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

[sevfiv]

^Thank you! Someone else that remembers that there are existing structures..

[bachanon]

The developer gets to anything he wants with this propert, as long as its approved. Since the original plans were denied again today, I would imagine a lawsuit is coming.

I live in the neighborhood, and whenever I go to the meetings at Poe Elementary, its so funny to see everyone get all riled up. Everyone wants to keep this inner-city neighborhood a suburb, that is not good for city infustructure. That means all other people that live furthur out have to travel THROUGH Bissonnet to get to the inner-city. They should build it, maybe it will start a trend of more dense development, where you dont have to rely on cars to get around. Oh well, probably going to bet flamed by anti-ashby people.

BTW, this is my first post, so make me feel welcome lol.

welcome to the party. ....and you haven't truly arrived until you get dogpiled.

[barracuda]

13's supposed to have an update on today's city council comments.

edit: city council denied the original permit but did approve a permit for a smaller builing. developer said it would be harder to develop.

The smaller building was approved in August, but the developers are still fighting for their original plans.

The developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, said they would pursue all available options, including a lawsuit, to build the project as originally conceived.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6762243.html

[shasta]

The developer gets to anything he wants with this propert, as long as its approved. Since the original plans were denied again today, I would imagine a lawsuit is coming.

I live in the neighborhood, and whenever I go to the meetings at Poe Elementary, its so funny to see everyone get all riled up. Everyone wants to keep this inner-city neighborhood a suburb, that is not good for city infustructure. That means all other people that live furthur out have to travel THROUGH Bissonnet to get to the inner-city. They should build it, maybe it will start a trend of more dense development, where you dont have to rely on cars to get around. Oh well, probably going to bet flamed by anti-ashby people.

BTW, this is my first post, so make me feel welcome lol.

Thanks for the post and welcome. Maybe you can clear up some questions I have regarding this particular development. I understand the NIMBYism side of the argument but are these residents oblivious to the fact that the city has a century long system of not interfering with development and essentially letting the city develop in a way that the market seems fit? Right or wrong this is Houston. Instead of fighting this particular project with the rules set up for them to fail shouldn't they take that energy and petition city hall to come up with a city plan or dare I say some form of zoning. if thats their aim it seems like they are barking up the wrong tree.

None of those two items currently exist and the mayoral candidate that was heavily touting a city plan didn't even make it to the runoff. I see the bumper stickers around the city and honestly wonder how ignorant these people are to how this city has handled things for ever. It's not just attitudes as I understand their sentiment but they are fighting legally binding growth initiative machine that the city set up because they desired it that way.

[LTAWACS]

What is the name of that site someone pointed out that supports the ashby highrise? SupportAshbyHighRise.org? Can I get some bumper stickers?

[KinkaidAlum]

I laugh everytime I see someone make the argument that this is some sort of smart growth development or that increased density in random residential hoods is the key to all of our city's ills.

How is plopping down a 23 story tower with 200+ units in the middle of a neighborhood full of single family homes smart? It's not like this is going up in an area that has the infrastructure to handle it! The light rail isn't too close by. There's sporadic bus service. 99% of the streets in the near vicinity are residential in nature and the one commercial street (Bissonnet) has just two lanes. Additionally, if you head to the Southampton area today, you'll see that the city has just now begun spending millions to upgrade the sewer/water pipes that serve the area. Additionally, flooding in back alleys is quite common with heavy rains.

I don't get how destroying a historic neighborhood (well, by Houston standards) is smart growth. This type of development (highrise residential with ground floor retail) is something I would love to see more of, but in downtown or midtown or uptown or Upper Kirby or the Med Center but not in Southampton or the Heights or Timbergrove Manor or Briargrove or Riverside Terrace...

Edited December 10, 2009 by KinkaidAlum

[jgriff]

I laugh everytime I see someone make the argument that this is some sort of smart growth development or that increased density in random residential hoods is the key to all of our city's ills.

How is plopping down a 23 story tower with 200+ units in the middle of a neighborhood full of single family homes smart? It's not like this is going up in an area that has the infrastructure to handle it! The light rail isn't too close by. There's sporadic bus service. 99% of the streets in the near vicinity are residential in nature and the one commercial street (Bissonnet) has just two lanes. Additionally, if you head to the Southampton area today, you'll see that the city has just now begun spending millions to upgrade the sewer/water pipes that serve the area. Additionally, flooding in back alleys is quite common with heavy rains.

I don't get how destroying a historic neighborhood (well, by Houston standards) is smart growth. This type of development (highrise residential with ground floor retail) is something I would love to see more of, but in downtown or midtown or uptown or Upper Kirby or the Med Center but not in Southampton or the Heights or Timbergrove Manor or Briargrove or Riverside Terrace...

