Jump to content

Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center McNair Campus


Recommended Posts

The only real issues that the "almost" historic neighborhood will likely suffer is traffic problems for residents getting in and out (I am not really familiar with the neighborhood, but I think they only have one or two points of entry/exit), a possible increase in noise (which all the construction, ambulances going to/from the med center should be old hat by now), and towers looming about them.

Basically just typical city gripes they will get over. I just hope they don't start turning into A-Oaks types.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 341
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Tower crane being assembled.    

The official TMC3 master plan (listed on tmc.edu) features a 3rd master plan for the McNair campus.  This master plan features 2 towers and a medical office building. Looked on satellite, the McNair C

Posted Images

Dr. Traber, President of Baylor College of Medicine, has agreed to meet with the residents of Devonshire Neighborhood Place Association May 24, 6:30 - 7:30 pm, Cullen Hall, main Baylor campus. His "team" will address our concerns related to their proposed hospital project and its impact on our "almost" historic neighborhood. Personally, we don't feel tall towers and tall parking garages are condusive to an old neighborhood when they are built directly across the street.

We feel there is a better way AND they can still have their wishes, AND give a more meaningful gift to the City of Houston. I only hope the power brokers are not too egotistical to listen.

What is your better way? Can you find me another dozen acres just laying around the area, unclaimed by anyone? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
while i can see both sides, it's all relative

i am of the opinion that this will not be so great for the homeowners of the "almost" historic neighborhood, though

Oh, it'll be great for the homeowners, but could really suck if you're a renter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, it'll be great for the homeowners, but could really suck if you're a renter.

I would hope that "visionaries" at BCM could "partner" with TMC to build their parking garage using some of the TMC parking lot and some Baylor property, both benefit. A linear park could and should be established between Wyndale and Brunson, Cambridge and S. Braeswood, that could save many old oaks, handle bicycle and pedestrian traffic from the numerous apts. and condos south of OST, provide a "nature" break for scientists working in their labs and a healing environment for patients and employees alike, while acting as a complementary transition between 1-2 story homes and 10-15 story towers. This may also help improve BCM's current grade of "D" by the Sustainable Endowments Institutes (www.endowmentinstitute.org). Their proposed insanely large SURFACE PARKING lot along Cambridge is a waste of space and death to many old oaks. Wyndale should be closed at a point just west of the Wyndale/Staffordshire intersection and would prevent the onslaught of cut thru traffic. The TMC 50 Year Master plan calls for the necessity of an east-west street connecting the VA to Fannin. The recently completed NEW firehouse could be located on this connector giving BCM better protection in case of emergency. The east-west street would also intersect with a Bertner Street expansion thru ALREADY VACANT LOTS and provide easy access for the few individuals who need to get to both Baylor locations. A Pressler Street bridge is simply NOT needed and will be a waste of taxpayer money. I feel BCM can have all it wants AND be an asset to Devonshire neighborhood and the City of Houston. Anybody AGAINST more greenspace or better bike to work access?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Here's the rendering from today's groundbreaking for the new Baylor Clinic and Hospital. The new digs will have up to 600 patient beds, an emergency room (no trauma center though), faculty office space, research space, and clinic space. It is set to open in 2010. The complex will also have 2,000 parking spaces in both garage and surface lots. Uggghhh on the surface lots. I would like to think Baylor would be a better neighbor that that...

bcmchrendering.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah, scooped. :)

Here is an image I took earlier today at the BCM Family Celebration. This rendering is from a different angle.

IMG00125.jpg

Agreed that the surface lots MUST GO.

Edited by woolie
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on the size of the lots, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the lots could be for further expansion as it's needed in the first place?

I am curious as to what rating the foundation is going to be, I wonder if they're taking future vertical expansion into consideration as well.

Overall, i see this as a major plus, regardless of what it's "almost historic" neighborhood next door thinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Visual blight.

Replacing a grassy area with surface parking wont be a positive for the Bayou that lines this property.

Replacing a grassy area with surface lots wont do anything but worsen flooding problems in Devonshire.

Replacing a grassy area with a surface lots will add to the runoff into the Braes Bayou nearby causing pollution problems downstream.

Most surface lots, especially in a hospital like setting, will require lighting which will add to the light pollution in the area.

