sevfiv Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 ^Thanks - that's what I was figuring. The crux of the issue - it's there, in use (a fairly unique use, at that, for the neighborhood), and would be a tremendous waste to send to the landfill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 from the story 13 had at 6, sounds like we've gone from developer lawsuit threats against the city to resident lawsuit threats against the developer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) Maryland Manor used to be a dump, but a fairly cheap dump. Yes, lots of Rice students used to live there. It was extensively remodeled in the mid-90s, seems to be pretty nice now. I would not assume for a moment that those people who live there now, probably grad students, med students, and middle-income-ish retail and office workers, will be able to find 67 similar units in the area. I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not. But, hey, go ahead and tear down a perfectly decent, up-to-date, highly occupied apartment complex, and build something that might not get financing, might not find tenants, and almost no one in the area really wants. That's what property rights at all costs, with a side order of urban density, really means!Thanks for your sarcastic recommendation about risk to the owners who, like many of us, could not care less what you think about this.from the story 13 had at 6, sounds like we've gone from developer lawsuit threats against the city to resident lawsuit threats against the developer.Buckhead can build this as-of-right. End of story. Seriously. Edited August 25, 2009 by JWW 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thanks for your sarcastic recommendation about risk to the owners who, like many of us, could not care less what you think about this.Buckhead can build this as-of-right. End of story. Seriously.I agree. They can do whatever they want with the land. Even put in an ultra-modern Jack In The Box at the top of a 900 foot observation deck build on that land. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thanks for your sarcastic recommendation about risk to the owners who, like many of us, could not care less what you think about this.I feel that Marmer makes a good point. There's a difference between what one "can" do and what one "should" do. And while this development is probably in the financial best interests of the developers, there's nothing wrong with considering what's best for the community and others affected by it. In this case, it's pretty clear that most of the community does not want this development. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I feel that Marmer makes a good point. There's a difference between what one "can" do and what one "should" do. And while this development is probably in the financial best interests of the developers, there's nothing wrong with considering what's best for the community and others affected by it. In this case, it's pretty clear that most of the community does not want this development.Good point? Of course there is a difference between what one is able to do and what you think one should do. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO ELSE WANTS THIS DEVELOPMENT OR NOT. THEY CAN BUILD IT AS-OF-RIGHT. How many more pages on this thread do we need with more comments about people commenting on what they think the developer should do or not? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Good point? Of course there is a difference between what one is able to do and what you think one should do. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO ELSE WANTS THIS DEVELOPMENT OR NOT. THEY CAN BUILD IT AS-OF-RIGHT. How many more pages on this thread do we need with more comments about people commenting on what they think the developer should do or not? I think the developer should take into consideration the feelings of those in the neighborhood... And build it anyway. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 If it was going to be built anyway, did removing the retail and everything else increase or decrease the value of the building? That in turn would help or hurt the neighborhood. Maybe the people are shooting themsleves in the foot if they don't win this battle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 If it was going to be built anyway, did removing the retail and everything else increase or decrease the value of the building? That in turn would help or hurt the neighborhood. Maybe the people are shooting themsleves in the foot if they don't win this battle.I have to agree. With the revised plan, they will still get most of the traffic, but without the added benefit of retail within walking distance. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 So if the current 1717 Bissonnet isn't a dump anymore and is in use, then what's wrong with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Planning approval or not, I would be amazed if this got built anytime in the immediate future. Financing for projects like this just isn't going to be there for a couple of years. This will leave the neighborhood residents plenty of time to file lawsuits to stop it (as they have indicated they will). I think at some point the developers could give in to the need for immediate cash flow and come up with something a lot more modest and acceptable to the neighborhood. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 So if the current 1717 Bissonnet isn't a dump anymore and is in use, then what's wrong with it?I guess it's problem is it's location - too valuable to remain as is? At least in the eyes of Ashby 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 25, 2009 Author Share Posted August 25, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdog08 Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 So could they scale back this project to like a midrise apartment complex of 4 or 5 stories that have been sprouting up throughout the inner loop or is this (high rise) the most economic viable project (I don't feel like drudging through all the pages for an answer). I'm thinking the land isn't large enough for that type of development (4 or 5 stories) but a 10-15 story building would seem the most appropriate. I really do like this area of town and wish this could have been built by the Village but to act like this area is dominated by single family homes is not quite true as there are lots of duplexes, townhomes, and apartments along Bissonent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 I am unsure as to the point of this lawsuit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
