Icon M Tower: Condominium High-Rise At 1209 Montrose Blvd.

[Sparrow]

I couldn't seem to find a post for this one, but it's on the planning agenda for 08/30/2018 requesting a set-back variance of 5'. Montrose Garden. NEC Montrose and West Clay.

 

20 stories. 9 floors of residential above 9 floors of parking. Two floors of retail with one level of underground parking for the retail. 2019 start date listed. Owners: Supo Corporation, 1209 Montrose Blvd.

 

Sorry if this one is already around here somewhere.

[The Ozone Files]

Good find! Exciting news.

 

I hope Khun Kay Thai finds a new home in those 2 stories of ground floor retail.

[Timoric]

-

Edited July 12, 2019 by Timoric

[UtterlyUrban]

9 floors of parking for 9 floors of residents?  Does that seem odd to anyone other than me?  Is it a tiny little lot or something?

[marstrose]

What's the source kids. Also, I will be deeply upset if Khun Kay doesn't make the cut for retail

[Angostura]

1 hour ago, UtterlyUrban said:

9 floors of parking for 9 floors of residents?  Does that seem odd to anyone other than me?  Is it a tiny little lot or something?

 

 

The GFR requires parking, too.

 

 

[thatguysly]

I was at U-Plumb It on Montrose this weekend and the owner talked about this project saying he got an invite to the public meeting. He just told me 20 stories and the setback. Same info that is posted here.

[Angostura]

50 minutes ago, marstrose said:

What's the source kids. Also, I will be deeply upset if Khun Kay doesn't make the cut for retail

 

Planning commission agenda. Not much in the way of detail. They're asking for 5-ft setbacks on Montrose and Clay, rather than the required 25 and 10-ft setbacks.

 

24,000 sf retail, 100-150 residential units.

[William]

4 hours ago, UtterlyUrban said:

9 floors of parking for 9 floors of residents?  Does that seem odd to anyone other than me?  Is it a tiny little lot or something?

 

I live in one of the houses nearby. This concept is a great idea, but it's without a doubt in the wrong place. The lot is way too small for such a large building and it's surrounded on both sides by single-family homes and townhomes. There are a ton of places that would be better suited for this development within a 5 block radius. Is there anyone else who lives nearby who thinks this is a bad idea too?

[wilcal]

2 minutes ago, William said:

 

I live in one of the houses nearby. This concept is a great idea, but it's without a doubt in the wrong place. The lot is way too small for such a large building and it's surrounded on both sides by single-family homes and townhomes. There are a ton of places that would be better suited for this development within a 5 block radius. Is there anyone else who lives nearby who thinks this is a bad idea too?

 

I live across Montrose, but I don't think it's that out of place. 

Montrose Boulevard is continuing to densify, and there are already several large apartments within a few blocks. Plus the El Tiempo across the cross is going to get redeveloped at any moment. 

The lot at Fairview/Montrose is a bit bigger I think, but it's being redeveloped too. 

 

Where were you thinking that would be more appropriate?  I'm guessing you think more towards Allen Parkway? 

[William]

6 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

I live across Montrose, but I don't think it's that out of place. 

Montrose Boulevard is continuing to densify, and there are already several large apartments within a few blocks. Plus the El Tiempo across the cross is going to get redeveloped at any moment. 

The lot at Fairview/Montrose is a bit bigger I think, but it's being redeveloped too. 

 

Where were you thinking that would be more appropriate?  I'm guessing you think more towards Allen Parkway? 

1

 

 

There's a giant empty lot on the northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project. I could probably name a few other places within a few blocks. My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

[wilcal]

3 minutes ago, William said:

 

 

There's a giant empty lot on the northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project. I could probably name a few other places within a few blocks. My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

 

 

"Northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project."

Pretty sure that one is also under development.

 

"My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes."

 

Isn't the place across the street from you like that?

 

https://i.imgur.com/UNL72sc.png

[jgriff]

2 minutes ago, William said:

 

 

There's a giant empty lot on the northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project. I could probably name a few other places within a few blocks. My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

 

That lot is owned by someone else who has different plans for it. If you're talking about the Northeast corner, the last I heard it was owned by the Aga Khan foundation. This development is probably going where it is because the developer owns or has rights to develop on the lot. They can't just randomly pick anywhere in the city to build, they have to build on their own property or on property the owner has given them the rights to develop on. They could attempt to buy the property or gain development rights but that might be prohibitively expensive. Bottom line, the owner of this lot wants to make some money and this is how they've decided to do it. 

[thedistrict84]

47 minutes ago, William said:

My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

 

There is also a significant difference between 8 stories and 20 stories as well.

