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

[TheNiche]

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.

I'd be extremely happy to hear of a done deal where the neighborhood bought out Buckhead. In my opinion, the negotiating table is where many if not most of these kinds of disputes ought to be resolved.

[Subdude]

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

[TheNiche]

Personally I find it disturbing that residents are being expected to pay for neighborhood protection that people in other cities receive from their local governments.

I find it disturbing that residents in other cities expect local governments to provide neighborhood protection rather than them paying for it themselves.

[musicman]

High-rise would fail new city standards

The proposed Ashby high-rise would not win approval under the city's new traffic-impact rules without changes to the developers' plan, Mayor Bill White said Wednesday.

The standard was contained in a set of three criteria unveiled during Wednesday's City Council meeting by White. The criteria were developed as clarification of a decades-old ordinance the mayor wants to use to force traffic revisions from the Ashby developers, if needed.

The City Council indicated its support of White's approach by shelving a draft ordinance that had been the subject of debate for many months. Instead, the city will take public discussion for six months, and use an old city law on driveways to force traffic revisions from the Ashby developers, if needed.

The driveway law dates back to 1940, though its current form began to take shape in 1968.

The criteria are:

[CDeb]

They're changing their strategy because their proposed ordinance wouldn't have stopped the high rise.

[houston-development]

They're changing their strategy because their proposed ordinance wouldn't have stopped the high rise.

think the strategy was mentioned here before.

its been their back up plan for a while to protect the city from a possible lawsuit.

[woolie]

Is there still time to make it 50 stories?

Really, though, I think it's a beautiful structure. I'd be glad to have it anywhere in Houston. I'd love to have it across the street from my current rental in midtown, or the house I'm buying near Baldwin park further up in midtown. It's a high quality design with real attention paid to the street level. However, it's an inescapable fact that the TMC is booming, and everything close in should be redeveloped in this way. It's just silly for neighborhood residents to assume their neighborhood shouldn't change over time as density (destiny?) increases.

Edited March 1, 2008 by woolie

[LTAWACS]

I agree. But humans assume silly things by nature... we shall see.

[Subdude]

Ashby high-rise set to go forward as planned

Developers say the city's inaction led them to begin permits process

The developers of the controversial Ashby high-rise said Monday they are moving forward with their long-delayed permit applications because city officials haven't responded to their compromise offer to build a smaller development.

The decision by developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners revives their original 23-story project that has been on hold since November, when the developers agreed to delay seeking permits after an outcry from surrounding neighborhoods led to discussions of new development regulations at City Hall.

Morgan and Kirton said their revised proposal calls for a 22-story building with a smaller footprint and fewer residential units

[musicman]

wipe off the fans, it is about to get exciting.

Edited March 18, 2008 by musicman

[lockmat]

This whole time we thought something was in the works, and it wasn't. What are the possible reasons for the city not getting on the ball? Is it possible this whole time Mayor White was just paying the residents lip service, acting as if he cared?

And it seems to me that the developers are bending over backwards for them. They've done everything except sell the land, which isn't justifiable. They're even scaling it down when they don't have to.

[musicman]

This whole time we thought something was in the works, and it wasn't.

LOL i guess you haven't been reading this thread

[LTAWACS]

This is good. I can't wait. I didn't know there were originally 2 towers to this...

[lockmat]

Buckhead is so all over this. They're providing information like crazy. The latest example is pictures of other residential highrises in neighborhoods in Houston that have done fine.

There are already a number of existing successful high-rise developments in Houston located in residential neighborhoods that have not undermined the quality of life therein. Following is another series of aerial photographs showing examples of several such high-rises that were built during the period ranging from 1965 to the 2002:

http://www.buckfund.com/houston-highrise-comparisons.html

----

Also, so much attention to the building itself has been diverted b/c of this 'controversy', but I just love this building and all the components it will bring. Too bad it's location isn't in a more dense area.

Edited March 18, 2008 by lockmat

[Jax]

I just hope they get rid of those "tower of traffic" signs. Those things in my opinion are more of a visual blight on one of Houston's nicest neighborhoods than a classy highrise ever will be.

[CDeb]

I just hope they get rid of those "tower of traffic" signs. Those things in my opinion are more of a visual blight on one of Houston's nicest neighborhoods than a classy highrise ever will be.

Maybe this one is better:

[Jax]

Haha where'd you see that?

