The Langley: Residential High-Rise At 1717 Bissonnet St.

[Avossos]

It is a matter of time before everything inside the loop becomes mid / high rises... Houston is a big city. land value won't be going down anytime (trend is up). Ashby highrise will be followed by others. If you havent noticed, all the cheap construction / cheap apartment buildings / townhouses end up becoming devalued - and developers see this as a brilliant flag of opportunity; and come in.

 

The previous apartments weren't good... yet they were younger than many of the other homes surrounding. I think this building is beautiful, and I hope it goes up.

[houstontexasjack]

I still don't think this should have gone to trial. 'Prospective nuisance' as a legal concept leads to strange and difficult territory (is a German Shepherd puppy a 'prospective nuisance' because it might one day bite the neighbors' kids). At least construction can proceed.

[HoustonIsHome]

As to whether the project should be prevented, that part should never have gotten to the jury. The judge should have dismissed that part as a matter of law.

As to damages, that I see being decided by a jury. That is what juries do. They decide matters of fault and award damages.

The judge as he did now could have done ages ago and allow the project to continue while the matter of damages goes on.

The residents and juries are trying to implement zoning codes through verdicts.

No dice. The public needs to vote on this again.

[HoustonIsHome]

It is a matter of time before everything inside the loop becomes mid / high rises... Houston is a big city. land value won't be going down anytime (trend is up). Ashby highrise will be followed by others. If you havent noticed, all the cheap construction / cheap apartment buildings / townhouses end up becoming devalued - and developers see this as a brilliant flag of opportunity; and come in.

The previous apartments weren't good... yet they were younger than many of the other homes surrounding. I think this building is beautiful, and I hope it goes up.

There are neighborhoods that I wish would not change much, and there are others I would mind seeing two dozen Ashby hirises in *cough*cough* Afton Oaks*cough*cough*

The neighborhoods around the museum district shouldn't be funked with.

River Oaks I care less about

[HoustonIsHome]

This can't be right...

They cannot be on tap to pay damages to whoever wants to file a claim... that is outrageous. What I took from it is:

They have to pay damages either way, now, and they can build.

Green light in my mind. Just an added 1.7 million dollar cost (for damages).

It is not whoever wants to file a claim. They will be paid the difference between the property values before Ashby and now. If there had been no diminished values thres is no recovery

[talltexan83]

That article that quoted mr Blackmon was just filler.....this judge needs to make his decision already so we can see how the legal experts battle it out

[WestUdweller]

Lawyer Josh Blackman called the residents' claim of nuisance " backdoor zoning for the wealthy" which isn't proper use of the land.  

 

I had him for Property I a year ago! The prof has a genius level IQ... Seriously may be the smartest person I know.  Great guy.

 

Here is a link to his blog!

 

 

http://joshblackman.com/

Edited May 2, 2014 by WestUdweller

[houstontexasjack]

Houston has a problem with creeping zoning. Although we do not have a master zoning plan, there are a number of ordinances relating to building setbacks and minimum lot sizes. We also have gerrymandered 'historic districts' (looking at you, First Ward) that restrict what might be redeveloped. I agree with others on this forum that it might be time to put a master zoning plan up for a vote again.

[cloud713]

Houston has a problem with creeping zoning. Although we do not have a master zoning plan, there are a number of ordinances relating to building setbacks and minimum lot sizes. We also have gerrymandered 'historic districts' (looking at you, First Ward) that restrict what might be redeveloped. I agree with others on this forum that it might be time to put a master zoning plan up for a vote again.

What about that new plan the mayor was talking about to focus development in certain areas and what not. Kind of like zoning, but not.

[urbanize713]

Using the same logic and given that the developer has spent substantial money on legal expenses I vote that if the value of the adjacent properties actually goes up (more likely than go down) the respective owners pay the developer royalties for making them richer.

[HoustonMidtown]

Using the same logic and given that the developer has spent substantial money on legal expenses I vote that if the value of the adjacent properties actually goes up (more likely than go down) the respective owners pay the developer royalties for making them richer.

I was wondering the same thing -- what happens when their values go up - which I am pretty sure they will -- do the neighbors have to pay back the developer ?

