nate

Also, what exactly is a "contingent agreement"?

I ask since the latest edition of the Houston Business Journal included a commercial real estate market guide, and one page focused on the mixed-use developments in the area, including BLVD Place. It mentioned that a luxury hotel & full-serivce spa (the presumed Ritz Carlton) was under such an agreement.

It means that the hotelier's obligation to build is only triggered by the occurrence of some event stated in their agreement with Wulfe. A contingency can be anything, but it typically is obtaining financing. e.g., hotelier is not obligated to build and operate until it obtains a loan in the amount of X dollars at Y% interest payable over Z months secured by a....

4 story, 400 space parking garage as well as 8 new classrooms according to today's Village News.

An update on this one.

I received the free throw around newspaper, the Village News (no website) this morning. They have a front page story on the proposed high rise.

To summarize:

In mid-May, permit applications were filed with the city for "site utilities and foundation for future high rise apartments" at 3816 W. Alabama. They were returned with a number of corrections, including a traffic study analyzing the impact of a high-density development on neighboring streets. The developers will not confirm their plans. The Highland Village Civic Club president, Jimmy Glotfelty, says the surrounding community supports lower-density development, but a high rise "would get a tremendous outburst" from surrounding neighborhoods. The State Grille's lease is up on July 31. All buildings will be torn down at the end of the summer.

Looks like this is going to happen.

Well, considering the developer's record on Main Street in the past year or two, Hines will be happy to make MainPlace a skeletal, floodlit garage if that were to become a "smarter" investment. Which just goes to show that "highest and best use of the land" is a slippery concept.

This forum cracks me up. People just need to chill out.

Hines is one of the best developers in the world.

MainPlace is under construction. It will completed. When finished, it will the best office building in Texas and will likely command the highest rents in the state.

http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/sto.../14/story6.html

According to Mandola, Interfin plans to tear down the building as soon as the restaurant clears out and construct a 27-story building of an undetermined type.

Matt Waller, a senior vice president with Interfin, would only confirm that the tenants are leaving this summer.

"We have not yet decided what we're going to do with the property," Waller says. "I have nothing to report."

Meanwhile, Mandola has given up the search for another State Grille site due to a lack of an affordable location inside Loop 610.

"We could not afford the rents that they're charging," says Mandola. "The land prices are ridiculous, and rents are very high."

Doug Nicholson of Grubb & Ellis Co., Mandola's real estate broker, says land prices inside the Loop range from $75 to $125 per square foot, which is too expensive for a restaurant.

Nicholson wryly observes that the only way to make that pricing work would be to build a 25-story high-rise and put the State Grille on top of it.

"The prices are just out of sight," Nicholson says. "Right now, everything's so high, we couldn't find anything."

Why don't we just turn all of the most beautiful historical homes in Houston into parking lots then?

Can we start with the homes near Bissonnet and Ashby?

Sigh. Hard to believe that those parking lots were once things of value.

Is it really that hard to believe?

Those parking lots produce a nice income stream. The 6 Houston Center lot is far more valuable as a parking lot than as a couple of houses...

FYI, Discovery Tower will have 871,001 SF of office space (as of Feb. 8, 2008)

http://marketing.cbre.com/houston/Listing%...%20Property.pdf

I wish they'd build it taller than 19 stories!

According to other posters, it is 29.

10 parking + 19 office

I googled redstone and came up w/ many redstone development companies. Do you know which one goes w/ this land?

2200 POST OAK LP

109 N POST OAK LN STE 200

HOUSTON TX 77024-7789

For what it's worth, I was reading documents on the city's HDO page and came across this.

Document states "Boulevard Palace (Hanover)" as having 675,000 sq/ft of commercial space, 500 residential units and consisting of three towers (45, 45, 50).

Also, perhaps some previously dead projects are still a go (Orion, Monaco)?

The print edition has a mini site plan as well.

I thought it was interesting that they are willing to build it on a spec basis.

