Office Buildings At 3110-3112 White Oak Dr.

[fwki]

First post..I came across this thread while trying to confirm a story I heard this week about a planned development on White Oak, and I thought this was it. However I realized that this group is discussing development to the west of OC and what I heard from a White Oak business owner was very specific about a similar development to the east of OC. More specifically, the lady that owns the strip center east of Charlies Liquor (White Oak Bakery etc), the Camphouse BBQ property, and the adjacent commercial building (with the black iron fence) along with the empty lot across the street next to the ditch...has signed a contract to sell it all to a single developer. Additionally, the developer has plans similar to the Rizk project on the west (mixed use high rise) but that the empty lot on the south side of White Oak is planned to be a parking garage. The business owner I talked to spoke directly to the seller, so this is all third-hand information. I'll ask for more specifics, but in the meantime, I suggest we get independent corroboration before the hand-wringing starts.

[tmariar]

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.

I'm sure you're right about the unaffected and indifferent not attending, but don't see how that's a bad thing. And even if we agree that the target market is broader than those within walking or biking distance as suggested by maya-arch (hence the need for the multi-story parking garage), wouldn't potential users know who they are?

I'll admit not to having been to a public information meeting before - have only read accounts of them. I think that you're right that, unless required by law, they tend to happen only when political pressure grows to a certain point - meaning a stage at which the various interest groups have organized and become intransigent. While I wouldn't say such meetings are doomed to failure by nature or design, at that stage I can see why they would be less effective.

But what about an earlier-stage meeting, when the developers' plans might not be set in stone and the residents and market area are still looking primarily for information and to voice generalized concerns? Do you see any non-pollyannaish reasons why the developer for this particular building might benefit from an early-stage meeting, assuming for the purposes of discussion that things will follow an Ashby course otherwise (the Heights being lousy with lawyers, so to speak)? Learning something about their target market's needs/preferences? Gauging opposition? The political expedience later in the process of having already had a public meeting (when any opposition is still grass-roots)?

Here's a photo of the 3-story on the southwest corner of the intersection - on the "triangle" created by the old train tracks, so you're seeing 2 of just 3 sides - currently the tallest building on White Oak, that I can think of. I can't even think of another 2-story building on White Oak as I sit here other than Fitzgerald's (built in 1918 as a Polish social center - Dom Polanski).

Fwki - Welcome and thanks for the info - very interesting.

[ricco67]

I'll ask for more specifics, but in the meantime, I suggest we get independent corroboration before the hand-wringing starts.

First off, welcome to the HAIF...say goodbye to your life.

Second, I think the sign is really the only thing that can be confirmed and is a pretty good sized clue. Stick around, prepare to lose some sleep and keep and eye on this.

[TheNiche]

And even if we agree that the target market is broader than those within walking or biking distance as suggested by maya-arch (hence the need for the multi-story parking garage), wouldn't potential users know who they are?

The parking garage is necessary to conform to city codes. See Article VIII Division I Section 26-492 of the municipal ordinances. There's no getting around that.

But what about an earlier-stage meeting, when the developers' plans might not be set in stone and the residents and market area are still looking primarily for information and to voice generalized concerns? Do you see any non-pollyannaish reasons why the developer for this particular building might benefit from an early-stage meeting, assuming for the purposes of discussion that things will follow an Ashby course otherwise (the Heights being lousy with lawyers, so to speak)? Learning something about their target market's needs/preferences? Gauging opposition? The political expedience later in the process of having already had a public meeting (when any opposition is still grass-roots)?

The target market is pretty easy to pin down with study and informal one-on-one meetings. And the nature of the opposition is pretty easy to figure out, just looking at Ashby as a model for neighborhood resistance. And having had a meeting is not the least bit to the developer's benefit if it didn't go well and allows opposition to coalless early on.

The best approach for the developer would probably be to propose something outlandish, have meetings, ensure that a big stink is made about it, and then to 'cave in' to residents so that something of moderate size can be built that would've also been difficult to get permits for if that's how they had started out. But that approach would be dishonest; I don't think that route appeals to anybody.

[Tiko]

The target market is pretty easy to pin down with study and informal one-on-one meetings. And the nature of the opposition is pretty easy to figure out, just looking at Ashby as a model for neighborhood resistance. And having had a meeting is not the least bit to the developer's benefit if it didn't go well and allows opposition to coalless early on.

Here's to the opposition going coalless early on...Houston has enough of an emissions problem already.

[Zippy]

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.

Ah.. I apologize... I'll fix my previous post and say there is nothing larger than a 3 story building in that same area. This makes all the difference, I'll now accept a 11+ story tower in the middle of da hood..