[IronTiger]

As much as I wish that it would've stayed low-rise, it is Houston, and the only way to avoid a fiasco like this is zoning. I have to agree with the judge's decision.

[Nate99]

I'd guess the opponents have spent more than $1.2 million fighting this thing. Given what interest rates have done recently, the delay might have actually saved the developers money on net. 

 

Also, if that is split among 20 neighbors, for that neighborhood, you're talking peanuts in relative value of the property. 

 

Tend to agree that this neighborhood will not decrease in value, though perhaps it will be lower than it would have been otherwise. So, if this is the last of it, it seems that you can squeeze money out of developers of nearby property if you have a good enough lawyer is the lesson of the Odyssey of the Ashby Highrise.

[KinkaidAlum]

Funny, everyone hates the neighbors... you know, the ones who live in Houston and pay astronomical property taxes on their properties. Meanwhile, the developers live in the City of West University Place and don't have to worry about an outside developer building a 20+ story tower next to their single family house.

 

Sure, their case was stupid. Their homes aren't going to be horribly devalued (well, the ones directly backing up to them will probably suffer short term) because the neighborhood is healthy and has a great location. However, allowing this tower sets a precedent. Will a new tower be proposed on the vacant lot on Greenbrier @ Bissonnet? Will an outside developer decide that the lot that houses Picnic, Raven, and an antique store would make a good place for another tower? Will Rice sell the Hillel House to make a quick buck? Do the owners of the single family homes that still line Bissonnet start thinking about cashing out because their neighborhood has in fact changed for the worse (more traffic, less trees, more transient neighbors (renters vs. owners, etc...?)

 

I think this is what the folks who live on Albans, Wroxton, North, and South worry about. Do any of you really think the houses that line Woodway, Chimney Rock, Kirby, or San Felipe command the same premium as those  further away from those streets do? Do you think a house on Wroxton Court that backs up to a 21 story tower will be as valuable as one 5 blocks away? If you've invested a few million into a historic home on South Boulevard, do you now worry that when you go out to your back yard there will be a tower hovering above you rather than live oak trees? 

 

This is what the closest residents were worried about. As a citizen of the City of Houston, I'd support them over some carpet bagging developers just looking to cash out on a neighborhood's popularity by potentially harming it over the long run. That's what this case is about to me. 

 

 

[TBooze]

Ashby Highrise Will Go Up ‘Without Delay,’ Developers Say

 

Article from Swamplot dated 5/02/2014

[fernz]

Funny, everyone hates the neighbors... you know, the ones who live in Houston and pay astronomical property taxes on their properties. Meanwhile, the developers live in the City of West University Place and don't have to worry about an outside developer building a 20+ story tower next to their single family house.

Sure, their case was stupid. Their homes aren't going to be horribly devalued (well, the ones directly backing up to them will probably suffer short term) because the neighborhood is healthy and has a great location. However, allowing this tower sets a precedent. Will a new tower be proposed on the vacant lot on Greenbrier @ Bissonnet? Will an outside developer decide that the lot that houses Picnic, Raven, and an antique store would make a good place for another tower? Will Rice sell the Hillel House to make a quick buck? Do the owners of the single family homes that still line Bissonnet start thinking about cashing out because their neighborhood has in fact changed for the worse (more traffic, less trees, more transient neighbors (renters vs. owners, etc...?)

I think this is what the folks who live on Albans, Wroxton, North, and South worry about. Do any of you really think the houses that line Woodway, Chimney Rock, Kirby, or San Felipe command the same premium as those further away from those streets do? Do you think a house on Wroxton Court that backs up to a 21 story tower will be as valuable as one 5 blocks away? If you've invested a few million into a historic home on South Boulevard, do you now worry that when you go out to your back yard there will be a tower hovering above you rather than live oak trees?

This is what the closest residents were worried about. As a citizen of the City of Houston, I'd support them over some carpet bagging developers just looking to cash out on a neighborhood's popularity by potentially harming it over the long run. That's what this case is about to me.

