Jump to content

Office Buildings At 3110-3112 White Oak Dr.


lwood

Recommended Posts

I think the thing about the areas of 19th st to 24th and Yale or so already have the assisted living/hospitals/hospices/office buildings which are multi-floor buildings. I would not and don't have a problem with a 6 story building there..

Now around White Oak.. this is pretty much smack dab in the middle of a neighbourhood.. play nice or go home. This place would stand out like buck teeth.. Let's hope this is just for illustrative purposes and not a real project.

my thought exactly.

if this building was going to be 4 stories, i might be able to accept it, but 13 is too much, esp when all you'll see if you're on the street is parking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question for those who opposed the midrise on Yale at 22nd....If this were proposed as a midrise (no more than 6 stories), would that offend you, too? Just curious.

My concern would be the same, Red. Retreat at the Heights is an improvement to Yale, no doubt. However, it's not an improvement to the neighborhood on W. 22. I would argue that this is not only because of scale, but also due to the fact that there is no "breathe" space. It comes right up to the street and the property to the West. ( See the Google image of the Retreat construction site.) It's also all parking on the lower level. While a building like the one being discussed here might go on White Oak, it would not be kind to the neighbors on Oxford as such a devlopment would have to use this small footprint very efficiently.

I think the thing about the areas of 19th st to 24th and Yale or so already have the assisted living/hospitals/hospices/office buildings which are multi-floor buildings

True. However, per my observation above, they have space around them. These buildings have frontage and are not parked on top of the nearby residents. I never get the feeling these buildings encroach upon the neighborhoods around them thet much (not even Heights Tower which takes ugliness to a bold, new level).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few notes of clarification on the building being discussed:

a. The structure, as currently envisioned, will include first floor retail and parking, probably two floors of parking and six to seven floors of office/studio lease space. The top floor of the garage will be designed for an art gallery, or similar space, with the roof of the garage as outdoor terrace areas.

b. The project is in a very, very early design stage and will be a Class-A "green" structure with early 20th-century details. Equivalent-scaled structures might be the Lancaster downtown or The Plaza in Montrose.

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

f. This is the only information available at this time. Further postings will come in the near future.

Thank you for your interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for your interest.

And thank you for all the juicy details! I wish you the best of luck in seeing this building to fruition. I'm sure that it'll be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood.

Do you think you could make the building a little more slick and modern, though, if only to piss off the squares? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maya-arch: Thanks for the information, and the promise of updates.

There are elements of the proposed building that sound like they might appeal to me and (if I had to guess) to many other Heights residents - the "green" aspect, the period detailing, the ground-floor retail, and the target tenants, for example.

I remain concerned, though, about the scale of the building - both its overall height and the size of the lower four stories of the structure. (If I understand your post correctly, the current plan is to have a lower 4-story structure topped by a 6- to 7-story structure. The bottom floor of the 4-story structure would be retail/parking, the second and third would be parking, and the fourth would possibly be gallery space.)

Again, the updates here will be very much appreciated - but is there any kind of meeting contemplated with local residents during the planning stages in which we would have an opportunity to learn more, ask questions, and offer feedback?

Edited by tmariar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few notes of clarification on the building being discussed:

a. The structure, as currently envisioned, will include first floor retail and parking, probably two floors of parking and six to seven floors of office/studio lease space. The top floor of the garage will be designed for an art gallery, or similar space, with the roof of the garage as outdoor terrace areas.

b. The project is in a very, very early design stage and will be a Class-A "green" structure with early 20th-century details. Equivalent-scaled structures might be the Lancaster downtown or The Plaza in Montrose.

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

f. This is the only information available at this time. Further postings will come in the near future.

Thank you for your interest.

Build it! We will come!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

c. Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine.

d. Project is in commercial district and would only "border" the residential district of the Heights.

e. Since it is primarily an office building there are considerations for the parking to be utilized after-hours by the nighttime oriented buinesses nearby for off-street parking which would limit the intrusion of parking into residential areas.

