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

[nativehou]

It is hard to feel bad for these people.

Not for me.

If this were happening to you, whether you were rich or poor, I'd feel bad for you. This isn't anything anybody expected on a two-lane stretch of Bissonnet.

[talltexan83]

It is not about whether you feel bad for the people in Southampton. Yes, their homes are some of the most expensive in the city (well beyond what I could hope to afford), but they are no different than any other civic association in the city. They want what is best for their neighborhood

In lieu of deed restrictions, Houston neighborhoods have always fought these kind of developments. Some have been successful and some have not, but you cannot fault an association for putting up a fight. A "they should have seen it coming" logic does not apply.

I had a chance to live in the area has a student and have fond memories of Southampton. Along with Rice University, Hermann Park and the Musuem District, I think this is the one of the most appealing parts of Houston, and a high rise on Bissonnet is only taking away part of that appeal.

Edited September 27, 2007 by talltexan83

[suzerain]

Not for me.

If this were happening to you, whether you were rich or poor, I'd feel bad for you. This isn't anything anybody expected on a two-lane stretch of Bissonnet.

Well, my point is people need to stop listening to special interests who fight zoning so hard if they want to protect their homes from this type of development. Maybe this spur some sort of movement. I do not think many people would be terribly upset is this type of development were limited to certain areas. I prefer the system in Austin personally where dense development spurs dense development in designated areas while protecting the fabric of single-home neighborhoods.

I actually have family who recently purchased a home in this neighborhood. It sucks for them, but, at least, they have always been proponents of zoning to prevent these types of situations.

[Subdude]

I was thinking about Cluterbuck living in this neighborhood last night. I know her husband is intimately involved in the Civic club and the effort to save the deed restrictions in the neighborhood. This seems to me to be a complete conflict of interest. She is attempting to get the city involved in a fight that benefits her and her family directly. I know she is supposed to represent the area, but with such a vested interest in what is going on here, she should be very wary of using her public office to try and curtail the development. I know, I know, this sort of self-interested politicing goes on all the time. Still seems dirty to me.

BTW, if the truly wants to stop them and succeeds, are they going to be willing to return the 500k investment the developers already put into the project?

How is it a conflict of interest to act on behalf of the interests of constituents? It never occurred to me that politicians were somehow supposed to remain neutral about political issues.

Why should the developers be repaid the $500k investment if they lose it? If you believe in the "free market" then that comes with the risk of losing money due to poorly thought-out investments. Tough beans for them. No one is guaranteed a return.

[RedScare]

I prefer the system in Austin personally where dense development spurs dense development in designated areas while protecting the fabric of single-home neighborhoods.

Really? When did Austin become dense?

[Subdude]

24h Traffic count on Bissonet here was 17k+ in 2001.

250 units are going to cause the Apocalypse?

Wah wah wah... cry me a river. Protection of privilege...

Interesting that the argument becomes all about traffic count, as opposed to all the other neighborhod quality and density issues.

[suzerain]

Really? When did Austin become dense?

Over the past ten years, it has started to happen more and more. You would be surprised.

[RedScare]

Over the past ten years, it has started to happen more and more. You would be surprised.

Yeah, I'd be REAL surprised, since the 2007 estimates give Austin a density of 2379 per square mile....hardly what I'd call dense. Even sprawly Houston is over 3700 per square mile.

Interesting that the argument becomes all about traffic count, as opposed to all the other neighborhod quality and density issues.

It seems that traffic count has become one of the few valid attacks on unwanted development. Most of the others are unworkable on property rights issues.

[houston-development]

surrounding neighborhoods have $1MM+ legal fund put together and 20 area billboards reserved.

true story.

if you thought monaco or shakespeare was ugly, just wait for this one.

[musicman]

^

i knew they'd put their money where their mouth is!

[ricco67]

Really? When did Austin become dense?

When they thought they were "hip."

sorry.

[KinkaidAlum]

surrounding neighborhoods have $1MM+ legal fund put together and 20 area billboards reserved.

true story.

if you thought monaco or shakespeare was ugly, just wait for this one.

Unless the billboards are located INSIDE their areas, I think that's a really bad idea. A lot of people who are for zoning and for the overall beautification of the city are VERY anti-billboard. I know if I lived in an area with unwanted billboard clutter, I'd be angry with the rich folks who spent money to advertise their plight in my neighborhood. It also seems to be hypocritical to use billboard advertising when some of their first public arguments have centered around shadow casting, structural height, and protection of "beautiful" areas.

[jfre81]

OK, so about 6pm this evening I rode down Bissonnet in front of what is now the Maryland Manor Apartments...

...and it's really gonna suck traffic-wise if this thing goes up.

It already does.

[nativehou]

OK, so about 6pm this evening I rode down Bissonnet in front of what is now the Maryland Manor Apartments...

...and it's really gonna suck traffic-wise if this thing goes up.

It already does.

It's easy to see for anyone not blinded by dollar signs.

