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

[musicman]

You mean, in addition to everyone else who is against single family housing? Or am I against it in addition to say, multi-family? I'm not understanding the question.

i'm talking to the person who said "Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there."

And I'm not against it. I just don't think they're thinking rationally. I know this may be an extreme example, but this kind of reminds me of those pictures editor took of downtown Chicago with those mansions sitting next to gigantic skyscrapers. I'm sure they didn't like it at one time. But hey, they're sitting in the middle of a international downtown area. Of course, this is no downtown area, but ya know what people...times, they are uh-changin'.

southhampton isn't a downtown area. many surrounding properties are single family deed restricted and will remain that way (with deed restrictions). why are the people not thinking rationally if they want their property to remain single family and that's how it is restricted?

midtown/downtown had many homes at one point but are now more commercial, like your downtown chicago example.

Edited October 18, 2007 by musicman

[Montrose1100]

I like the look. Would rather have it along the Red Line, but I hope it gets built.

Beautiful building, wonderful addition to that area.

[lockmat]

southhampton isn't a downtown area. many surrounding properties are single family deed restricted and will remain that way (with deed restrictions). why are the people not thinking rationally if they want their property to remain single family and that's how it is restricted?

midtown/downtown had many homes at one point but are now more commercial, like your downtown chicago example.

I think that wsj article mentioned that their land was formerly a commercial deveopment, like a grocery store or something and therefore was not part of their deed restrictions. That's fact.

These people are smart. They should have known that, being they're so involved in their 'hood. Maybe they should have done something about it before the developer released the news to the media and the media to the rest of the world that this thing was going up. If they're so concerned about things like this going up in their neighborhood, why weren't they paying closer attention to development being planned right under their noses? They should have done something when the developer purchased the land and kept a close eye on it, and then creating a stirr before they paid gobs of money for improvements, studies etc.

Their lack of planning and involvment brought it to this. This development didn't spring up over night.

[Dream]

Is it just me or does the rendering look a lot like the failed Shamrock Tower from downtown a few years ago?

For the record: I support the developers.

Dream

[musicman]

I think that wsj article mentioned that their land was formerly a commercial deveopment, like a grocery store or something and therefore was not part of their deed restrictions. That's fact.

no one has said otherwise.

These people are smart. They should have known that, being they're so involved in their 'hood. Maybe they should have done something about it before the developer released the news to the media and the media to the rest of the world that this thing was going up. If they're so concerned about things like this going up in their neighborhood, why weren't they paying closer attention to development being planned right under their noses? They should have done something when the developer purchased the land and kept a close eye on it, and then creating a stirr before they paid gobs of money for improvements, studies etc.

Their lack of planning and involvment brought it to this. This development didn't spring up over night.

again, no one has said otherwise. I was just trying to clarify your statement that "Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there." there are many neighborhoods with single family homes. is their land too valuable to have single family homes as well?

there are many neighborhoods that know nothing about projects until the developer obtains permits. once a permit is granted.....well, they are too late unless a problem is found.

Edited October 18, 2007 by musicman

[lockmat]

again, no one has said otherwise. I was just trying to clarify your statement that "Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there." there are many neighborhoods with single family homes. is their land too valuable to have single family homes as well?

oh. of course it depends on the house. and in reality, it may not be too valuable, as there could have been somewhere else to build it...or maybe not. But I'm sure this won't be the last time they're gonna have to fight a mid-rise.

[IHB2]

I was just trying to clarify your statement that "Their land is way too valuable to just have a single family home there." there are many neighborhoods with single family homes. is their land too valuable to have single family homes as well?

it's illogical to argue that the land is too valuable for single family homes when it is the single family homes themselves that contributed to the land's value.

the question is why is the land so valuable? it is not simply b/c of the neighborhood's proximity to the CBD, TMC, museum district, etc b/c other similarly situated neighborhoods are worth far less per sq ft (Riverside Terrace, Upper Montrose, all of Midtown, and the list goes on). I believe it is b/c of the generations of owners who maintained the original integrity of the neighborhood.

and it is exactly that "equity" that the developers are profiting from, and their actions will serve to reduce the equity of some owners in the neighborhood. other owners can't help but be supportive since reduced property values can domino from the outer edges of a neighborhood in over time.

[KinkaidAlum]

Is it just me or does the rendering look a lot like the failed Shamrock Tower from downtown a few years ago?

For the record: I support the developers.

Dream

I support the developers too.

I think this is a lousy place for a highrise and it will ruin the live oak canopie views along South Blvd. That said, the developers are playing by the rules and it seems as if the opposition is stating that they do not support zoning but rather just want to stop this tower. I think that's what threw me over the edge. Why should the wealthy hoods be treated any differently?