"Mirski said the development of the Azorim project is not dependent on preselling a portion of the units, which will all come completely finished.

"We believe in the product," she said. "We're willing to move forward without sales.""

I guess it may not since it only controls the number of units involved even though that is a de facto limitation on building size.

Exactly.

I took a course on land use law in law school, the most important thing that I took away is that the government almost always wins.

"You'd better stop this thing, because I'm going to stop it unless you stop it." Bill White.

Wow. How inappropriate is that. He should know better than to make such comments in public. It only gives more fodder to any potential legal action by the developers. It makes it even more clear the ordinance is being passed to block this project despite the words spoken at the city counsel meetings. I think every delay makes it even more likely they are not going to win this fight.

The council's action came after the developers, Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton of Buckhead Investment Partners, agreed in writing not to seek any additional permits during the 90-day period.--Houston Chronicle.

This seems to me like they are vested in the project under the law since they already have applied for permits. I just hope they are aware they cannot change the project or risk falling under any new ordinances.

Suze, see the exemptions to the vesting statute in

That seems quite ambitious for that section of land. Of course, it's hard to really get a feel for the scale since historically all we've had to go on was the lot to a car dealership. In any case, it certainly will be a volatile addition to that area of town.

Now imagine it right next door to River Oaks District

Quite a transformation for that block.

I'm still not seeing it. Isn't it a good thing that the elected officials are being responsive to the wishes of their constituents? Isn't that what we all want from elected officials?

So, you think that it is ok for a regulator who has been given the authority to use his independent judgment as to the merits of proposal to be subject to pressure from elected officials to make findings not justified by the facts of the application? Isn't that contrary to the statute, and the "will of the people" as expressed in the vote by the city council? That doesn't seem to be very responsive. For example, if a big polluter who has connections is having issues with the TCEQ, I don't want the governor leaning on the Director of the TCEQ to make findings unjustified by the merits of the case. That benefits big polluter, but it isn't necessarily in the benefit of the public as a whole, only the narrow interests of the connected party.

Perhaps you didn't read my e-mail carefully and/or don't know about the history of zoning in Houston. All three times zoning has been put to a vote of the people, it has been rejected. (1948, 1962, & 1993) However, state law grants city councils the ability to pass a zoning ordinance without referendum. Other cities in Texas, such as Beaumont, have held zoning referenda which failed, but the city council passed a zoning ordinance anyway against the wishes of the people. Houstonians knew that they could not trust the city council, so they amended the city charter to strip the city council of the power to regulate land use in 1994.

The officials proposing this ordinance are not being responsive to the general wishes of Houstonians, they are towing the line of a few elites whose interests is directly contrary to the wishes of Houstonians revealed by the referenda of 1948, 1962, 1993, & 1994.

Class warrior, eh? Trying to punish people for being successful?

Nothing against wealthy people. I plan on being filthy rich someday.

I don't like it when anyone, rich or not, tries to use the political process to prevent others from moving into their neighborhood.

Do you see any other logical reason why this is so controversial? It certainly isn't traffic, we know that is not possible due to the traffic study which found "no adverse impact."

I decided to send another e-mail to the mayor and council. Let me know your comments.

Dear Mayor White and City Council Members,

Since I last wrote you on Saturday morning, the proposed ordinance relating to high density multi-family development has been revised. I wish to relay to you my comments on the revised ordinance as well as comment on the process that the proposed ordinance has come about.

First, the final finding has been altered to exclude the reference to land use.

The 10/23 draft read:

where are you getting your information? mine is from the final draft, dated 10/29/07, which reads:

and then goes on to say:

but that was a given, so posting it would have been slightly redundant.

edited to add screen shot, just because..

