Urbannizer Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 351-units, 781 parking spaces 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post swtsig Posted April 2, 2016 Popular Post Share Posted April 2, 2016 And the densification of uptown continues. Would be nice to see this go up around the same time as Hanover's second tower at blvd place which should be in the 35 story range as well, apartment over some office over retail. 10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 i for one am sooooooo happy to see that whole weird/ugly plaza go away!!!! saw both the mattress store and the rug store have their store closing signage up etc! whooOoohoooOooo!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Gensler riding in to save the day. Not bad. Would like to see a render though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brijonmang Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 7 minutes ago, Luminare said: Gensler riding in to save the day. Not bad. Would like to see a render though. I promise if you go back to page 7 you will find one 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luminare Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 Just now, brijonmang said: I promise if you go back to page 7 you will find one Nope. Just building elevations. I mean it looks nice, but I would like to see a few perspective renders just to see the colors and get an idea for the materials. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted April 28, 2016 Share Posted April 28, 2016 A plat was filed yesterday for this project. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted August 1, 2016 Share Posted August 1, 2016 any updates on this? and i swear that rug store has been in its final 8 days for the past 2 weeks!!! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 Yeah. It said 9 days for 3 weeks before that... #TruthInAdvertising 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted August 2, 2016 Share Posted August 2, 2016 haha! geez! i cannot wait to see that plaza demolished...i dont know why but i have never liked it!!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Urbannizer Posted September 28, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted September 28, 2017 41 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 I love how slender it is from the southern view. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monarch Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 ^^^ we have ALL been waiting and waiting for this one to reveal its true self... didn't disappoint! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 wowsa...would love to see this be the final design!!! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanize713 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 (edited) Do we know the height? Would this be the tallest new building? Edited September 28, 2017 by urbanize713 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Money Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 It's about 438' without the fin height. It'll be in the 450' range, although the perspective makes it look taller than BHP (477'). 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 if this was referenced elsewhere i apologize...but would love to know what happened in regards to the other building wanting to sue and stop this from being built. I am taking it then that they were unsuccessful and this is a go now for sure? (if so, yahooOoOooooooo!) 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy65 Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Lawsuit is still pending. The Developer won a decent victory against the Cosmopolitan on an interlocutory appeal back in April (with the Cosmopolitan being forced to pay the Developer's appellate costs). There's a trial setting in November, but with Harvey and the recent vintage of this case (only 2016), chances of it going to trial are slim. However, the legal (as opposed to factual) nature of the claims makes this one ripe for resolution by the judge as opposed to the jury, which can expedite things. There's also always the possibility that this settles before trial. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 thanks so much for the update Vy65! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatguysly Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Now that is a great design. I love it and hope it happens. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timoric Posted September 29, 2017 Share Posted September 29, 2017 (edited) - Edited July 11, 2019 by Timoric 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumbleweed_Tx Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 looks like a sailboat 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twitter1 Posted October 8, 2017 Share Posted October 8, 2017 How does Uptown skeep getting these towers!?! Must be nice 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted November 6, 2017 Share Posted November 6, 2017 any updates on this? i dream of seeing that mattress store and the empty building next to it being knocked down...OFTEN! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 any updates? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 28 minutes ago, gene said: any updates? Court case is still ongoing http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=17-0564&coa=cossup 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 1 hour ago, Urbannizer said: Court case is still ongoing http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=17-0564&coa=cossup wow...they are really trying to fight this... thank you so much for the response and update Urbannizer!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted November 30, 2017 Share Posted November 30, 2017 (edited) It doesn't seem like that court case would be stopping anything. Apparently the Cosmo owners have not actually sued the 40-story developer. Instead, the developer has sought a declaratory judgment to the effect (to over-summarize) that the Cosmo owners cannot assert a claim that the development would constitute a nuisance. The Cosmo owners asked the court to dismiss the developer's suit. Cosmo owners lost. They lost again at the Appellate Court. They have appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. Oh, and also, it turns out there is an agreement between the two properties that requires the Cosmo and its owners to cooperate to some degree (Not sure exactly to what extent) with the development of a high rise on the adjacent property. Thanks for the link Urbannizer! Edited November 30, 2017 by Houston19514 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richfish Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 Given how adamant several owners of that building have been to any and all construction/improvement projects in Uptown, I won't feel too bad when they're staring in someone else's living room in a few years. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skooljunkie Posted December 1, 2017 Share Posted December 1, 2017 People actually live in the Cosmo? I assumed it only houses the erasers and pencil sharpeners of charter school students--oh and their Superintendent's fine china. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=3d05a945-d91f-4b7f-b870-015978a2933f&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=7dbe1239-2cc9-4945-9bde-a1e1691630b5 Quote Though the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”) has been the subject of much litigation, nothing in this case merits this Court’s review. After examining both sides’ evidence, the court of appeals held that the plaintiff real-estate developer provided enough detail to show that its declaratory judgment claim presented a justiciable controversy. That outcome was hardly remarkable, given that the defendant’s attorney sent a letter asserting that a justiciable controversy clearly exists. The Petition for Review misconstrues how the court of appeals reached that unremarkable result, perhaps out of a desire to keep the automatic TCPA stay in place for a few months longer. The court of appeals rightly refused to decide the merits of the parties’ factual disputes, including whether the defendant’s President spoke solely in her individual capacity when she said the parties’ dispute will “put us in the courthouse.” Instead, the court of appeals held that it would review the evidence “in a light favorable to the non-movant”—that is, it would not discard evidence favoring the non-movant simply because the movant put a different spin on it. That evidentiary rule flows from the text of the TCPA and this Court’s jurisprudence, and presents nothing for this Court to review. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 (edited) Urbannizer! Thank you for the update...I will admit the wording of that attachment left me confused and with a headache haha! Does it all mean that the Cosmopolitan's case has basically been dismissed and the new developers can proceed on the adjacent land? Thank you!!! Edited February 21, 2018 by gene 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, gene said: Urbannizer! Thank you for the update...I will admit the wording of that attachment left me confused and with a headache haha! Does it all mean that the Cosmopolitan's case has basically been dismissed and the new developers can proceed on the adjacent land? Thank you!!! Me think so. Calling on @houstontexasjack or @Houston19514 for a more clear explanation. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy65 Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 The developer filed suit against the Cosmo's HOA. The purpose of that lawsuit was to have the court adjudicate ("declare," hence the declaratory judgment action) the parties' rights under the developer-HOA agreement. The HOA responded to this suit under a statute called the Texas Citizen's Participation Act ("TCPA"). The TCPA is a type of law known as "anti-SLAPP;" the SLAPP standing for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The idea behind these laws is to penalize legal claims from being filed as retaliation for the exercise of (typically first amendment) rights. I haven't read this lawsuit, but ostensibly the HOA is claiming that the developer's attempt to get a declaration regarding the parties' rights under the developer-HOA agreement somehow violates its rights to speech, to free assembly, or something along those lines. The district court rejected the HOA's argument. The First Court of Appeals rejected the HOA's argument (and, if memory serves, affirmed the sanction of an attorney's fees award against the HOA). The HOA is now seeking to have the Texas Supreme Court hear the case. To do so, it filed what's called a petition for review. The supreme court will read that petition and decide whether or not it wants to hear the case. The linked document is the developer's response -- i.e., why the court doesn't need to hear the matter. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBC2HTX Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 36 minutes ago, gene said: Urbannizer! Thank you for the update...I will admit the wording of that attachment left me confused and with a headache haha! Does it all mean that the Cosmopolitan's case has basically been dismissed and the new developers can proceed on the adjacent land? Thank you!!! My understanding was that the Association (Cosmopolitan) was appealing the district court's ruling to not dismiss the case. It appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of Texas, which rejected its appeal. So now the case (which is the REIT/Developer suing for declaratory judgement on the agreement between the Developer and Cosmopolitan being valid and enforceable) will proceed. The Developer brought the case (seeking declaratory judgement) to avoid the risk of a lawsuit from the Cosmopolitan once construction has started (which would be more costly, timely and give Cosmopolitan more leverage in the matter). Basically the Cosmo/Association have been huge dicks and threatening a lawsuit, even though a second development was in the works the entire time. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted February 21, 2018 Share Posted February 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Urbannizer said: Me think so. Calling on @houstontexasjack or @Houston19514 for a more clear explanation. Vy65 did a nice job summarizing what the link is. To add some background to Vy65's response, the Texas Supreme Court does not have to hear every case that's sent its way. To have a case heard, a party appealing a decision of the court of appeals must file a petition for review essentially explaining why the issue being sent to the Texas Supreme Court is so important that it must be looked at by the court--typically because it will affect the law in a manner that will impact future cases. The document you linked was a response saying arguing that the Texas Supreme Court need not look further into this because the court of appeals decision wasn't all that important. After this, the Texas Supreme Court can decide that it wants to hear the case--in which case it would order another round of briefing on the merits. If it doesn't, it could just deny the petition for review. I'd have to look at the full procedural history of the matter, including trial court rulings paired with the opinion from the First Court of Appeals to see what the potential effect of denying review would be as to the ability of this development to move forward. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted February 22, 2018 Share Posted February 22, 2018 Good lord all this is still giving me a headache...now i know how the developer feels haha! I Hope they just knock down that old abandoned building soon and get rid of the mattress store with the old bank drive-thru still attached! Thank you everyone for the posts and clarification! I love Uptown and enjoy seeing it get bigger and better! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Hi! Any updates on this? It has been exciting to go down post oak on a daily basis and see all the work being done...EXCEPT here...haha! I keep hoping every single day that i ride past this on bike or in car, that i will see the existing building(s) closed and demolished! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=17-0564&coa=cossup Petition for Supreme Court to review the case denied on 4/06: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=01f84e32-b81b-4e5c-9b02-2697203feee8&coa=cossup&DT=PET FOR REVIEW DISP&MediaID=319e810a-329a-49f9-843b-b28838dce875 Petitioner (Cosmo Condos Association) files for yet another extension for rehearing on 4/18: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=1a150fff-9334-4083-a279-559b8972f389&coa=cossup&DT=MOTION&MediaID=21c3579c-3de7-4211-bb59-38d9c91a3099 Supreme court allows extension to file motion for rehearing on 4/19, motion for rehearing must be filed by Cosmo Condos Association by 5/23: http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=ed399e64-7e2d-45f8-827b-65cc361a50b4&coa=cossup&DT=M/E/T MO/RE DISP&MediaID=2b01b167-30bb-4bfa-a5f8-fdc4b485e857 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 Another tactical delay by the condo association. The Ashby Highrise case has taught attorneys they don't have to prevail on the merits, if they can only delay long enough for financing to dry up. I wouldn't read too much in to SCOTX's grant of the extension to file the motion for rehearing. For appeals, first extensions to file most briefs are granted as a matter of routine. In this case, SCOTX appears aware of the desire to delay, and has expressly stated it will not consider further extensions of time to file a motion for rehearing in its order. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vy65 Posted April 24, 2018 Share Posted April 24, 2018 On top of that, a motion for rehearing is really, really disfavored. Unless the HOA found new evidence or a new, seminal case came out that substantively changes the law (both highly unlikely), the motion will be denied and the case will go back down to the trial court. The good news is that if and when the case goes down to the trial court level, the HOA will begin incurring some fees (appellate work tends to have caps on the amount of work that's required). While this isn't a factually intensive case, there nevertheless are going to be some fees incurred by the HOA particularly given the law firms representing it. Also, because this is a dec action -- the majority of issues will be decided as a matter of law for the court as opposed to the jury -- you could see quicker movement despite the district court's current backlog. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted April 25, 2018 Share Posted April 25, 2018 thank you everyone for the info and insight! eventually something is going to happen with that corner and just hope it is sooner than later! 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LBC2HTX Posted August 4, 2018 Share Posted August 4, 2018 The Mattress store has closed... could this mean development is in motion?? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstontexasjack Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 The 2 hours ago, LBC2HTX said: The Mattress store has closed... could this mean development is in motion?? The Motion for Rehearing at SCOTX has not yet been decided. However, given SCOTX’s favorable opinion and the general unlikelihood the motion for rehearing will be granted, it is possible the developer may have let the mattress store’s lease run out to move as soon as possible after the final ruling. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkylineView Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 I'd also point out that several of the largest units in the building are on the market (check HAR). Also, while the Post Oak project has started working on literally every single piece of sidewalk down the street... they have not started any work / planted any trees / done any improvements on the portion that falls within this property. Makes me bullish that the project is on deck. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 On 8/4/2018 at 5:42 PM, LBC2HTX said: The Mattress store has closed... could this mean development is in motion?? no way?!?! amazing news!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texasota Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 Gene calm down. There's no way to know yet whether this building will have a good brunch place or not. It's too early to get excited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gene Posted August 7, 2018 Share Posted August 7, 2018 haha i needed that laugh this morning Texasota! thankfully Snooze will be opening just up the road early next year...so I am good...for now! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AREJAY Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 1650 and 1670 post oak on the demo report this morning! http://swamplot.com/daily-demolition-report-wrecking-carew/2018-08-24/ Is this is sign that this is moving forward? Edited August 24, 2018 by AREJAY 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highrise Tower Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 Matress Firm at 1670 Post Oak is on today's demo report. Also Ninfa's Mexican Food at 1650 Post Oak. http://swamplot.com/daily-demolition-report-wrecking-carew/2018-08-24/ 1 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.