Quite frankly, the mouth pieces for the opposition are not doing themselves any favors by what they are saying in public.

[musicman]

it's illogical to argue that the land is too valuable for single family homes

i agree.

[TheNiche]

it's illogical to argue that the land is too valuable for single family homes when it is the single family homes themselves that contributed to the land's value.

the question is why is the land so valuable? it is not simply b/c of the neighborhood's proximity to the CBD, TMC, museum district, etc b/c other similarly situated neighborhoods are worth far less per sq ft (Riverside Terrace, Upper Montrose, all of Midtown, and the list goes on). I believe it is b/c of the generations of owners who maintained the original integrity of the neighborhood.

Why is this land so valuable? Location, infrastructure, lack of deed restrictions.

The location is what it is as a result of prior events, leading up to the present day. This is true of all of Houston's neighborhoods. There is nothing special about this one that would exempt it from change.

and it is exactly that "equity" that the developers are profiting from

No, that's what the owner prior to this one profited from. The developer paid for this property.

[MarkD]

These people are smart. They should have known that, being they're so involved in their 'hood. Maybe they should have done something about it before the developer released the news to the media and the media to the rest of the world that this thing was going up. If they're so concerned about things like this going up in their neighborhood, why weren't they paying closer attention to development being planned right under their noses? They should have done something when the developer purchased the land and kept a close eye on it, and then creating a stirr before they paid gobs of money for improvements, studies etc.

Their lack of planning and involvment brought it to this. This development didn't spring up over night.

Actually, the people in the neighborhood are the ones who announced this - before the developers got the chance. And the developers were actively hiding their plans from the neighborhood.

First, the developers did not just go in and buy the property, rather, they purchased a controlling interest in the stock of the company that owned the property. I'm not sure when the neighbors realized this had happened, but they had known for some time now that the effective ownership of the existing apartments had changed hands, and that the new owners were planning on replacing it with two to three story apartments or townhouses. This was what the developers were telling the city and the neighbors all along, including as they spent $500,000 on sewer improvements.

The neighbors discovered the developers true intentions when they obtained a copy of the impact study filed with the city, well before the project had been announced.

So I don't see how you can criticise the neighborhood and say that "their lack of planning and involvement brought it to this". If anything, the fact that the developers outright lied to the neighborhood is what brought it to this.

[lockmat]

So I don't see how you can criticise the neighborhood and say that "their lack of planning and involvement brought it to this". If anything, the fact that the developers outright lied to the neighborhood is what brought it to this.

Forgive me. I assumed.

[IHB2]

Why is this land so valuable? Location, infrastructure, lack of deed restrictions.

The location is what it is as a result of prior events, leading up to the present day. This is true of all of Houston's neighborhoods. There is nothing special about this one that would exempt it from change.

I explained my point about why I think that neighborhood is worth more per sq ft than other similarly situated neighborhoods (all of which have location, infrastructure, lack of deed restrictions as good as Southampton/B Oaks) in the original statement. I did not say anything about it being exempt from change. I don't have a dog in the fight, just trying to argue a point in favor of folks who, IMO, through their own diligence (relative per capita wealth aside) have maintained and added value to a neighborhood quite apart from the more general rise in property values in the area. it is that equity (you could call it a form of sweat equity) that you mischaracterize in the quote below.

No, that's what the owner prior to this one profited from. The developer paid for this property.

the developer has zero sweat equity in the deal. the value of the mixed use structure they plan to build will be higher than an identical structure located, say, in Riverside (same great location, same beautiful trees, etc). that higher value is one effect of the actions of the property owners in the neighborhood, and it is likely that the property values of the residences adjacent to the high rise will either decline in value or not rise as quickly relative to residences further away.

in that sense the developers have profited from the very thing their development will diminish. this is not always the case with developers, and that is why anti-development zealots are fools. but the same can be said of the "it's their property they can do what they want" crowd. you seem to be a member of the latter group.

[TheNiche]

I explained my point about why I think that neighborhood is worth more per sq ft than other similarly situated neighborhoods (all of which have location, infrastructure, lack of deed restrictions as good as Southampton/B Oaks) in the original statement.

The infrastructure is not equivalent. This site has better infrastructure; the developer paid to have it installed. Likewise, this site is not deed restricted even though the rest of the single family neighborhoods surrounding it are. So this site is not "as good as Southampton/B Oaks".

It is better, and its land value will reflect that.