20thStDad Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Forget this neighborhood, clearly they don't want this to happen. Let's just put it on an entire block between Shepherd and Durham north of 11th. Displace some nastiness, new customers for the remodeled Kroger, everyone wins. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 On what cause of action? An suit to enjoin a nuisance? That doesn't seem meritorious at all. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 27, 2009 Author Share Posted August 27, 2009 On what cause of action?An suit to enjoin a nuisance? That doesn't seem meritorious at all.keeping some entity in court might be a discouragement. i personally believe their funding will be a big hump in the road. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted August 27, 2009 Share Posted August 27, 2009 keeping some entity in court might be a discouragement. i personally believe their funding will be a big hump in the road.Well, it would be a complication.I don't think that the developer would have taken things this far unless it was confident of its ability to obtain financing. It just would not make any sense to continue to pay for traffic studies, to continue to apply for building permits, meet with city engineers, pay it architects to redesign the building for each permit application, etc. It is a risky project, but if the developer is willing to give liens against its other properties, I don't see a reason why they cannot get financing. Things are tough, but if they can put up a lot of collateral, they can get a loan.My prediction: the current apartments are demolished in December and building starts in early February.The neighbors may file a lawsuit, but I bet that it gets dismissed rather quickly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted August 30, 2009 Share Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) I agree. They can do whatever they want with the land. Even put in an ultra-modern Jack In The Box at the top of a 900 foot observation deck build on that land.except that would be radI was thinking about Downtown Vancouver, BC. The west end is a strange mix of towers and little victorian apartment buildings and houses. That's definetely not a cheap or blighted area, I doubt high rises are hurting it. Edited August 30, 2009 by zaphod Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houston-development Posted August 31, 2009 Share Posted August 31, 2009 I don't think that the developer would have taken things this far unless it was confident of its ability to obtain financing.egos can make some people do very irrational things.I don't see a reason why they cannot get financing. Things are tough, but if they can put up a lot of collateral, they can get a loan.well other than the usual suspects, keep in mind they reduced the number of units AND amount of retail, which kills the underwriting. deal didnt make economic sense before and it sure as heck doesnt now.but hey, its their money and lifestyle; put up 75%, full personal recourse, and go for it.i double.. no.. i triple dog dare ya! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted September 1, 2009 Share Posted September 1, 2009 I hope this thing gets built. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I hope this thing gets built.Looks like they are now trying to appeal the initial permit denial for the original plan. Seems to me they are taking a major gamble on an all or nothing deal.While I wish them the best, I hope it doesn't backfire on them.That would so suck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Looks like they are now trying to appeal the initial permit denial for the original plan. Seems to me they are taking a major gamble on an all or nothing deal.While I wish them the best, I hope it doesn't backfire on them.That would so suck.As long as it gets built then all is well. I too hope it does not backfire on the developers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Here's the Chronicle article:The developers of the proposed Ashby high-rise have appealed the city's denial of their original design, setting the stage for a possible lawsuit over the controversial project.Developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton, of Buckhead Investment Partners, will appear Thursday before the General Appeals Board, a city panel that hears appeals of permit denials. They will ask for approval of a 23-story building at 1717 Bissonnet with more than 200 apartments, a restaurant, a spa, retail space and offices, which the city repeatedly said would worsen traffic congestion to unacceptable levels.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6677369.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 As long as it gets built then all is well. I too hope it does not backfire on the developers.The appeal should not effect the ability of the developer to build on the previously approved plans.I wish Buckfund luck. They have been completely screwed by the city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dream Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 these guys have every right to build this project as it was initialy designed. i live in this neighborhood and i've been sitting on the sideline watching this unfold. this piece of land is not restricted, they have rights as property owners to get the highest and best use out of this piece of property. they were smart enough to buy a great property in a prime location. there is demand for what they are going to build and they recieved a permit to build this as it was originaly designed, submitted, and permitted. the mayor and city counsel had better realize they stepped beyond their authority and have interfered with these developers basic rights. they have hindered their ability to bring a viable development beyond the planning stages, the city has wasted buckhead's time and money. i wish we had zoning in place so we could regulate types of development inside the loop. but we don't have zoning in htown so anything goes.i want smart developement, head in parking, bigger/wider sidewalks, retail bundled with commercial, more paking garages and less parking lots, more green space, some side streets could be closed for pocket parks and community gathering areas.dream 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It'll be funny when this is finally built to see the same people fighting this secretly walking to and sneaking into the spa and restaurant, only trying to avoid their neighbors from seeing them. hahahaha 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Is smart development tearing down existing in-use, revenue and tax generating housing that serves the local area and local students? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Is smart development tearing down existing in-use, revenue and tax generating housing that serves the local area and local students?Perhaps so if it allows 200 apartments to be created and street level retail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.