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't really understand c.) - don't most people who work out of home do so to save money, be around their families, etc? Why would these people want to lease space somewhere? I would expect the money-saving/being at home issue to dominate any commute issues; the Heights isn't exactly BFE

And no, I don't understand the office space market. Are there any similar projects in the city? That newer midrise around Montrose and Richmond comes to mind, but the proposed mix here sounds more interesting if they can pull it off

Anyway, sounds like a cool proposal, but it definitely seems like it'd be way out of scale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really understand c.) - don't most people who work out of home do so to save money, be around their families, etc? Why would these people want to lease space somewhere? I would expect the money-saving/being at home issue to dominate any commute issues; the Heights isn't exactly BFE

If you have more than one or two employees, working at home becomes very difficult. And vendor and client meetings are always at least a little akward, especially if your home isn't a showpeice or you aren't Mr. Clean. Also, a lot of office buildings that serve numerous small tenants (sometimes dubbed 'executive offices') provide common secretarial service.

But a lot of people just need to seperate business from home and family. A short commute and change of venue gives them a chance to shift mindset out of one life and into another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't think I got anything in the mail for my consideration...

As well thought out as this may or may not be, having a midrise on white oak is is honestly going to stick out poorly. There are no other buildings around this area more than 3 stories.

This is not exactly a "commercial district" either. Yes, there are mostly businesses directly fronted on white oak, but they butt up against residences in the rear.

I don't know how tall the Lancaster is, but the Plaza on Montrose was built in 1920 as a hotel and is some 11 stories. The neighborhood eventually built in around it, not the other way around. Plus there are many other multi story complexes around it.

I'll reiterate: this project, if the Heights was the targeted demographic and area, would be much better suited for 19th-24th..

I do see a Ashby-style fight going on here. I'd suggest scale back, or move to another location.

Thanks

---

Edit: Yes. there are 3 story buildings.. this changes everything

Edited by Zippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Plaza and Lancaster (which is akin to the old William Penn Hotel and probably about 10-11 stories) are both classic twenties Houston architecture (and both from Joseph Finger who I really like) - if this goes through it will be interesting to see how their version of a '20s "downtown" building goes with the suburban (back then) residential of the same era.

But yeah, gut reaction to this project is "not that, not there."

Oh - "their" is this group, I believe:

http://www.cisnerosdesignstudio.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As well thought out as this may or may not be, having a midrise on white oak is is honestly going to stick out poorly. There are no other buildings around this area more than 2 stories.

There aren't any 3- or 4-story townhomes at all around there? That doesn't seem right.

This is not exactly a "commercial district" either. Yes, there are mostly businesses directly fronted on white oak, but they butt up against residences in the rear.

Yeah, commercial districts do tend to be spatially finite. And residential areas pick up where they leave off. That's how it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't any 3- or 4-story townhomes at all around there? That doesn't seem right.

Yeah, commercial districts do tend to be spatially finite. And residential areas pick up where they leave off. That's how it works.

And districts tend to be one lot deep?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And districts tend to be one lot deep?

In older neighborhoods, yes, that is very common (i.e. 19th Street, the Westheimer curve, Harrisburg Road, Dowling Street, Upper Almeda, and in places like Austin you have South Congress and S. Lamar, and in San Antonio you have Frederickburg Road, and in Dallas you have the Greenville Road District).

Suburban areas usually have at least some separation, such as a major thoroughfare...I can't understand why an arrangement such as that might be more preferable to you...but if that's what you like, I'd suggest you look for housing in a more contrived neighborhood somewhere in the suburbs. The Woodlands might be to your liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In older neighborhoods, yes, that is very common (i.e. 19th Street, the Westheimer curve, Harrisburg Road, Dowling Street, Upper Almeda, and in places like Austin you have South Congress and S. Lamar, and in San Antonio you have Frederickburg Road, and in Dallas you have the Greenville Road District).

Suburban areas usually have at least some separation, such as a major thoroughfare...I can't understand why an arrangement such as that might be more preferable to you...but if that's what you like, I'd suggest you look for housing in a more contrived neighborhood somewhere in the suburbs. The Woodlands might be to your liking.

So, just to be clear, you're switching from talking of commercial "districts" to individual streets. And you think White Oak is a district in the vein of the Museum District or the Theater District.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, just to be clear, you're switching from talking of commercial "districts" to individual streets. And you think White Oak is a district in the vein of the Museum District or the Theater District.