I don't know or even care to know what people define as "smart growth". This project is smart for these reasons.

1. It could make the investors a lot of money.

2. It's going to give a lot of people a good place to live.

[KinkaidAlum]

1) Ha. These guys are LUCKY that they have the lawsuit to fall back on. They would have lost their lunch if their building was due to arrive to market anytime soon. Have you looked around town lately? High end rental apartments inside the loop have sprung up like mushrooms. Competition to land tenants is fierce.

2) Plenty of people already live on sight. Maryland Manor provides a decent place to live and is much more affordable than what these places would cost.

[sevfiv]

2) Plenty of people already live on sight. Maryland Manor provides a decent place to live and is much more affordable than what these places would cost.

You took the words right from my fingertips..

[sevfiv]

A quote from Morgan and Kirton from the above Chronicle article via Swamplot:

The developers said Wednesday that they changed their plans to test whether the city would approve their project under any circumstances, but never intended to build anything other than the project they designed in 2007.

Good one, guys!

http://swamplot.com/ashby-highrise-developers-we-were-only-kidding

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6762243.html

[JWW]

Seriously?

These "arguments" again?

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK IT IS "SMART" OR NOT.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK THE BUILDING IS TOO TALL OR NOT. (As the fact that the proposed project being multi-family is irrelevant here with the current structure's being multi-family)

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER THE DEVELOPERS ARE "LUCKY" THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED FROM BUILDING THEIR PROJECT, SO FAR.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD PICK ANOTHER SITE OR HOPE THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS "WOULD TRADE" FOR THIS SITE.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER THIS PROJECT IS SUCCESSFUL, FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIC, FINANCIAL, OR ANY OTHER RELATIVE VIEWPOINT.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU LIKE THIS PROJECT.

The developers have unrestricted land. If the appropriate governmental authorities (probably courts, in this case) find a legal reason this project can be limited, they will and the project will not go through as currently desired by Buckhead. If nothing is found, the developers may take their chances.

Please stop rehashing and repeating the same worthless and immaterial commentary.

[sevfiv]

^BS. It is our collective environment. Those ALL CAPS sentiments won't be given any attention but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

[LTAWACS]

Seriously?

These "arguments" again?

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK IT IS "SMART" OR NOT.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK THE BUILDING IS TOO TALL OR NOT. (As the fact that the proposed project being multi-family is irrelevant here with the current structure's being multi-family)

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER THE DEVELOPERS ARE "LUCKY" THAT THEY HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED FROM BUILDING THEIR PROJECT, SO FAR.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU THINK THE DEVELOPERS SHOULD PICK ANOTHER SITE OR HOPE THAT OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS "WOULD TRADE" FOR THIS SITE.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER THIS PROJECT IS SUCCESSFUL, FROM AN ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIC, FINANCIAL, OR ANY OTHER RELATIVE VIEWPOINT.

It does NOT MATTER WHETHER YOU LIKE THIS PROJECT.

The developers have unrestricted land. If the appropriate governmental authorities (probably courts, in this case) find a legal reason this project can be limited, they will and the project will not go through as currently desired by Buckhead. If nothing is found, the developers may take their chances.

Please stop rehashing and repeating the same worthless and immaterial commentary.

I think this thing needs to be built.

[TheNiche]

^BS. It is our collective environment. Those ALL CAPS sentiments won't be given any attention but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Sev, you missed his point completely.

All those things are legitimate issues, worthy of public consideration. To the extent that they are valued by the community these issues need to be proactively codified into city ordinances.

In this particular case, however, the City's reaction against Buckhead Partners after Buckhead had already invested a half million dollars in upgraded infrastructure to accomodate a project that was allowable under existing ordinances was unjustified and is tantamount to theft. Additionally, I'm sure that there will be other damages sought, and likely awarded to Buckhead.

Clearly it is not good policy for a City facing down a fiscal crisis to be paying settlement fees to developers because those developers were restricted from adding to the tax base.

[sevfiv]

Sorry, must have been all the caps - I barely saw the tiny sentence at the bottom which brought together the the entire point, unfortunately!

[TheNiche]

1) Ha. These guys are LUCKY that they have the lawsuit to fall back on. They would have lost their lunch if their building was due to arrive to market anytime soon.

Not at all, no.

The dirty little secret of real estate development is that developers of big projects like this one actually only buy into a small percentage of the project and are paid substantial fees (typically 3% of project costs, as they're incurred) for the service they're providing to the other investors by acting as the general partner. And once the fee is paid, it gets paid out as compensation or distributions back to the owners of the development entity, making it unrecoverable if the project goes bust.