I did not say anything about it being exempt from change. I don't have a dog in the fight, just trying to argue a point in favor of folks who, IMO, through their own diligence (relative per capita wealth aside) have maintained and added value to a neighborhood quite apart from the more general rise in property values in the area. it is that equity (you could call it a form of sweat equity) that you mischaracterize in the quote below.

the developer has zero sweat equity in the deal. the value of the mixed use structure they plan to build will be higher than an identical structure located, say, in Riverside (same great location, same beautiful trees, etc). that higher value is one effect of the actions of the property owners in the neighborhood, and it is likely that the property values of the residences adjacent to the high rise will either decline in value or not rise as quickly relative to residences further away.

The 'sweat equity' you're talking about has external effects...although I'd argue that it probably has less to do with the goodness of the owners' hearts or the sweat of their brow than it has to do with location and deed restrictions or hired labor, respectively.

You cite Riverside as a similar location; I'd disagree. Being across the great divide that is 288, it has for a long time been more associated with the greater 3rd Ward than with Hermann Park, Rice University, the TMC, or Rice Village. Not a fair comparison.

I am not disputing that the value of some homes may be adversely impacted. I just don't really care. Compared to the value that is added to the neighborhood as a whole (inclusive of the highrise), it is practically nothing.

in that sense the developers have profited from the very thing their development will diminish. this is not always the case with developers, and that is why anti-development zealots are fools. but the same can be said of the "it's their property they can do what they want" crowd. you seem to be a member of the latter group.

Yeah, I suppose I am part of the latter group. I don't believe in the right of wealthy people to purchase property in a wealthy neighborhood exposed to the risks of change, then try to exclude the intrusion of slightly less wealthy folks ex post facto to protect a sh***y investment. It's just assinine.

[musicman]

Proposed ordinance could cut Bissonnet high-rise down to size

Mayor Bill White's administration has proposed an ordinance that could require developers to reduce the size of a planned high-rise building that's ignited a bitter dispute over what's appropriate to develop in Houston.

The ordinance, distributed to City Council members Tuesday, could be on the council's agenda next week

[Guest danax]

The ordinance would authorize the public works director to use the traffic impact analysis as well as his "independent judgment" to determine whether the project would cause excessive impact on traffic. It would be the first time the city has required traffic impact studies of new developments.

I can imagine the conversation; "Yeah, but we can't stop them, everything they're doing is legal". "Well, we'll just have to make it illegal, dammit!".

On the one hand, it's nice to see people move government so quickly, but on the other, we've now got a new development czar deciding how a project will affect an area and what measures are needed to correct that, which adds an element of uncertainty for developers, which might keep these type projects on the outskirts of single-family nabes.. ie; back door zoning.

[RedScare]

"The development on Bissonnet that will dump more than 2,000 (daily) trips onto a two-lane, two-way street exposed a loophole" in city regulations, White said, explaining why he put the ordinance on such a fast track.

What an utterly BS statement. 187 apartments will create more than 2,000 daily trips? That's 11 daily trips per apartment! Even the most shopping crazed consumer will not be rushing out 77 times per week for work, errands, shopping and other trips. I am quite sure that Mayor White's statement ignored the 67 apartments...and attendant daily trips...being withdrawn from the traffic count by the new construction, but an honest traffic assessment must conclude that only a net increase of 120 residences is going to occur. It is ridiculous to conclude that those 180 to 200 new residents will clog the streets 2,000 times per day.

This is exactly what happens when special interests flout the intent of regulations to achieve a desired result. This 2,000 daily trip reference, despite its dubious accuracy, will now be thrown out with such frequency that it will achieve an air of truth, even though it is a ridiculous assertion.

[bachanon]

What an utterly BS statement. 187 apartments will create more than 2,000 daily trips? That's 11 daily trips per apartment! Even the most shopping crazed consumer will not be rushing out 77 times per week for work, errands, shopping and other trips. I am quite sure that Mayor White's statement ignored the 67 apartments...and attendant daily trips...being withdrawn from the traffic count by the new construction, but an honest traffic assessment must conclude that only a net increase of 120 residences is going to occur. It is ridiculous to conclude that those 180 to 200 new residents will clog the streets 2,000 times per day.

This is exactly what happens when special interests flout the intent of regulations to achieve a desired result. This 2,000 daily trip reference, despite its dubious accuracy, will now be thrown out with such frequency that it will achieve an air of truth, even though it is a ridiculous assertion.

how much traffic will the retail component produce?

[T 2 THA C]

I agree total BS it seems White is playing Captain save a lot.

