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

[lockmat]

Can someone help me understand HCAD language? It says this location is land use code - 4211 Apartment Garden (1 to 4 Stories). Does that just mean what it currently is?

Edited January 15, 2008 by lockmat

[musicman]

Can someone help me understand HCAD language? It says this location is land use code - 4211 Apartment Garden (1 to 4 Stories). Does that just mean what it currently is?

what else could it mean?

[lockmat]

what else could it mean?

I'm just making sure that it's not a restriction, but that it's just a description. If it's just a description, what use does it have?

[musicman]

If it's just a description, what use does it have?

so users of HCAD can know what is on the property.

[lockmat]

so users of HCAD can know what is on the property.

Makes sense, thanks.

I'm just not familiar w/ land use restrictions. I know we don't have zoning, but I'm not educated w/ anything past that, so I wasn't sure. Does the COH have a webpage to explain it?

[musicman]

Makes sense, thanks.

I'm just not familiar w/ land use restrictions. I know we don't have zoning, but I'm not educated w/ anything past that, so I wasn't sure. Does the COH have a webpage to explain it?

land use restrictions are governed at the state level. put in texas property code in google and info with spew forth.

[lockmat]

land use restrictions are governed at the state level. put in texas property code in google and info with spew forth.

Really? Last question, promise. What's all the hoopla about w/ Houston not having zoning? Do the rest of our major cities?

[musicman]

Really? Last question, promise. What's all the hoopla about w/ Houston not having zoning? Do the rest of our major cities?

not sure there is any hoopla about the subject. houston is the only large american city with no zoning. put in houston zoning into google and you'll see various opinions.

[lockmat]

I just thought it'd be nice to see what the area actually looks like for those not familiar w/ the area like me.

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...3&encType=1

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...p;z=19&om=0

[LTAWACS]

So wuts the status?

[CDeb]

So wuts the status?

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5510359.html

DOH!!

Even the ordinance specifically targeted at this development wouldn't stop it.

[lockmat]

"James Reeder, the other co-chair of Stop Ashby High-Rise, said the ordinance is not the only tool the neighborhoods have. He said the organization would consider suing the developers, if necessary."

On what grounds could they sue them?

[LTAWACS]

So when does this thing start construction?

[TheNiche]

On what grounds could they sue them?

On the grounds that the neighbors have a lot of money and that a protracted lawsuit can bog down the project to the point that the lenders back out and kill the deal. Whether they have a valid legal position is not necessarily relevant.

DOH!!

Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

The document is so poorly written and is so utterly meaningless that I can't envision it being passed. If it were, the lawsuits that would entail (if the City chose to try to enforce it) would be almost hilarious.

[CDeb]

Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

I've read it too. What loopholes did you see for 1717 Bissonnet?

[TheNiche]

I've read it too. What loopholes did you see for 1717 Bissonnet?

I'm not gonna say, publicly.

[LTAWACS]

On the grounds that the neighbors have a lot of money and that a protracted lawsuit can bog down the project to the point that the lenders back out and kill the deal. Whether they have a valid legal position is not necessarily relevant.

Btw, I read over the draft on Friday, and this ordinance is among the most obtuse documents I've ever gone over. It was rife with grammatical errors and provided at least two loopholes for the 1717 Bissonnet highrise (if it were even hypothetically subject to this ordinance).

The document is so poorly written and is so utterly meaningless that I can't envision it being passed. If it were, the lawsuits that would entail (if the City chose to try to enforce it) would be almost hilarious.

Coming from our city leaders this doesn't surprise me.

[ricco67]

The vote for the new Ordinance that is specific to this project has been delayed for 2 weeks....again.

[LTAWACS]

Ugh. Not good. I hope they hurry and build this thing.

[talltexan83]

I found this on the "Stop Ashby High Rise" website. It looks like the two sides are working towards a compromise without the city's help.

Kevin Kirton and Matthew Morgan requested a meeting with representatives of the Stop Ashby High Rise Task Force to discuss alternatives to the construction of the 23-story commercial/residential building at 1717 Ashby that they originally proposed. The meeting was held on Tuesday, February 5 at Buckhead Investments

Edited February 14, 2008 by talltexan83

[ricco67]

I found this on the "Stop Ashby High Rise" website. It looks like the two sides are working towards a compromise without the city's help.

Kevin Kirton and Matthew Morgan requested a meeting with representatives of the Stop Ashby High Rise Task Force to discuss alternatives to the construction of the 23-story commercial/residential building at 1717 Ashby that they originally proposed. The meeting was held on Tuesday, February 5 at Buckhead Investments' office. At that meeting, the developers said they would consider two alternatives to the 23-story project:

1. Reducing the height of the structure to 19 stories by building fewer, bigger condominium units, but they reserved the right to build as many units as originally proposed if they could not sell enough of the larger units.
   