 

Based on the “nine floors of parking” bit (if true), it sounds like this developer is trying to shoehorn a tower in a place where it’s not a good fit.

 

If I were you (and as concerned as you seem to be about this project), I’d do what I could to oppose the granting of the variance they are seeking. Given the limitations of the size of the lot, there is no way this gets off the ground if the variance isn’t granted.

 

Like you, I’m not opposed to densification and “going vertical”, but there are definitely areas (and lots) where a development like this makes much more sense.

 

49 minutes ago, jgriff said:

Bottom line, the owner of this lot wants to make some money and this is how they've decided to do it. 

 

This shouldn’t be the overriding factor. Even in a city with no zoning, the planning commission has a duty to make sure proposed uses are appropriate and fit the greater development scheme of the area.

[Houston19514]

1 hour ago, William said:

 

 

There's a giant empty lot on the northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project. I could probably name a few other places within a few blocks. My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

 

Where are the single family homes on the block in question?  I cannot find any.

[Angostura]

1 hour ago, William said:

 

 

There's a giant empty lot on the northeast corner of West Dallas and Montrose that would give them ample space to build their project. I could probably name a few other places within a few blocks. My point is that you'd be hard pressed to name a major development in Montrose in the past 10 years that shares a block with a bunch of single-family homes. Take the El Tiempo development for example. They're building an 8 story apartment complex, but it's not being built on top of any of the homes in that areas. All of those homes are across the street.

 

Honestly, and this is a very unpopular opinion, especially among single-family homeowners, if this kind of project is viable on this size of parcel, it's not that this project is over-built: it's the SFH's that are UNDER-built. 

 

That said, the way the variance request was written I don't think the plans are finalized. Splitting the parking between one underground level and nine additional levels ABOVE two levels of retail seems like a very inefficient configuration. On a plot this size, ramps take up a pretty high proportion of area, so that may be what's driving the height. I wouldn't be at all surprised if, by the time this actually gets built, it's a single level of GFR, with 4 to 6 levels of parking between the GFR and the 1st residential floor.

 

This type of project is challenging. As you walk (or drive) around cities, you will find very few buildings on plots smaller than 1 acre that include retail, residential, AND parking for both uses in the kinds of quantities that Houston requires.

[Luminare]

1 hour ago, William said:

 

I live in one of the houses nearby. This concept is a great idea, but it's without a doubt in the wrong place. The lot is way too small for such a large building and it's surrounded on both sides by single-family homes and townhomes. There are a ton of places that would be better suited for this development within a 5 block radius. Is there anyone else who lives nearby who thinks this is a bad idea too?

 

This is literally the definition of what a NIMBY is (Not In My Back Yard).

 

The same townhome you live in now by the way was probably also opposed by a single family home next door before it was built as well.

 

If this is a matter that actually concerns you then you need to take it up with either the owner themselves or make comments to the planning authority when they post the sign asking for variances.

 

You live in a very drastically changing city and a city that is becoming as dynamic as Houston is going to change and because there is no zoning it will change at a brisk pace.

 

Why not next to you and somewhere else? I'm honestly not picking on you. I'm genuinely curious. Why not near you, but somewhere else in this 5 block radius you talk about? Wouldn't that just place it next to someone else who might have the same opinion?

 

Actually a follow up question. Imagine yourself as the owner and you are in his/her shoes. Would you probably do the same thing in his/her situation?

 

Whats a compromise you willing to accept to make this density work right near you? Is it the 20 floors?

 

35 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

There is also a significant difference between 8 stories and 20 stories as well.

 

Based on the “nine floors of parking” bit (if true), it sounds like this developer is trying to shoehorn a tower in a place where it’s not a good fit.

 

If I were you (and as concerned as you seem to be about this project), I’d do what I could to oppose the granting of the variance they are seeking. Given the limitations of the size of the lot, there is no way this gets off the ground if the variance isn’t granted.

 

Like you, I’m not opposed to densification and “going vertical”, but there are definitely areas (and lots) where a development like this makes much more sense.

 

 

This shouldn’t be the overriding factor. Even in a city with no zoning, the planning commission has a duty to make sure proposed uses are appropriate and fit the greater development scheme of the area.

 

In cities with zoning that is what a planning commission is responsible for, but our planning commission doesn't have that kind of vested authority or mission. You are asking them to do a job that they either aren't equipped to handle or wasn't designed for.

 

When a plot says its an "unrestricted reserve" the city really means that its "unrestricted" not "unrestricted" for residential area or in a commercial area or industrial. Its "unrestricted" meaning anything can go there if it follows current Harris County regulations and code. If what is being proposed follows Harris County rules and regulations than it will pass.

