Jump to content

Nicholson At 449 W. 19th By Alliance Residential (Heights Waterworks 2-Tracts)


andre154

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, innerloop said:

There's already a four story parking deck across the street for the Heights Medical Tower that I bet doesn't get much use in the evenings and on weekends.  Maybe they could arrange something with those guys.

 

 

There are provisions in the ordinance for shared parking requirements, but, effectively, if the restaurants open before 5PM, they can't use that garage to meet any of their minimum parking requirement. They CAN, however, lease up to 50-70% of the parking spaces for overflow after 5PM, depending on the actual use classification of that building.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Texasota said:

Every off street parking space takes away space for an actual business, residence, or other use. What is the negative impact of using on-street parking as much as possible? Again, if most people who live in the Heights have off-street parking (which has certainly been my experience) then non-residents aren't really competing directly with residents for these spaces.

 

Not to harp on this, but I really think it's important. There has to be a reason for streets not to be "clogged up" with cars. Is it aesthetic? Is it speed? And is it a good enough reason to waste an existing resource and shift the burden onto individual businesses? Is it a good enough reason to exchange additional space for parking rather than an actual use? 

 

Personally, I'd much rather have more street parking and fewer surface lots. However, most residential streets in the Heights are not quite wide enough to accommodate street parking on both sides and still allow two-way traffic to flow normally. This is not normally a problem when only 1/4 to 1/3 of the available street spaces are in use, since there's usually enough room for one car to pull over and let an oncoming vehicle pass. However, when parking volumes are high, navigating these streets becomes difficult.

 

There are three potential solutions to this:

 

1 - Repave streets with curbs and gutters to allow more space for street parking. This is the most expensive option.

 

2 - Restrict street parking to one side of the street only. This eliminates half the on-street spaces, including spaces that residents use on a regular basis. Often spaces they've paid money to improve (like placing a culvert in the drainage ditch).

 

3 - Convert streets in the Heights from two-way to one-way. This maintains all the on-street spaces and eliminates any issues with flow of vehicles during peak parking demand. Many urban neighborhoods with a high usage rate of on-street parking have one-way side streets. In Houston, a big chunk of the 4th ward (the area bounded by Gray, Taft, Dallas and I-45) is laid out with one-way streets to allow on-street parking despite the narrow right-of-way.

 

In this particular area, the N-S streets are mostly OK for street parking (except Nicholson). Converting the E-W streets to one-way from 16th to 28th (maybe with the exception of 19th and 20th) would resolve the problem. East of Heights Blvd, I think you could make an argument for converting the entire street grid, from I-10 to 20th between Heights and Studewood, to one-way traffic.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Texasota said:

Every off street parking space takes away space for an actual business, residence, or other use. What is the negative impact of using on-street parking as much as possible? Again, if most people who live in the Heights have off-street parking (which has certainly been my experience) then non-residents aren't really competing directly with residents for these spaces.

 

Not to harp on this, but I really think it's important. There has to be a reason for streets not to be "clogged up" with cars. Is it aesthetic? Is it speed? And is it a good enough reason to waste an existing resource and shift the burden onto individual businesses? Is it a good enough reason to exchange additional space for parking rather than an actual use? 

 

All very good points, and I would also point out that on-street parking reduces the amount of paving and thus reduces flooding over the long term.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, CrockpotandGravel said:

Hopdoddy Burger Bar is "officially confirmed" but unlike Eater Houston, CultureMap failed to include this forum as a source. Houstonia, Houston Chronicle, Houston Business Journal, and Houston Press does that too. Is it too much for them to give this site acknowledgement?\


There are multiple reasons why the nickname "CultureCrap" is popular among denizens of many online fora. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subdude changed the title to Nicholson @449 W 19th by Alliance Residential Heights Waterworks Reservoir, 2 Tracts)
  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

The variance request on the Planning Commission agenda to reduce the building line to 6' along 19th St (for the new-construction Bldg D) was deferred.

