EMES Place- Inner Loop Condos Development On Frasier St.

[fwki]

Just a wild guess, but there's a lot more demand in the area for housing, so they can easily sell the added investment requirement since they'll get it back with higher rents on the other side?

That makes sense. But if that is what has changed, why propose the Frazier entrance this time? Bait and Switch? They KNEW the Freelanders would raise hell and thus setup the trade they wanted which was the 5th Street variances: private street, limited public frontage. If so, nice maneuver.

[samagon]

who knows, but maybe the frazier would have been cheaper? try to work the cheaper option, if that doesn't work, then go with the expensive one?

[west20th]

I do like how RUDH has been pushed and prodded back to where their stated goals no longer reflect their ridiculous "mixed use, pedestrian, blah blah" stuff and now shows them for who we knew they were all along...

"We are a community organization devoted to preserving the character, traditions, and appearance of the Heights and West End neighborhoods in Houston."

Can't get any more vague than that. So they can be for or against anything with no real criteria to explain why.

[TGM]

That makes sense. But if that is what has changed, why propose the Frazier entrance this time? Bait and Switch? They KNEW the Freelanders would raise hell and thus setup the trade they wanted which was the 5th Street variances: private street, limited public frontage. If so, nice maneuver.

Maybe Olberman can be hired to give a play by play and special comments on all Heights area construction projects.

[fwki]

Maybe Olberman can be hired to give a play by play and special comments on all Heights area construction projects.

He'd have us all in a commune....."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Except those in old houses, screw them."

[RedScare]

Rents in Houston have climbed rapidly over the past few years as demand for apartments have outstripped new units coming on line. Rents are starting to reach a threshold that takes Houston to a level of cost of living that is more in line with big cities in the East and West. Sure, Houston has great restaurants, mild winters, and so on and so forth. But Houston's real edge in competing against other cities for big employers is Houston's low cost of living. A large mixed use development over almost 40 acres could have easily provided 800-1500 additional rental housing units or condos while still providing the same amount of retail space. The current building boom in multi-family housing is not sufficient to meet the growing demand. And there is a rapidly diminishing supply of available land inside the loop west of downtown that could make up for the housing that is lost by strip malling up almost 40 acres of prime real estate. The distorted utopian view is the idea that the magical market fairy will make everything right and that there are no consequences and externalities in land use decisions.

You should have thought of this when you were complaining about historic districts, 6 story condos on Studewood, and the Ashby highrise...oh, and the complex on W. 5th that is the subject of this thread. You cannot complain about not enough apartments on Yale while complaining about condos on 5th...without sounding like a complete and utter hypocrite.

[SilverJK]

Rents in Houston have climbed rapidly over the past few years as demand for apartments have outstripped new units coming on line. Rents are starting to reach a threshold that takes Houston to a level of cost of living that is more in line with big cities in the East and West. Sure, Houston has great restaurants, mild winters, and so on and so forth. But Houston's real edge in competing against other cities for big employers is Houston's low cost of living. A large mixed use development over almost 40 acres could have easily provided 800-1500 additional rental housing units or condos while still providing the same amount of retail space. The current building boom in multi-family housing is not sufficient to meet the growing demand. And there is a rapidly diminishing supply of available land inside the loop west of downtown that could make up for the housing that is lost by strip malling up almost 40 acres of prime real estate. The distorted utopian view is the idea that the magical market fairy will make everything right and that there are no consequences and externalities in land use decisions.

WOW.

So much just blatantly wrong with this post I don't even know where to start... I mean are you for real or are you just a habitual HAIF troll?

How much multi-family construction is happening right now? If the demand isn't met with this current boom... they will just find more available land, commecrical businesses, and dilapidated garden apartments and replace them with more dense multi-family residences.