As a consequence, the developer's primary incentive is to build something, the bigger the better. That's where the money is. And it's a constant struggle with their investors and lenders to justify the biggest and least risk-averse project that the developer can get away with.

Besides, the fact is that a distressed apartment project isn't likely to go bust in the dramatic way that a condo project can. Apartments can heavily concess their rents in the first year or so just to generate sufficient cash flow to cover the note. As long as the property and the capital markets are both stabilized within a five-year period after completion so that the ultimate sale price reflects a healthy NOI and a reasonable cap rate, that's what is most material to the feasibility of the deal. And in this particular case, I don't actually see too much of a problem.

What is far more damaging is that Buckhead's basis in the land reflected its highest and best unrestricted use, meaning that we're talking about highrise pricing. Since it has been discovered by the market that this land is in fact politically impaired, the market value will adjust downward. Never mind that land prices have fallen precipitously since then (a problem with timing for which Buckhead will be unable to seek recompense from the City), and that Maryland Manor is no doubt utterly incapable of covering its own holding costs. Before very long, it will have to be sold, and a hugely expensive loss will be realized by Buckhead.

However you look at it, Buckhead Partners is worse off because of the City's illegal reaction to their project than they would've been had they been allowed to proceed like any other developer.

Edited December 16, 2009 by TheNiche

[LTAWACS]

So is there some kind of fund set up so that supporters may contribute to help build this thing?

[barracuda]

So is there some kind of fund set up so that supporters may contribute to help build this thing?

The developers should be contributing funds to you for your evangelism.

[JWW]

Not at all, no.

The dirty little secret of real estate development is that developers of big projects like this one actually only buy into a small percentage of the project and are paid substantial fees (typically 3% of project costs, as they're incurred) for the service they're providing to the other investors by acting as the general partner. And once the fee is paid, it gets paid out as compensation or distributions back to the owners of the development entity, making it unrecoverable if the project goes bust.

As a consequence, the developer's primary incentive is to build something, the bigger the better. That's where the money is. And it's a constant struggle with their investors and lenders to justify the biggest and least risk-averse project that the developer can get away with.

Besides, the fact is that a distressed apartment project isn't likely to go bust in the dramatic way that a condo project can. Apartments can heavily concess their rents in the first year or so just to generate sufficient cash flow to cover the note. As long as the property and the capital markets are both stabilized within a five-year period after completion so that the ultimate sale price reflects a healthy NOI and a reasonable cap rate, that's what is most material to the feasibility of the deal. And in this particular case, I don't actually see too much of a problem.

Niche,

Thanks for that information. Please consider posting this at "Development and Real Estate" thread, as well, so that people who do not read about this project, specifically, can still learn this knowledge, generally, as it pertains to all sorts of projects. Great post.

[sevfiv]

Creator of iconic high-rise image dies

Few of the many thousands of people who have seen signs bearing this image -- a tall building emblazoned with a forbidding scowl, its arms outstretched as if to snap up and devour the smaller houses beneath it -- knew that it was sketched by Marshall Wilson, an architect and inventor who lived near the site.

Wilson, 68, died Sunday, according to this brief notice in today's Houston Chronicle. Services were scheduled for 6 p.m. Wednesday at Christ Church Cathedral, 1117 Texas Ave.

http://blogs.chron.com/primeproperty/2010/02/creator_of_iconic_highrise_ima.html

[musicman]

The developers of the Ashby high-rise sued the city of Houston today seeking more than $40 million in compensation after repeated denials of their permit application.

“The city must learn that it cannot misapply the law to please a select few or to achieve de factor zoning regulations that our community has consistently rejected,” said Kevin Kirton, the chief executive of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., the company that sought to build the 23-story tower at 1717 Bissonnet near Rice University.

full article

[Lighter]

This should make for an interesting showdown. Lots of strong feelings and fat wallets.

[KinkaidAlum]

I am actually surprised that the amount is just $40 million. Prolly smart to not piss off the tart reformists though.

Edited February 11, 2010 by KinkaidAlum

[LTAWACS]

I am actually surprised that the amount is just $40 million. Prolly smart to not piss off the tart reformists though.

They're tarts? Nice...

[fatesdisastr]

There is going to be a story on the ashby highrise on ABC 13 news at 5:00 this evening. Just a heads up

[LTAWACS]

Anyone catch it? What did it say?

[barracuda]

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7274645

[fatesdisastr]

lawsuit.