 

The CoAs for Building A (reservoir) and Building B (1939 pumping station) were approved by HAHC. The CoA application for Building C (1949 pumping station) was withdrawn, as no alterations to the exterior are proposed.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
On 1/2/2018 at 4:01 PM, Angostura said:

Great pics!

 

Re-plat of part of the Chase drive-thru is on the planning commission agenda this week. Basically the SE quarter of the block is re-platted into a single reserve. I suspect for additional MF, but haven't seen plans yet.

i thought Chase was going to build a new, smaller branch there on the SE corner, and sell the rest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

or the last few months, rumors have been circulating that Common Bond, the acclaimed Montrose bakery and cafe, would be expanding to at least one additional location.

Those rumors are true.

Common Bond’s owner Johnny Carrabba has reached an agreement with local real estate developer Braun Enterprises to open a second location at the company’s Heights Waterworks development. The bakery will join previously announced tenants Hopdoddy and Ripe Cuisine at the project.

Common Bond will occupy the space that had been slated for Dallas-based coffee shop Ascension, which will no longer be opening at the development. Josh Jacobs and Jamie Weaver with EDGE Realty Partners represented Common Bond in the transaction.

Braun Enterprises owner Dan Braun tells CultureMap that he’s had a long history with Common Bond. He grew up with the bakery’s founder, chef Roy Shvartzapel, and has been a fan of Carrabba’s as both a diner and successful business.

“We think incredibly highly of the Carrabba team, to the point that I’ve brought young restaurateurs to meet with Johnny and his team in the past for guidance,” Braun writes in an email. “In our estimation, Johnny is one of the best restaurateurs in the country. Bringing Common Bond will help facilitate our vision of this project being something special that the neighborhood will enjoy for generations.”

 

 
Quote

Construction has begun on the site with the first tenants slated to open in the fourth quarter of 2018. Braun adds that the project still has one building available, but the company is being “extremely selective” in order to find “the right complement to the existing tenants.”

The Heights remains Houston’s hottest neighborhood for new restaurants. As long as places like Common Bond continue to see opportunity there, that won’t change any time soon.

1

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/restaurants-bars/01-25-18-common-bond-second-location-heights-waterworks-johnny-carrabba-braun-enterprises/#slide=2

 

Common Bond is going to Height Waterworks. Ascension no longer in the development 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/58cc240cbf629aaf4858104e/t/5a9f11f1e4966b2fb979389f/1520374273440/Braun+Enterprises+-+Heights+Waterworks.pdf

 

http://houston.culturemap.com/news/restaurants-bars/03-06-18-jinya-ramen-bar-heights-waterworks-jim-wang-braun-enterprises/#slide=0

 

Quote

prominent restaurant has signed on to The Heights’ hottest development. Jinya Ramen Bar will join Common Bond, Hopdoddy, and Ripe Cuisine at Braun Enterprise’s Heights Waterworks project, the developer announced this week.

“We have been fans of Jinya Ramen for a while now and frequent the Midtown location since it is so close to our office,” Braun leasing director Zach Wolf tells CutureMap. “The Heights lacks a true ramen noodle bar, and we felt that it would be a perfect fit for the Heights Waterworks.”

Jim Wang, Jinya’s Houston franchisee, tells CultureMap that he had wanted to bring the California-based ramen restaurant to The Heights for some time but couldn’t find the right location. With the synergy created by its neighbors and a nearby Torchy’s Tacos, as well as the availability of approximately 135 parking spaces, he thinks the Waterworks will be a good fit.

“We feel it’s a good mix,” Wang says. “Hopdoddy, Common Bond, Torchy’s, Jinya, it’s a good combination. Customers feeds off each other from all these locations.”

