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

[musicman]

The City then rejected the traffic study because of the supposed inconsistency--but not because of a flaw in the study.

that's the point, a defiinitive process should be outlined/used so that an accurate reponse will be given to a developer prior to them performing work, even if it takes some time.

[talltexan83]

It's good to see the City of Houston addressing this issue. There were clearly flaws in a traffic study that indicated "no measurable impact."

I think that the last line in the article is telling....

"Whether we develop that site or not, there will be other developments in close proximity that will be traffic generators in that neighborhood," Kirton said.

That is a far different tune than we were hearing a few weeks ago. I still think some kind of compromise is just around the corner.

[Jax]

Is it likely that they'll build this thing to the East near Montrose or Binz, or is it more likely that since they have already invested in the property that they will build something smaller in Southampton?

Personally, I'm hoping the highrise will be built somewhere else rather than scaling down the project.

[Native Montrosian]

Anyone read the comments for today's Chronicle article? Good grief! Except for a few rational voices addressing the property rights and zoning issues, everyone seems to think this is a battle of the elitist rich and a corrupt government against the poor unwashed masses. As one poster pointed out, a high-rise of that caliber with a fine dining restaurant and a spa isn't going to be Section 8 housing. The prospective tenants are probably as wealthy as the protesting homeowners.

Latest one:

This project will not impact traffic one bit. Let these whiners move to the Woodlands, if they want a decent neighborhood.

The premiere of Cavemen wishes it could have been this funny.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Native Montrosian

[TheNiche]

Is it likely that they'll build this thing to the East near Montrose or Binz, or is it more likely that since they have already invested in the property that they will build something smaller in Southampton?

Personally, I'm hoping the highrise will be built somewhere else rather than scaling down the project.

It is very unlikely that the land costs were forgiving enough that they could downsize sufficiently to make the neighbors happy and still make money.

Buildings of this sort don't just get moved to a different site. They are designed to suit the needs of a particular site. If this dies as proposed, they'll just pull the plug.

[TheNiche]

There were clearly flaws in a traffic study that indicated "no measurable impact."

How is that a flaw, in and of itself?

Please don't spare me a technical explanation.

[LTAWACS]

I say we build this building. The sooner the better.

[woolie]

Hopefully the developer will add 10 or 15 stories, just for spite.

[BuilderGeek]

Hopefully the developer will add 10 or 15 stories, just for spite.

Whenever I see this type of reaction I always hope they cancel the project...

...and put in a junkyard or a landfill instead. Or maybe a hazardous waste incinerator. Or a cement plant. Or a paper mill.

Then they'll be begging for that high rise. >

[Trae]

I like the look. Would rather have it along the Red Line, but I hope it gets built.

[H-Town Man]

If you want me to understand you to mean "high-density neighborhood" and not "highrise district", then you need to say "high-density neighborhood". Highrises aren't the same thing as stick or podium multifamily, and Austin isn't the same as Houston. I've explained that to you numerous times and at great length.

None of which interferes with my point whatsoever. You've explained things numerous times and at great length that have nothing to do with what I wrote. It's as if I said, "Austin has chosen to protect its single-family neighborhoods, why shouldn't we?" and you responded with, "But Austin has hills and Houston doesn't. Therefore the comparison doesn't work" (actually, I think that was one of your responses).

Bottom line: If you ever hope to convince people of your view, and not just drown them out with ever-longer responses, you need to actually read and consider what they say.

[TheNiche]

None of which interferes with my point whatsoever. You've explained things numerous times and at great length that have nothing to do with what I wrote. It's as if I said, "Austin has chosen to protect its single-family neighborhoods, why shouldn't we?" and you responded with, "But Austin has hills and Houston doesn't. Therefore the comparison doesn't work" (actually, I think that was one of your responses).

Bottom line: If you ever hope to convince people of your view, and not just drown them out with ever-longer responses, you need to actually read and consider what they say.

What I've explained has everything to do with what you've said. Market demand justifies highrises. Understanding the differences between highrise demand (which is fundamentally different than stick or podium demand on account of the differences in price and form) is essential to understanding why similar policy would have different effects in each city. If you don't get it yet, there's nothing more I can tell you.

[talltexan83]

Again......please drive by this site sometime during rush hour to get a better feel for the traffic flow. I don't have a wealth of insider knowledge or 5300+ posts for reference, but this stretch of Bissonnet would be pushed to the max with this development.

It is not specifically the number of residents that will cause problems. There are already plenty of cars at Maryland Manor, but they have multiple exits and entrances to help with traffic flow. I am most concerned with the retail component (I know, it pains me to say that). The in-and-out of visitor parking could cause havoc. See the effects of the Raven Grill just down the street.

I also find it interesting that the developer has offered to build a stop light as a form of compromise. I am not sure what this would accomplish. Maybe more traffic lines on Ashby instead?

[editor]

Please keep this thread on-topic. Take personal disputes to PM.

[ousider]

check this out.http://the.ricethresher.org/news/2007/10/05/houston_hillel_exodus

[Jax]

It will definitely suck for all of the Rice people in Maryland Manor, but how will this building cut off access to Hillel?