[DevelopmentX]

Unless the billboards are located INSIDE their areas, I think that's a really bad idea. A lot of people who are for zoning and for the overall beautification of the city are VERY anti-billboard. I know if I lived in an area with unwanted billboard clutter, I'd be angry with the rich folks who spent money to advertise their plight in my neighborhood. It also seems to be hypocritical to use billboard advertising when some of their first public arguments have centered around shadow casting, structural height, and protection of "beautiful" areas.

I agree with KinkaidAlum- I think the homeowners should think long and hard before launching a billboard campaign against the developer. I personally have fought against billboards for years and coupled with the ruling this week about Houston's sign ordinance- I think they run the risk of clouding their intent and drawing others into the squabble. That being said, I storngly oppose the location of this new tower.

[maceo9903]

Why not put this where it is needed and wanted most....like, I don't know, maybe a surface lot in downtown???

[houston-development]

Unless the billboards are located INSIDE their areas, I think that's a really bad idea.

i agree 100% with your point. i believe they are area billboards (ill double check into that, if possible).

[woolie]

It won't cause the Apocalypse, but it will make the traffic situation much worse, which will bring down property values in one of the most beautiful areas of Houston. When you own a house, and you've worked years to pay the mortgage and you're looking forward to the day you sell it so you can reap the rewards of your years of hard work, you'll understand.

Are you trying to tell me real estate investing has no risk? Wow, talk about entitlement...

It just blows my mind that people willing to go to the mat in every other instance to protect the concept of "Property Rights" have an abrupt change of heart when someone legally exercising their own property rights impacts their neighborhood. You can't make this stuff up.

I don't usually lose my cool, but this whole situation involves levels of hypocrisy I couldn't have imagined. They want a truly hands-off city government, except where they need the nanny state to protect/artificially inflate their investments. They don't want zoning, except for their neighborhoods. Crazy.

"Quality of life" issues, sure, ok. NO ONE could have possibly imagined -- the thought was too far fetched to ever pass -- that a nice neighborhood in the middle of the city, with huge developments all around... would ever attract the attention of high rise developers. It was beyond their ken. I used to think people rich enough to buy into these neighborhoods were business savvy enough to understand risk.

Anyway, I just got back from lunch. We drove down Sunset, and there were dozens of signs posted in the median opposing the Ashby high rise, complete with the big scary cartoon. Like the billboards -- if these people are concerned with the "visual integrity" of a neighborhood, they have a strange way of showing it.

Edited September 28, 2007 by woolie

[lockmat]

Are you trying to tell me real estate investing has no risk? Wow, talk about entitlement...

It just blows my mind that people willing to go to the mat in every other instance to protect the concept of "Property Rights" have an abrupt change of heart when someone legally exercising their own property rights impacts their neighborhood. You can't make this stuff up.

I don't usually lose my cool, but this whole situation involves levels of hypocrisy I couldn't have imagined. They want a truly hands-off city government, except where they need the nanny state to protect/artificially inflate their investments. They don't want zoning, except for their neighborhoods. Crazy.

"Quality of life" issues, sure, ok. NO ONE could have possibly imagined -- the thought was too far fetched to ever pass -- that a nice neighborhood in the middle of the city, with huge developments all around... would ever attract the attention of high rise developers. It was beyond their ken. I used to think people rich enough to buy into these neighborhoods were business savvy enough to understand risk.

Anyway, I just got back from lunch. We drove down Sunset, and there were dozens of signs posted in the median opposing the Ashby high rise, complete with the big scary cartoon. Like the billboards -- if these people are concerned with the "visual integrity" of a neighborhood, they have a strange way of showing it.

nice take

[nativehou]

Are you trying to tell me real estate investing has no risk?

No. Where did that come from? I've lost money and made money on real estate.

Why do you seem to support the developer's rights 100% over the homeowners'? Have you ever invested your own hard-earned money into a piece of property? Not a car or anything that will lose value, but a home for you and your family? Have you worked for years at a job that you aren't passionate about because you need to pay the mortgage for a house in a decent neighborhood while your kids are growing up? If you have, you would expect to at least not lose money when you sold your home. That's a reasonable expectation, even for a "leftie."

Would your landlord be happy if a 24-hour self-storage facility, for example, went up next to the house you're living in? Would he shrug his shoulders, and say "oh, gee, that's the risk I took."? Would you try to get out of your lease if it happened, and then when your landlord said no, shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, that's the risk I took."?

And have you driven down Bissonnet to see where this is? Can you honestly tell us you think it's a good thing to construct a 23-story tower in that particular location?

[IHB2]

Are you trying to tell me real estate investing has no risk? Wow, talk about entitlement...

It just blows my mind that people willing to go to the mat in every other instance to protect the concept of "Property Rights" have an abrupt change of heart when someone legally exercising their own property rights impacts their neighborhood. You can't make this stuff up.