I suppose that it has been changed. I was looking at the version from 10/23 as published by the Chronicle: http://images.chron.com/content/news/photo...seordinance.pdf

Found the newer version: http://stopashbyhighrise.org/site/wp-conte...0/gcd070571.pdf

Still a stupid ordinance.

there are too many posts and not enough time to review them all. so if this was already covered, i apologize in advance.

this proposed ordinance, which has not been approved, means the project would have to go through an approval process if all three items are triggered:

1) if the density would increase by 100%+

2) comprise of more than 100 units

3) primary car access is from a two lane street

so if the development does not impact ALL THREE POINTS, the city cannot do a thing about it. if all three are triggered, it doesnt mean the deal is dead, just means you have to go through some red tape.

in other words, if this development were on kirby, main, westheimer, whatever, the proposed ordinance will NOT effect the development.

No, number 3 is incorrect. The standard is "ANY VEHICULAR ACCESS from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic" (emphasis added)

And is the city oblivious to these effects?

No, I don't think they are.

The Houston City Council is no different than any other government in the fact that they will take every opportunity to enhance its own authority. It isn't the first time that the a government tries to seize additional power for itself in response to a perceived threat.

Nate, as long as ingress and egress only occurs on Kirby, as opposed to side streets, it would not apply. However, this rule could actually make traffic on a multi-lane street WORSE forcing the parking lots and garages to empty onto the busy street, instead of having residents use the already existing intersection with the side street....more unintended consequences of poorly thought out legislation.

I am aware and even noted that possibility in the e-mail I sent to Tsar White and the Politburo which I posted earlier.

Additionally, Kirby Drive is a 6 or 7 lane road, not 2 lane.

It doesn't matter. The proposed ordinance applies to any development that "Is proposed to take any vehicular access from an abutting two-lane street with two-way traffic."

Think about how broad this is. Any large residential development on Main street would be subject to this insane ordinance.

So Andy Teas is full of it.

That reference is not a direct quote. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he simply said "other developments" and ABC13 referenced 2727 Kirby for illustrative purposes.

if it's not finished...size could be limited

Nope.

"Section 3. The Provisions enacted by this Ordinance shall not be effective as to any proposed development for which a structural permit has been issued by the Building Official."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Oct. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Houston's Museum of Fine Arts was the top recipient of private donations among U.S. arts organizations in 2006, with a total of $185.8 million, according to a survey by the Chronicle of Philanthropy released today.

New York's Museum of Modern Art was No. 2 in the survey, with $133.5 million raised.

I'm sorry, but I can't work up a lot of sympathy because the developers have lost money on an investment. None of us are guaranteed returns. Taking risks implies accepting the chance of losing money. The residents of the neighborhood would probably respond that they have spent huge sums of money on their houses, and are glad that those sums will be safeguarded by maintaining the character of the neighborhood.

I don't care if the developers loose money on account of a poor product or a market downturn. However, I am deeply troubled when losses are due to governmental fiat. I am also deeply troubled that you cannot see this.

The property owners have invested substantial sums of money in reliance on current law, to the point of purchasing land, improving the sewererage system as required by the city, commissioning architects and applying for building permits. Because their project is politically unpopular, they are having all this effort taken away without compensation. All that money invested...gone. Turned into gallons of red ink. That potential $150 million project, the homes of 240 families...gone. All because some politicians didn't like the project, even though the developers followed the letter of the law as written.

This is all extremely disturbing. As bad as the proposed ordinance is, at least future residential developers will be on notice that their property rights can be confiscated by political fiat. However, Buckhead was blindsided. They had no reason to think that their efforts would be wasted, that their investment would be stolen by the government. All they did was follow the law as written. We should all be extremely worried.

nate that's how I interpret what you said, but would like some clarification from the crack HAIF legal staff (no, not the HAIF staff on crack).

Nevermind what I said before, it looks like the city can stop 1717 Bissonnet if it passes this ordinance and the Director of Public Works and Engineering sides with the Mayor (he will).

In my e-mail, I mentioned a finding in the proposed ordinance. The reason that is in there is to exempt the proposed ordinance from the Texas vesting statute, which apparently has no teeth at all in land use matters. See