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

[hindesky]

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

couldn't resist  :)

[Specwriter]

1 hour ago, Tumbleweed_Tx said:

couldn't resist  :)

I do not want to take sides in this discussion - I moved from West U to Central Texas more than two years ago - but that image is too funny. 😄 Thanks, Tumbleweed.

[004n063]

11 hours ago, Specwriter said:

I do not want to take sides in this discussion - I moved from West U to Central Texas more than two years ago - but that image is too funny. 😄 Thanks, Tumbleweed.

I'll take sides:

Rich Oaky Boulevardiers trying to paint themselves as the victims in their fight against densification in a ridiculously suburban neighborhood two miles from the center of the country's fourth largest city will never not be funny.

[__nevii]

21 hours ago, 004n063 said:

I'll take sides:

Rich Oaky Boulevardiers trying to paint themselves as the victims in their fight against densification in a ridiculously suburban neighborhood two miles from the center of the country's fourth largest city will never not be funny.

Precisely! If we truly want Tokyo-style "urbanization by right", then we really need to get rid of all these useless rules regarding deed restrictions/HOAs, parking minimums, setbacks, etc.

Even if they don't like giant towers, the Boulevard areas (as well as similar places like Southampton, Braeswood, etc) can still integrate well with gentle "missing middle" density, as well as neighborhood-type commerce. Or, at least, they should support eliminating rules city wide — that way, the areas that can absorb the increased gentle building can do so, resulting in less pressure to build "towering apartments" in proximity to the pearl-clutchers.

Edited December 23, 2023 by __nevii

[shasta]

On 12/21/2023 at 8:53 PM, 004n063 said:

I'll take sides:

Rich Oaky Boulevardiers trying to paint themselves as the victims in their fight against densification in a ridiculously suburban neighborhood two miles from the center of the country's fourth largest city will never not be funny.

They should have put their efforts into establishing zoning or a city plan instead of fighting a single project within the inner city of the most notorious US cities for NOT having too many land use regulations. 

Can't live within walking distance of Rice/Museum District/Herman Park/Kirby and then get mad when YOUR un zoned city develops around where you live.

...and for the record, zoning and a city plan were still NOT on the ballot during the local elections last month

Edited December 23, 2023 by shasta

[004n063]

2 hours ago, shasta said:

They should have put their efforts into establishing zoning or a city plan instead of fighting a single project within the inner city of the most notorious US cities for NOT having too many land use regulations. 

Can't live within walking distance of Rice/Museum District/Herman Park/Kirby and then get mad when YOUR un zoned city develops around where you live.

...and for the record, zoning and a city plan were still NOT on the ballot during the local elections last month

I mean, yeah, they could have done that, but the citizens of Houston would have (rightly) rejected it once again.

A neighborhood as close to the center of a city this big absolutely should not be as sparsely populated as this one is. Yes, the live oaks are beautiful, but R1 zoning is a disaster pretty much everywhere it exists.

[HoustonIsHome]

2 hours ago, shasta said:

They should have put their efforts into establishing zoning or a city plan instead of fighting a single project within the inner city of the most notorious US cities for NOT having too many land use regulations. 

Can't live within walking distance of Rice/Museum District/Herman Park/Kirby and then get mad when YOUR un zoned city develops around where you live.

...and for the record, zoning and a city plan were still NOT on the ballot during the local elections last month

Totally agree. Even the most opulent private residences the US has ever seen were razed in Manhattan for higher use. To prevent Manhattanization of neighborhoods zoning laws were enacted. it's a shame that this project was dragged through the courts for so long. I agree, the proper recourse is zoning laws, not dragging a single project through court.

If zoning doesn't pass, then so be it. This is the core of a huge city, change happens.

Edited December 23, 2023 by HoustonIsHome

[__nevii]

On 12/23/2023 at 7:44 AM, shasta said:

They should have put their efforts into establishing zoning or a city plan instead of fighting a single project within the inner city of the most notorious US cities for NOT having too many land use regulations. 

Can't live within walking distance of Rice/Museum District/Herman Park/Kirby and then get mad when YOUR un zoned city develops around where you live.

...and for the record, zoning and a city plan were still NOT on the ballot during the local elections last month

On the contrary, they should just give it a rest and let loose. What are they so afraid of? If the likes of Sugar Land and Pearland can have "town centres" and apartments, then a little bit of "gentle" middle density + neighborhood commercial won't be the end of the world in the centre of the nation's 4th largest city.

[astrohip]

13 hours ago, __nevii said:

What are they so afraid of?

I think y'all are being unduly harsh to the people who originally opposed this building. I lived in Southampton for thirty years until I left for condo life, so I understand the initial reaction. Please note I am not defending nor lambasting either side's response, just sharing some of "what they're so afraid of". Mainly... traffic and height.

It was going to be, not only the tallest building in the area, the ONLY tall building in the area. You have to go to Kirby or Montrose to find anything of this height. It literally would loom over the area.

