LBC2HTX

The whole area is a suburban style shopping center.  I don’t get why anyone is surprised. Sure, they could’ve thrown up another apartment mid-rise but that wouldn’t make the area any more “walkable”. 

3 hours ago, CREguy13 said:

It's projects like this that have me very excited about the future of Uptown.  This building, both Hanovers, all the new highrise condos/MF on Westcreek, Post Oak Blvd's future retail, the Rosewood development + other high end hotels looking in the area, the growing emphasis on walkability, and even the new high-rise luxury senior living project on Garretson. 

I have to assume this area will have very few rivals nationally, for areas outside a CBD.  A lot to be excited about for sure.

Westcreek will be next level once they/ If they ever break ground on ROD phase 2 and the equinox hotel.

On 3/11/2021 at 5:15 PM, editor said:

Interesting about the people at Skyhouse.  We're quiet types, so we'd prefer a building that is also quiet, and slightly older.  

How did you like The James?  That one is on my wife's list, too, along with The Ivy, which I believe is next door.  Is it problematic being right next to the train tracks?  

The James was great, very mixed crowd with some older residents and even families. The Ivy is the connected sister building with rents that are about 50% to 100% higher than a similar unit in the James. That said, it’s a huge building in a busy area so I wouldn’t expect quiet. It’s a quiet zone for the train so you won’t hear the horn blowing but it’ll def be annoying to get stuck behind.

I would highly suggest you don’t live in either Skyhouse property. The type of people those places attract are not who most people would want to live next to or interact with. There are a few buildings nearby that are in the same price range which will be much more enjoyable. I lived off mid-lane at the James for over 3 years so my vote is ROD area over downtown. 

30 minutes ago, enriquewx91 said:

Chances this actual happens? low im guessing given current events

100% chance given that they have an anchor tenant

It’s not that complicated. The metal barns with rolling doors require more land. Land in the city is expensive. People in the city require storage for their junk, just the same as suburbanites.

6 hours ago, pablog said:

I would prefer a 7 story condo tower that fits the design and character of the neighborhood than a giant storage building with 0 character 

Don’t worry, it’s just a matter of time before that whole corridor goes the way of 19th and 20th.

NIMBYs triggered 

The best section of 11th is on the other side of studewood, and even those buildings aren’t beautiful.

You realize there a big parking lot that they were otherwise looking at. No one is looking down anyway. 

10 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I actually really like those apartments. I hope this block doesn’t change too much. I’d hate to lose some of the beautiful buildings that line this street.

There are very few beautiful buildings on that block. 

1 hour ago, urbanize713 said:

Do they occupy the middle floors that noticeably have not switched over to LED bulbs? I have always wondered this, lol. 

Hmm they’re on the upper middle floors, something like 30-42 (of 50). Their office are nice, you just get a whiff of retirement home  when you walk in. 

7 hours ago, Triton said:

If we are going to have all these major developments along Westheimer, then it seems clear to me that Westheimer is clearly due for reconstruction now. The road is in horrible shape.

Should’ve been done 10 years ago. It was BAD then. 

2 hours ago, houstontexasjack said:

This leaves Baker Botts as the only law firm of Houston’s Big 3 not moving to a new tower in the next few years.

Just a matter of time. There’s a certain stench that permeates from their offices when the elevator door opens. That said, one shell has done a good job of staying competitive after Shell left.

9 hours ago, Houston19514 said:

"decades long proximity to  the redline" is a bit of stretch, considering the original portion of the red-line (which almost but didn't quite brush up against the near north side) is not yet "decades" old. 

You’re right, but everyone’s known about the expansion since at least 2009 and not much has happened. It’s pretty obvious that the area will eventually turn around, and if I were an investor then I’d buy but LIVING there is out of the question at the moment. Perhaps if I were a bachelor I’d make it work.

