Jump to content

The Village Of River Oaks: Senior Living On Shepherd/West, 8-Stories


jt16

Recommended Posts

I noticed a variance sign at the "curve" on Shepherd just over the overpass at W. Dallas and Shepherd (near Tila's restaurant). There is an existing office building where the sign was. Does anybody know what the plans are for this site? It looks awfully cramped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

swamplot is reporting that Trammell may have withdrawn their entire plans and also the variances. However, after watching the discussion of the Planning Commission, I did not come to that conclusion, unless after the meeting they made this decision, which would surprise me.

http://swamplot.com/south-shepherd-apartme...awn/2008-07-11/

It should be the first item in this video... link

Also, are variance requests available online?

Edited by lockmat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Petitioner came by the in-laws house on Gross St (perpendicular to Alpha St in the diagram) trying to drum up support for blocking this development. He said Gross St and Alpha cannot handle the increased traffic/trucks from the delivery/service access at the back on Alpha.

 

Those roads are quite narrow and have adjacent drainage ditches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the traffic argument ever fly? I mean, we are a growing city.

We are getting more dense by the second.

Traffic is going to get worse if we are not proactive about it.

Lol, im picturing an old folks stampede down the little Streets. :D

The area is already dense for Houston Standards. It is going to get more dense. We just need to have a traffic in mind plan for the inner loop.

Frankly for the bullseye of the 5th largest metropolitan area (actually 4th, cause #4 has two snake bullseyes) in the country, it is too easy to drive here.

Traffic in Houstons core is really not that bad considering how big we are.

Using the traffic argument for that area is weak

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the traffic argument ever fly? I mean, we are a growing city.

We are getting more dense by the second.

Traffic is going to get worse if we are not proactive about it.

Lol, im picturing an old folks stampede down the little Streets. :D

The area is already dense for Houston Standards. It is going to get more dense. We just need to have a traffic in mind plan for the inner loop.

Frankly for the bullseye of the 5th largest metropolitan area (actually 4th, cause #4 has two snake bullseyes) in the country, it is too easy to drive here.

Traffic in Houstons core is really not that bad considering how big we are.

Using the traffic argument for that area is weak

 

All of the above. Ever been to a truly dense city? Trust me, Houston traffic is child's play inside the loop.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the above. Ever been to a truly dense city? Trust me, Houston traffic is child's play inside the loop.

What do you mean trust you? Kid I have forgotten more cities than you probably will ever visit. :P

If you care to read what I wrote you will see that what you are trying to school me in is exactly the same thing that I wrote :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Misread the intention! I meant to highlight all of what you had said as being true :)

I kind of figured, but it was still fun teasing.

What is funny is that the traffic argument is hardly used for poor areas.

What? Poor people don't mind traffic?

The thing is that area is developing fast. Density increases are inevitable that close.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I agree those two buildings are tacky as all hell. Historicism at its worst. However, I will say that the one right on W. Dallas street has really grown on me. It at least has decent proportions and is building that welcomes you to river oaks as drive over the Bayou.

 

As for the center I guess we wait till we see renderings :P

 

I also love the earlier posts about the flood of traffic of old people lol. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the back sides of his buildings. The jail on the bayou is more appealing. And that's not saying much. It's like Randall forgets you can see all four sides of a midrise! Argh... The humanity!

Edited by Dakota79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

dakota79, said/ on 12 May 2014 - 11:58 PM, said:

Like a hospital gown. Showing the butt from behind. Not pretty! Phillip Johnson never did that! Hanover doesn't!

Larry Dierker said "I've seen plenty a pretty butt. But hospital gowns, not so much."

Yes, but we are talking about the backside of a Randall Davis project. You know that ain't pretty!

Edited by Dakota79
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the back sides of his buildings. The jail on the bayou is more appealing. And that's not saying much. It's like Randall forgets you can see all four sides of a midrise! Argh... The humanity!

Forget about the backside of his buildings...have you seen the front side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you all agree that he puts up schlock why were so many upset when I suggested two of his highrises in Uptown were two too many? He has the worst taste and he's spreading it all over town. Enough already!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After perusing their web site, I've realized that I like most Of Randall Davis' buildings.

And I fear I am the only person on this board with good taste.

Gargoyles dude.

Everybody thinks they have common sense and good taste...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Petitioner came by the in-laws house on Gross St (perpendicular to Alpha St in the diagram) trying to drum up support for blocking this development. He said Gross St and Alpha cannot handle the increased traffic/trucks from the delivery/service access at the back on Alpha.

 

Those roads are quite narrow and have adjacent drainage ditches.

 

I have no sympathy for these guys. If they want to control development, they should support zoning.

Edited by toxtethogrady
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Wow.... the back of that Randall Davis project makes this all look like a Syrian war zone. Didn't realize it was that ugly in the back.

 

In Randall Davis's defense (I know I should be hanged for this!), but the architecture he was trying to pay homage too actually did this on a frequent basis where the primary attention was paid to the faces of the building that looked out onto the street and the faces which were concealed in the back, facing interior areas, or facing alleys were less aesthetically important and were therefore more utilitarian in nature. I mean most people when they pass by the building will not be concerned about if there are classical columns around the entire building if it is flushed up against another building or most of that part of the building is out of sight. What makes this example more glaring is that he fails in understanding the massing and compilations of the classical orders in the front and so when the back is now revealed it makes the entire building look bad instead of the opposite (you see this in Downtown. Go look around and for a lot of those older buildings the back parts of the buildings are devoid of ornament or any excess decoration while the front is more adorned and flashy.

