Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sparrow

Montrose Gardens--20 stories w/ GFR

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by jgriff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by H-Town Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours 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 in one of the townhomes directly behind and we are not happy about this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a lot on a major thoroughfare in one of the densest and most walkable areas in Houston isn't a logical place to put a multifamily tower, I don't know what is. The only way it could be more appropriate is if it were on a rail line and had less parking.

 

I have faith the city will not buckle to NIMBYs when reviewing this development. The only way Houston can become truly walkable is by developing the right urban context. We can have TIRZs funnel as much money as they want into complete streets with fancy brick paving, but all of that means nothing if our urban environment is still a no-man's-land of parking lots, empty fields, and blank walls.

 

This kind of development is a sign of a healthy city. The only successful places are ones which are adaptable. Houston shouldn't shoot itself in the foot to appease people who want to keep it static.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know most of you prefer high density and want to see everything over 7 stories go to Downtown, Midtown or Uptown, but I really love the distance between the towers sprinkled from downtown to uptown. Yes, the more they fill in the better and some day west Houston may start to look like Manhattan (not in my lifetime). But until then, I love how all these large towers between downtown and uptown have their own space and command their own presence. So what if it's a big F/U to the "How To Create A City" playbook that NYC and Chi gave us. I still like it. It's happening. And my life is great and yours sucks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, lithiumaneurysm said:

If a lot on a major thoroughfare in one of the densest and most walkable areas in Houston isn't a logical place to put a multifamily tower, I don't know what is. The only way it could be more appropriate is if it were on a rail line and had less parking.

 

The issue isn’t the location, it’s the size of this particular lot. Because the footprint is relatively narrow and small, they require 9 stories of parking (+2 underground!) to provide the number of parking spaces necessary to make this development workable. 

 

I’m all for walkability, but this city is still car-centric and will continue to be for the near future. Providing for parking, especially for a residential tower, is a necessary evil. I agree that light rail in the area would be a nice addition (maybe up the median down Montrose?), but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, wilcal said:

 

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?

 

It just makes things a lot more expensive.

 

Also, this site is relatively compact, which makes garage layouts inefficient to begin with. The footprint is 86' x 144'. A parking bay is usually at least 60-ft wide, so that leaves just enough space for a two-way ramp. I'm guessing they'd be able to put around 30 spaces per floor. If they do two floors of retail, subtracting out the space for the ramp and pedestrian circulation, they may have around 16,000 sf of retail space, which requires at least 64 spots, more if there's a lot of space dedicated to restaurants. Which means if they do all the retail parking underground, it needs to go at least two levels deep.

 

For the residential parking, if it's 100-150 units, assuming they're all 1 and 2-BR units, it's anywhere from 133 to 250 spaces required. At the middle of that range, it's 6-7 levels of parking. Add the 2 levels required for the retail, and you get close to the 9 levels they talk about in the description.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, H-Town Man said:

 

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

 

 

I didn’t misunderstand that and I am too. I was supporting your position. Montrose is too expensive for single family homes. We neee development like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jgriff said:

 

I didn’t misunderstand that and I am too. I was supporting your position. Montrose is too expensive for single family homes. We neee development like this.

 

k

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

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. 

 

Yeah, Midtown gets top billing. I don't dispute that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, thedistrict84 said:

 

The issue isn’t the location, it’s the size of this particular lot. Because the footprint is relatively narrow and small, they require 9 stories of parking (+2 underground!) to provide the number of parking spaces necessary to make this development workable. 

 

I’m all for walkability, but this city is still car-centric and will continue to be for the near future. Providing for parking, especially for a residential tower, is a necessary evil. I agree that light rail in the area would be a nice addition (maybe up the median down Montrose?), but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

 

There are a couple tools called Minimum Lot Area and Maximum FAR (floor area ratio) that are used to prevent overly big/tall developments being crammed onto tiny lots. Of course, these are both zoning tools, and the good people of Houston have rejected zoning. I'm starting to think some of them are wishing they hadn't.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Angostura said:

 

It just makes things a lot more expensive.

 

Also, this site is relatively compact, which makes garage layouts inefficient to begin with. The footprint is 86' x 144'. A parking bay is usually at least 60-ft wide, so that leaves just enough space for a two-way ramp. I'm guessing they'd be able to put around 30 spaces per floor. If they do two floors of retail, subtracting out the space for the ramp and pedestrian circulation, they may have around 16,000 sf of retail space, which requires at least 64 spots, more if there's a lot of space dedicated to restaurants. Which means if they do all the retail parking underground, it needs to go at least two levels deep.