Edited March 18, 2008 by Jax

[CDeb]

http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/010501.html

[talltexan83]

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

These "residential highrise" comparisons don't really help their argument. All of these properties are bordered by wide 4+ lane streets (Montrose, Kirby, Westheimer, etc.) and bordered more by parks, schools and churches than single family homes. If anything, this comparison proves that their really is no precedent in Houston for putting a 23-story structure in the middle of a residential area.

[LTAWACS]

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

I don't think it's costing them that much at all. They are spending what they think is worth to spend. Besides it's nothing that a little positive cash stream won't soon fix. This is why Houston is such a good city in which to live.

[TheNiche]

Buckhead is clearly winning the web design battle. They have come along way in the last few months. I hope it has cost them a fortune

Its easy to win an argument when you're right on the mark. Doesn't cost much, either.

These "residential highrise" comparisons don't really help their argument. All of these properties are bordered by wide 4+ lane streets (Montrose, Kirby, Westheimer, etc.) and bordered more by parks, schools and churches than single family homes. If anything, this comparison proves that their really is no precedent in Houston for putting a 23-story structure in the middle of a residential area.

So you think that it is preferable to add to the number of driveways fronting major thoroughfares? You might want to think that one through. It is far better from a congestion management standpoint to dump the traffic into neighborhood streets so that they can queue up along a limited number of access points.

And you also think that its OK to loom over public spaces, but not OK to shade private residences? Why is that, exactly? Is the general public more immune to the horrific terrors of shade than is the special public?

[lockmat]

It's gonna look great. Added to the wiki list: http://www.towrs.com/wiki/index.php/1717_Bissonnet

[LTAWACS]

It's gonna look great. Added to the wiki list: http://www.towrs.com/wiki/index.php/1717_Bissonnet

You're getting faster and faster.

[lockmat]

You're getting faster and faster.

It all depends on how hard the math problem is they give me to save the changes I made. The ones I put up quickly are addition

[ricco67]

You're getting faster and faster.

It all depends on how hard the math problem is they give me to save the changes I made. The ones I put up quickly are addition

He puts in a good platform to put in a considerable amount of info. Now if I can justreplace my camera, I can start uploading before during and after pictures. Little *ucker caught on quick.

[musicman]

Latest high-rise proposal denied

Ashby project developers must supply more data on traffic impact

City officials have rejected the latest permit applications for the controversial Ashby high-rise, saying the developers must provide more information about traffic impact and take other steps before the project can be approved.

In returning the plans for the 23-story building to developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., city engineer Mark L. Loethen said they must supply more data about anticipated traffic volumes, including figures about traffic generated by similar projects in other parts of Houston.

Loethen also expressed concern that a planned driveway into the project at 1717 Bissonnet might cause problems, including encroachment into the westbound lanes of Bissonnet by large trucks backing into the driveway.

full article

[wxman]

Latest high-rise proposal denied

Ashby project developers must supply more data on traffic impact

City officials have rejected the latest permit applications for the controversial Ashby high-rise, saying the developers must provide more information about traffic impact and take other steps before the project can be approved.

In returning the plans for the 23-story building to developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners Inc., city engineer Mark L. Loethen said they must supply more data about anticipated traffic volumes, including figures about traffic generated by similar projects in other parts of Houston.

Loethen also expressed concern that a planned driveway into the project at 1717 Bissonnet might cause problems, including encroachment into the westbound lanes of Bissonnet by large trucks backing into the driveway.

full article

I'm waiting on these developers to pull the plug on the whole thing and moving it to Dallas, Atlanta, or Phoenix. As usual, Houston will shoot themselves right in the foot.

[CDeb]

They city is about to set a bad precedent. The traffic on this project has been studied to death. It just ain't there.

[JWW]

While reading over some of the arguments on third-party websites regarding 1717 Bissonnet, I have not been able to find a decent and 'simple' explanation of the differences between use-based and form-based zoning AS WELL as well as a few examples of implementation of EACH (FAR, setbacks from street, etc.) Would you guys mind giving your definitions as well as some examples of implementation for both, please?

[musicman]

While reading over some of the arguments on third-party websites regarding 1717 Bissonnet, I have not been able to find a decent and 'simple' explanation of the differences between use-based and form-based zoning AS WELL as well as a few examples of implementation of EACH (FAR, setbacks from street, etc.) Would you guys mind giving your definitions as well as some examples of implementation for both, please?

use based is older with clearly defined uses (commercial and residential are separate) which would make mixed use type things difficult to do.

form based allows mix use type things but defines certain requirements so that each building has a certain placement, sidewalk width, windows facing street, similar height, etc.