If they are already building a garage, they could maximize greenspace by making it large enough to not need surface parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Visual blight.

Replacing a grassy area with surface parking wont be a positive for the Bayou that lines this property.

What bayou?

Replacing a grassy area with surface lots wont do anything but worsen flooding problems in Devonshire.

Surface permiability is far more important upstream in the watershed.

Replacing a grassy area with a surface lots will add to the runoff into the Braes Bayou nearby causing pollution problems downstream.

I can live with that. If its that big of a problem, it is probably more effective to spend the money that would've gone to structured parking on environmental remediation of a site on the Ship Channel. Probably have a greater impact.

Most surface lots, especially in a hospital like setting, will require lighting which will add to the light pollution in the area.

What's there is there; one surface lot can't possibly make it worse. If we were talking about a suburban site, I could see your point, though.

If they are already building a garage, they could maximize greenspace by making it large enough to not need surface parking.

Sure they could, but at what cost? Besides, for the time being, surface parking is more convenient for users than is structured parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BCM should "partner with TMC to build garage parking tangent to BCM area. It could preserve greenspace between Devonshire neighborhood and BCM and offer a win-win situation for everyone. TMC's surface lot ALREADY destroyed the live oaks. BCM has a chance to save many of them. Tall parking structures located DIRECTLY across from old neighborhood homes DON'T MIX! There IS A BETTER WAY! As I have written before, BCM can still have EVERYTHING AND help preserve a quiet neighborhood, and INCREASE safer bicycle commuting from south of OST to TMC. COOPERATION among TMC institutions (as it happened before) can be a very positive influence for ALL Houstonians. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Replacing a grassy area with surface parking wont be a positive for the Bayou that lines this property.

Replacing a grassy area with surface lots wont do anything but worsen flooding problems in Devonshire.

Replacing a grassy area with a surface lots will add to the runoff into the Braes Bayou nearby causing pollution problems downstream.

That would be true, if your premise were correct. But of course they are not "replacing a grassy area with surface lots." Prior to the BCM purchase / development plan, this was not just a "grassy area". Rather, it was an area with a lot of rooftops, streets, and parking lots, yes, surface parking lots. From the BCM site plan it appears that there might be more "grassy area" and undeveloped surface after BCM is done than there was before.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My objection to the surface parking is purely aesthetic. The runoff argument is a bit silly, actually. Let's take a look at how much surface parking is already in the area.

bcmparkwood-satview.jpg

This also shows how little of an "almost historic" neighborhood even exists -- and how little borders BCM. About 10 or 12 houses. In an area that's already been replaced with giant townhomes.

These are some older renderings showing the approximate massing and scale of phase 1 and 2, respectively. They were posted earlier as attachments, but not in-line with the thread.

bcmparkwood-plan1.jpg

bcmparkwood-plan2.jpg

Edited by woolie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, it's been a long time since I have been in that part of Houston. I was actually visualizing the Camdrige @ Holcombe area for this project. Additionally, the new rendering with the "river" out front also threw me off a bit as I thought it would then be adjacent to the bayou/ditch.

Also, I had NO IDEA there was that much surface parking in that area. Man, that is tragic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah, it's been a long time since I have been in that part of Houston. I was actually visualizing the Camdrige @ Holcombe area for this project. Additionally, the new rendering with the "river" out front also threw me off a bit as I thought it would then be adjacent to the bayou/ditch.

Also, I had NO IDEA there was that much surface parking in that area. Man, that is tragic.

Wow...the area is soooo visually blighted that Kinkaid didn't even know about it! :rolleyes:

TMC surface lots are aesthetically neutral. Unlike surface lots downtown, they're well-maintained and landscaped at the periphery. You only really get a feel for how much paved space there is from the air...but most people exist at street level, so that's typically not an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WOOLIE, ... Your second rendering was interesting. (The view as if it were taken from the top of the SPIRES TOWER looking south). BCM property "overlayed" about 20 families homes on Canterbury and Lauderdale.