[nate]

What an utterly BS statement. 187 apartments will create more than 2,000 daily trips? That's 11 daily trips per apartment! Even the most shopping crazed consumer will not be rushing out 77 times per week for work, errands, shopping and other trips. I am quite sure that Mayor White's statement ignored the 67 apartments...and attendant daily trips...being withdrawn from the traffic count by the new construction, but an honest traffic assessment must conclude that only a net increase of 120 residences is going to occur. It is ridiculous to conclude that those 180 to 200 new residents will clog the streets 2,000 times per day.

This is exactly what happens when special interests flout the intent of regulations to achieve a desired result. This 2,000 daily trip reference, despite its dubious accuracy, will now be thrown out with such frequency that it will achieve an air of truth, even though it is a ridiculous assertion.

To be fair, there will be a restaurant and market which will generate traffic. There will be employees of both the retail and apartment uses, as well as deliveries, service vehicles, etc. I don't think that 2000 additional cars per day is unreasonable.

Anyway, this ordinance is an outrage. It is a naked power grab by the city. It will apply to just about every project outside of downtown, even on Main street in Midtown. It also will not stop 1717 Bissonnet. The developers will win in any legal battle with the city because rights in Texas vest when they apply for first of a series of permits required. The developers of 1717 Bissonnet have already applied for their foundation permit. This ordinance will not stop the project.

Edited October 27, 2007 by nate

[GovernorAggie]

I really couldn't believe what I saw in the Chron this morning! Even though I think that some sort of ordinance would be useful in the long-term, this is just crazy. I thought that the public needed to be able to provide comment in advance of something like this--this is a big issue and you'll only get and us vs. them comment period at City Council from the Bigwigs and the Developers.

Now, I'd have to side with the anti-zoning types on this one--IMO, this type of action confirms all of their fears.

I'm even MORE surprised at this given Mayor White's big speech about "some top-down planner deciding winning and losing developers" based on where it is. This was just YESTERDAY at the Central Houston Annual Luncheon! Did I mention that he seemed sorta belligerent in his demeanor when he talked about it? He hates the ideas of zoning or an ordinance? This is worse than zoning could ever be. It's cherry-picking an ordinance for a select few that could have repercussions throughout the city and ETJ, IMO. Maybe the repercussions could be desirable but we don't know that since there was never time for examination or discussion. Otherwise they should've taken a Texas Legislature approach to is saying that it only applies to areas bordered by a,b,c, and d streets. This is garbage.

I hope it doesn't pass OR that the developers take COH to court and win--and build it a 42 floors.

I can't believe I'm saying this stuff, but it's this sort of unilateral action that only fosters MORE distrust of the government from people! I'm also disturbed that council got this on Tuesday, but it's not in the Chron until Saturday? A non-business day when fewer people are reading the paper? It's kinda slimy to me.

Niche, where you at on this one?

Edited October 27, 2007 by GovernorAggie

[nate]

Read the final recital in the ordinance.

"Wheras, the City Council finds that the regulations proposed in this ordinance CONTROL ONLY THE USE OF LAND and do not affect landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park dedication, lot size dimensions, lot coverage, or building size;"

If that is not zoning, I don't know what is.

[GovernorAggie]

Read the final recital in the ordinance.

"Wheras, the City Council finds that the regulations proposed in this ordinance CONTROL ONLY THE USE OF LAND and do not affect landscaping or tree preservation, open space or park dedication, lot size dimensions, lot coverage, or building size;"

If that is not zoning, I don't know what is.

Yes. Zoning DEFINED is only about the use of the land.

[Subdude]

I really couldn't believe what I saw in the Chron this morning! Even though I think that some sort of ordinance would be useful in the long-term, this is just crazy. I thought that the public needed to be able to provide comment in advance of something like this--this is a big issue and you'll only get and us vs. them comment period at City Council from the Bigwigs and the Developers.

Now, I'd have to side with the anti-zoning types on this one--IMO, this type of action confirms all of their fears.

I'm even MORE surprised at this given Mayor White's big speech about "some top-down planner deciding winning and losing developers" based on where it is. This was just YESTERDAY at the Central Houston Annual Luncheon! Did I mention that he seemed sorta belligerent in his demeanor when he talked about it? He hates the ideas of zoning or an ordinance? This is worse than zoning could ever be. It's cherry-picking an ordinance for a select few that could have repercussions throughout the city and ETJ, IMO. Maybe the repercussions could be desirable but we don't know that since there was never time for examination or discussion. Otherwise they should've taken a Texas Legislature approach to is saying that it only applies to areas bordered by a,b,c, and d streets. This is garbage.

I hope it doesn't pass OR that the developers take COH to court and win--and build it a 42 floors.

