Urbannizer Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 On the planning commission agenda again. SubdivisionPlatPDF_13-0053-PLAT.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 (edited) 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 August 7, 2014 by toxtethogrady Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 It's like Randall forgets you can see all four sides of a midrise! Argh... The humanity! Well, the entrance is at the front door... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted August 7, 2014 Share Posted August 7, 2014 On the planning commission agenda again. SubdivisionPlatPDF_13-0053-PLAT.pdf So we have a name, but no renderings. It's always hard to associate a name without a face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Demolition underway; lawsuit filed. http://swamplot.com/renoir-and-gotham-residents-file-suit-against-company-planning-to-fit-a-senior-living-facility-between-them/2015-03-13/ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 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. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) 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 March 13, 2015 by Luminare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 For those interested in the allegations....64600983.PDF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) 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 March 13, 2015 by Highway6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted March 15, 2015 Share Posted March 15, 2015 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. Davis didn't figure the view under the skirts would be quite so exposed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota79 Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) Davis didn't figure the view under the skirts would be quite so exposed. 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 March 16, 2015 by Dakota79 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mab Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobruss Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WshfulThnkn Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 Wow...if that's an accurate rendering, it's a massive improvement over the Randall Davis building.....which is saying much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted March 20, 2015 Share Posted March 20, 2015 Look at these faces...LOOK AT THEM! How horrible of these people to deny these seniors their senior living building! Oh the humanity! ...but seriously condo owners don't be douchebags... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toxtethogrady Posted March 25, 2015 Share Posted March 25, 2015 For those interested in the allegations.... Are any of them things other Houstonians give a fig about? Frivolous lawsuit. Where are the Americans for Tort Reform? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 Lawsuit withdrawn: http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2015/05/lawsuit-against-senior-living-facility-withdrawn-by-condo-owners/ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted June 30, 2015 Share Posted June 30, 2015 http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2015/06/river-oaks-senior-housing-projects-gets-50-million-for-construction/ 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted July 1, 2015 Share Posted July 1, 2015 They didn't waste any time. Construction started this week. Rebar is on site. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrLan34 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) https://www.bisnow.com/houston/news/deal-sheet/this-weeks-houston-deal-sheet-47690 CBRE’s Aron Will and Austin Sacco secured $50M in construction financing for The Village of River Oaks, a 195-unit, Class-A senior housing community. The floating rate loan through a regional bank includes a six-year term with two years of interest-only and an all-in interest rate of 2.18%. The community is being built by Bridgewood Property Co and Harrison Real Estate Capital and is the first senior housing project built in River Oaks. Aron says it was a challenging deal but will be one of the highest-quality senior housing assets in the state. Edited July 8, 2015 by DrLan34 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted July 20, 2015 Share Posted July 20, 2015 I found the site plan they used for the variance request. See attached file.Village_of_River_Oaks_Plan.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 Tower crane base is on site. I'd take some photos but it would give away my address. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted August 15, 2015 Share Posted August 15, 2015 20150815_152436 by Not.Larry Dierker, on Flickr 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted August 28, 2015 Share Posted August 28, 2015 Tower crane is going up as we speak. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hindesky Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Tower crane is going up as we speak. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Good photograph of the not so photographic back side of a Randall Davis property. 2 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.