 

If you want our planning commission to have the ability to make sure developments "fit" a scheme of the area then that power has to be vested into it by the city and its citizens (something I want by the way!). I don't think many understand this though. Lots of people are coming from different cities where planning commissions have significant sway and think logically that it must be the same here, but it just isn't. Its why down the street you have the new Montrose skyscraper next to two story former mansion and next door to shelter.

 

I do agree with you that the current proposed layout seems a bit far-fetched. Would be great to see a few floor plans.

 

[jgriff]

55 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

This shouldn’t be the overriding factor. Even in a city with no zoning, the planning commission has a duty to make sure proposed uses are appropriate and fit the greater development scheme of the area.

 

I disagree. As long as the development doesn't pose an immediate physical danger to the nearby residents. If they want to put a raging tire fire on the site I might have a problem with it. 

 

Also, that kind of thinking is what gets you sky high rent. The planning commission is a bunch of dummies, the market knows better. 

 

Edit: I'll take part of that back, a planning commission aren't necessarily dummies. They will do what's best for themselves and anyone who they are friends with. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by jgriff

[Luminare]

8 minutes ago, jgriff said:

 

I disagree. As long as the development doesn't pose an immediate physical danger to the nearby residents. If they want to put a raging tire fire on the site I might have a problem with it. 

 

Also, that kind of thinking is what gets you sky high rent. The planning commission is a bunch of dummies, the market knows better. 

 

Edit: I'll take part of that back, a planning commission aren't necessarily dummies. They will do what's best for themselves and anyone who they are friends with. 

 

Thats because its an authority that entirely designed to conform or benefit a business friendly market. It simply doesn't have the authority, experience, or resources to do much of anything else. They actually do a fairly good job at what their purpose is, but fail in the vision that we would like it to be. For that vision we would have to either significantly upgrade or scrub the authority and start over.

 

Now with that saying a robust planning authority can have its own set of issues. While in Germany I noticed that Berlin has the exact opposite problem. They have an extremely robust and precise planning authority, but its so bog down in bureaucracy and rigid over-planning that it just can't get projects activated at the rate that it should. There are cranes everywhere in that city. Really a boom town right now, but it could be x3 that if they were to loosen up a bit. 

[thedistrict84]

23 minutes ago, Luminare said:

When a plot says its an "unrestricted reserve" the city really means that its "unrestricted" not "unrestricted" for residential area or in a commercial area or industrial. Its "unrestricted" meaning anything can go there if it follows current Harris County regulations and code. If what is being proposed follows Harris County rules and regulations than it will pass.

 

I was not aware that this particular lot was designated as “unrestricted reserve” (although, I’d assume that most lots up and down Montrose in this area carry that designation). That definitely changes things, as you mentioned. 

 

I understand that the planning commission in Houston has limited power—my comment was more regarding cities with no zoning in general. However, certain things are within their purview which could influence what gets built and where, such as the setback guidelines at issue with this particular variance request.

 

31 minutes ago, jgriff said:

Also, that kind of thinking is what gets you sky high rent. The planning commission is a bunch of dummies, the market knows better. 

 

Edit: I'll take part of that back, a planning commission aren't necessarily dummies. They will do what's best for themselves and anyone who they are friends with. 

 

I don’t disagree with this. Certain developers are definitely given wider latitude by the planning commission than others. I’m sure you can guess the reasons.

[Luminare]

52 minutes ago, jgriff said:

 

I disagree. As long as the development doesn't pose an immediate physical danger to the nearby residents. If they want to put a raging tire fire on the site I might have a problem with it. 

 

Also, that kind of thinking is what gets you sky high rent. The planning commission is a bunch of dummies, the market knows better. 

 

Edit: I'll take part of that back, a planning commission aren't necessarily dummies. They will do what's best for themselves and anyone who they are friends with. 

 

I wouldn't say they are dummies or agents that act out of self-interests (though those can factors to some degree in any system). From what I see it just seems like they are creatures of habit. They are radically flexible to market forces and trends, yet ridiculously rigid when it comes to reforming or creating regulations to match it.

 

This leads to my answer to the below quote...

 

17 minutes ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

I was not aware that this particular lot was designated as “unrestricted reserve” (although, I’d assume that most lots up and down Montrose in this area carry that designation). That definitely changes things, as you mentioned. 

 

I understand that the planning commission in Houston has limited power—my comment was more regarding cities with no zoning in general. However, certain things are within their purview which could influence what gets built and where, such as the setback guidelines at issue with this particular variance request.

