JWW Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 ^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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 ^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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted December 15, 2009 Share Posted December 15, 2009 Sorry, must have been all the caps - I barely saw the tiny sentence at the bottom which brought together the the entire point, unfortunately! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 (edited) 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 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 So is there some kind of fund set up so that supporters may contribute to help build this thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted December 16, 2009 Share Posted December 16, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWW Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 Creator of iconic high-rise image diesFew 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 11, 2010 Author Share Posted February 11, 2010 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighter Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 This should make for an interesting showdown. Lots of strong feelings and fat wallets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 (edited) 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted February 12, 2010 Share Posted February 12, 2010 There is going to be a story on the ashby highrise on ABC 13 news at 5:00 this evening. Just a heads up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Anyone catch it? What did it say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/video?id=7274645 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 (edited) lawsuit. Edited February 13, 2010 by fatesdisastr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Grayt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 It almost seems like the city did them a favor by cutting their potential losses.We've already been over this. See post #667. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 Does anyone have an update on this? Anyone from the neighborhood or that is somehow involved? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted February 11, 2011 Share Posted February 11, 2011 I dont know but they should build it tall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 woohoo!http://twitter.com/#!/nsarnoff/status/119172150585331712 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sellanious Caesar Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 So now it's apartments. I was hoping for a low income housing project but I guess this is the next best thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 Thats good to hear! Now I wonder how long we are going to have to wait for it to get underway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wxman Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 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. 1 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.