 

For the residential parking, if it's 100-150 units, assuming they're all 1 and 2-BR units, it's anywhere from 133 to 250 spaces required. At the middle of that range, it's 6-7 levels of parking. Add the 2 levels required for the retail, and you get close to the 9 levels they talk about in the description.

 

 

4

 

That makes sense. Was just thinking that they might have a shot at 60ish spaces on a single level, but I guess they still would need a ramp in and out. 

 

Edit: just noticed on the rendering that there will be 10 spots at ground level, so maybe they can get away with those 10 plus a bike rack plus 45-50 underground?

Edited by wilcal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, H-Town Man said:

 

There are a couple tools called Minimum Lot Area and Maximum FAR (floor area ratio) that are used to prevent overly big/tall developments being crammed onto tiny lots. Of course, these are both zoning tools, and the good people of Houston have rejected zoning. I'm starting to think some of them are wishing they hadn't.

 

 

This is actually how the skinny skyscrapper was born in New York. While there is a Max FAR, new building tech especially with concrete is challenging that aspect of design. I wouldn't be surprised if we see it come to Houston as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Luminare said:

 

This is actually how the skinny skyscrapper was born in New York. While there is a Max FAR, new building tech especially with concrete is challenging that aspect of design. I wouldn't be surprised if we see it come to Houston as well.

 

Manhattan has varying FAR caps, up to 12 I think, but you can buy your neighbors' unused FAR, which can result in buildings with FAR well in excess of 12. Some of the super-skinny buildings in NYC have aspect ratios (height divided by smallest dimension, usually width) well above 10. This building will be closer to 2. 

 

 

Is this building out of scale with it's neighbors? Yes. 

 

Are FAR caps mostly tools used by zoning boards to benefit existing property owners at the expense of new entrants by limiting the supply of housing and thereby increasing prices? Also yes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/27/2018 at 0:45 PM, 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? 

 

How about the large empty lot at 4503 Montrose, just north of the 59 bridge?  The lot is huge (26,000 sq ft) and isn't currently being utilized by anything other than the defunct African Art Center. If you combine it with the adjoining empty lot at 905 Woodrow, you get over 35,000 sq ft of space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, clutchcity94 said:

 

How about the large empty lot at 4503 Montrose, just north of the 59 bridge?  The lot is huge (26,000 sq ft) and isn't currently being utilized by anything other than the defunct African Art Center. If you combine it with the adjoining empty lot at 905 Woodrow, you get over 35,000 sq ft of space.

 

Totally forgot about this spot! This could be quite the site for something cool. I wonder if it's still for sale. HCAD says no change of ownership since 07.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, wilcal said:

 

Totally forgot about this spot! This could be quite the site for something cool. I wonder if it's still for sale. HCAD says no change of ownership since 07.

 

I haven't heard anything since this building which never got built.

http://swamplot.com/new-spec-office-building-on-montrose-blvd-will-sit-atop-southwest-fwy-wall-vines/2014-10-13/

 

It's a great location.  Close to 59 and a 7-minute walk to the Glassell School of Art and less than a 15-minute walk to Menil Park in the other direction.

Edited by clutchcity94

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is setting up the gofundme to purchase another property so the developer can build this project there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, clutchcity94 said:

 

How about the large empty lot at 4503 Montrose, just north of the 59 bridge?  The lot is huge (26,000 sq ft) and isn't currently being utilized by anything other than the defunct African Art Center. If you combine it with the adjoining empty lot at 905 Woodrow, you get over 35,000 sq ft of space.

 

I find this an odd way of thinking about development. It's as if the developer just harvested this building from the building farm, and just needs a place to plant it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, clutchcity94 said:

 

How about the large empty lot at 4503 Montrose, just north of the 59 bridge?  The lot is huge (26,000 sq ft) and isn't currently being utilized by anything other than the defunct African Art Center. If you combine it with the adjoining empty lot at 905 Woodrow, you get over 35,000 sq ft of space.

 

Is that land available? Somebody might be holding it and planning to build a highrise in three years. Or just letting it appreciate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, H-Town Man said:

 

Is that land available? Somebody might be holding it and planning to build a highrise in three years. Or just letting it appreciate.

 

 

Not sure if the sign is still up, but there's a large for information sign for a broker group from Feb. 2017 which is well after those plans for the office building were released. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...