Wife and I looked into buying in the near north side and couldn’t see us living anywhere outside of Lindale Park. The area has a LONG way to go which is crazy to me given all the development elsewhere inside the loop and its decades long proximity to the redline.

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

You are right.  When they announced the development of 1111 Studewood... almost two miles away.

WHAT? This is the unappealing 6 story building behind someburger. Literally across 11th street from this project. 

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

We were pissed about those too.

That’s my point. Bunch of NIMBYs.

Like I originally said, I understand being upset with a 7 story storage center. It’s an eyesore and a symbol of American excess. However, these developments are everywhere inside the loop. In any case, I’m all for historic preservation of actual historic places, just not preservation of old dilapidated buildings that have been neglected for decades and weren’t even notable when originally built.
 

I’m going to call BS on that given the reaction to the apartments under construction on 6 1/2 street (behind onion creek), as well as the proposed automated parking structure on White Oak.

59 minutes ago, j_cuevas713 said:

Umm yeah because it was neglected. Had the building been restored, it would have been beautiful. Densification has nothing to do with this. You can build smart and still be dense. Plus plenty of us in the Heights aren't happy about this for good reason. 

Clearly no one was willing to restore it.   The level of unhappiness isn’t a surprise. The heights is full of NIMBYs who have only moved there within the last 10 years. 
 

As I said, the NIMBYs would be up in arms even if this was being built on an empty lot. This has nothing to do with “historical preservation”. 

 

This property was left out of the Historic Districts.  So, the owner was free to demolish it and shame on us for not having it included in the district.  But 11th is nothing like 19th and 20th.  The majority of the street frontage on 11th is either single family residential or small 1-2 story retail/commercial.  This section of the Heights has mostly very small lots abutting 11th and was never destined for densification.  

And if you think the theater was an eyesore, how in the world is a seven story storage facility an improvement?  The owner of this lot could sell the land and probably have enough money to buy a larger lot on N. Shep or Durham.  This is just a stupid place to put a storage facility.  The Heights is not what it was fifteen years ago when no one wanted to build anything in the neighborhood.  The neighborhood has some of the best new developments in Houston.  You can call people "NIMBYs" all day, but that doesn't mean that putting a storage facility on 11th is a good idea.  

11th is mostly a commercial corridor from Michaux to Yale. Yes, it’s mostly 1 and 2 story buildings, but that’s exactly what most places are like before densification. If you didn’t think this would happen on 11th then you haven’t been paying attention to everything else happening in the Heights. You only need to look at 1111 studewood to know this was coming to this part of 11th.

I get being upset about a seven story storage facility, it’s an eyesore. But to act like the building it’s replacing is a huge loss or historical in any way is laughable. This section of 11th was always destined for densification. Just look what’s happening further down 11th and around 19th and 20th. If this monstrosity of a storage building came AFTER other densification (e.g mid-rises and retail) then hardly anyone would care. 
 

if this replaced a hand car wash or church parking lot on 11th then it would be getting the same reaction from NIMBY residents. Nothing to do with “history”. 

Further, copyright infringement is a civil matter not a criminal act, so you’ll have no fear of being arrested (and I highly doubt the architect is going to sue some recreational photographer). That said, if you’re on private property you may be arrested for trespassing. 
 

disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer

“

Architectural works are protected by U.S. copyright law, specifically by 17 U.S. Code § 102(8). In fact, copyright law was officially changed in December 1990 in order to include these architectural copyrights. What does this mean for photographers who want the ability to make and sell architectural photos?

• The law does not apply to buildings created before December 1, 1990 (so architectural photos of such works can be taken and reproduced without permission).
• Except for buildings that cannot be viewed from a public space, the copyright owner of a post-1990 building (the architect, developer, or building owner) cannot prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the building. See 17 U.S. Code § 120, which covers the scope of exclusive rights in architectural works.

Therefore, photographers need to be concerned only when entering private property without permission to take a photo of a post-1990 building. Such photos may result in a claim of copyright infringement.”