 

EDIT: I will also make one more point that Randall Davis's attempt at this style of architecture isn't terrible. Lets not be naive and say that all buildings of that time period got the style right...far far from it. They had their imitators also, but Randall Davis's neo-classical attempts seem so fleeting. The material doesn't reinforce the nature of the style because many of the adornments are so obviously low-end, and that the homage looks more like a greatest hits of classical than a faithful reenactment of the style. It struggles to define it's own period it tries to imitate and that's where it fails most of all. It's not a natural idea, but one you would see a marketing person or board members to think up.

Edited by Luminare
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what leg the plantifs have to stand on...

We don't have zoning....  Touch $h!t Gotham and Renoir..  If you wanted to secure your property values, ya should have bought up the property before the current developer.

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Randall Davis's defense (I know I should be hanged for this!), but the architecture he was trying to pay homage too actually did this on a frequent basis where the primary attention was paid to the faces of the building that looked out onto the street and the faces which were concealed in the back, facing interior areas, or facing alleys were less aesthetically important and were therefore more utilitarian in nature. I mean most people when they pass by the building will not be concerned about if there are classical columns around the entire building if it is flushed up against another building or most of that part of the building is out of sight. What makes this example more glaring is that he fails in understanding the massing and compilations of the classical orders in the front and so when the back is now revealed it makes the entire building look bad instead of the opposite (you see this in Downtown. Go look around and for a lot of those older buildings the back parts of the buildings are devoid of ornament or any excess decoration while the front is more adorned and flashy.

EDIT: I will also make one more point that Randall Davis's attempt at this style of architecture isn't terrible. Lets not be naive and say that all buildings of that time period got the style right...far far from it. They had their imitators also, but Randall Davis's neo-classical attempts seem so fleeting. The material doesn't reinforce the nature of the style because many of the adornments are so obviously low-end, and that the homage looks more like a greatest hits of classical than a faithful reenactment of the style. It struggles to define it's own period it tries to imitate and that's where it fails most of all. It's not a natural idea, but one you would see a marketing person or board members to think up.

I'm going to point out the entrance on Dallas is no where near as ornate and cool looking as the side that faces shepherd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davis didn't figure the view under the skirts would be quite so exposed. :blink:

And any one living in any Randall Davis project had a lot of nerve to gripe about any other project. EVER.

I can believe they are suing to stop it! When will the madness end on trying to control property that you don't own?'

Edited by Dakota79
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested in the allegations....

 

That's quite the grab bag of allegations:  traffic, noise, privacy, cooking odors, building shadow...

 

After the 1717 Bissonnet Ashby highrise ruling this is what we can expect when structures are proposed near wealthy neighbors.  I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, since without zoning there are no other means to protest land uses.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's quite the grab bag of allegations:  traffic, noise, privacy, cooking odors, building shadow...

 

After the 1717 Bissonnet Ashby highrise ruling this is what we can expect when structures are proposed near wealthy neighbors.  I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing, since without zoning there are no other means to protest land uses.  

I could see that being a problem if this weren't nestled in between two mid-rise condo buildings. It's odd, I mean it will be just blocking the view of each other's building, not that of the west/uptown or east/downtown view.

 

Does anyone know if any of the condo owners at the older building (Montrose @ Barkdull), tried to file a lawsuit against the newer one that blocked their Downtown views?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with what you said to a certain extent Subdude, but who made these people God. Nobody jumped up and down in that neighborhood

when those poorly designed, edifices of decadence were erected. I'm sure that the people who lived in the neighborhood weren't excited about having those two large obtrusive buildings blocking out their views or sunlight. They totally changed the scale of a nice little neighborhood, and created serious traffic issues with all their cars on Shepherd. Now if this was a 40 story high rise going up in a

subdivision I'd say they might have an argument but these people need to quit crying in their Crystal. This is going to be a building

of similar scale and proportions to their existing buildings. I can see why their upset though. When they tore down the structure that stood between them it exposed the ugly sides of their trendy digs.

I will give it to them though. They make a real good case for those senior citizens who will be cooking up pots of cabbage.

Nothing worse than living near a rundown old age home for senior citizens, reeking of death and sickness and poorly cooked cabbage. And they're right. Those seniors tend to drop like flies. It will be constant flashing red lights and sirens 24/7. And they really get

rowdy when their in a heated game of Bingo.

Until a couple of years ago our mother lived in a very nice retirement apartment in West U. We visited her at least once or twice a

week and I can honestly say that I never smelled any offensive odors emanating from any of the apartments.

I did notice regular visits by the ambulances, but they always drove in without their sirens on. Now if you want to be kept up at all

hours try living next to a fire station. As for our mother she sits on our porch every day and watches the kids in the park play. I think she takes offense to the way these litigants have labeled senior citizens.

It just smacks me that it's all right if your rich to want everything and get it your way, but god help anybody who tries to do the

same to them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those interested in the allegations....

 

Court pleadings are routinely a repository of turgid prose.  However, saying another building of roughly the same mass as the two adjacent buildings is out of character with the neighborhood is just a hoot - as is complaining about a residential health facility next door, when there's another one in the next block.

 

It's interesting that one the plaintiffs' lawyers signed the verification.  While you can get away with it in state court, it's a bad practice.  In Federal court it will often get you and your firm disqualified, because by signing the verification you just made yourself into a material fact witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Highrise Tower changed the title to The Village Of River Oaks: Senior Living On Shepherd/West, 8-Stories

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...