Sign in to follow this  
ekdrm2d1

Randall Davis Condo 3723 Westheimer Road

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Item 107 on the planning commission agenda is for a 21 story condo tower (6 stories of garage 15 of residence). 

 

There’s a render of the street view element.

Edited by BigFootsSocks
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

EBMAIJw.png

Hoping this comes thru it’s the street view element. 

 

 

Edit: NOOOOO ITS NOT DAVID UGH 

 

mods can u fix my fat fingers plz

 

edit2: nvm I got it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Edited by BigFootsSocks
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we can probably assume this will be value-engineered from the initial renderings, I hope RD does something elegant and fitting of the neighborhood.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The podium is very RD but I don't hate it quite as much with the glass and breaking up the wall to look like paneling. I look forward to renderings of the rest of the tower. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, CREguy13 said:

While we can probably assume this will be value-engineered from the initial renderings, I hope RD does something elegant and fitting of the neighborhood.

 

So color goes from white to beige? Not much to value engineer from this render haha

 

EDIT: Fyi. If y'all take a look at the bottom part of the rendering you will see a long line of text which will give you sense of where this is at right now. Basically this is nothing but an image to illustrate design intent in order to get over the first few hurdles in the design process (that being variances).  Nothing even to value engineer yet as RD and the client still probably haven't chosen final materials. This still has a little ways to go. I wouldn't expect construction until late summer or later this year.

 

EDIT 2: Looking closer. Seems RD is the Design Architect (don't know why anyone would want him too), and the Architect of Record will be Powers Brown.

Edited by Luminare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, j_cuevas713 said:

This is right across the street from the RO surgical center right?

 

Yep. Its amazing what happens when one person starts redeveloping. Looks like this is the next area to take off.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 

At least with Ashby it kinda sorta maybe makes sense as its deep inside a community with only one story residential, but these people have literally zero chance. Houston has way to many precedents where the developer wins in this situation. If the a much taller residential tower on Wesleyan & Alabama can be built then, so should this one. If residents of a nearby highrise couldn't win against another highrise next door in Post Oak then this tower will rise.

 

Maybe it could, but I just don't see it happening. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

https://www.chron.com/business/real-estate/article/Randall-Davis-to-build-condo-project-on-Westheimer-13509227.php

 

Quote

 

Randall Davis is under contract to buy the site of a former furniture store inside the loop where he plans to develop a 50-unit condominium building.

The project, which could rise 20 stories, is slated for the former Krispen home furnishings location at 3723 Westheimer between Timmons and Weslayan.

 

A variance request was submitted to the city last month seeking a reduced building line, allowing for the structure to be built closer to the street.

 

The variance was scheduled to be discussed at last week's planning commission meeting, but it was deferred.

 

The city said it has received "multiple calls and emails" opposing the development. Concerns include height, congestion, access and drainage.

 

Davis declined to provide additional details about the project.

 

 

VQ84niX.jpg

Edited by ekdrm2d1
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIMBY's are the worst and it seems like the richer they are the worse they are. Drainage issues have to be the worst excuse they have considering most of these people are probably River Oaks residences with 10,000 sqft roofs with driveways and patios that are even larger.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exciting to see this area develop. Someone needs to knock down the Public Storage across the street next.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, db650 said:

Exciting to see this area develop. Someone needs to knock down the Public Storage across the street next.

I got my sh** in there lol jk 🤷🏽‍♂️ 😂😂😂

Edited by kennyc05
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, jmitch94 said:

NIMBY's are the worst and it seems like the richer they are the worse they are. Drainage issues have to be the worst excuse they have considering most of these people are probably River Oaks residences with 10,000 sqft roofs with driveways and patios that are even larger.  

 

While sometimes this city puts business/development first to a fault, I rather take that then what is going on in San Fran, for example, where they can't build anything at all because of NIMBY's and the "cult" of preservation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

While sometimes this city puts business/development first to a fault, I rather take that then what is going on in San Fran, for example, where they can't build anything at all because of NIMBY's and the "cult" of preservation.