I don't follow what you're getting at, exactly.

I think that the Lower Greenville Entertainment District in Dallas is a really strong analogy. And look at aerial photos. It is a corridor that is only partially commercial but which is defined entirely by the commercial presence. And it has similar issues with customers parking along residential streets, too.

http://www.greenvilleavenue.org

http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&...1&encType=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like this was well thought out and Heights residents were taken into careful consideration.

I don't think that's fair to say because (at least as far as I know) there has been no meeting or other coordination with residents yet. How can our views have been taken into careful consideration if they haven't been solicited? In fact, it looks like all the Heights residents that have posted here so far have some reservation about the project as currently planned.

It would be disingenuous to dismiss our opinions as NIMBYism given that (1) the target tenants are apparently local residents (meaning this isn't a case of one neighborhood not wanting to host a project that would benefit a larger area), and (2) the more obvious reason why there might be opposition from residents is that many people who live in the Heights do so because they prefer its character to that of neighborhoods in which this project wouldn't be so out of place.

I acknowledged before that there appears to have been some attempt made to take the neighborhood character into consideration in planning this project - perhaps more of an attempt than many developers would make. And yet, no other developer is proposing to build an 11-story building in the middle of White Oak.

I respect the opinions of the non-residents who like the sound of the project - that's great, and I'm sure there are locals who would support it as well. But it does seem reasonable to hope that the developers of a project of this size - especially one targeted for use by current residents - would hold a public information meeting of some kind to provide residents with more information and an opportunity for questions and feedback. If a project was planned for your neighborhood that was exponentially larger than anything previously built there in the past 100+ years, would you not hope for the same?

Here's another photo of the sign that shows the property in relation to Onion Creek, for those who haven't driven by yet:

gallery_2051_88_800896.jpg

Edited by tmariar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's fair to say because (at least as far as I know) there has been no meeting or other coordination with residents yet. How can our views have been taken into careful consideration if they haven't been solicited?
I acknowledged before that there appears to have been some attempt made to take the neighborhood character into consideration in planning this project - perhaps more of an attempt than many developers would make.

Well there you go. Even if a developer has not initiated meetings with a neighborhood group (and btw, those meetings are always a fiasco comprised of people that hate the project with very few that show up that are indifferent even if such people are numerous) it is possible for the developer to forsee and overcome the most likely objections in the design phase. It looks to me like you acknowledge that.

And if you're at all familiar with the political situation in Austin, you might be thankful that a developer would do this of their own volition rather than be essentially forced to hire an ex-politician at exhorbitantly high cost to go out and wine and dine the planning department and city council for the necessary backing. That's an alternative I don't much care for.

It would be disingenuous to dismiss our opinions as NIMBYism given that (1) the target tenants are apparently local residents (meaning this isn't a case of one neighborhood not wanting to host a project that would benefit a larger area), and (2) the more obvious reason why there might be opposition from residents is that many people who live in the Heights do so because they prefer its character to that of neighborhoods in which this project wouldn't be so out of place.

It may be short-sighted to underestimate the scope of their market area. There are not many buildings of the sort that exist, after all, so they may very well be reaching into the Washington Avenue, Montrose, and many other areas. In fact, taking your subsequent statement into account, which was:

If a project was planned for your neighborhood that was exponentially larger than anything previously built there in the past 100+ years, would you not hope for the same?

...it seems like your interpretation of what constitutes the neighborhood is exclusive of the midrises on 19th and 20th Streets. I can assure you that that is too small a market area to draw from...and if we are going to get into it over semantics, I might point out that the person that interjected on this thread with the plans did not identify themselves and may only be the architect or some random consultant; we cannot take their word as that of the developer.

I respect the opinions of the non-residents who like the sound of the project - that's great, and I'm sure there are locals who would support it as well. But it does seem reasonable to hope that the developers of a project of this size - especially one targeted for use by current residents - would hold a public information meeting of some kind to provide residents with more information and an opportunity for questions and feedback.