I can't believe I'm saying this stuff, but it's this sort of unilateral action that only fosters MORE distrust of the government from people! I'm also disturbed that council got this on Tuesday, but it's not in the Chron until Saturday? A non-business day when fewer people are reading the paper? It's kinda slimy to me.

Niche, where you at on this one?

Agreed. It's poor public policy to make laws specifically tailored to meet one special instance. It leaves White open to charges of being arbitrary and only responding to complaints from one wealthy neighborhood.

[musicman]

Beyond the Mayor, it will be interesting to see which councilmembers support the proposal. I'll bet the vote is delayed til after the election.

[nate]

Here is an e-mail that I sent to the mayor and council. I was in a hurry and wrote it quickly and unfortunately forgot to mention the Texas vesting statue, which would prevent the city from stopping 1717 Bissonnet, but it is decent.

Dear Mayor White & City Council Members,

I write to you as a citizen who is concerned about the utter lack of respect for property rights and the wishes of the citizens of Houston shown by Mayor White and much of the current council.

The ordinance released this morning in response to the proposed high-rise at 1717 Bissonnet goes too far and is prohibited by the city charter. The citizens of Houston have rejected zoning in three referenda and have stripped the city council of the power to control land use. A referendum is required before the City Council can take any action regulating use. Make no mistake, the proposed ordinance is use regulation. It even says so preamble of the ordinance, "the City Council finds that the regulations proposed in this ordinance control only the use of land..." This is prohibited by the charter and is illegal. This city council must reject the proposed ordinance.

Even if the ordinance were permitted by the charter, it should be rejected as bad policy. Houstonians should be free to choose whatever type of housing they desire. This right is of course limited by private agreements like deed restrictions, which have been successful in preserving neighborhoods and providing predictable, yet voluntary rules regarding development. The ordinance is a naked power grab by the elected officials. The director of the Department of Public Works and Engineering is beholden to the officials who appoint him and have the power to dismiss him. Does anyone doubt that he will out of caution, favor more restrictions than necessary to protect public welfare? Such projects will often be punted to the Planning Commission, then the City Council. Political approval of apartment buildings is not something that Houston has ever done. By favoring this ordinance, you will guarantee political control of land and encourage bribery and corruption that invariably result.

The drafting of this ordinance is also faulty. Anyone with common sense knows that commercial uses (exempt from this ordinance) cause more traffic. The ordinance applies to any development on a two lane, two way street. This will include almost every project outside of downtown, including our beloved Main street. Most projects will have at least one street greater than this standard, what will prohibit a developer from cutting off access from the two lane side street and exempting itself from this ordinance? This type of action will only increase traffic on the major street. Is this the result that the council wants?

Reject this ordinance and take real action to ease traffic congestion, such as sequencing all lights throughout Houston.

Sincerly,

Me

Edited October 28, 2007 by nate

[TheNiche]

Niche, where you at on this one?

At that particular moment, I was in the shower.

I don't think there's much for me to say. You, nate, and Red have already made the points that I would've brought up (and then some). The only thing I'd like to add is that if there is one thing that more quickly turns off a developer to a community than draconian regulations, it is that they are implemented on a whim.

This does surprise me...I'd always thought better of Mayor White. But I realize now that he is more or less a slave to the local aristocracy.

In another sense, I'm not surprised. Horrified. Not surprised. :closedeyes:

[IHB2]

how can the enacting of this ordinance affect the 1717 developers' plans in any way?

is it not ex post facto where the 1717 project is concerned?

nate that's how I interpret what you said, but would like some clarification from the crack HAIF legal staff (no, not the HAIF staff on crack).

[TheNiche]

how can the enacting of this ordinance affect the 1717 developers' plans in any way?

is it not ex post facto where the 1717 project is concerned?

nate that's how I interpret what you said, but would like some clarification from the crack HAIF legal staff (no, not the HAIF staff on crack).

The City of Galveston has done this before--also to please their local aristocracy. They passed a measure designed to kill a project after permits had already been applied for. Then they denied the permits on that (faulty) basis. The developer files a law suit, but the prospect of high legal fees and a long delays sours the deal. They settle out of court.

[nate]

nate that's how I interpret what you said, but would like some clarification from the crack HAIF legal staff (no, not the HAIF staff on crack).

Nevermind what I said before, it looks like the city can stop 1717 Bissonnet if it passes this ordinance and the Director of Public Works and Engineering sides with the Mayor (he will).

In my e-mail, I mentioned a finding in the proposed ordinance. The reason that is in there is to exempt the proposed ordinance from the Texas vesting statute, which apparently has no teeth at all in land use matters. See

Edited October 28, 2007 by nate