"Rapidly diminishing supply of available land" from the same person who says contruction like that on studewood and 11th street can pop up ANYWHERE in the Heights. HAH

[swtsig]

Blantant pro-developer right-wing talk radio sheep. I bet you post this when ever anyone makes a critique about a development that you cannot respond to intelligently.

you must be confusing your ability to spew the same biased nonsense ad naseum as "intelligent" responses... no surprise there. love the "pro-developer right-wing talk show radio sheep" bit, though - you really nailed it... you know, save for the whole "right-wing talk radio sheep" part since i've never considered NPR and pacifica radio to be your typical right-wing talk radio.

[TGM]

There is always someone out there trying to

[JJxvi]

[RedScare]

[SilverJK]

Ok, I have beef with the anti EMES Place people. These people have posted bright pink LAMINATED pieces of paper outlining their silly opinion. Since most people immediately disregard these papers they seem to end up as trash pretty quickly. I saw two of them on the sides of White Oak, and one of them on the Bike trail. Thanks for laminating these, now they will take forever to decompose once they end up in our waterways (hey, just running with your logic). If your gonna post your nonsense about saving greenspace and etc., please have the courtesy of using recycled paper that isn't coated with weather proof plastic, some of us actually care about the neighborhood. = ]

btw, the one I saw on the bikepath was facing text side down in grass off to the side... I removed it, folded it up and put it in my pocket (not easy since it was laminated) and later disposed of it properly.

[kylejack]

So why is this evil whereas the 400 unit Camden right down the street on Oxford was okay?

[JJxvi]

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Revived-condo-project-upsets-Heights-residents-3937602.php

[LandArch]

Response to KyleJack:

While I'll address neither as "evil" comparisons may find one more inappropriate.

Camden:

Built without Variances from Chapter 42 of the City Planning Commission

2 Full cul-de sac's with required 60' turning radius for emergency vehicles

Contiguous sidewalks and ADA access

Parking outside of a flood plain

Full requirement of frontage for a commercial project

4 stories tall

Access off Interstate 10

Innerloop:

3 Variances required because they dont meet standards of Chapter 42 of the City Planning Commission

No cul-de sac for emergency entrance and egress

No sidewalk leading to property

No wheelchair access over a 100' span bridge. Wheelchairs use street same as cars

Parking in a flood plain

No required 60' of frontage for a commercial property (They have 35')

9 stories tall

Access off an 18' paved street with 6 homes adjoining a historical district.

OK, not evil, just inappropriate. Insufficient access to an inappropriate development.

[RedScare]

http://www.chron.com...nts-3937602.php

Mr. Mosley is quite the hypocrite, isn't he? For those unaware, Gary Mosley is the owner of Onion Creek, source of a large slice of that traffic that he complains of.

[Marksmu]

Mr. Mosley is quite the hypocrite, isn't he? For those unaware, Gary Mosley is the owner of Onion Creek, source of a large slice of that traffic that he complains of.

It is quite Ironic that someone would complain about something that he created and continues to profit from....the ultimate NIMBY.

[fwki]

And he fought the Onion Creek adjoining neighbors tooth and nail to get his permits. They did not want a loud, late-night clap trap a few feet away from their homes. It was a big deal. Now I am firmly in the Innerloop camp.

[LandArch]

reply to fwki:

I can understand your point with Mr. Mosely. Before joining the Innerloop camp I ask you consider the following two points:

#1 My nephew lives on East 5th across from Mr. Mosely. He requires a wheelchair. Living on this dead end is ideal. This doesn't necessarily mean the street stays undeveloped because of a boy that requires ADA compliance, that's ludicrous. However wouldn't it be great for a city to enforce its own city planning regulations? This developer is asking for variances out of the normal rules. There will be a 28' bridge with NO SIDEWALKS? East 5th is 18' wide. A fire truck is 12' wide. The Fire Marshall says the chauffers of the ladder trucks need 15' The issue here is why does this developer deserve variance from Chapter 42, not Gary Mosely.