Edited June 26, 2008 by Zippy

[TheNiche]

Here's to the opposition going coalless early on...Houston has enough of an emissions problem already.

Emissions?

[20thStDad]

The target market is pretty easy to pin down with study and informal one-on-one meetings. And the nature of the opposition is pretty easy to figure out, just looking at Ashby as a model for neighborhood resistance. And having had a meeting is not the least bit to the developer's benefit if it didn't go well and allows opposition to coalless early on.

Coal-less = less emissions from combustion of fossil fuel

Coalesce = get together, gel

[ricco67]

Emissions?

must be talking about cows in the pasture or something.

[tmariar]

First post..I came across this thread while trying to confirm a story I heard this week about a planned development on White Oak, and I thought this was it. However I realized that this group is discussing development to the west of OC and what I heard from a White Oak business owner was very specific about a similar development to the east of OC. More specifically, the lady that owns the strip center east of Charlies Liquor (White Oak Bakery etc), the Camphouse BBQ property, and the adjacent commercial building (with the black iron fence) along with the empty lot across the street next to the ditch...has signed a contract to sell it all to a single developer. Additionally, the developer has plans similar to the Rizk project on the west (mixed use high rise) but that the empty lot on the south side of White Oak is planned to be a parking garage. The business owner I talked to spoke directly to the seller, so this is all third-hand information. I'll ask for more specifics, but in the meantime, I suggest we get independent corroboration before the hand-wringing starts.

The Geoff Vaughan property (the primary subject of the thread to this point) is outlined in red below.

Outlined in purple is property owned by the "Ralph S. Burroughs Family Trust c/o Alice S. Burroughs" on the north and south side of White Oak, according to HCAD.

[woodheightsguy]

The Geoff Vaughan property (the primary subject of the thread to this point) is outlined in red below.

Outlined in purple is property owned by the "Ralph S. Burroughs Family Trust c/o Alice S. Burroughs" on the north and south side of White Oak, according to HCAD.

Personally, I would like to see that area east of o.c. be developed. There is nothing in there that is very useful, the potential for that space is great, just have to see what the plans are and how that potential is realized. Feel free to knock down Fitz's as well, while they're at it.

[HeightsGuy]

I'm not sure White Oak is the best example of historical integrity.

Bingo! I'll even go so far as to say White Oak (at least that part) is more business than residential, and if your going to put this somewhere better here than most other places in the area. Exhibit A should be Heights House. Yes, ugly as sin if you're not into that sort of thing, but a 10 story apartment complex that has been a part of the neighborhood for decades with standard housing next to and behind it.

Also, think of this. Maybe, just maybe going higher density here saves a house or two deeper in the neighborhood.

[heights_yankee]

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?

i pretty much agree with this sentiment. possibly this developer is trying to make it "look" like he cares for the neighborhood, lulling people in to complacency b/c they will think "well, he has clearly consulted my neighbors and has the area's best interest in mind." maybe this developer is an anomaly, but most developers only have one thing in mind- their bottom line.

[RedScare]

Personally, I would like to see that area east of o.c. be developed. There is nothing in there that is very useful, the potential for that space is great, just have to see what the plans are and how that potential is realized. Feel free to knock down Fitz's as well, while they're at it.

Absolutely. That stretch of road is just hideous (no offence to the Burroughs family). If the price of dynamiting that largely useless and ugly stretch of White Oak (located conveniently in a wet area) is a brand new midrise that looks old, I'd say it is a small price to pay. And, if a midrise locates here, one at the corner of Oxford would not appear out of place.

If this were occurring on some of the interior residential streets, the opposition would be obvious, and I would join in. However, the commercial and high traffic streets should be treated differently, as they ARE different. There is nothing quaint about a high traffic street, and as for historical, these are commercial thoroughfares.

If they redevelop the Burroughs property, which I hope for, there is no rational reason for me to oppose redevelopment 100 feet to the west. In fact, the CURRENT makeup of the Burroughs property pretty well takes away any claims to historical character to that whole block.

[Melwood]

...Feel free to knock down Fitz's as well, while they're at it.

Why would you want to knock down Fitzgerald's? It's a good place to see a show.

[heights_yankee]

Absolutely. That stretch of road is just hideous (no offence to the Burroughs family). If the price of dynamiting that largely useless and ugly stretch of White Oak (located conveniently in a wet area) is a brand new midrise that looks old, I'd say it is a small price to pay. And, if a midrise locates here, one at the corner of Oxford would not appear out of place.