On a positive note, our neighborhood (Devonshire) meeting with Dr. Traber, CEO BCM, went quite well I thought. BCM would support the idea of closing Wyndale to Braeswood just west of Staffordshire if Dr. Wainerdi and the CoH will help create a Brunson east-west thru way connecting the VA Hosp to Fannin and Firehouse #33. This would help prevent an estimated 800+ autos 2X's/day (BCM employees and patients) from using our somewhat quiet neighborhood street. I feel that they expressed progressive and community-based thinking. I doubt that many "developers" would think that way. :blush:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

another sad update for devonshire -

the 1920 Woodbury house, c. 1929 (former estate of Penn Rettig - Rettig's Ice Cream) will be (has been?) demolished by the current owner.

I was told that it is making way for townhouses/residential something-or-other

also, the rumor is that the house was being taken apart board-by-board and sold to a developer in the Heights.

The owner, Dr. Richard B. Patt, may have done great things for cancer research, but has also helped destroy another (small) piece of 1920's Houston -_-

Edited by sevfiv
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest danax
another sad update for devonshire -

the 1920 Woodbury house, c. 1929 (former estate of Penn Rettig - Rettig's Ice Cream) will be (has been?) demolished by the current owner.

I was told that it is making way for townhouses/residential something-or-other

also, the rumor is that the house was being taken apart board-by-board and sold to a developer in the Heights.

The owner, Dr. Richard B. Patt, may have done great things for cancer research, but has also helped destroy another (small) piece of 1920's Houston -_-

Maybe to him, all old architecture looks like malignant growths.

It appears that most of the 1920s structures near the Museum District and Med Center are doomed to demolition eventually.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief, surface parking is tragic? And the solution to parking is?

Boston has gone to your head.

It's simply land use mixed with aesthetics. It is not so much that there needs to be a solution for parking, but not taking up large swaths of land for parking in a booming area like the Med Center has a simple solution which is structured parking.

Edited by WesternGulf
Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe to him, all old architecture looks like malignant growths.

It appears that most of the 1920s structures near the Museum District and Med Center are doomed to demolition eventually.

yep - there are so many beautiful 20s and 30s era homes in Binz and Devonshire Place. Unfortunately, many of the Binz area homes haven't been kept up so well in the last few decades, allowing for the "easy" choice of demolition.

oh, apparently Patt made a killing on the property - when he sold, he probably looked something like this:

$$ >:) $$

Edited by sevfiv
Link to post
Share on other sites
yep - there are so many beautiful 20s and 30s era homes in Binz and Devonshire Place. Unfortunately, many of the Binz area homes haven't been kept up so well in the last few decades, allowing for the "easy" choice of demolition.

oh, apparently Patt made a killing on the property - when he sold, he probably looked something like this:

$$ >:) $$

Any idea what Patt got for that property? You'd think developers would be buying up land quickly in that neighborhood.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's simply land use mixed with aesthetics. It is not so much that there needs to be a solution for parking, but not taking up large swaths of land for parking in a booming area like the Med Center has a simple solution which is structured parking.

Given the high price of Medical Center land, aesthetics are a lesser justification than are economics. Structured parking in the rear portions of the site allow frontage along Cambridge to be sold off for apartment, condominium, neighborhood-level retail development, or possibly used for compatible uses such as an extended-stay hotel or dorms.

On careful review of various matters, I have become convinced that surface parking even in high-dollar areas implemented to serve retail (i.e. Costco at HISD site) is frequently the best route. But for office and hospital uses in this area, there is only justification for a very limited amount of surface parking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Good grief, surface parking is tragic? And the solution to parking is?

Boston has gone to your head.

I'd rather Boston have gone to my head than whatever suburban enclave has gone to yours. It really is time for you to change your screen name.

GatedEnclaveCoog has a nice ring...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Those lots have been there for 20+ years. They didn't need structured parking back then. And when they need more land those lots will be converted and you'll see structured parking.

I think Segregated_Boston_Schools would be a real cool screen name.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather Boston have gone to my head than whatever suburban enclave has gone to yours. It really is time for you to change your screen name.

GatedEnclaveCoog has a nice ring...

