are destroying older homes at a record pace. They don't care because many of the movers and shakers that live there PROFIT off of these things.

After you take that tour, then head over to Audobon Place in Deep Montrose and see what is happening there. It's a neighborhood also filled with yard signs but over there, it isn't about stopping LEGAL developments from going forward, it's about LEGALLY changing the way all future developments will take place. There's an active movement amongst neighbors to become the second neighborhood with the protective status granted to the Old 6th Ward. That is the RIGHT way to do things.

The residents didn't see this as a project in social awareness, or to ensure justice for poor neighborhoods, or in collective consciousness-raising, or in historic preservation. These are broader political questions. They were concerned about one building in one neighborhood, and they fought to end it, full stop. Why should they be concerned about trying to be consistent with other areas? My point is that there is nothing wrong with that. It's one thing to argue that their fears were misplaced, but quite another to say that they were wrong in acting on them. For the life of me I can't see why people get upset because the residents acted in what they saw as their own best interests.

But I am sure the developers want to make money, not destroy everything that attracted them to the site in the first place.

Yes, for we all know that developers wish to act responsibly at all times. :wacko:

At the end of the day I think they just wanted to preserve the SCALE and character of the neighborhood and not have a high-rise sticking up in the middle.

They could have backed down because they weren't against density per se, they were against density that hurts resale value. There exists density that helps, not hurts, resale value. The real question is whether or not the angry neighbors know this.

Again, I think density was a side issue compared to scale, but even if it theoretically would have helped resale value, that doesn't mean they are somehow obligated to shut up and go along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is something wrong with it in my opinion.

I am certainly not a pro-development type of person. I generally support stronger regulatory practices for building within the city.

That said, these developers didn't do anything illegal. They purchased land in an area of town that did NOT have deed restrictions and they planned to build a very nice apartment tower (rental units) with street level retail. This project would have provided some great jobs. It would have provided nice new apartments for Rice students and faculty as well as for TMC workers. It would have provided retail/restaurant space for the neighborhood. AND, it was a fairly nice highrise to boot.

In the end, they will likely be out MILLIONS of dollars and will be stuck with an aging complex that no future developer will touch. That just isn't right in my book because these guys were following all rules and going above and beyond in terms of being open to public review. These were the good guys of development and they are getting screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is something wrong with it in my opinion.

I am certainly not a pro-development type of person. I generally support stronger regulatory practices for building within the city.

That said, these developers didn't do anything illegal. They purchased land in an area of town that did NOT have deed restrictions and they planned to build a very nice apartment tower (rental units) with street level retail. This project would have provided some great jobs. It would have provided nice new apartments for Rice students and faculty as well as for TMC workers. It would have provided retail/restaurant space for the neighborhood. AND, it was a fairly nice highrise to boot.

In the end, they will likely be out MILLIONS of dollars and will be stuck with an aging complex that no future developer will touch. That just isn't right in my book because these guys were following all rules and going above and beyond in terms of being open to public review. These were the good guys of development and they are getting screwed.

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.

the snotty neighborhood activists did not pose a credible threat.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day I think they just wanted to preserve the SCALE and character of the neighborhood and not have a high-rise sticking up in the middle.

Alright, so it wasn't about resale values or quality of the development, it was about scale. So they decided they were the last people to have anything to say about the neighborhood's character and decided to pull up the drawbridge behind them? That's sick. If we're going to play that game, then maybe there shouldn't have been anything built in that area to begin with. Trees and shrubs and wildlife, now that's some SCALE we could all appreciate...well, except for the people who paved over it, decided to build their own monstrosities, and then nominated themselves to be the new arbiters of taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove it.