Edited February 13, 2010 by fatesdisastr

[LTAWACS]

Grayt.

[barracuda]

What's interesting is that they're suing the city for $40 million they would have been earned if their original plan had been allowed. But the local economy is in worse shape now than when this high rise was originally proposed in 2007, so I wonder how in today's market they will prove that the original building could be fully leased and as profitable as the suit claims.

It almost seems like the city did them a favor by cutting their potential losses.

[TheNiche]

It almost seems like the city did them a favor by cutting their potential losses.

We've already been over this. See post #667.

[lockmat]

Does anyone have an update on this? Anyone from the neighborhood or that is somehow involved?

[LTAWACS]

I dont know but they should build it tall.

[lockmat]

woohoo!

http://twitter.com/#!/nsarnoff/status/119172150585331712

[Sellanious Caesar]

Hooray they're back! For what its worth, I actually always liked the design they had for this but still thought the Titan was the best looking proposed skyscraper outside of Downtown that Houston has seen in decades.

[Fringe]

So now it's apartments. I was hoping for a low income housing project but I guess this is the next best thing.

[fatesdisastr]

Thats good to hear! Now I wonder how long we are going to have to wait for it to get underway...

[wxman]

Love this tower. Question: why this spot? I was looking at the location on google maps and for some reason all this time, i thought this was to be built right on the SW FRWY....maybe close to where the Museum Tower is now. I did not realize, even with the squabble in the surrounding neighborhood just how out of place this is. I mean it is NOT a convenient location to get to and there are a lot of small side streets utilized to get to 1717 Bissonnet. My question is, why here? This thing probably could have long been built if they had just tweeked the location. I can see they are probably catering to the Med Center but I'm sure this is not the ONLY location to build a tower. Just seems like a really random out-of-place spot. Just my opinion.

[TheNiche]

Love this tower. Question: why this spot? I was looking at the location on google maps and for some reason all this time, i thought this was to be built right on the SW FRWY....maybe close to where the Museum Tower is now. I did not realize, even with the squabble in the surrounding neighborhood just how out of place this is. I mean it is NOT a convenient location to get to and there are a lot of small side streets utilized to get to 1717 Bissonnet. My question is, why here? This thing probably could have long been built if they had just tweeked the location. I can see they are probably catering to the Med Center but I'm sure this is not the ONLY location to build a tower. Just seems like a really random out-of-place spot. Just my opinion.

It's a very desireable location. Lots of people would like to live there. That is what makes it suitable for density.

And besides, after a developer buys a site and installs infrastructure (with the knowledge that it is desirable and that there is no zoning or deed restriction prohibiting highrises) it is difficult if not impossible to just change it on a whim.

[Houston19514]

It's a very desireable location. Lots of people would like to live there. That is what makes it suitable for density.

And besides, after a developer buys a site and installs infrastructure (with the knowledge that it is desirable and that there is no zoning or deed restriction prohibiting highrises) it is difficult if not impossible to just change it on a whim.

True, but the developer has not installed any infrastructure on the site. The site is still occupied by low-rise apartments.

[TheNiche]

True, but the developer has not installed any infrastructure on the site. The site is still occupied by low-rise apartments.

My understanding was that they had already upgraded the sewer/stormwater infrastructure in an amount of approximately $500k.

[Jax]

I with the retail was going to still be part of it because I always like having more places I can walk to.

[KinkaidAlum]

For the snarky folks who were hoping for a low income housing project to shove it down the snooty neighbors' collective throats, you do realize this is replacing an older apartment complex, right? I'd imagine the rents in a new high rise will be double what they are at Maryland Manor.

The folks who live in Southampton, Boulevard Oaks, Shadowlawn, and Broadacres aren't opposed to this development because it will bring in the wrong type of people. They are opposed because the scale is totally out of whack. The largest thing around there at the moment is the Rice Graduate Apartments and this Ashby Tower will be 220 feet taller!!! Additionally, wxman nailed it, this is NOT a good location for a large scaled high rise. Bissonnet will really be maxed out...

FULL DISCLAIMER, I live in Southampton although quite a bit away from this project.

[Highway6]

The folks who live in Southampton, Boulevard Oaks, Shadowlawn, and Broadacres aren't opposed to this development because it will bring in the wrong type of people. They are opposed because the scale is totally out of whack. The largest thing around there at the moment is the Rice Graduate Apartments and this Ashby Tower will be 220 feet taller!!! Additionally, wxman nailed it, this is NOT a good location for a large scaled high rise. Bissonnet will really be maxed out...

FULL DISCLAIMER, I live in Southampton although quite a bit away from this project.