Nah, gates are ubiquitous, and actually, Fall Creek probably has an edge on Midtown in the sense that their gates are at least along the perimeter of the entire community rather than a defining characteristic of their homes. In fact, I'll bet that that there are deed restrictions to ensure that no gated homes are built at all in Fall Creek. Seems like that and the socioeconomic homogenity make for a less antisocial arrangement between neighbors...if you're into that kind of thing, which I'm not--but that's why I'd make such a terrible suburbanite.

hr1878429-13.jpg

hr1878429-10.jpg

hr1871117-26.jpg

hr1771104-1.jpg

hr1892394-1.jpg

hr1844135-1.jpg

hr1740078-41.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

The surface lots in the TMC have some beautiful fences and take advantage of the bayou scape. And most have security.

I left my gate, in Houston's Midtown. {cue Sinatra} They were mandatory to keep all the ghetto-thugs out. And you never know what those male prostitues on Tuam might try.

The only gates in Fall Creek are around home's driveways and the two golf courses. So if 15 miles from downtown is the burbs, then I'll take it! But if I were 20 years old, or gay, like y'all I just might move back.

Edited by MidtownCoog
Link to post
Share on other sites
Any idea what Patt got for that property? You'd think developers would be buying up land quickly in that neighborhood.

I do not know what my neighbor from hell got for the property. About three years ago, some of it was sold to the Waterhill development company who squished 12-14 townhomes with 700 sf bases onto it. Three to four of them are already for sale again and one of them has had to be "re-stuccoed" for the third time. For the leftover property which used to indulge a magnificent Tudor style home, (before adding landscaping from a defunct Galveston "putt-putt" golf course, complete with giant bears, missles, and various other rusted junk), it was purchased by Moody National. Maybe this link will work. http://www.globest.com/news/905_905/houston/160610-1.html

Unfortunately, said person sampled too often into the pharmacology horn-of-plenty and had his license suspended by the Texas Medical Association. My suspicions are that he was mortgaged 3 times over and had to sell to keep bread on the table and out of jail. Sad ending to another Houston architectual beauty. Moody would be a welcome site compared to him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know what my neighbor from hell got for the property. About three years ago, some of it was sold to the Waterhill development company who squished 12-14 townhomes with 700 sf bases onto it. Three to four of them are already for sale again and one of them has had to be "re-stuccoed" for the third time. For the leftover property which used to indulge a magnificent Tudor style home, (before adding landscaping from a defunct Galveston "putt-putt" golf course, complete with giant bears, missles, and various other rusted junk), it was purchased by Moody National. Maybe this link will work. http://www.globest.com/news/905_905/houston/160610-1.html

Unfortunately, said person sampled too often into the pharmacology horn-of-plenty and had his license suspended by the Texas Medical Association. My suspicions are that he was mortgaged 3 times over and had to sell to keep bread on the table and out of jail. Sad ending to another Houston architectual beauty. Moody would be a welcome site compared to him.

yup - the owner is an anesthesiologist and at some point had his licensed revoked. oopsies!

the house was built by Katharine and Harry Mott (more info on them here), and is also in the Houston Architectural Guide by Stephen Fox:

One of the largest houses constructed by Katharine and Harry Mott, this rambling manorial style house occupies an entire block front in the subdivision of Devonshire Place. The crumbling of deed restrictions led to an invasion of high density housing in the mid 1990s that has radically diminished parts of the historically significant neighborhood.

this is a site which shows some of the stuff that was auctioned off from the property, and an article about him winning the HP 2002 Best Backyard.

this picture is from the Houston Architectural Guide:

wdbguide.jpg

and one from the other day:

wdb001.jpg

more pictures here

Link to post
Share on other sites

sad.

from the good brick award citation:

Through their caring and skilled restoration of 2421 Brentwood, Caudell and Powers have made the house so valuable that it will not be threatened with demolition in our lifetimes

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Brentwood house is still standing - i just posted that for information about the builders

i wonder how many Mott houses are still extant in Houston, though

sad.

from the good brick award citation:

Through their caring and skilled restoration of 2421 Brentwood, Caudell and Powers have made the house so valuable that it will not be threatened with demolition in our lifetimes

Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not know what my neighbor from hell got for the property. About three years ago, some of it was sold to the Waterhill development company who squished 12-14 townhomes with 700 sf bases onto it. Three to four of them are already for sale again and one of them has had to be "re-stuccoed" for the third time. For the leftover property which used to indulge a magnificent Tudor style home, (before adding landscaping from a defunct Galveston "putt-putt" golf course, complete with giant bears, missles, and various other rusted junk), it was purchased by Moody National. Maybe this link will work. http://www.globest.com/news/905_905/houston/160610-1.html

here is the current Cambridge Tower thread:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...showtopic=11102