All valid points. If you're worried about that, either mobilize to get zoning on the ballot, or don't buy an expensive house in a desirable neighborhood without deed restrictions in Houston - but don't sue to stop someone from doing something that complies with current laws. Edited May 3, 2014 by fernz

[HoustonIsHome]

All valid points. If you're worried about that, either mobilize to get zoning on the ballot, or don't buy an expensive house in a desirable neighborhood without deed restrictions in Houston - but don't sue to stop someone from doing something that complies with current laws.

Exactly. This has been defeated by public ballot many times. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

The law is the law, they should be petitioning to have the law changed not suing a developer who went through all the legal hoops he was required to.

Its bad for development and the legal process in general if anyone can tie you up in the courts for breaches of imaginary laws.

No one is hating on the woes of the residents. But the residents had no legal basis to enjoin the developers from erecting the building.

I can understand suing for depreciation of value(barely), but halting the project? Really?

[KinkaidAlum]

Honestly, do you think Southampton and Boulevard Oaks are lacking deed restrictions? Both neighborhoods have strict deed restrictions and the neighbors enforce them actively (especially quick to catch spec home builders trying to break the strict height limitations). 

 

The main issue is that Bissonnet at one time fell under those deed restrictions but when the City declared it a major thoroughfare, it changed the rules mid-game allowing for insane proposals like adding a 21 story apartment tower with a couple of hundred units in the middle of what is essentially a healthy, single family neighborhood. 

 

 

 

[Dakota79]

So is it really starting? It will be so strange to see that, but I'll bet the views will be incredible.

[fernz]

Honestly, do you think Southampton and Boulevard Oaks are lacking deed restrictions? Both neighborhoods have strict deed restrictions and the neighbors enforce them actively (especially quick to catch spec home builders trying to break the strict height limitations).

The main issue is that Bissonnet at one time fell under those deed restrictions but when the City declared it a major thoroughfare, it changed the rules mid-game allowing for insane proposals like adding a 21 story apartment tower with a couple of hundred units in the middle of what is essentially a healthy, single family neighborhood.

That's the first time I hear of that argument. I didn't think the deed restrictions could be overturned without majority of owners agreement. Otherwise, it constitutes taking and the owners should've fought to get compensated by the city at the point that happened; if was not the developer who took away the deed restrictions (assuming that actually happened)

[Houston19514]

Honestly, do you think Southampton and Boulevard Oaks are lacking deed restrictions? Both neighborhoods have strict deed restrictions and the neighbors enforce them actively (especially quick to catch spec home builders trying to break the strict height limitations). 

 

The main issue is that Bissonnet at one time fell under those deed restrictions but when the City declared it a major thoroughfare, it changed the rules mid-game allowing for insane proposals like adding a 21 story apartment tower with a couple of hundred units in the middle of what is essentially a healthy, single family neighborhood. 

 

Whoah there.   The city's declaring of Bissonnet as a "major thoroughfare" does not have any effect on deed restrictions.

 

And BTW, that part of Bissonnet has not been declared by the city to be a "major thoroughfare".

Edited May 5, 2014 by Houston19514

[mollusk]

I pretty strongly suspect that neither Southampton's and nor Boulevard Oaks' deed restrictions would have permitted Maryland Manor, either.  If they do, it would just about have to be in some sort of a predecessor of the "reserve" areas on the periphery of more recent subdivisions with different restrictions that would have permitted a multifamily use without foreseeing high rises decades later.

Edited May 5, 2014 by mollusk

[Dakota79]

Lots of activity today on the site. I took a photo but don't know how to post from my phone.

[nativehoustonion]

Build it!  Sick of these muchers!

[Dakota79]

Looks like they are doing the sewer work etc. Very noisy. I'm sure no one will complain, right?

Here is the link to the photo I posted on swamplot

http://swamplot.com/construction-work-has-begun-on-the-ashby-highrise/2014-05-06/

Edited May 6, 2014 by Dakota79

[Houston19514]

Funny, everyone hates the neighbors... you know, the ones who live in Houston and pay astronomical property taxes on their properties. Meanwhile, the developers live in the City of West University Place and don't have to worry about an outside developer building a 20+ story tower next to their single family house.