#2 There will be new residents in this 9 story condo with 84 units. Do these new residents really understand they are buying a building that asked the city for a variance for no cul-de sac for a fire truck to turn around in? Do these new residents understand they are parking in a flood plain? Do these new residents know that the Fire Marshall prefers two points of access and this development only has one?

Gary Mosely is only sensationalism of the media. The real story that doesn't make the news is just how inadequate the access is to such an inappropriate development. I'm not camping with Innerloop, they're scum.

[fwki]

Realistically the plan has to be to cut a deal with Innerloop since there is very little chance of stopping them from developing their property. But you cannot have the attitude that the other side is scum and work with them at the same time. Keep the hypocrites out of it and cut a deal. If the cul-de sac and ADA sidewalk is doable, go for it, but things like 60' of frontage is not doable, so drop it. So from Kelly's Heroes:

Crapgame: Then make a DEAL!

Big Joe: What kind of deal?

Crapgame: A DEAL, deal! Maybe the guy's a Republican. "Business is business," right?

[LandArch]

You are correct. Best I keep personal emotions out of it. Thank you for good advice.

We asked Innerloop to scale down the project eight years ago when they originally asked for variances to build 62 units. They said financially that wasn't possible, afterall they are a multi-family developer. After finding that required variances proved difficult, they withdrew their application and sought access from Frasier and Granberry Streets. This new plat required no variances and was approved.

Innerloop did not build within the time allowed, the approved Frasier and Granberry plat expired. Innerloop sought the same route again and found a well prepared group of neighbors in strong opposition. Next, Innerloop withdraws that access and tries again for 5th. So do they go to the side of least resistance? Seems so. East 5th has only 6 homes.

The solution for everyone here is to scale down. Neither point of access can handle 84 units safely. Local developers passed on this land multiple times because of difficult access. Why cram 84 units in a flood prone 1.3 acres with limited access? East 5th only has 35'. Why won't they build a cul-de sac you ask? Because it won't fit with this number of units.

We have Chapter 42 for a reason. Lets live by our rules of our city. Would I ask Innerloop to build 6 single family homes? Yes. Thats a great solution on this piece of property. Are we truly a world class city? Grant variances where they make good common sense and thats a start.

[SilverJK]

Mr. Mosley is a joke, he lives in new contruction and complains about new construction, opens a bar and complains about other bars and additional traffic.

I'm unsure how this new development impact anyone in a wheelchair, unless they live in the new development...

[Pleak]

And as for point #2. Welcome to Houston. Everything from the Katy prairie eastward to the gulf is a flood plain. Just because you live in the Heights doesn't mean squat. Tha's a land speculator's joke from the turn of the last century to draw people out to the beautiful suburbs from the teeming cities of Houston and Harrisburg to his new development on a low rise on the banks of a drainage ditch.

Basically everything in Houston is susceptible to flooding at some point in time or another. It is the luck of the draw. If TS Allison or the Alvin event of 1980 (79?) happened over the Heights instead of where they dumped their loads, the only thing that would save you would be your second story. Houston is flat as a pancake, is paved over, what soil is left does not absorb water, and has inadequate drainage. It always has flooded and always will.

So when it rains - move your car.

[kylejack]

Hm, I guess I need to study the plan more. Anyone have a good link to it? What's this about no sidewalks? I don't like NIMBYs, but I do like sidewalks.

[TGM]

Revived condo project upsets Heights residents

http://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Revived-condo-project-upsets-Heights-residents-3937602.php

[Marksmu]

You are correct. Best I keep personal emotions out of it. Thank you for good advice.

We asked Innerloop to scale down the project eight years ago when they originally asked for variances to build 62 units. They said financially that wasn't possible, afterall they are a multi-family developer. After finding that required variances proved difficult, they withdrew their application and sought access from Frasier and Granberry Streets. This new plat required no variances and was approved.