I don't mean that snippily, but this is thrown out there every time a homeowner is against something, and not only is it rarely true, but often times the exact opposite is true. But, it never seems to stop the argument, and predictably, it was used in this case as well. The fact is, a condo tower full of extremely expensive units, occupied by extremely wealthy neighbors, probably HELPS resale value, not hurts it. This tower would logically have no effect on any homes more than a couple hundred yards away, yet they talk like homes six or eight blocks away will be plunged into darkness. And no one calls them out on it. Why?

thank you.

the notion that property values will decrease due to a high density development being built in proximity is a total farce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

do you not find the hypocrisy in any of this at all? do you think if a development like this would have gone up in a poorer part of town to the neighbor's dismay that the city would bend over backwards to get it halted? the residents of southhampton used their wealth and political clout to ensure that a perfectly legal and legitimate development would never see the light of day for their own selfish (and misguided) reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

The argument that this was about traffic is also assinine. Don't you think a major health clinic will cause more traffic than a residential building?

I am all for the neighbors fighting to protect their property and neighborhood. That's the American way, or at least it should be.

I guess my beef is with the result of the protest. The truth is they shouldn't have a leg to stand on to block this development. It sets a really ugly precedent and I have no doubt that there is going to be a very costly legal battle over this one that will cost the city dearly.

It simply appears to me that the rules of the game were changed midstream because rich people got pissed. It also doesn't hurt to have two city council members as residents of that area either... nor that the mayor was a one-time resident too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that my earlier question was buried on the previous page, but Houston19514 mentioned something about old, run-down apartments on an arterial street (not naming Maryland Manor, but I assume referring to it).

I said that I don't really notice the apartments (maybe because they blend in?) but are they bad off?

And the Sunset garage - ewww!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maryland Manor doesn't look that too bad off. I think they are a painted blue-ish brick two story job behind gates.

And, I agree. The Sunset Garage is terrible. A much worse scar on the area than a 23 story brick-clad high rise would have been. The traffic in and out of there by patients, family members, doctors, aides, office assts. and the like is pretty bad. I suppose the neighbors weren't too upset about this because it is a very high-end clinic where many of the area residents go for health care!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

The argument that this was about traffic is also assinine. Don't you think a major health clinic will cause more traffic than a residential building?

I am all for the neighbors fighting to protect their property and neighborhood. That's the American way, or at least it should be.

I guess my beef is with the result of the protest. The truth is they shouldn't have a leg to stand on to block this development. It sets a really ugly precedent and I have no doubt that there is going to be a very costly legal battle over this one that will cost the city dearly.

It simply appears to me that the rules of the game were changed midstream because rich people got pissed. It also doesn't hurt to have two city council members as residents of that area either... nor that the mayor was a one-time resident too.

your issue is ultimately with the legal department who usually do what they are told to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent use of hyperbole in your post. I see a bright future for you in writing homeowners association newsletters and public comment speaking at city council and METRO meetings.

And thank you RedScare for your positive contribution. It always helps me remember why I rarely participate in any discussion on this site.....rudeness seems the daily dish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

I can't prove it but IIRC the neighborhood was not happy about the Sunset Clinic and garage project. That may have been one of the reasons why there was so much opposition to the Ashby project.

I think that my earlier question was buried on the previous page, but Houston19514 mentioned something about old, run-down apartments on an arterial street (not naming Maryland Manor, but I assume referring to it).

I said that I don't really notice the apartments (maybe because they blend in?) but are they bad off?

And the Sunset garage - ewww!

There were some old, run-down apartments on Bissonnet, but they were replaced by the Rice Graduate apartments. There are also those art-deco-ish apartments on Wroxton and Bolsover. I hope they're not rundown -- I think they're kinda neat. Maryland Manor useta be kinda seedy, but it was heavily remodeled in the mid-90s.

Ya know, I still think that even if the Ashby highrise is the prettiest development in town, that nine months (probably more than a year, actually) of construction traffic and deliveries and lane closures is a lot to ask that neighborhood to endure. Especially when things are starting to get back to normal after the Sunset clinic. The other thing is, I live in a cheap, twenty-year-old tract house in a generic Pearland suburb. I don't have any kind of special view in my back yard. But I wouldn't be too happy about a giant residential tower suddenly looming over my back yard, either.

This wasn't the first controversy about a high-rise structure in the area. Houston grande dame Oveta Culp Hobby wanted to build a high-rise hotel on her Shadyside property back in the sixties but the neighborhood association fought it and won. That's probably why she demolished her home, the eponymous Shadyside built for J. S. Cullinan as the first home in the development, and moved out of the neighborhood in 1971. Shadyside was on the property where those two new stucco and tile "beauties" visible from Main Street are now. I remember seeing the foundation remains of the Shadyside house back when you could walk in the neighborhood.