 

Sure, their case was stupid. Their homes aren't going to be horribly devalued (well, the ones directly backing up to them will probably suffer short term) because the neighborhood is healthy and has a great location. However, allowing this tower sets a precedent. Will a new tower be proposed on the vacant lot on Greenbrier @ Bissonnet? Will an outside developer decide that the lot that houses Picnic, Raven, and an antique store would make a good place for another tower? Will Rice sell the Hillel House to make a quick buck? Do the owners of the single family homes that still line Bissonnet start thinking about cashing out because their neighborhood has in fact changed for the worse (more traffic, less trees, more transient neighbors (renters vs. owners, etc...?)

 

I think this is what the folks who live on Albans, Wroxton, North, and South worry about. Do any of you really think the houses that line Woodway, Chimney Rock, Kirby, or San Felipe command the same premium as those  further away from those streets do? Do you think a house on Wroxton Court that backs up to a 21 story tower will be as valuable as one 5 blocks away? If you've invested a few million into a historic home on South Boulevard, do you now worry that when you go out to your back yard there will be a tower hovering above you rather than live oak trees? 

 

This is what the closest residents were worried about. As a citizen of the City of Houston, I'd support them over some carpet bagging developers just looking to cash out on a neighborhood's popularity by potentially harming it over the long run. That's what this case is about to me. 

 

It's a free world (or at least a free city).  Anyone of us or them has the option of buying a property in West U or deeper in a deed restricted neighborhood if not having a 20+ story tower next to their single family house is high on their priority list.

 

Allowing this tower does not in any way set a precedent. Not allowing this tower would set a precedent.  Anyone who bought a house along Bissonnet knew they were buying on a collector street that also has commercial properties and rental properties (the residents of Maryland Manor were every bit as transient as will be the residents of the new building.)

 

Do you think the houses that line Bissonnet commanded the same premium as those further away from Bissonnet do, with or without this high-rise?  Do you think a house on Wroxton Court that backed up to Maryland Manor apartments was as valuable as one 5 blocks away?  If you've invested a few million into a historic home on South Boulevard without checking on the status of deed restrictions on your lot and neighboring lots, either you don't care about what's built next to you or you are a damned fool.  If your house backs up to a lot that is not deed restricted you probably should worry about what is going to be built behind you.  That's why houses at the edges of neighborhoods generally go for less money.  (For that matter, even if you live in a zoned city, if your house backs up to property that lines a collector street, you probably should worry about what is going to be built behind you.)  This building may actually raise the values of nearby houses because it removes the nearly-blighted Maryland Manor apartments and gives them certainty as to what will be on that property for the long-term.

 

The closest residents bought houses that were to one degree or another close to a property that was not deed restricted (and lines a collector street  Guess what?  They probably paid less for their houses because of that.  Having gambled and failed they relied on political connections to try to impose their desires on the property of another.

 

[Subdude]

 

 

they relied on political connections to try to impose their desires on the property of another.

 

Weren't they actually relying on the legal system?  Isn't the redress of (real or imagined) wrongs why we have a legal system?  I've never felt strongly one way or another about the tower, but I've also never felt that the residents were somehow wrong in taking it to the courts. 

[nativehoustonion]

I have properties on Mimosa and they have been calling me to sale.  I'm right next to the Womers' Center where it dead ends.  They said NO! not enough Money!

[Urbannizer]

http://swamplot.com/construction-work-has-begun-on-the-ashby-highrise/2014-05-06/

[KinkaidAlum]

"To stand at the foot of South Boulevard in Houston is to look down what is perhaps the most magnificent residential street in America. Staged rows of soaring live oaks form the vaulted arches of a great Gothic cathedral over a grassy esplanade, lined with imposing yet graceful mansions from the 1920s by such eminent architects of their day as John F. Staub and Birdsall P. Briscoe."

 

This is what was written in The New York Times in 1987 about the area. Boulevard Oaks is a special place. It's one of the few largely unaltered places remaining that helps make Houston feel unique. I simply do not think this project is worthy of the location. It doesn't fit the area at all and it actually threatens one of the few jewels this city has. 

 

I don't live in Boulevard Oaks, but I've strolled down North and South many times. I've posed for family photos under the oaks. I've entertained out of town visitors with a walk that always amazes. 

 

We're about to lose this, and for what? A generic apartment tower built by people who don't even reside in the City of Houston?