Link to post
Share on other sites
the Brentwood house is still standing - i just posted that for information about the builders

i wonder how many Mott houses are still extant in Houston, though

I own an original Mott house and would love to know more about them. Mine was built in 1930. I believe the RDA did a tour of Mott houses back in 1998, before I purchased my house. Any info would be greatly appreciated

Link to post
Share on other sites
I own an original Mott house and would love to know more about them. Mine was built in 1930. I believe the RDA did a tour of Mott houses back in 1998, before I purchased my house. Any info would be greatly appreciated

according to the Houston Architectural Guide, the following were designed by Mott, and most were built in collaboration with Burns & James architects:

2421 Brentwood (1929) - First Mott house of ten in River Oaks - also won a Good Brick Award in 2003

3325 Inwood (1930) - her family's home

1419 Kirby Dr. (1930)

1659 South Blvd. (1928)

1660 South Blvd. (1929)

2555 N. MacGregor Way (1929)

2620 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930)

1920 Woodbury (1929) - demolished, one of the largest Mott houses

2519 N. MacGregor Way (~1929-1930) - not sure this one is still around

2627 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - not sure about this one either

2417 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - possibly altered

2612 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - now the part of the Ladet Motel?

maybe i should have started a new topic...!

i wonder how many Mott houses are still extant in Houston, though
Link to post
Share on other sites
according to the Houston Architectural Guide, the following were designed by Mott, and most were built in collaboration with Burns & James architects:

2421 Brentwood (1929) - First Mott house of ten in River Oaks - also won a Good Brick Award in 2003

3325 Inwood (1930) - her family's home

1419 Kirby Dr. (1930)

1659 South Blvd. (1928)

1660 South Blvd. (1929)

2555 N. MacGregor Way (1929)

2620 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930)

1920 Woodbury (1929) - demolished, one of the largest Mott houses

2519 N. MacGregor Way (~1929-1930) - not sure this one is still around

2627 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - not sure about this one either

2417 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - possibly altered

2612 Riverside Dr. (~1929-1930) - now the part of the Ladet Motel?

maybe i should have started a new topic...!

Thanks for the info. I'd love for you to start a new topic on the subject, in case anyone else has any info about them -

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
How many acres are there in downtown ?

Acres wasn't what I meant by footprint; anyway, acres would be a strange comparison since so many acres in both the Med Center and Downtown are still used as surface parking. But the helpful link above says that TMC has 37Msf of space either built, under construction, or in the pre-groundbreaking pipeline (unclear whether this included the Baylor project this thread is about); http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositori...rket_Report.pdf

says that downtown's space is 37Msf. That doesn't mean TMC is on the brink of outgrowing downtown, because this second figure doesn't include the handful of residential towers and conversions and a decent number of hotels, plus retail, a couple of educational institutions, and new development in the pipeline. City Hall, Police, courts, and so forth are there too. But I would guess the total built footprint doesn't rise above 50Msf unless you start including prisons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Acres wasn't what I meant by footprint; anyway, acres would be a strange comparison since so many acres in both the Med Center and Downtown are still used as surface parking. But the helpful link above says that TMC has 37Msf of space either built, under construction, or in the pre-groundbreaking pipeline (unclear whether this included the Baylor project this thread is about); http://www.colliers.com/Content/Repositori...rket_Report.pdf

says that downtown's space is 37Msf. That doesn't mean TMC is on the brink of outgrowing downtown, because this second figure doesn't include the handful of residential towers and conversions and a decent number of hotels, plus retail, a couple of educational institutions, and new development in the pipeline. City Hall, Police, courts, and so forth are there too. But I would guess the total built footprint doesn't rise above 50Msf unless you start including prisons.