If this were occurring on some of the interior residential streets, the opposition would be obvious, and I would join in. However, the commercial and high traffic streets should be treated differently, as they ARE different. There is nothing quaint about a high traffic street, and as for historical, these are commercial thoroughfares.

If they redevelop the Burroughs property, which I hope for, there is no rational reason for me to oppose redevelopment 100 feet to the west. In fact, the CURRENT makeup of the Burroughs property pretty well takes away any claims to historical character to that whole block.

i agree. i am not at all opposed to development- especially on these busy street (i love what's happening on studewood and think that those allegro type building all up and down white oak would certainly be an improvement).

i just think 13 stories looming over the neighborhood is a little much. i mean, all the people for at least 3 blocks behind will no longer have any privacy in their back yards. that sucks.

[tmariar]

Absolutely. That stretch of road is just hideous (no offence to the Burroughs family). If the price of dynamiting that largely useless and ugly stretch of White Oak (located conveniently in a wet area) is a brand new midrise that looks old, I'd say it is a small price to pay. And, if a midrise locates here, one at the corner of Oxford would not appear out of place.

If this were occurring on some of the interior residential streets, the opposition would be obvious, and I would join in. However, the commercial and high traffic streets should be treated differently, as they ARE different. There is nothing quaint about a high traffic street, and as for historical, these are commercial thoroughfares.

If they redevelop the Burroughs property, which I hope for, there is no rational reason for me to oppose redevelopment 100 feet to the west. In fact, the CURRENT makeup of the Burroughs property pretty well takes away any claims to historical character to that whole block.

This is just based on a vague recollection of when I looked at HCAD on those properties a year or so ago, but I think the Burroughs family may not have owned all the property it currently does on White Oak for that long. I don't mind the businesses that are/were there - a White Oak Bakery or a Camphouse BBQ is unlikely to be able to afford space in a new development, which will have higher rent. I stopped off for barbecue at Camphouse far more often than I go to, say, McCain's or Glass Wall (though, Heights Yankee, I like the look of the Glass Wall building, too - they did a good job on that). But it's not lost on me that an anti-yuppification platform is not going to get me very far in light of the changing demographics.

And my concerns about the Vaughan project and the (unconfirmed) Burroughs project aren't so much about preservation of the structures that they will replace (though, yes, I also do hate to see 1920's houses and even warehouses torn down instead of updated), but about the scale of the projects. If you start putting up multi-story buildings on a street as tightly parceled as White Oak, then what you're going to be seeing at ground level (and/or 2-4 stories up) is parking garages. I think it's impossible to make a multi-story parking garage that would not look as jarring and out-of-place on White Oak as the Disneyesque rows of neo-Victorians do among the bungalows on the interior streets (sorry, no offense intended). And call White Oak a commercial district all you want, and add all the period touches you can, but I'd say the same thing about any building on White Oak that gets much over 4-5 stories tall - though I'd probably take a 6-story building over a shorter multi-story parking garage.

While I think there's more to it than just personal aesthetics, opinions on these issues are obviously going to vary. I'm not going to say that tall buildings on White Oak would ruin the neighborhood or anything like that, but I do feel strongly enough to want to find out as much as I can and have as much input in the process as possible. Seems like learning more is the key thing to be doing now - though I don't think it's premature to be getting the word out as well.

If anyone is interested in coordinating on at least getting more information, feel free to PM me. Maybe we can exchange some thoughts or, if there seems to be a lot of interest, meet to talk at OC or something.

[Tiko]

If they redevelop the Burroughs property, which I hope for, there is no rational reason for me to oppose redevelopment 100 feet to the west. In fact, the CURRENT makeup of the Burroughs property pretty well takes away any claims to historical character to that whole block.

Does the current makeup of the property at 10th and Columbia take away any claims to the historical character of that part of the neighborhood?

[RedScare]

Does the current makeup of the property at 10th and Columbia take away any claims to the historical character of that part of the neighborhood?

If you are asking my thoughts on demolishing the building and putting up a midrise at that location, my response is that I will drive the bulldozer. The property at 10th and Columbia, like the strip centers and warehouse on White Oak, adds nothing to the neighborhood (well, with the exception of the sounds of gunfire). New construction at both locations not only will not detract from the neighborhood, but will add value to the neighborhood.

These attempts to characterize ANY demolition and new construction in the neighborhood as detrimental could not be more misguided. It is a case by case analysis. Demolition of degraded structures with little or no historical significance does not destrot the neighborhood.