When you mention Bissonet to most Houstonians, they are are going to picture it as a major 5 lane thoroughfare. They are going to picture it with all it's commercial properties stretching from the West up to Morningside. They'll also picture it as one of the major streets that runs through the heart of our Musuem District. If they look it up on Google maps, they'll see that it is one of the yellow lines indicated a major street.. one of only 3 major E-W streets that run the majority of the distance between 610 and 288 between 59 and the South Loop.

What they do not imagine is the 1 mile stretch, 2 lane residential stretch between that commercial and museum district that really has no bizness being there.

Bissonet might be schizo.. but I laugh at the scale arguments... because it effin Bissonnet and a project such as this should be on such a street. The project is NOT being built on Wroxton or Albans a few blocks off Bissonnet.. it is on effin Bissonnet.

You have commercial half a mile to your west. You have museums half a mile to your east, and you have, as you mentioned, the Rice Apartments and parking garage a few blocks away.

Not only should this project be built here.. but this 1 mile stretch of Bissonnet should be expanded to 4 lane in order to fully wear its name proudly.

Also I laugh because the opponents of this project have screwed themselves over.

They HAD a retail component... maybe a wine bar, maybe a coffee shop, maybe a high-end dry cleaners. But thanks to their bitching and moaning.. all gone.

They HAD high end condos.. They now have rented apartments. So not only do they have poorer new neighbors, but more of them, considering the condo units would have been larger and fewer in number. Their bitching and moaning has made the traffic problem worse.

DISCLAIMER: I recently lived half a mile from this project and supported it fully even then.

I now live a mile away but travel through the neighborhood multiple times a week on the way to the med center... so screw you Ashby haters that has cost me a coffee shop, wine bar or dry cleaners along my route. I hope you all get Vitamin D deficient from all that Ashby Hi-rise sun blockage.

Edited September 29, 2011 by Highway6

[mfastx]

So happy that this is going forward. This project had so much potential though, but due to local residents' NIMBYness, they are now getting just a regular apartment building. Oh well, could have made the area a lot more walkable, still glad to add another highrise to Houston!

FULL DISCLAIMER - I used to live exactly one block away, and was stunned at all of those NIMBYs.

[TheNiche]

Additionally, wxman nailed it, this is NOT a good location for a large scaled high rise. Bissonnet will really be maxed out...

Show me how. Use math, not rhetoric.

Edited September 30, 2011 by TheNiche

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

how many units are in the complex that is being torn down?

full discosure... I grew up off of Bissonnet- the far west end of it... LOL

[barracuda]

Just curious...do people favoring this project do so out of spite for the NIMBYs, or do you genuinely think it's ideal to errect high-rises in the middle of low-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of two-story homes and businesses? On one hand, maybe this is our best hope for residential densification in this city, since it's clearly not happening in the CBD. On the other hand, maybe such buildings will in fact degrade the surrounding neighborhood and diminish the desirability, as these are car-dependent developments that aren't going to make neighborhoods more walkable and livable for existing residents, at least with the revised plans. I have similar mixed feelings about 1111 Studewood.

[TheNiche]

Just curious...do people favoring this project do so out of spite for the NIMBYs, or do you genuinely think it's ideal to errect high-rises in the middle of low-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of two-story homes and businesses? On one hand, maybe this is our best hope for residential densification in this city, since it's clearly not happening in the CBD. On the other hand, maybe such buildings will in fact degrade the surrounding neighborhood and diminish the desirability, as these are car-dependent developments that aren't going to make neighborhoods more walkable and livable for existing residents, at least with the revised plans. I have similar mixed feelings about 1111 Studewood.

Every neighborhood in Houston that I can think of started off as low-density at some point in time. You can't make an omelet without cracking a few eggs. And besides, there are several highrises with car-dependent inhabitants in the vicinity of River Oaks, yet River Oaks does not appear to have been diminished in its desirability. The fearmongering is not supported empirically. If you believe otherwise, I beg you for data!

[lockmat]

Just curious...do people favoring this project do so out of spite for the NIMBYs, or do you genuinely think it's ideal to errect high-rises in the middle of low-density neighborhoods consisting primarily of two-story homes and businesses? On one hand, maybe this is our best hope for residential densification in this city, since it's clearly not happening in the CBD. On the other hand, maybe such buildings will in fact degrade the surrounding neighborhood and diminish the desirability, as these are car-dependent developments that aren't going to make neighborhoods more walkable and livable for existing residents, at least with the revised plans. I have similar mixed feelings about 1111 Studewood.

I think it's a beautiful building and is replacing an apartment complex anyway, that's why I'm in support of it.