suzerain
-
Posts
101 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by suzerain
-
I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet. I think it is called The Mix at Midtown. Looked pretty interesting to me this morning. I came on the board to see if there was any info on it, but have not found it yet.
-
Look at the space on the far right.
-
The crosspoint properties website shows a starbucks as a tenant on the first floor.
-
I am sorry. This one concerns the law so I am fascinated by this. The developers could get a way out because the statute refers to collector and local streets. The System uses several factors to classify streets into one of four categories: local, collector, thoroughfare, and principal thoroughfare. The factors include: 1. Length of Road 2. Existing and projected traffic volume 3. Character of adjacent properties 4. Possibility of expansion, including manmade and natural barriers 5. Need to preserve thoroughfare corridors COH Planning Commission Definitions: * Principal Thoroughfare: more than 5 miles long; connects freeways and other principal thoroughfares; more than 30,000 vehicles per day, usually spaced 3
-
"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.
-
I was looking into the vesting statute as referenced earlier on this thread. My question is whether or not they have already filed their application. I am guessing that they have since all they have to do is give "fair notice" of the project to the city. Also, looking at some of the case law, Mayor White's frustration with the recalcitrance of the builders is better understood. If he can convince the builders to change their plan, then they lose their rights under the vesting statute. Because the term "project" is defined as an endeavor, rights vest in a particular project and are no longer vested if the project changes. City of San Antonio v. En Seguido, Ltd., 227 S.W.3d 237 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 2007). So, the way I am reading it, if they can get the owners to change their plans after they enact the ordinance, the city wins. "
-
So what I would imagine would happen now is: 1) City passes the ordinance 2) Developer(s) file for a temporary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the ordinance as enacted; and 3) Concurrently, they will file a Declaratory Judgment Action seeking to declare the the ordinance is void because the City Council does not have the power to institute zoning. Then the city of Houston and various developers will pay a lot of money to attorneys to duke this out. What a shame. I love how the ordinance claims: That there exists a public emergency requiring that this Ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction as requested in writing by the Mayor; therefore, this Ordinance shall be passed finally on such date and shall take effect immediately upon its passage and approval by the Mayor. So for this ordinance to apply to the proposed building would require: (1)Would increase the residential density within the proposed development by 100 percent or more; (2) Comprise 100 or more dwelling units; and (3) Is proposed to take any vehicular access from an abutting twolane street with two-way traffic; for which development no structural permit has been issued. So basically, if there are 67 existing units, they could build a 133 unit building without falling under this statute. That would be about 1/3 fewer units than the developers are currently proposing. The funny part is, the developers could double the commercial and office components in the proposal, thereby causing greater traffic than the residences alone and there would still be nothing the neighborhood (except for passing another ordinance) could do about it. Additionally, the developers could make the building even taller with they fewer units and the neighborhood could not do anything. I do not know a whole about land use ordinances in Houston, but I would argue this would be a violation of the equal protection clause. Although the standard of review in commerce cases is only rational basis, there is seems to be no rational basis to have the law only apply to residential properties and not others. I would imagine the traffic impact of a Wal-mart would be way greater than the high rise, as would a 23 story office building. There seems to be no rational basis for this only to apply only to a residential building. Given the time span given in writing this statute, you know the city has no basis for believing there is something unique about residential buildings that (1) Increasing traffic congestion, hazardous traffic conditions, travel time and vehicle conflicts on City streets; (2) Increasing vehicle/pedestrian conflicts resulting in injury or death to pedestrians; and (3) Impeding the ability of police, fire, ambulance and disaster response services to respond effectively to emergency or disaster situations; The city charter states: Section 13, Referendum on Zoning. The City of Houston shall have the power to adopt a zoning ordinance only by: (a) allowing a six month waiting period after publication of any proposed ordinance for public hearings and debate and ( holding a binding referendum at a regularly scheduled election. Any existing zoning ordinance is hereby repealed. (Added by amendment January 15, 1994) So how can they go ahead and have this hearing so quick and adopt the ordinance. I am assuming all of this is based upon their police powers relating to the public streets. We all know that is a load of garbage, but it is hard to fight the government when they give any reason to courts, the courts will usually listen.
-
It seems like they are completely hanging their hat on the traffic issue. Would a "traffic ordinance" like the one suggested by Bill White (no zoning on his watch btw, lol) really do a whole lot to curb development. Especially since the city seems pretty insistent on making adding lanes to road to handle anticipated increases in traffic. It seems like the city is saying they want to help, just not so much so they do not ruffle too many (read wealthy contributors) feathers. I had heard they were looking at trying to claim the building would be a nuisance to the neighborhood. Seems like a bit of reach to me. The only common theme I see in all the articles is that there is pretty much nothing they can do to stop the developers, but the residents and their friends in city hall (though the politicians have to play both sides of the fence...developers contribute a lot of money and it is an election year) are going to do their damnedest anyhow.
-
Over the past ten years, it has started to happen more and more. You would be surprised.
-
Well, my point is people need to stop listening to special interests who fight zoning so hard if they want to protect their homes from this type of development. Maybe this spur some sort of movement. I do not think many people would be terribly upset is this type of development were limited to certain areas. I prefer the system in Austin personally where dense development spurs dense development in designated areas while protecting the fabric of single-home neighborhoods. I actually have family who recently purchased a home in this neighborhood. It sucks for them, but, at least, they have always been proponents of zoning to prevent these types of situations.