I do NOT find a 13 story structure to be the best replacement for those buildings by a long shot. It seems to be out of scale for the lots. A midrise, however, might be. I'm sorry if my refusal to be boxed in by single-minded approaches to aesthetics offends you or my other neighbors. While my house came with numerous deed restrictions, toeing the HHA party line was not one of them.

[fwki]

The business owner I talked to spoke directly to the seller, so this is all third-hand information. I'll ask for more specifics...

Additional details: The Burroughs property is under contract until expiry sometime this July without positive action, e.g. extension, etc. The seller understands that the buyer is having issues with the city on the southern parcel which encompasses "the ditch", and that is holding up the deal. It's not clear what those issues are (wetlands?).

As an aside, 6-7 years ago I witnessed some U of H students clearing and excavating the west side of "the ditch" over a period of several weeks (across from Jimmies). They came up with what looked like cement steps leading down to a mooring area. I spoke with one student and she said that they were investigating the site which was used to bring supplies and ice to the area, and naturally it became a social gathering place. Apparently "the ditch" was once navigable when White Oak Bayou was controlled at a higher level than today.

[tmariar]

I'm sorry if my refusal to be boxed in by single-minded approaches to aesthetics offends you or my other neighbors. While my house came with numerous deed restrictions, toeing the HHA party line was not one of them.

I don't even know what the HHA party line is, but if it's against all demolitions and new constructions, that does seem short-sighted. I haven't seen much evidence of that attitude in this thread, though. Or that much aesthetic single-mindedness among the Heights residents posting, really, other than that the scale of a new construction on White Oak would be a factor in our opinion of its desirability.

If something you considered too big turns out to be in the works for White Oak, will you fight against it? I'm just wondering how many will. If there were a non-judgmental emoticon, it would go here - obviously, there's only so much time in the day, and there are so many things not right in the world, and who relishes a fight with developers? Often people will fight something like this only if the construction will hurt them financially, and I'm not sure parking garages or a big building on White Oak would damage property values other than in the very immediate surrounding area - the adjoining lots and perhaps a little further out - and that's probably not even true uniformly. If there were a public parking garage next to Jimmy's, maybe that would up the commercial value of the adjoining lots.

Heck, maybe all our property values will go up. Then I can pay that much more in property taxes. Yay.

I'm on vacation this week, and have spent way too much time thinking and typing about this already - just thought I'd make the observation that there hasn't exactly been a wave of anti-development frenzy overtaking the thread. My above offer still stands, though - if there is anyone who wants to coordinate on finding out more information about what's planned for White Oak, I'm in.

Fwki - Just saw your new post. Again, very interesting info (to me at least) - thanks! Looking at the 1922 topo map, it does look like the "ditch" (probably what's been called Gostick Gully) used to be more prominent, and that the south White Oak Burroughs lot is essentially right on top. I marked it, White Oak, and Oxford in red on the below:

Edited June 27, 2008 by tmariar

[RedScare]

If I considered the building unsuitable for any number of reasons, of course I would oppose it. I have no problem duking it out. I do it for a living. I suspect that since I have a much more laissez faire attitude toward these things than many of my neighbors, the fight would be taken up long before I got offended. Driving through the hood on my way home from my tax protest (good news! Your land values are going way up!), I was picking out which structures I wanted kept, and which ones they could bulldoze without me blinking. The architecturally significant ones get to stay. The 70s tilt walls can go. But, I was amazed at the number of clearly non-historical structures that I believe make up the quirkiness of the Heights....and, it could include the buildings on White Oak. But, at the same time, they could go away without hurting my feelings either.

[TheNiche]

If you start putting up multi-story buildings on a street as tightly parceled as White Oak, then what you're going to be seeing at ground level (and/or 2-4 stories up) is parking garages.

Not if there's retail on the ground level, as is planned.

Above that, a lot of things can be done to the side of a parking garage. Want to clad it in mirrored curtain wall? Done. Want to go totally minimalist with architectural concrete? Done. Want to place a brick facade complete with fake wndows and ledges on it? Done. That is not an issue at all, regardless of your personal tastes.

[tmariar]

Not if there's retail on the ground level, as is planned.

Above that, a lot of things can be done to the side of a parking garage. Want to clad it in mirrored curtain wall? Done. Want to go totally minimalist with architectural concrete? Done. Want to place a brick facade complete with fake wndows and ledges on it? Done. That is not an issue at all, regardless of your personal tastes.

Putting the parking garage on floors 2-4 instead of 1-3 doesn't make a big difference to me - it simply forces the building higher. I like the idea of ground-floor retail generally speaking, but if there's a height trade-off to be considered, depending on the height we're talking, I might not always side in favor of ground-floor retail. I'd have to know more.