Several ramen restaurants have come to Houston the past few years, but Jinya’s Midtown location has remained consistently busy. The restaurant expanded to Katy last year and has plans to open additional outposts in Springwoods Village (May), the Champions area on 1960 (June), and in Cypress at the intersection of Highway 290 and Barker Cypress (fall). Sugar Land is still on his radar. Timing on The Heights locations depends on how quickly Braun can turn the space over to Jinya, but it will be the Houston-area’s seventh outpost, including the original in Webster.

"For us, we like to open strategic locations that don’t cannibalize on each other," Wang says. "Other ramen shops have their fans. Our point is to open enough Jinyas so that all customers in Houston have one close by without having to drive to Midtown." 

 

4

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
19 hours ago, EllenOlenska said:

I'd like also to note that the chase bank lot directly east of the Chase building and south of the apartment building going up, now doesn't have any drive through ATMs. 

 

So they removed the ATMs entirely? Can't imagine who thought that would be a good idea, as they are the only Chase ATMs within a reasonable distance of that area.

 

Or, since you specified "drive-through", were they replaced with walk-up units?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Everything west of Ashland on 19th is a traveshamockery.

 

 

Everything west of Ashland on 19th complies with our current regulations (Ch 42 and Ch 26) regarding setbacks and parking minimums. The good parts of 19th would be illegal to build today.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

 

Everything west of Ashland on 19th complies with our current regulations (Ch 42 and Ch 26) regarding setbacks and parking minimums. The good parts of 19th would be illegal to build today.

 

Yep, those are a problem. The stuff everybody likes and that makes for a natural urban neighborhood is forbidden by law. Of course, variances are obtainable. 

Edited by H-Town Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Yep, those are a problem. The stuff everybody likes and that makes for a natural urban neighborhood is forbidden by law. Of course, variances are obtainable. 

Certainly the charm is attenuated, atomized (west of Ashland). There are still a few cool buildings west of there. I kind of hope this apartment adds toward the urban vibe. Though I was really disappointed to see the sea of parking they had planned in front of the water works buildings. 

Edited by EllenOlenska
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2018 at 3:35 PM, Angostura said:

 

Everything west of Ashland on 19th complies with our current regulations (Ch 42 and Ch 26) regarding setbacks and parking minimums. The good parts of 19th would be illegal to build today.

 

On 5/3/2018 at 4:56 PM, H-Town Man said:

 

Yep, those are a problem. The stuff everybody likes and that makes for a natural urban neighborhood is forbidden by law. Of course, variances are obtainable. 

 

Its not forbidden or illegal per say. If that were the case then variances would not exist. The point of illegality is that...its illegal and you can't go around it. That would be the opposite of what our law system is for (which is that its universal and it applies to everyone). Regulations are not laws that say if something is illegal or not. Its more in line with "standards", "guidelines", "rules of the road", "best practice". A variance to a regulation or ordinance is essentially a person saying, "I know that normally this ordinance governs best practice, and that I'm doing something that is against convention, but I have a very good reason, or I'm an exception to the rule." That's basically it.

Something that should be reminded of is that just because people did something different back then and now we want to do something different doesn't mean that they were backwards or didn't understand "what obviously everyone naturally likes about urban neighborhoods". In fact, many of the current ordinances and regulations in the books were put in place by people who really thought they were building a better environment and world. Up until the 1950's, and modernism in general, cites where actually not very great places for people to live. They were incredibly noisy, congested, the buildings being close together meant it felt like (or literally) people were falling on top of each other, they were fire hazards, and because of the car now you have to add smog, Sewage was terrible, etc... etc... The urban environments we want to live in today are only achievable because we have been able to find ways to better control those problems or at least know they can exist (or you wouldn't want to live in the city at all with those problems). While these older regulations need to be changed to better reflect our desired urbanism of today, I think it wise that we don't romanticize the past, but learn from it. Understand they did the best they could do in their time. Take the best things they got right, and move forward. 