[woolie]

Again......please drive by this site sometime during rush hour to get a better feel for the traffic flow. I don't have a wealth of insider knowledge or 5300+ posts for reference, but this stretch of Bissonnet would be pushed to the max with this development.

Again. 17k traffic count in 2001. Bissonet is not a quiet, neighborhood street. The impact of 250 units will not be that great. How many units does Maryland Manor have?

[musicman]

The impact of 250 units will not be that great.

remember there are residential units plus commercial. it is much easier to provide parking for a fixed number of residential units vs a restaurant and/or other businesses.

[RedScare]

The proposal is to replace 67 apartment units with 187, an increase of 120 units. The average apartment occupancy is about 1.5, resulting in an increase of about 180 vehicles. With a daily vehicle count of over 17,000, a 180 vehicle increase is indeed negligible. If the neighborhood is so concerned about a restaurant, whose primary busy period is in the evening after rush hour, It would seem that an offer to delete the restaurant component would solve the "problem". That would be a shame, since most residents probably would enjoy a nice restaurant nearby, but that is what often happens in these battles...the good stuff gets deleted, and the main structure that no one wants stays.

[woolie]

Yes, we need zoning... yet another layer of the system that can casually ruin your life.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/05/owner.suicide.ap/index.html

CLARKSVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A business owner shot and killed himself during a City Council meeting Thursday night after members voted against his request to rezone his property, witnesses said....

[Subdude]

The Chronicle has run an editorial against the project.

The most recent cause c

[King Owl]

As a Rice alum and somebody who spends a ton of time in the area, I have no desire to see this tower built. I'm all for the construction of most towers, but not those that are so completely out of character for the neighborhood. Not all towers are a good thing.

[RedScare]

Chris Amandas, a leader of the neighborhood task force opposing the Ashby Tower, said the project might never be built because of physical limitations. The property is not large enough to accommodate the required construction materials and equipment.

Wow. There is not enough room on a 72,910 square foot lot to build a 23 story building, yet they manage to build 75 story towers downtown on lots over 10,000 square feet smaller. That's what's great about these fights. You get to hear some of the most ridiculous and outlandish statements from the neighbors. Reminds me of the neighbor that claimed children would get run over by trains on Richmond Avenue....as if the thousands of vehicle on the six lanes of traffic would magically miss them.

[bachanon]

lol. it's amazing how cars do not run over children like trains do.

[ricco67]

The arguments are rather interesting, I admit. My sole argument against the project is traffic, if they're able to work around it, then I say go for it. While I think this would be a great building, I still think they need to build it closer to montrose or kirby, those streets are better for handling traffic for such a building.

I agree with you Red, the arguments are just plain stupid. It's like they just don't think through the arguments logically.

I have to admit, the footprint of the lot IS quite substantial. Makes me wonder how much greenspace they'd keep around it.

[TheNiche]

It's like they just don't think through the arguments logically.

Oh, they do. They're just hoping that we won't.

[Subdude]

The arguments are rather interesting, I admit. My sole argument against the project is traffic, if they're able to work around it, then I say go for it. While I think this would be a great building, I still think they need to build it closer to montrose or kirby, those streets are better for handling traffic for such a building.

I agree with you Red, the arguments are just plain stupid. It's like they just don't think through the arguments logically.

I have to admit, the footprint of the lot IS quite substantial. Makes me wonder how much greenspace they'd keep around it.

Again, I hate to see the argument cast solely in terms of traffic. The quality of a neighborhood is determined by a lot of things other than just traffic count.

[ricco67]

The neighborhood behind the Museum Tower doesn't seem to be affected, in fact it seems improved by the fact that it's now relatively secluded with no traffic going by it.

Yeah, they're facing the backside of a big freakin' building, but it actually made their street and neighborhood very quiet.

The neighborhood behind 1717 will notice some changes once this thing is built by the INCREASE of traffic down the streets by people hoping to bypass Bissonnet's traffic jam. While I may not be looking at it the same way you are, it's a factor I look at when it comes to a slightly bigger picture.

[CDeb]

Another traffic study will be done.

Of course, even if the new study concludes that this project will be a traffic nightmare, given that the study is not required, what legal recourse does the city have to stop the project without getting its pants sued off?

[woolie]

Another traffic study will be done.

Of course, even if the new study concludes that this project will be a traffic nightmare, given that the study is not required, what legal recourse does the city have to stop the project without getting its pants sued off?

Answer: Nothing. Ever tried to get around Uptown? Bissonet is a stroll in a park compared to traffic levels in large areas of the city. Even with another 1,000 cars per day (e.g less than 5% increase.) People crying 'traffic!' never seem to cite the current figure. I wonder why?

Anyway, heavy traffic is a reality of urban life. If you've avoided it until now, it's only because of the mid/late 20th century conditions that caused urban real estate to be undervalued, mostly due to race prejudice. In a few decades the market realignment will be complete, and traffic in Houston will be at levels comparable to other inner cities.

Edited October 9, 2007 by woolie