As for my personal tastes, they are just that, as I've stated repeatedly. I try to avoid purporting to speak on behalf of anyone else on this topic, much less as the voice of objective truth on what is and is not an issue. And to be respectful of others' views, hoping to receive the same courtesy in return.

Going to try to get back to my vacation. In case I manage to stay away from the computer for a while, hope y'all have a great weekend. Red, hope you got some relief from your protest.

[TheNiche]

Putting the parking garage on floors 2-4 instead of 1-3 doesn't make a big difference to me - it simply forces the building higher. I like the idea of ground-floor retail generally speaking, but if there's a height trade-off to be considered, depending on the height we're talking, I might not always side in favor of ground-floor retail. I'd have to know more.

So...you'd rather have an 11-story building without ground-floor retail than a 12-story building with retail? Doesn't seem like one additional story of height makes all that much of a difference. And it would seem like ground-level retail would be far preferable to a blank wall.

I'll grant you that different people have different tastes, but that kind of a tradeoff just seems like a no-brainer.

[tmariar]

I think it would depend on the height, what the retail was likely to be, and other things. If it were just an 11-story building like the tower in the rendering, yeah, I'd say might as well add a story and put some retail at the base. What really jumped out at me in the Vaughan rendering, though - right after the height - was the large 4-story base of the building, which looked liked it took up most of the property, was all parking garage, and to me not that attractive. I just imagined sitting out at one of the picnic tables at Onion Creek and having that looming over me, and it was a visceral reaction (same as the idea of looking up at that tower from my back deck). Don't know whether I'd rather have the base be 3 stories and no ground-level retail - it's probably an easy call for some people, I'm just saying it's not an easy call for me - that extra story on a base of those dimensions is a lot of extra bulk. And, as I keep thinking, out of scale with what's around it.

I just don't like the idea of multi-story parking garages fronting that street (at ground level or just above) in general. Maybe those closer are having a big problem with people parking in front of their houses, though, and any neighborhood opposition will coalesce around the height/scale issue and not the parking garage issue. So be it. To me, if a parking garage is essential, I'd rather someone build one that has a little more space to work with, so it might be placed somewhere less dominant. If everything now on the North Burroughs property were to be replaced by two strings of 3-story or even 4-story mixed-use buildings with a 3-story parking garage in the middle - and the Vaughan property replaced with a similar height building but no full-lot parking garage - it wouldn't be that big of a deal to me, and would seem to be a better fit and more natural in terms of growth on White Oak. A parking garage on the south side of the street, pushed toward the back of the Burroughs property, also wouldn't be a big aesthetic issue for me - though it might for the people whose houses are right there.

It remains to be seen what issues if any the neighborhood will find important, mutual, and realistic enough to get behind (one of the reasons I'm interested in others' opinions). I'd give way to the majority view, as we'd have to unite to do any good, I imagine. But for there to be a majority view, I guess we have to have individual opinions - and so those are mine, for what they're worth. Surely they can't be "wrong" in any objective sense, Niche. Tell me that I'm likely to find myself the extremist amongst my neighbors, and I'll say you may well be right.

[Porchman]

From Today's Chron Real Estate section...

Some Wary of Heights Proposal

My favorite quote:

"[Tim] Cisneros has been involved in some of the controversial developments, in part, he said, so he can be a positive influence to developers."

Oh, I get it. He's Tim X!

[UpperEastSideNewbie]

I lived in Woodland Heights in the late 90's and it was frustrating the lack of retail in the area.

Then, I had to drive to Montrose or Galleria area to do my shopping and to run errands.

I guess most people that live in the Heights would rather drive, as I did then, then to welcome new retail/commercial development in the area.

My advise to the developer is to find a site on Washington Ave. or Near East End where they will be welcomed with open arms.

Edited June 29, 2008 by UpperEastSideNewbie

[heights_yankee]

i gotta tell ya, i was driving up montrose earlier today and, as i drove by the 8 story condo building next to pronto (at W Gray) it really hit me hard how bad something like that would look on white oak. i mean, that building is only 8 stories and it looms over the road, even though that is a very busy, built up area. additionally, the scale at which even 3 or 4 stories are built by a lot of these developers makes them much bigger than just their number of floors. drive down washington and look at some of the new commercial buildings with only 3 floors, but they are monstrous.

i honestly *do* encourage development in the heights, but it has to be fitting to the area. to repeat my earlier comment, anything over 4 stories clearly removes any semblance of privacy for the people who live behind there. those are the people who really need to get interested in this project...

[lockmat]

http://www.houstonheights.org/newsletter/index.htm