Jump to content

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


musicman

Recommended Posts

Rich NIMBY busybodies make for some of the least sympathetic people as it turns out.

I don't think anyone cares for their overblown cause that doesn't already own a half million plus house. Seems they made a fair run at all legal avenues to stop it, and they failed. Seems sour grapes are leading them to petty harassment after the fact. If they think a high-rise apartment hurts their property value, I wonder why they think making it an unattractive place to live once it is already constructed is a step in the right direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about a huge fan on top blowing a giant thing like used to be in front of all the cell phone stores - that large inflatable sock-think with arms. I have no idea what they were called.

Wacky-waving-inflatable-arm-flailing-tube-men?

So construction is supposed to start this year? Or next year?

Sooner the better.

Edited by mfastx
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich NIMBY busybodies make for some of the least sympathetic people as it turns out.

I don't think anyone cares for their overblown cause that doesn't already own a half million plus house. Seems they made a fair run at all legal avenues to stop it, and they failed. Seems sour grapes are leading them to petty harassment after the fact. If they think a high-rise apartment hurts their property value, I wonder why they think making it an unattractive place to live once it is already constructed is a step in the right direction.

The point is to poison the well for everyone.

I don't have a problem with rich or NIMBY, the issue I have is how their first salvo was to pull an end run around the normal process and attempted to pull strings with Bill White. Shame on Bill White for weighing in on it from the beginning.

Their only legitimate argument was the impact such a structure would have on adjacent foundations. You could probably argue that the downward pull of a highrise would cause a few cracked slabs or foundation shifts. Don't cry to me about the traffic issues, save that for the person that commutes in from Hockley.

My question is why the hell would you build it there, and why haven't the well-connected people that oppose it been able to find a better parcel of land to swap with the developer? All the wasted money spent fighting it could have been used to purchase an equivalent parcel near Allen Parkway and arrange a swap. Sure it would have been an uneven swap, but what are you left holding now?

Edited by TGM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foundations of highrises do not sit on level ground. Pilings are driven dozens of feet into the ground, upon which beams are attached. The building rests on the beams. Effectively, the highrise functions much like a beach house on stilts, except that the stilts are buried underground. The point of this explanation is to lay the foundation for my statement that even an alleged impact on area foundations is an illegitimate argument. The fact that the lawsuit has settled and permits issued proves that there were no legitimate (legal) arguments against the tower.

You are correct, though, that a better approach would have been to offer to buy the property from the developer.

Edited by RedScare
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe they would have bought the land, but they know the only good investment of their money would be to build a highrise. They must of thought it wasn't worth it to turn it into a park or leave the buildings there and simply make improvements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The foundations of highrises do not sit on level ground. Pilings are driven dozens of feet into the ground, upon which beams are attached. The building rests on the beams. Effectively, the highrise functions much like a beach house on stilts, except that the stilts are buried underground. The point of this explanation is to lay the foundation for my statement that even an alleged impact on area foundations is an illegitimate argument.

I don't disagree, anyone can see what goes into the foundation of high-rises, but if someone adjacent to to building were to encounter a cracked slab years later you know the highrise will be blamed, and I'm sure an expert could be paid to agree. I'm guessing that HCAD will also hear a few diminished value arguments because the "tower of terror". (Or those creepy 1930's signs)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't begrudge them a diminished value claim. I argue diminished value every year due to a warehouse next door to me. It matters not that the people living in the warehouse (loft) are two of the coolest neighbors ever. We laugh every year that I use his residence to lower my property value.

As for cracked slabs, this is Houston. Regardless what a hired gun may claim, cracked slabs happen. Besides, all of the homes next to the tower are pier and beam...no slabs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

we're getting closeeeer

Linbeck Group, a general contractor whose top executive lives in the neighborhood adjacent to the building site, is expected to start construction at the beginning of next year.

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Construction-company-with-neighborhood-tie-to-3860517.php#photo-3445636

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Linbeck was the GC for this project but they have pulled out bc they don't have enough resources to build this and their downtown building at the same time...

...okay, so I'm kidding :P

They are pulling out on good terms but not for those reasons. Tear down could start in May

http://mobile.chron.com/chron/db_311130/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Qjob4gBG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/03/let-the-development-begin-ashby-high-rise-gets-permitted/

 

 

Let the development begin: Ashby high-rise gets permitted
Friday, March 29, 2013

 

The city of Houston this week granted full permitting approval for the 21-story apartment building planned near Rice University at 1717 Bissonnet and Ashby.

 

An existing apartment complex at the site is now vacant and will be demolished soon, the developers recently said. But one major piece of the puzzle is still missing: a general contractor.

 

Last week, the head of Linbeck Group said the company had withdrawn from the project.

 

Developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners said they have nothing yet to announce on Linbeck’s replacement, but information would be “forthcoming soon.”

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...