Edited by marmer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but there is something wrong with it in my opinion.

I am certainly not a pro-development type of person. I generally support stronger regulatory practices for building within the city.

That said, these developers didn't do anything illegal. They purchased land in an area of town that did NOT have deed restrictions and they planned to build a very nice apartment tower (rental units) with street level retail. This project would have provided some great jobs. It would have provided nice new apartments for Rice students and faculty as well as for TMC workers. It would have provided retail/restaurant space for the neighborhood. AND, it was a fairly nice highrise to boot.

In the end, they will likely be out MILLIONS of dollars and will be stuck with an aging complex that no future developer will touch. That just isn't right in my book because these guys were following all rules and going above and beyond in terms of being open to public review. These were the good guys of development and they are getting screwed.

I can't say that I have the deepest sympathy for developers that ended up losing money on a bad business decision, but if that is your concern the best outcome would be zoning or land use regulations that would make it very clear to both residents and developers what kind of buildings are acceptable. Zoning could also let land use regulations apply to ALL neighborhoods, not just the ones where the residents have the money or cojones to make a stink. A zoning process would minimize the risk on both sides.

By the way, the residents didn't do anything illegal either, did they?

Well, if it was just about scale, then why aren't they up in arms about the new Sunset Clinic and garage? While just a midrise of 6-8 floors, it is completely out of scale for that neighborhood. I'd also add that Sunset is a helluva lot less commercial than Bissonnet and has multi million dollar homes dotting it for blocks.

I don't know, you'd have to ask them. Again, I wasn't arguing the merits of their dislike of the high rise, I was defending their right to try to stop it.

I am all for the neighbors fighting to protect their property and neighborhood. That's the American way, or at least it should be.

I guess my beef is with the result of the protest. The truth is they shouldn't have a leg to stand on to block this development. It sets a really ugly precedent and I have no doubt that there is going to be a very costly legal battle over this one that will cost the city dearly.

I'm afraid I don't understand. You're OK with their fighting to protect the neighborhood but not with the outcome?

do you not find the hypocrisy in any of this at all? do you think if a development like this would have gone up in a poorer part of town to the neighbor's dismay that the city would bend over backwards to get it halted? the residents of southhampton used their wealth and political clout to ensure that a perfectly legal and legitimate development would never see the light of day for their own selfish (and misguided) reasons.

Whose hypocrisy? The residents didn't make any bones about what they where trying to accomplish. It is unfortunate that lacking zoning, land use appeals can in Houston can only be made by protest. I wish that were not the case. And it is the case that poorer areas are less likely to put up a fight for any number of reasons. But that doesn't remove the right at all of the Ashby residents to protest. My point is that poorer neighborhoods would be better enabled with zoning laws, but it is silly to think that in their absence rich it is somehow wrong of rich neighborhoods to protest. You don't help one group by taking away rights from another.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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?"
:lol:

Too true. Lots of people were FOR this development and don't live anywhere near it. They accuse the neighborhood folks of being NIMBYs. Maybe those people should be called SOEBYs?

Shouldn't the people ADJACENT to the thing get to have the biggest influence on the outcome? Even if they are rich and snooty (just kidding)!

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't say that I have the deepest sympathy for developers that ended up losing money on a bad business decision, but if that is your concern the best outcome would be zoning or land use regulations that would make it very clear to both residents and developers what kind of buildings are acceptable. Zoning could also let land use regulations apply to ALL neighborhoods, not just the ones where the residents have the money or cojones to make a stink. A zoning process would minimize the risk on both sides.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, the residents didn't do anything illegal either, did they?

No but I think they acted in really bad faith (ironically, especially in comparison to the developers). When you move to a neighborhood with no deed restrictions you've got to prepare yourself mentally for the eventuality of neighborhood change. Resorting to tantrum-throwing and backslapping good-ole-boys-ism when things don't go your way is simply inappropriate.

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...