Innerloop did not build within the time allowed, the approved Frasier and Granberry plat expired. Innerloop sought the same route again and found a well prepared group of neighbors in strong opposition. Next, Innerloop withdraws that access and tries again for 5th. So do they go to the side of least resistance? Seems so. East 5th has only 6 homes.

The solution for everyone here is to scale down. Neither point of access can handle 84 units safely. Local developers passed on this land multiple times because of difficult access. Why cram 84 units in a flood prone 1.3 acres with limited access? East 5th only has 35'. Why won't they build a cul-de sac you ask? Because it won't fit with this number of units.

We have Chapter 42 for a reason. Lets live by our rules of our city. Would I ask Innerloop to build 6 single family homes? Yes. Thats a great solution on this piece of property. Are we truly a world class city? Grant variances where they make good common sense and thats a start.

A few thoughts here:

1. 84 units is at most 200-300 cars total. Is that an enormous increase in traffic over your current situation that sees 20-30 cars? Yes it is...However, it is not too many vehicles for a street with two exits. The quantity of traffic argument is silly - it will be MORE traffic than you currently have, but it will not be unbearable, or even high quantities of traffic...just more...its a non-argument.

2. The floodplain argument should not matter at all...84 units, 2 parking spots per unit =164 + whatever guest parking is required. That means that they are going to have a parking garage - period. No other way on 1.3 acres to handle that quantity of vehicles....parking garages go UP...way up out of flood plains. I doubt residents will be terribly inconvenienced by moving their car up another level in a garage. That argument for you is a non-starter...it does not impact you - just the residents.

3. Its a great spot for a mid rise building. Its in an area with extremely high growth area and will have a permanently unobstructed view of downtown. People pay big dollars for that. 6 houses is a good return for a small investor....for a big firm...its not even worth the PR time to permit. To be viable for this company, and based on what they likely paid they need at least 20 units....The cost for 20 vs the cost for 84 through permitting is pretty similar...you copy paste the engineering onto another floor its very cheap...so they go big to make more money. Pretty common sense really from a business perspective.

4. Fire control - also not that important....New high/mid rise units will have individual unit fire suppression....furthermore, its not like single family homes...the shell is non-flammable...just the build out portions are flammable....fire is fought from the inside vs the outside...the only purpose a fire truck really serves here is to evacuate people from balconies and to transport firefighters...the fire otherwise would be fought floor by floor by the department from the multitude of hose hangers....do you really think that Houston has ladder trucks that reach 100 stories? Yet it is still safe b/c the building shell does not burn.

What you are doing is looking for legal reasons not to build something you dont want in your backyard....I understand not wanting a high rise in your backyard BUT at the same time I think its a great place to build one. I think this will be just like the ASHBY but with WAY less opposition...realistically its a TINY number of people who are impacted by this building...its 20 or so houses...of which, only a couple of them will have to deal with ANY inconvenience other than traffic.

This thing will get built...the reasons not to build it are not really good reasons to anyone other than the 20 or so people who will be mildly inconvenienced by it.

[LandArch]

Not sure where there's a link, it can be viewed in person at city planning office.

With only 35' available to access, there isn't room for a sidewalk on the bridge. One of the three variances is asking the bridge to be a PRIVATE extension of a PUBLIC street. Changing to private will eliminate the requirement for pedestrian sidewalks.

If Innerloop chooses to enter their property on East 5th Street, they have only 35' of which to do so. City Planning requires a minimum of 28' of paving strip (14' on each side in/out for automobiles) The paving will be 28' and each side of the 100' span bridge will be 3.5' The plan in city planning department showed no sidewalk and Marlene Gafrick acknowledged such. Innerloop can get around this if the variance is granted for a private street. SEMANTICS!

Innerloop bought the property knowing fully that they did not own the 70' r.o.w. required on 5th. They bought exactly half the amount, 35' and asked Gary Mosely repeatedly to strike a deal selling him this additional required 35'. He declined.