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Luminare said:

I think it wise that we don't romanticize the past, but learn from it. Understand they did the best they could do in their time. Take the best things they got right, and move forward. 

 

You mean we shouldn't judge the past by the standards of the present? That's crazy thinking. It could cause the entire Internet to shut down. Or at least put a serious damper on the recommended daily allowance of hot takes. 

Edited by mkultra25
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

 

Its not forbidden or illegal per say. If that were the case then variances would not exist. The point of illegality is that...its illegal and you can't go around it. That would be the opposite of what our law system is for (which is that its universal and it applies to everyone). Regulations are not laws that say if something is illegal or not. Its more in line with "standards", "guidelines", "rules of the road", "best practice". A variance to a regulation or ordinance is essentially a person saying, "I know that normally this ordinance governs best practice, and that I'm doing something that is against convention, but I have a very good reason, or I'm an exception to the rule." That's basically it.

Something that should be reminded of is that just because people did something different back then and now we want to do something different doesn't mean that they were backwards or didn't understand "what obviously everyone naturally likes about urban neighborhoods". In fact, many of the current ordinances and regulations in the books were put in place by people who really thought they were building a better environment and world. Up until the 1950's, and modernism in general, cites where actually not very great places for people to live. They were incredibly noisy, congested, the buildings being close together meant it felt like (or literally) people were falling on top of each other, they were fire hazards, and because of the car now you have to add smog, Sewage was terrible, etc... etc... The urban environments we want to live in today are only achievable because we have been able to find ways to better control those problems or at least know they can exist (or you wouldn't want to live in the city at all with those problems). While these older regulations need to be changed to better reflect our desired urbanism of today, I think it wise that we don't romanticize the past, but learn from it. Understand they did the best they could do in their time. Take the best things they got right, and move forward. 

 

No, it is fine to use the terms "legal" and "illegal" when discussing setback laws and parking minimums, hence the thousands of cities that say that something is "legally conforming" when it follows such laws. Nor is it a contradiction to say that variances can be made to legal development restrictions.

 

As to the people who passed these laws, I did not say anything about their character and am familiar with the history. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

No, it is fine to use the terms "legal" and "illegal" when discussing setback laws and parking minimums, hence the thousands of cities that say that something is "legally conforming" when it follows such laws. Nor is it a contradiction to say that variances can be made to legal development restrictions.

 

As to the people who passed these laws, I did not say anything about their character and am familiar with the history. 

 

See I actually don't think its fine to use terms like that so freely. Especially when its really important whether something is "illegal" or "not in compliance". Two completely different definitions. Two completely different things.

To start, I should have probably put something at the beginning stating that this wasn't a question of whether you know these things or not, but merely a general theme that I notice with others.

Before going into my line of thinking on this though, by all means correct me if I'm wrong or incorrect here. I might be completely wrong in my assessment on all of this. However, I have done quite a bit of thinking on this lately and would like to share some conclusions that I have reached on this that I also think would be well supported by others. I do very much respect your opinions though since I know you do seem to carry a wealth of knowledge in these areas, and I welcome your input on this.

With that being said, I place a high importance on diction, definition, and nomenclature in a conversation like this, because its not just semantics here, but something that does actually matter in whether we can work this through or not. There is a distinct difference in breaking a "law" which means you have done something "Illegal" and you in return receive enormous consequences for, and a "regulation", "ordinance", "rule", or "code" where if you break one of those then you are "not in compliance" or "noncompliance" and in return you lose recognition, or status, or qualification in some manner.