I don't usually lose my cool, but this whole situation involves levels of hypocrisy I couldn't have imagined. They want a truly hands-off city government, except where they need the nanny state to protect/artificially inflate their investments. They don't want zoning, except for their neighborhoods. Crazy.

"Quality of life" issues, sure, ok. NO ONE could have possibly imagined -- the thought was too far fetched to ever pass -- that a nice neighborhood in the middle of the city, with huge developments all around... would ever attract the attention of high rise developers. It was beyond their ken. I used to think people rich enough to buy into these neighborhoods were business savvy enough to understand risk.

Anyway, I just got back from lunch. We drove down Sunset, and there were dozens of signs posted in the median opposing the Ashby high rise, complete with the big scary cartoon. Like the billboards -- if these people are concerned with the "visual integrity" of a neighborhood, they have a strange way of showing it.

are you really a Hobbesian "property rights" radical or are you just pissed at the power and apparent hypocrisy of a neighborhood of fatcats?

do you support the so-called gentrification of places like the 3rd and 4th Wards at the expense of the cultural fabric of those places, do you support the "townhoming" of places like the Heights and 1st Ward and the destruction of the RO Center for a Barnes & Noble clone?

if these developers wanted to build a manufacturing facility with big trucks running in and out 24/7 on the property would you support that?

real questions, I'm not trying to offend you.

[house567]

I wonder if developer, T. Sharma, will be a NIMBY. He hasn't shone any concern for the residents of other neighborhoods.

Interesting that the principles of Buckhead Investments live in the protected zoning of W.U. and Southampton. http://www.southamptoncivicclub.org/

[musicman]

are you really a Hobbesian "property rights" radical or are you just pissed at the power and apparent hypocrisy of a neighborhood of fatcats?

he's a renter.

[RedScare]

he's a renter.

Can renters not have views on property rights?

[jfre81]

Can renters not have views on property rights?

Everyone knows your name must be on a property deed to voice an opinion on property rights. This was covered explicitly in the First Amendment of the Constitution, no?

Put this on Montrose just north of Bissonnet/Binz with the other high-rises and nobody will complain.

[musicman]

Can renters not have views on property rights?

of course but it puts them in a different light.

[Guest danax]

I wonder if developer, T. Sharma, will be a NIMBY. He hasn't shone any concern for the residents of other neighborhoods.

Maybe he's a BAYBY (Build Anything in Your Back Yard).

Southampton must feel like the walls are closing in on them. Here's another front they're fighting.

Clinic Building to Tower over Southampton

The Civic Club is opposing a planned expansion by the Medical Clinic of Houston, which includes construction of an 88 foot elevation, 130,000 sq. ft. clinic and adjoining 600 car parking garage, projected for construction on the open lot bounded by Sunset, Cherokee, and Rice. The resulting complex will more than triple the clinic size of the present facility, allowing it to function both as a greatly expanded clinic and as a satellite facility of the Methodist Hospital. Construction was originally slated to begin in June 2007. Limited information on the project is posted at MCH's website. The graphic illustrations presented on the MCH site present a distorted view that minimizes the visual impact of this ugly, out of scale project.

The reasons for our opposition to this project are summarized in two documents: Why Oppose the MCH/Methodist Medical Clinic Expansion? outlines the reasons why the project will both immediately damage the neighborhood and pose worrisome long term risks for the neighborhood. The second document is a legal memorandum entitled High Risk Neighbors: Methodist Hospital and the Texas Medical Center Have Statutory Power to Condemn Property, Including Property Subject to Deed Restrictions. This document outlines the threat posed by the power of medical center institutions to condemn land, including land covered by residential deed restrictions.

Also posted are our letter to the Clinic and a similar letter from Boulevard Oaks Civic Association, for the initial list of our concerns and questions about this project. The Clinic's response to our letter is also posted on this site. Additional information can be found in the Southampton Winter newsletter and at our MCH update page.

[avrana]

One look at these guys website tells me that they will put up a pile of GARBAGE. They've built a few crappy apartment complexes in ugly suburbs. This qualifies them to build a highrise in one the most beautiful neighborhoods in the city? These are the residents who fought TXDOT and had 59 buried. If they can't take on these jokers then there's no hope for maintaining quality of life in Houston.

http://buckfund.com/

[RedScare]

of course but it puts them in a different light.

How do you know he is not expressing the view of his landlord, thereby giving his view equal footing with a property owner.....a property rights proxy, if you will?

[nate]

Here is a rendering of the project: http://www.buckfund.com/nss-folder/1717%20.../07018-A401.jpg

It continually amazes me that people here (and in general) are not only willing, but eager, to turn their lives and property rights over to government.

The immediately adjacent property owners are the only ones that will truly be negatively impacted. And that negative impact will be limited to noise during construction and altered sunlight patterns. (most of the area is shaded by beautiful trees anyway) These concerns are not enough to dismantle the entire system of private property rights than Houstonians enjoy.

Edited September 28, 2007 by nate