It would add in inordinate amount of traffic to an area that is already over-stuffed, on streets designed for traffic of 50 years ago. No street within blocks has been, or can be, expanded. The only apartments around tend to be smaller complexes, with the exception of Rice housing, which runs a shuttle. So you would have hundreds of new cars, dumped into an area already bursting with traffic. Additionally, Bissonnet is a two lane road, that is already a mess, and adding that many new people would make it even worse. It has no ability to be enlarged in any way. The intersection of Bissonnet & Ashby is doomed.

I'm sure there are other reasons beyond traffic & height. Those two came to mind.

Does any of this mean it shouldn't be built? Houston has already answered that question. It's almost inevitable that the inner city it going to become more dense, creating issues. Some can be solved, others (like adding traffic capacity in a land-locked area) are more difficult or impossible to solve. The resident of that area were just trying to prevent the problems that hi-rise would bring to their niche neighborhood.

Was it selfish? Certainly. Most motivations are. Was it wrong? Not from their POV. Was it doomed to fail? Again, Houston answered that.

Hopefully it turns out better than the residents fear. IAC, it's going to be here soon.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all my fellow HAIF'ers. I appreciate the information and education this forum offers.

[__nevii]

7 hours ago, astrohip said:

I think y'all are being unduly harsh to the people who originally opposed this building..

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and Happy New Year to all my fellow HAIF'ers. I appreciate the information and education this forum offers.

They still need to let loose regardless. As mentioned before, hustle and bustle is inevitable near the center of a continuously growing city.

More pertinently, the vast majority what the push-back is about is really just a by-product of car-dependent policies (i.e. traffic, noise, etc all result from more cars on the road) — there should be more and more support across the city for banning parking mandates, setbacks, lot sizes, and other stuff that reduce density and walkability. That way, the developers might have the chance to create these types of towers in ways that result in reduced/absent traffic.

And height is very welcome, the towers should all go crazy as tall as possible — the heterogenity keeps you on your toes, so to speak. Plus, any shade cast would be very welcome given the heat of Houston's summers.

But yes, I wish you and everyone else on here a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Edited December 25, 2023 by __nevii

[HoustonIsHome]

But traffic and height is inevitable in the heart of a big city. Especially one without zoning.

Just because the area was sleepy when the property was bought half a century ago doesn't mean it must remain so in perpetuity.

Houston is no Manhattan, but a big push for zoning laws were to prevent the Manhattanization of neighborhoods. I am not arguing for or against the neighborhood staying the same, my argument is this development being dragged through the courts for a decade was improper. Change happens.

When William and Alva Vanderbilt moved up to a sleepy part of 5th avenue to build their chateau away from the hustle and bustle, being surrounded by skyscrapers was probably the furthest thing from their mind. And yet one of the most spectacular private residential home the US has ever seen was demolished and a Bergdorf Goodman where certain presidents go to grab kitty Cats.

Caroline Astor was the queen of Society herself, and without zoning laws even 5th avenue mansion was torn down and is now the site of the Empire State Building. 

In fact a similar situation happened to Ms Astor, and even the queen of NY Society could not stop it. To spite her, her nephew built the 14 story Waldorf hotel right next to Ms Astors mansion. The hotel dwarfed EVERYTHING in the upscale neighborhood. 

You have a right to the peaceful enjoyment of your own property, but not to the entire neighborhood. Not even filthy rich zillionaires have that without zoning laws. 

Instead of fighting progress Mrs Astor went with it and built the Astoria Hotel in its place. The Astoria later combined with the Waldorf to form the Waldorf Astoria.

Edited December 26, 2023 by HoustonIsHome

[cityliving]

[hindesky]

[cityliving]

[hindesky]

 

[hindesky]

 

[HoustonIsHome]

This building is just getting outta the ground and already has a sexy presence. 

This building should be 10 years old by now and maybe with other siblings scattered throughout the frame of those wonderful pics above

[Nate99]

19 hours ago, HoustonIsHome said:

This building is just getting outta the ground and already has a sexy presence. 

This building should be 10 years old by now and maybe with other siblings scattered throughout the frame of those wonderful pics above

You want sexy, just wait until they install the flailing arms, angry eyebrows and menacing teeth!

[hindesky]

[cityliving]

[HoustonIsHome]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:18 PM, Nate99 said:

You want sexy, just wait until they install the flailing arms, angry eyebrows and menacing teeth!

I anxiously await the day.

[hindesky]

 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

On 1/24/2024 at 3:18 PM, Nate99 said:

You want sexy, just wait until they install the flailing arms, angry eyebrows and menacing teeth!

scroll up... .

[cityliving]

[cityliving]

[samagon]

how long do the neighbors keep their signs in their yards?

[hindesky]

Why I'm taking pics on Bissonnet St. with a line of cars behind me.

 

[astrohip]

So the neighbors concerns are accurate. Traffic is a mess! 🤣

[hindesky]