An example I could give is something that just happened last week on a project of mine. Last week, I got a notice in a plan review (on a project which I won't disclose), that we were "not in compliance" for a single door which had a side light that didn't meet the necessary requirements and would be in violation of TAS (the actual decision was that it was deemed "unacceptable"). So for that one single door we currently would not meet code if we don't fix the issue before construction. Now lets say, hypothetically, we didn't pick up that comment, either we forgot, etc... The project gets built and then the plan reviewer does his inspection and finds that we are still in "noncompliance". Just because I'm in "noncompliance" doesn't mean I'm going to jail for it though, or get fined for it or face harsh penalties by the state. Instead, I get dinged by the institution with a loss of status in some way (now all of this is if I'm caught and never complied at all...very harsh though really). Now lets say the plan reviewer, hypothetically, misses the door violation and says that I'm correct and everything is supposedly alright. Down the road a month a person (who is very well understood about TAS code and regulation) goes up to the door and can't see out the side light. He/she is disgruntled and thinks that whoever built this building clearly didn't think about people disabilities and thinks I'm being dismissive against him/her. Then that person sues me as being discriminatory against people with disabilities. NOW I have done something "illegal" because I have supposedly broken a federal law (the ADA) protecting those peoples rights and then go to court.

That is the difference. To relate back to setback ordinances and parking minimums, etc... Lets say in a project I don't comply with the setback ordinances. We both know why those are in place. They were enacted to make sure that fires that start in a building next door or across the street or something that is on fire on the street doesn't reach the building and catch it on fire. Me not complying with a setback ordinance is not "illegal". I'm merely "noncompliant". If I'm caught being "noncompliant" then I receive something that lows my status, recognition, standing, etc... I don't get thrown in the brig! Now if don't get caught and then my building catches fire because I didn't comply with regulations and this resulted in lose of life then I have commited murder and broken a "law" which is "illegal" and now I go to jail for the rest of my life.

These thought experiments that I'm presenting here highlight why its important to make that distinction between something being "illegal" and "noncompliance". We should use these definitions correctly. The reason these institutions exist and why regulations exist is to protect us from ourselves and unburden us with the hyper details that we can't possibly think about all the time, and basically what these codes say are "look you better just follow this because experience has shown that if this isn't followed something might happen and THEN you might break a law and you will have done something ILLEGAL.....so you better just trust us and follow it".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cspwal said:

At a recent continuing education class I was at, the instructor referred to violating the drawing standards as "illegal" so I suspect that the word has a lot less meaning to some people.

 

haha I mean there is being figuratively "illegal" and literally "illegal". I'm hoping this guy is using the former. Unfortunately we live in a post-modern world where definitions don't have real meaning anymore. Remember, "it's all about ones interpretation".

 

EDIT: Correction. Used latter instead of former.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

Just because I'm in "noncompliance" doesn't mean I'm going to jail for it though, or get fined for it or face harsh penalties by the state.

 

And just because you're not going to jail doesn't mean that it is not a legal matter. Zoning, as well as such things as setback and parking regulations which are typically part of zoning, proceeds from the police power of the zoning jurisdiction, in this case the City of Houston. Wherever this exists, we almost universally refer to it as zoning "laws," and developments which comply with those laws are "legally conforming." My usage in the original post reflects the near-universal terminology on such matters. It is a correct statement to say that a developer is legally forbidden to build such buildings as the existing ones on the north side of 19th Street east of Ashland, unless he/she has obtained a variance.

 

Whether this fulfills the same sense of legality as used in other areas of law going back to the foundations of the common law under Henry II in the 12th century, I am not qualified to say. I am neither a lawyer nor a legal philosopher. But it is the terminology widely used across the U.S. today.

 

To your point about setback laws being created to prevent the spread of fire, that is actually not the explanation I've heard about Houston's setback laws. From what I understand, these laws were first passed in the early 1980's to prevent buildings being built too close to major thoroughfares and thus preventing their widening. I think construction along Westheimer in the Galleria area was the immediate concern, but could be wrong about that. From what I understand it only applies to designated thoroughfare streets, not all streets. Houston 19514 could perhaps enlighten us.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

See I actually don't think its fine to use terms like that so freely. Especially when its really important whether something is "illegal" or "not in compliance". Two completely different definitions. Two completely different things.