Once again, This is 84 units with inadequate access for an inappropriate development. Scale it down. This isn't appropriate with such limited access. No doubt the developer has every right to build on his land. APPROPRIATELY

[RedScare]

Why do you need sidewalk access to a private development?

[Lost_In_Translatio]

You are correct. Best I keep personal emotions out of it. Thank you for good advice.

We asked Innerloop to scale down the project eight years ago when they originally asked for variances to build 62 units. They said financially that wasn't possible, afterall they are a multi-family developer. After finding that required variances proved difficult, they withdrew their application and sought access from Frasier and Granberry Streets. This new plat required no variances and was approved.

Innerloop did not build within the time allowed, the approved Frasier and Granberry plat expired. Innerloop sought the same route again and found a well prepared group of neighbors in strong opposition. Next, Innerloop withdraws that access and tries again for 5th. So do they go to the side of least resistance? Seems so. East 5th has only 6 homes.

The solution for everyone here is to scale down. Neither point of access can handle 84 units safely. Local developers passed on this land multiple times because of difficult access. Why cram 84 units in a flood prone 1.3 acres with limited access? East 5th only has 35'. Why won't they build a cul-de sac you ask? Because it won't fit with this number of units.

We have Chapter 42 for a reason. Lets live by our rules of our city. Would I ask Innerloop to build 6 single family homes? Yes. Thats a great solution on this piece of property. Are we truly a world class city? Grant variances where they make good common sense and thats a start.

I agree that there is no compelling reason to provide a variance to this developer. Now, if suddenly he was able to comply with all of Chapter 42 requirements, then the project can go ahead. But the city is not required to make this project economic for this developer.

[Lost_In_Translatio]

A few thoughts here:

1. 84 units is at most 200-300 cars total. Is that an enormous increase in traffic over your current situation that sees 20-30 cars? Yes it is...However, it is not too many vehicles for a street with two exits. The quantity of traffic argument is silly - it will be MORE traffic than you currently have, but it will not be unbearable, or even high quantities of traffic...just more...its a non-argument.

2. The floodplain argument should not matter at all...84 units, 2 parking spots per unit =164 + whatever guest parking is required. That means that they are going to have a parking garage - period. No other way on 1.3 acres to handle that quantity of vehicles....parking garages go UP...way up out of flood plains. I doubt residents will be terribly inconvenienced by moving their car up another level in a garage. That argument for you is a non-starter...it does not impact you - just the residents.

3. Its a great spot for a mid rise building. Its in an area with extremely high growth area and will have a permanently unobstructed view of downtown. People pay big dollars for that. 6 houses is a good return for a small investor....for a big firm...its not even worth the PR time to permit. To be viable for this company, and based on what they likely paid they need at least 20 units....The cost for 20 vs the cost for 84 through permitting is pretty similar...you copy paste the engineering onto another floor its very cheap...so they go big to make more money. Pretty common sense really from a business perspective.

4. Fire control - also not that important....New high/mid rise units will have individual unit fire suppression....furthermore, its not like single family homes...the shell is non-flammable...just the build out portions are flammable....fire is fought from the inside vs the outside...the only purpose a fire truck really serves here is to evacuate people from balconies and to transport firefighters...the fire otherwise would be fought floor by floor by the department from the multitude of hose hangers....do you really think that Houston has ladder trucks that reach 100 stories? Yet it is still safe b/c the building shell does not burn.

What you are doing is looking for legal reasons not to build something you dont want in your backyard....I understand not wanting a high rise in your backyard BUT at the same time I think its a great place to build one. I think this will be just like the ASHBY but with WAY less opposition...realistically its a TINY number of people who are impacted by this building...its 20 or so houses...of which, only a couple of them will have to deal with ANY inconvenience other than traffic.

This thing will get built...the reasons not to build it are not really good reasons to anyone other than the 20 or so people who will be mildly inconvenienced by it.

Why make excuses for people trying to violate city ordinances? Is that any better than the people making excuses to try and stop legal development?