Downtown Houston has well over 50 Msf of built and under construction/development space, even without prisons. As you said, that 37Msf number excludes all of the hotels, retail, residential towers and conversions, education institutions, city hall and other city buildings, court houses, police hq, or new developments in the pipeline. Also excluded are baseball stadiums, basketball arenas, , performing arts halls, churches, or convention centers (GRB alone adds 1Msf+). ALSO probably not included in that 37Msf are owner-occupied buildings, such as the Exxon tower, and the Chevron Building at 1500 Louisiana. (I cannot find Collier's explanation of their numbers but I think most of the office market reports do not include owner-occupied buildings.) Add in all of the small buildings and I'm pretty sure we'd get over 50Msf.

Collier's Office Market: 37.1 Msf

GRB: 1.2

Toyota Center: .75

Civil Justice Center: .6

Criminal Justice Center: .75

MinuteMaid Park: 1.25

Hilton Americas: 1.3

Hobby Center: .27

Wortham Center: .44

Bayou Place: .13

Houston Pavilions: .55

MainPlace: 1

Discovery Tower: .6 +

Police HQ: .6

Metro HQ: .3

Old Humble HQ (Marriott) .5

Houston Public Works Bldg .7

Federal Courthouse .5

Mickey Leland Fed Bldg .35

Magnolia Hotel .25

Shops @ Houston Ctr .2+

One Park Place .5+

That already gets us to 49.84Msf. It's safe to say that the rest of the downtown structures not already counted would far exceed 160,000sf to put us over the 50Msf mark. It seems pretty likely we're closer to 60Msf.

Here are just a few of the missing relatively major structures:

City Hall

City Hall Annex

Central Public Library (2 buildings)

Hyatt Regency

The rest of the County Courthouse complex

Inn at the Ballpark

Sheraton Hotel/Omni Hotel

Crowne Plaza Hotel

Four Seasons Hotel

Downtown Club (Houston Center, Plaza, and The Met locations)

multiple churches and associated buildings

St. Joseph's Hospital

Edited by Houston19514
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

KHOU, Channel 11, ran a story last Thursday dealing with construction noise eminating from Tellepsen contractors on the BCM new hospital. http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...e.aac17d6c.html

As I read the City of Houston Code of Ordinances,

"Chapter 30 NOISE AND SOUND LEVEL REGULATION*

Sec. 30-6. Maximum permissible sound levels.

(a) In addition to the violations established by the preceding sections of this chapter, no person shall conduct, permit, or allow any activity or sound source to produce a sound discernible at any location beyond the property lines of the property on which the sound is being generated that when measured as provided in section 30-7 of this Code exceeds the applicable dB(A) level listed below for the property on which the sound is received:

(1) Residential property:

a. 65 dB(A) during daytime hours.

b. 58 dB(A) during nighttime hours.

(2) Nonresidential property: 68 dB(A) at all times.

Any sound that exceeds the dB(A) levels set forth in this section under the conditions and measurement criteria set forth in this chapter is a violation of this chapter. Evidence that an activity or sound source produces a sound that exceeds the dB(A) levels specified in this section shall be prima facie evidence of a sound nuisance that unreasonably disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others in violation of this chapter.

(B) Regardless of the measurable dB(A) level established above and measured as provided in section 30-7, below, the generator of any sound of such a nature as to cause persons occupying or using any property other than the property upon which the sound is being generated to be aware of sympathetic vibrations or resonance caused by the sound shall also be prima facie evidence of a sound that unreasonably disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, or safety of others in violation of this chapter.(Ord. No. 01-945,

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, go ahead and report it and let us know what it's like.

While NIMBY's don't usually get any support or much sympathy from me, it's the ones that whine to everyone else but the proper authorities when they're within their right is what aggravates me.

Just put up with the construction, it's not going to last forever.

A good example is the Museum tower in the Montrose. It backs right up against a community and now their neighborhood is now not only more quiet, but also much more secure.

It'll work out much better in a few months after construction moves over in a different section and you'll be better off. it just won't seem like it.

Edited by ricco67
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, go ahead and report it and let us know what it's like.

While NIMBY's don't usually get any support or much sympathy from me, it's the ones that whine to everyone else but the proper authorities when they're within their right is what aggravates me.

I did report it a couple of weeks ago to the HPD when the construction noise was beginning about 6:30 am. A patrolwomen came and spoke to Tellepsen site manager who said they only report to Baylor. My question is, "Can construction noise (and at what decible level) begin before 7am?"

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...

×
×
  • Create New...