-
Except that you purchased a house in the city of Houston where the people insist they do not want zoning. Well, here is the price. It is hard to feel bad for these people. Also, all the people purchasing homes in Southhampton were the runup in prices has been out of control, have purchased with the knowledge that the deed restrictions will run out in, I believe, 13 years.
-
I was thinking about Cluterbuck living in this neighborhood last night. I know her husband is intimately involved in the Civic club and the effort to save the deed restrictions in the neighborhood. This seems to me to be a complete conflict of interest. She is attempting to get the city involved in a fight that benefits her and her family directly. I know she is supposed to represent the area, but with such a vested interest in what is going on here, she should be very wary of using her public office to try and curtail the development. I know, I know, this sort of self-interested politicing goes on all the time. Still seems dirty to me. BTW, if the truly wants to stop them and succeeds, are they going to be willing to return the 500k investment the developers already put into the project?
-
I was at a Midtown Civic Club meeting where the builder discussed the project. He said that they looked at doing a mixed use development, but there was not enough car traffic there to support it. The builder said that retailers would not sign on with that little car traffic. I think it is supposed to be built to condo spec so they can convert it down the line should they be so inclined.
- 86 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- multifamily
- hines
- (and 4 more)
-
I went to the law school so I know that part of the campus is sealed from the city. I was refering to UT. If you go to the main campus, the entire campus (except the drag) is surrounded by parking garages.
-
I think this is great. One of the things I like the least about UH was the sea of asphalt parking lots. They could have save so much room by building parking garages. Texas started to do this while I was at school with the goal to reduce surface lots (especially within the central part of the campus) to create more green space and reduce the number of cars on campus. It was great. Less cars, less lots made for a nicer campus. The one thing that bothered me about the plan was the danger of a ring of parking garages sealing off the campus from the rest of the city.
-
My wife and I walked by there on our way to the train station before the construction started quite a bit. It looks like they are updating the building. Looked pretty fancy. If I go by again soon I will try and get a pic of the sign.
-
Northwest I believe it is along the planned commuter rail. They want to develop little minicities of more dense development along the path of the train to try and decrease the cars on the road. I believe another stop is in the Mueller airport and there may be one more that I cannot remember off the top of my head.
-
I would think that would be well received by the people who live in that area. In fact, it is currently a de facto dog park. I see lots of people gathering in this space to mingle with their nieghbors and their four legged friends.
-
Here is some info on the second phase: http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news...4/24domain.html Developer plans minicity for second phase of the Domain in North Austin By Kate Miller Morton AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Saturday, February 24, 2007 The sleek, high-end shops such as Neiman Marcus and Tiffany & Co., scheduled to open March 9 at the Domain shopping center, stand in sharp contrast to the gritty industrial and commercial buildings around them. But Endeavor Real Estate Group's preliminary plans for the 177-acre second phase of the North Austin development could soon change that. Endeavor plans to replace nearly a dozen aging, low-rise buildings and sprawling surface parking lots with as many as 50 residential, retail, office and parking structures ranging from two to 26 stories. A 9-acre park, an outdoor amphitheater and hike-and-bike trails are also planned. Ambitious and expensive, the development envisioned along Burnet Road would require the city to significantly increase the maximum height and density allowed on the land and could require public incentives to offset some of the cost. City leaders seem largely supportive of the project, which could give a serious boost to the city's wish to transform about 2,240 acres of sparsely populated and largely commercial and industrial property in the area into a compact minicity with as many as 82,000 residents and more than 50,000 workers in the next 25 to 30 years. "It will become a major catalyst for the creation of our second downtown," City Council Member Brewster McCracken said of the project.
-
Well, what I mean the cohesiveness and development of an urban core. Additionally, they are addressing the issue that everyone cannot live downtown so they are creating other dense center around which development can occur. Such as the Domain, the Mueller airport redevelopment. All I know, is every time I go up to Austin I am impressed with what they are doing. Attached is a poster of the projects under way or proposed for DT Austin. Well, it is actually a PDF and too large so here is the link DT development: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/#emerging The Triangle: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/smartgrowth/triangle_lg.htm There is much more but I do have the time to find it right now.
-
Yeah, Austin is way out ahead on urban development compared to Houston, Also, this is north of Austin outside the main DT. I believe it is part of Austin's plan to have pockets of dense development along the commuter rail they are planning to build there. Plus, this is just phase one of the project.
-
I agree with you wholeheartedly. If anyone ever goes to DT Austin look at the impact the Whole Foods has there. That grocery store brings so much foot traffic and basically anchors that area of DT. Additionally, residential is happening in that area. The good thing about Whole Foods is they make the store a destination. This is why they are so successful. In Austin around lunch time, there is a ton of traffic in and out of the store. Not to mention the concerts occurring there, and the push of the stores to become a part of the neighborhood. As for the stores being more in demand in 2005, go to the store on West Alabama and see if the demand there has slacked off. My wife and I have to wake up early on the weekend just to be able to ensure we get a parking spot. I just wish they would build in Midtown!
-
I had one of those when I was in elementary school/junior high. They would sell them at the mall. It was basically a counsel that allowed you to chat with other people. That is the only use I remember. You could go to different chat rooms and talk to people in the Houston area. I actually got a date from using it. And, believe it or not, we went to Astroworld. Good stuff. I guess I was ahead of the curve on internet dating
-
I went to a fundraiser there a couple of years ago. At that time it was a law office. I would assume it has not changed since then. I do not remember if it was one firm or a bunch of attorneys sharing the office space. It was pretty nice inside