To start, I should have probably put something at the beginning stating that this wasn't a question of whether you know these things or not, but merely a general theme that I notice with others.

Before going into my line of thinking on this though, by all means correct me if I'm wrong or incorrect here. I might be completely wrong in my assessment on all of this. However, I have done quite a bit of thinking on this lately and would like to share some conclusions that I have reached on this that I also think would be well supported by others. I do very much respect your opinions though since I know you do seem to carry a wealth of knowledge in these areas, and I welcome your input on this.

With that being said, I place a high importance on diction, definition, and nomenclature in a conversation like this, because its not just semantics here, but something that does actually matter in whether we can work this through or not. There is a distinct difference in breaking a "law" which means you have done something "Illegal" and you in return receive enormous consequences for, and a "regulation", "ordinance", "rule", or "code" where if you break one of those then you are "not in compliance" or "noncompliance" and in return you lose recognition, or status, or qualification in some manner.

An example I could give is something that just happened last week on a project of mine. Last week, I got a notice in a plan review (on a project which I won't disclose), that we were "not in compliance" for a single door which had a side light that didn't meet the necessary requirements and would be in violation of TAS (the actual decision was that it was deemed "unacceptable"). So for that one single door we currently would not meet code if we don't fix the issue before construction. Now lets say, hypothetically, we didn't pick up that comment, either we forgot, etc... The project gets built and then the plan reviewer does his inspection and finds that we are still in "noncompliance". Just because I'm in "noncompliance" doesn't mean I'm going to jail for it though, or get fined for it or face harsh penalties by the state. Instead, I get dinged by the institution with a loss of status in some way (now all of this is if I'm caught and never complied at all...very harsh though really). Now lets say the plan reviewer, hypothetically, misses the door violation and says that I'm correct and everything is supposedly alright. Down the road a month a person (who is very well understood about TAS code and regulation) goes up to the door and can't see out the side light. He/she is disgruntled and thinks that whoever built this building clearly didn't think about people disabilities and thinks I'm being dismissive against him/her. Then that person sues me as being discriminatory against people with disabilities. NOW I have done something "illegal" because I have supposedly broken a federal law (the ADA) protecting those peoples rights and then go to court.

That is the difference. To relate back to setback ordinances and parking minimums, etc... Lets say in a project I don't comply with the setback ordinances. We both know why those are in place. They were enacted to make sure that fires that start in a building next door or across the street or something that is on fire on the street doesn't reach the building and catch it on fire. Me not complying with a setback ordinance is not "illegal". I'm merely "noncompliant". If I'm caught being "noncompliant" then I receive something that lows my status, recognition, standing, etc... I don't get thrown in the brig! Now if don't get caught and then my building catches fire because I didn't comply with regulations and this resulted in lose of life then I have commited murder and broken a "law" which is "illegal" and now I go to jail for the rest of my life.

These thought experiments that I'm presenting here highlight why its important to make that distinction between something being "illegal" and "noncompliance". We should use these definitions correctly. The reason these institutions exist and why regulations exist is to protect us from ourselves and unburden us with the hyper details that we can't possibly think about all the time, and basically what these codes say are "look you better just follow this because experience has shown that if this isn't followed something might happen and THEN you might break a law and you will have done something ILLEGAL.....so you better just trust us and follow it".

 

So, a couple of quibbles:

 

First, in addition to civil enforcement, there are most definitely criminal penalties for violating Chapter 42 (planning) and Chapter 26 (parking). The penalties are fines, not jail time, but they are criminal penalties nonetheless.

 

Second, while variances to both Ch 42 and Ch 26 ARE possible, I can't think of a single project that sought and received variances allowing for zero setbacks and zero parking minimums outside the CBD (where no such restrictions are imposed).

 

Third, EVEN IF variances were occasionally granted to allow zero setbacks and zero parking, the uncertainty involved would still influence the kind of development that actually happens. It's much easier, faster and lower risk to just propose a "compliant" project. 