That is not uncommon in other cities, albeit done under threat of credible political opposition. It is effectively unheard of in Houston unless it is a local government entity seeking federal funds. If you don't like that and would like to change it, I'd still oppose such a policy position, but would welcome you to try. But the reality is that such meetings are still not really expected or required by residents or project stakeholders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you go. Even if a developer has not initiated meetings with a neighborhood group (and btw, those meetings are always a fiasco comprised of people that hate the project with very few that show up that are indifferent even if such people are numerous) it is possible for the developer to forsee and overcome the most likely objections in the design phase. It looks to me like you acknowledge that.

I don't disagree that it's possible for the developer to foresee and overcome the most likely objections in the design phase. But I wasn't going as far as saying that I believe that was done here. I did want to acknowledge that some effort has apparently been made to take the neighborhood into consideration, mainly just to be friendly, but the scale of the building would foreseeably be far and away the major objection of local residents.

It may be short-sighted to underestimate the scope of their market area. There are not many buildings of the sort that exist, after all, so they may very well be reaching into the Washington Avenue, Montrose, and many other areas.

I was just going by maya-arch's: "Target tenants will be neighborhood small businesses and individuals currently doing business in homes, garages, guest rooms, etc...within walking or biking distance and not wanting a heavy commute routine." I'd agree with you that the draw would likely include a larger area. (And there are parts of Washington Ave. and Montrose where I think the building as currently envisioned would be a good fit and welcomed by the immediate neighborhood.) Don't disagree either that maya-arch may be only tangentially related to the project if at all - I'm giving him/her the benefit of the doubt just in case.

That is not uncommon in other cities, albeit done under threat of credible political opposition. It is effectively unheard of in Houston unless it is a local government entity seeking federal funds. If you don't like that and would like to change it, I'd still oppose such a policy position, but would welcome you to try.

Thanks. Though I was actually focused here just on this one building and ways an Ashby-High-Rise-style showdown and all that brings with it might be avoided - thinking maybe the politicians could be kept out of it. I certainly don't think NOT having a public meeting would serve that goal in any way.

Edit: Didn't see the intervening posts. There aren't townhouses "directly behind this lot" are there? - there are houses, I think - I remember one facing Oxford when I walked by, but I didn't turn the corner and am just looking at the satellite image right now. There are townhouses down the street from them that replaced (if I remember right) some scary apartments - but I don't think they extend to the back of the 3110/3122 lots. Probably doesn't make that much difference to your point, though, Red.

Edited by tmariar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh - "their" is this group, I believe:

http://www.cisnerosdesignstudio.com/

A midrise for the Heights (not this project) is shown in their slideshow. Any idea where that one will be located?

If the illustrations are any indication, their designs seem sensitive to and appropriate for the various locations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly don't think NOT having a public meeting would serve that goal in any way.

Having the meeting would have adverse consequences. Only people with a dog in the fight and that care tend to show up. The unaffected or indifferent stay home and the building's future users don't know who they are yet.

It's a mob scene by default and design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't any 3- or 4-story townhomes at all around there? That doesn't seem right.

I don't recall any townhomes on that street being 3 story.. much less townhomes at all!

On 7th - 7 1/2 streets there are some single family houses which are 3 story.. but the closest 3 story townhomes I can think of are up near 14th and heights.. (brownstones)

but I don't think any residential or commercial on White oak are larger than 2 stories.. I may have to look again..

Edit: There are indeed 3 story townhomes in the area.. I'm now willing to accept a 11+ story building in the same area.

Edited by Zippy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't recall any townhomes on that street being 3 story.. much less townhomes at all!

On 7th - 7 1/2 streets there are some single family houses which are 3 story.. but the closest 3 story townhomes I can think of are up near 14th and heights.. (brownstones)

but I don't think any residential or commercial on White oak are larger than 2 stories.. I may have to look again..

I think there's a 3 story across the street on the triangle shaped lot White Oak @ Oxford. I forgot why this might matter though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's a 3 story across the street on the triangle shaped lot White Oak @ Oxford. I forgot why this might matter though.

I think the argument that an 11+ story building would not stand out much if there are already 3-4 story townhomes in the area.. :shrug:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the argument that an 11+ story building would not stand out much if there are already 3-4 story townhomes in the area.. :shrug:

No, I was only impuning your credibility, is all.

And the townhomes on 6 1/2 Street are on the same block as the propsed midrise.

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...