 

Speaking of the "cult of preservation", I found this video that was posted over on the Nashville development forums, explains the current crisis they and some other places are going through: 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CaptainJilliams said:

 

Speaking of the "cult of preservation", I found this video that was posted over on the Nashville development forums, explains the current crisis they and some other places are going through: 

 

 

YES! Watched this recently. Its amazing how ridiculous it has gotten there. The failure to understand that new developments help assist in making more things available and affordable to more people. If new things are built then wealthier people will move out of the old then freeing up the old which then has to become cheaper to take in the new. I read an article that New York City was having a housing "crisis" (though I loath the term) and what do you know...as soon as new developments were allowed to go through rents have immediately begun to drop again.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

YES! Watched this recently. Its amazing how ridiculous it has gotten there. The failure to understand that new developments help assist in making more things available and affordable to more people. If new things are built then wealthier people will move out of the old then freeing up the old which then has to become cheaper to take in the new. I read an article that New York City was having a housing "crisis" (though I loath the term) and what do you know...as soon as new developments were allowed to go through rents have immediately begun to drop again.

See Thomas Sowell, Stanford

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

 

I wish I was a fly on the wall the moment RD rimmed the idiot that didn't properly check the deed-restrictions. Fact that nobody checked on this, and that now it has to, most likely, go infront of committee and get a 75% vote means that this might actually not happen, and everyone involved is going to lose a bunch of money. Damn. I mean that is literally one of the first things you do! Even before you start Schematic Design...even sometimes before accepting a job with a client! Thats a critical blunder, and even worse, an unnecessary one.

 

EDIT: This is by the way, from someone that works in the industry thats simply trying to put this into perspective. Lets just say there are probably many an architect who probably wouldn't have accepted this job if they found out that the deed-restrictions didn't match the proposal by the client (or if the architect still wanted to work with the client then at least they could go out there and find another piece of land to make it work.) Basically at this point, they are trying to push a square peg into a round hole.

Edited by Luminare
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Luminare said:

 

I wish I was a fly on the wall the moment RD rimmed the idiot that didn't properly check the deed-restrictions. 

“Rimmed” brings to mind a *very* colorful image. 😉 #haifafterdark

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 1:39 AM, jmitch94 said:

NIMBY's are the worst and it seems like the richer they are the worse they are. Drainage issues have to be the worst excuse they have considering most of these people are probably River Oaks residences with 10,000 sqft roofs with driveways and patios that are even larger.  

 

It's worse than that. Remember that, when it comes to housing, it's not a question of whether it gets built, it's a question of where. The residents of this building would generate a whole lot less impervious cover per resident (and square foot of built area) than almost any other type of development, with the exception of house boats in the ship channel. If housing doesn't get built here, it (and a lot more impervious cover in the form of roads and highways) is going to get built further north and west of here, which is to say, upstream. 

 

If nearby residents are TRULY concerned about drainage issues affecting their neighborhood, they should send RD a thank-you note.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deed restriction fight could be interesting.  Doesn't seem they've been enforced since the current use of the site is not single-family use.  I wonder if they are still enforceable.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The deed restriction fight could be interesting.  Doesn't seem they've been enforced since the current use of the site is not single-family use.  I wonder if they are still enforceable.  

I suspect they'd be held to be abandoned as far as restricting commercial use of the property, but going from a one-two story commercial building to a highrise is quite a shift.  I'd have suggested getting a declaratory judgment on the issue before moving forward with the purchase.

 

Edit:  I'd need to see the actual language of the deed restrictions to determine arguments on the potential scope of abandonment.  Abandonment of a portion of a deed restriction does not meet abandonment of all of the restrictions.  So, if the restrictions also impose height or other limitations, those might be enforced even if the use restriction could not be enforced.

Edited by houstontexasjack
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

I suspect they'd be held to be abandoned as far as restricting commercial use of the property, but going from a one-two story commercial building to a highrise is quite a shift.  I'd have suggested getting a declaratory judgment on the issue before moving forward with the purchase.

 

Edit:  I'd need to see the actual language of the deed restrictions to determine arguments on the potential scope of abandonment.  Abandonment of a portion of a deed restriction does not meet abandonment of all of the restrictions.  So, if the restrictions also impose height or other limitations, those might be enforced even if the use restriction could not be enforced.

 

This is what I was thinking as well. Did some digging and apparently here in COH deed restrictions, when they are signed, last for around 25-30 years. Some are continuously renewed after the fact for another 25-30 years, and some just stop and are abandoned. I'm wondering if the residents simply dug up older deed restrictions, but the restrictions have sense passed and they never renewed the restrictions (this would be a possible argument for why a commercial property was allowed to be built in the first place. Thats a possible out for this development (although lucky! You never want to hope for this to be the case.)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this