 

Finally, the relationship between setbacks and fire safety is tenuous. Houston allows 3-ft lateral setbacks with no fire-rating, yet requires 25-ft front setbacks. And there are zero setbacks in the CBD, where, I guess, fires don't happen. In fact, planning and zoning standards are, almost without exception, tools to limit density, or at least to restrict density to certain areas, and are usually sold as such. (They are much like historic preservation in this respect.)

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

To your point about setback laws being created to prevent the spread of fire, that is actually not the explanation I've heard about Houston's setback laws. From what I understand, these laws were first passed in the early 1980's to prevent buildings being built too close to major thoroughfares and thus preventing their widening. I think construction along Westheimer in the Galleria area was the immediate concern, but could be wrong about that. From what I understand it only applies to designated thoroughfare streets, not all streets. Houston 19514 could perhaps enlighten us.

 

 

I've been told it was a reaction to the "canyon-ization" of Woodway, but I have no actual evidence of this. I, for one, find Woodway delightful, and would like more of our major thoroughfares to look like Woodway does.

 

 

Oh, and while setbacks differ between MTFs and local streets, all public streets outside the CBD have a building line requirement.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

I've been told it was a reaction to the "canyon-ization" of Woodway, but I have no actual evidence of this. I, for one, find Woodway delightful, and would like more of our major thoroughfares to look like Woodway does.

 

 

Oh, and while setbacks differ between MTFs and local streets, all public streets outside the CBD have a building line requirement.

Yes, the setbacks were in response to the Woodway situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back on topic: demo permits issued today for the Chase bank drive-thru and the two small buildings in the middle of the 500-block of W 19th. 

 

My understanding is that Chase will build on the NW corner of 19th and Nicholson and sell the remainder of the block for development. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Luminare said:

Lets say in a project I don't comply with the setback ordinances. We both know why those are in place. They were enacted to make sure that fires that start in a building next door or across the street or something that is on fire on the street doesn't reach the building and catch it on fire.

How does this apply to situations such as the expansion of River Oaks Plaza a few years ago?
IIRC, the overhang on America's (facing S. Shepherd) did not comply with the setback ordinances (there's probably a thread somewhere about this on HAIF). The conventional wisdom seemed to agree that this was another example of "It's easier to ask forgiveness than to get permission."
Is the architect reprimanded, or is one of those wink-and-a-nudge "Don't do that again, haha" situations?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2018/06/04/developer-new-heights-waterworks-apartments-will.html

 



Phillippi expects leasing on the 309-unit apartment building near the Heights hike and bike trail to start in the third quarter of 2019, with the building completion date set for 2020. 

 

“We are really aiming to have a building that goes with the spirit of the Heights,” Phillippi said. To achieve that look, Phillippi said the building’s exterior will use brick to be in line with the older commercial buildings in the area. A large tree will remain on site with an outdoor seating area next to it.

Houston-based EDI International is the architect while Alliance is its own general contractor. The project is financed through a mix of equity and debt, Phillippi said, with a construction loan through Cadence Bank and Great Southern Bank. Building permits for $38.2 million were recently filed with the city of Houston.

 

Phillippi said final design choices are still being decided, but overall the building will have “high-end, condo quality-like finishes” such as 10-foot ceilings, likely either plank or laminate flooring, quartz-type countertops and possibly vintage-looking tile in the bathrooms. Building amenities will include a large fitness center, pool, sky lounge with views of downtown and the Heights, a jam room, bike storage and bike room.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

high-end, condo quality-like finishes” such as 10-foot ceilings, likely either plank or laminate flooring

 

I believe these are mutually exclusive unless there is another kind of laminate than whats in my shitty apartment. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Highrise Tower changed the title to Nicholson At 449 W. 19th By Alliance Residential (Heights Waterworks 2-Tracts)

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...