 

 

The fact that after probably the 500th time someone has asked for a variance request to move the setback from 25 to 5 or 10 and they still do not change the base setback to match those norms truly exemplifies what little authority they have. I think you also underscore just how radical this city is when it comes to no zoning. Houston really is the wild west. A baffling place that, yet somehow works even though the environment is so chaotic.

Edited August 27, 2018 by Luminare

[H-Town Man]

Single-family homes on Montrose Boulevard are an endangered species. Hopefully this street will someday resemble Broadway on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But whether or not it gets to that point, it is not going to be a roadway of detached homes, as though we were out in Cy Fair and not in the middle of a major city.

 

 

[wilcal]

1 hour ago, Angostura said:

Splitting the parking between one underground level and nine additional levels ABOVE two levels of retail seems like a very inefficient configuration. 

 

 

That doesn't sound too crazy to me if you want to have public parking for the retail be separate. Maybe the second story is split a la West Ave?

[Houston19514]

2 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

Single-family homes on Montrose Boulevard are an endangered species. Hopefully this street will someday resemble Broadway on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But whether or not it gets to that point, it is not going to be a roadway of detached homes, as though we were out in Cy Fair and not in the middle of a major city.

 

 

 

Indeed.  I think you can already count them on one hand, most of  them multimillion estate homes south of Bissonnet (and none of them on the subject block.)

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, Houston19514 said:

 

Indeed.  I think you can already count them on one hand, most of  them multimillion estate homes south of Bissonnet (and none of them on the subject block.)

 

I think the house about a hundred feet north of the subject site would qualify. And you get to two hands before having to go south of 59.

 

[jgriff]

3 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

ESingle-family homes on Montrose Boulevard are an endangered species. Hopefully this street will someday resemble Broadway on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. But whether or not it gets to that point, it is not going to be a roadway of detached homes, as though we were out in Cy Fair and not in the middle of a major city.

 

 

 

Isn’t the land worth about $3-4mil an acre in this area? Traditional single family homes on large lots would only be for the rich at the land prices we have in the area now. Many people seem to think being against development is akin to looking out for the little guy but in reality it’s the opposite. Without development like this more and more people will be priced out of Montrose. The single family bungalows in Montrose are mostly land plays now whether the owners and renters know it or not. I suppose we could hope for an economic crash, that would save a lot of the old houses.

[Urbannizer]

http://swamplot.com/khun-kay-thai-cafes-second-gen-owner-now-tracing-out-20-story-highrise-in-its-place/2018-08-27/

[jgriff]

4 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

The fact that after probably the 500th time someone has asked for a variance request to move the setback from 25 to 5 or 10 and they still do not change the base setback to match those norms truly exemplifies what little authority they have. I think you also underscore just how radical this city is when it comes to no zoning. Houston really is the wild west. A baffling place that, yet somehow works even though the environment is so chaotic.

 

I see it as exactly the opposite. They have the power to get concessions from developers because of stupid rules. No telling what else they are getting with this power. Stupid rules that they can enforce if they don’t get their way benefit them. Most people won’t voluntarily give up power like that. I bet it can get you invited to some nice parties.

 

They do use this power for good sometimes though. They got a developer near my house to upgrade our sidewalks and road.

 

I’ve always believed in following the rules to the letter though. Giving an entity power to make exceptions to those rules invites corruption. If the rules are bad they should be changed and enforced consistently. Otherwise we are not a society of laws, we have a ruling class instead.

 

 

[H-Town Man]

1 hour ago, jgriff said:

 

Isn’t the land worth about $3-4mil an acre in this area? Traditional single family homes on large lots would only be for the rich at the land prices we have in the area now. Many people seem to think being against development is akin to looking out for the little guy but in reality it’s the opposite. Without development like this more and more people will be priced out of Montrose. The single family bungalows in Montrose are mostly land plays now whether the owners and renters know it or not. I suppose we could hope for an economic crash, that would save a lot of the old houses.

 

I think you misread my post, though not quite sure how. I am in favor of redevelopment along Montrose Blvd.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by H-Town Man

[thedistrict84]

43 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

What part of my post do you think was in favor of saving old houses? I said I wanted Montrose to look like Broadway on the Upper West Side, lol.

 

 

No, no, no, you’ve got it all wrong. Midtown is supposed to be developed into a mini-Manhattan, not Montrose. Get it right! /s

 

Seriously though, not every inner loop area needs to go vertical. Building up Midtown, the undeveloped southwest portion of Downtown, Allen Parkway, Kirby, Museum District, etc. will provide more than enough density for the next 30+ years.

 

Although, I guess a tower here would be a potential connector between Allen Parkway and The Hanover and the (future) Colombe d’Or towers near Westheimer. I guess I’m a bit conflicted.