2. If they received a cash payment of $2.65 million, they would build a 6 story building consisting of two floors or parking and four floors of apartments
   
   

I know the neighborhood rejected these offers, but made a counter offer of some kind. Hopefully a suitable agreement can be reached.

Good catch.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

One thing I've been rather curious about is that The Museum Tower on Montrose is sorta like the proposed 1717 Building and what traffic is like in and out of the place

The reason why I ask is, while I don't know the occupancy rate of the Museum tower, I do know a couple of residences who are always out of town (Figure they live there for an avg of 5 days a month) and there are people who keep VERY odd hours. Having a chance to rethink my stance on the traffic on this, perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.

The demographic that would live here are work excessively long hours, are away on business travel, or have the means that they can pick and choose their hours or don't have to work at all.

[CDeb]

perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.

The neighborhood itself will help traffic around the Ashby high rise. This isn't suburban neighborhood where there are only one or two ways in and out and through streets are spaced far apart. Southampton is an open grid with many through streets and access points. The traffic can distribute to several locations and can route around congested areas, quickly blending into the background traffic.

[sidegate]

The neighborhood itself will help traffic around the Ashby high rise. This isn't suburban neighborhood where there are only one or two ways in and out and through streets are spaced far apart. Southampton is an open grid with many through streets and access points. The traffic can distribute to several locations and can route around congested areas, quickly blending into the background traffic.

Wroxton Court, the street immediately behind the proposed development, is a cul de sac, so pretty much useless for egress. The way the rest of the immediate grid is laid out there are a lot of T-junctions controlled by single stop signs, and all those streets have on-street parking. If I was a homeowner I'd fight entrances and exits into my hood tooth and nail, similar to how the locals restricted Trammel Crowe from barfing traffic into Winlow Place from the Alexan on Westheimer.

[sidegate]

Good catch.

It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

One thing I've been rather curious about is that The Museum Tower on Montrose is sorta like the proposed 1717 Building and what traffic is like in and out of the place

The reason why I ask is, while I don't know the occupancy rate of the Museum tower, I do know a couple of residences who are always out of town (Figure they live there for an avg of 5 days a month) and there are people who keep VERY odd hours. Having a chance to rethink my stance on the traffic on this, perhaps the traffic won't be as massive as the people in that area (and this forum) think it will be.

The demographic that would live here are work excessively long hours, are away on business travel, or have the means that they can pick and choose their hours or don't have to work at all.

I concur. But it's never really been about the traffic. The traffic is a front because Bill White doesn't want to confront the Z-word issue. These developers have come in and had the temerity to play by the City's own rules and have found that, well, those actually aren't the rules, because these wealthy, connected NIMBYs say so. I'm personally pro-zoning, and would much rather this turn into a debate on the merits or otherwise of zoning city-wide, but that's not going to happen.

Edit: found typo

Edited February 14, 2008 by sidegate

[lockmat]

More good news for Ashby...

Houston seeks delay in rules for high-rises

City officials want to spend up to seven more months to consider ways to regulate traffic from high-density buildings, Mayor Bill White said Wednesday.

The announcement was discouraging for residents who want a quick resolution to the controversy over the proposed Ashby high-rise near Rice University.

White said he would prefer City Council hold off passing a new traffic study ordinance so the city can hold public hearings that could run through September.

"I think it's a public debate that needs to happen," White said. "To make sure we do this and we do this right."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...ro/5540504.html

Edited February 14, 2008 by lockmat

[LTAWACS]

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

[CDeb]

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

Here is the developer's page:

http://www.buckfund.com/1717%20Bissonnet/

[TheNiche]

Here is the developer's page:

http://www.buckfund.com/1717%20Bissonnet/

Houstonians for Responsible Growth

http://www.houstongrowth.org/

[sidegate]

Good for them for snagging the "Responsible" tagline. Caught everyone else napping.

[talltexan83]

Ok so the NIMBYs have their support group with website and all. What about the people who SUPPORT the building of this structure?

Please take the time to read through this thread before dropping another one line response. It offers nothing productive to the discussion.

As for the Ashby High rise, it is clear that most of us have have our opinions on the ideal outcome. Many of us (myself included), have strong opinions. But I think the recent developments are encouraging for all parties involved. We could reach a compromise between Buckhead and the nieghborhood........all while serving as a catalyst for the city to overhaul its approach to neighborhood developments.