1111 Studewood Place

[RedScare]

There is probably something that defines office or retail space as "habitable" if it meets code, but I'm not going to look for it.

To make this ordinance applicable to this thread, I already noted that this building would not even be subject to the proposed ordinance, since it maxes out at under 75 feet. However, for fun, I thought I would see what size building I could put on this lot. Obviously, a 75 footer (really more like 85 footer, since the top floor can be at 75 feet) would fit onto this 200 foot deep lot, but what if the developer bought one crummy house next door, they get the 50 foot buffer they need. Then they could build a 60 parking garage with a pool on top in the next 50 feet. They could even build a 15 foot tall clubhouse in the last 20 feet of the pool deck if they wanted. Then the remaining 150 feet of space would be available for the 80 story condo with SPECTACULAr views of downtown!

I know, I know, who would build a 150 foot deep condo tower. I know I wouldn't. It only needs to be 100 feet deep. In that case, we don't even need the dumpy bungalow next door. The parking garage and pool would go in the 50 foot space next to the 50 foot buffer, and the condo tower would rise 80 glorious floors along the Studewood frontage.

I can't wait!

(Note: There is a street on 2 sides of the lot, and a commercial establishment on a 3rd, leaving only the back of the lot subject to the ordinance.)

Edited July 11, 2011 by RedScare

[samagon]

I can hear the developers running down to the City to plat their land before this ordinance is passed:

http://www.houstontx...sity/index.html

I think this is a great idea that will finally get developers of multi story buildings out of residential neighborhoods and into areas that could really benefit from density.

you know, I was thinking about this. and I have to say I am shocked you would like it.

you know what this is going to mean right?

you have this fairy tail vision of developers buying 3 or 4 lots to build a tower and that this ordinance will deny them, but all that's going to happen is that this is going to make them just buy 5 or 6 lots, so instead of 3 or 4 bungalows being destroyed in the name of blocking the sunset, there are going to be 6 or so bungalows that are turned into splinters so that some big bad developer can come in and ruin your garden.

[RedScare]

This is in keeping with Mayor Parker's goal of limiting density within the City of Houston. I do not pretend to have any idea what her thought process is regarding low density, only that she is openly antagonistic to increased density. But, you are correct that the ordinance will simply cause more residences to be bought up for towers, or, as stated earlier, simply cause bad architecture in an effort to fit within the restrictions.

[s3mh]

you know, I was thinking about this. and I have to say I am shocked you would like it.

you know what this is going to mean right?

you have this fairy tail vision of developers buying 3 or 4 lots to build a tower and that this ordinance will deny them, but all that's going to happen is that this is going to make them just buy 5 or 6 lots, so instead of 3 or 4 bungalows being destroyed in the name of blocking the sunset, there are going to be 6 or so bungalows that are turned into splinters so that some big bad developer can come in and ruin your garden.

If you are going to revive a thread that everyone else has let go, at least read what I actually have been arguing and stop making straw arguments for me. I never argued that this would prevent developers from buying up bungalows in the Heights to build towers. The reason I never made that argument is that it isn't happening and isn't going to happen. The problem is developers buying up old apartment complexes (like Ashby) or old commercial lots (like 11 1/2 studewood) and building up on them. There are a number of old apartment complexes and industrial buildings in the Heights that could potentially be a site for a 6+ story building. And there are larger industrial lots on the outer edges of the Heights that could be a site for anything a developer could imagine. The ordinance could make a difference in the former as the buffer requirement would make it very difficult to take an existing site and turn it into an 11 1/2 studewood. The odds of a developer being able to buy up five or six contiguous lots anywhere in the Heights is beyond remote. In fact, it would be exceptionally rare for a developer owning a large lot to be able to buy up an adjoining lot or two in order to meet the buffer requirement. And even if there were such developers out there, if the moon is blue and there are six bungalows available for sale, what right now is keeping them from buying all six instead of just four? At least with the new ordinance, they would have to give up a pound of flesh in the form of a buffer to mitigate impact on the neighborhood in order to stick a condo building in a single family neighborhood.

It is a good ordinance. It isn't perfect. If someone has platted, their rights have vested. People can build 74 feet wherever they want. There are potential lots for building up that do not meet the abutting requirment but are still close enough have an adverse impact on homeowners. But this is a good step from an administration that is pretty cozy with developers and engineers.

[RedScare]

But this is a good step from an administration that is pretty cozy with developers and engineers.

Government officials who are cozy with developers and engineers do not propose crappy ordinances such as this one, and they certainly do not ram historic districts through against the will of the majority. Allowing a Walmart on the site of an old steel mill that she was powerless to stop is the only coziness this mayor has shown.

[samagon]

If you are going to revive a thread that everyone else has let go, at least read what I actually have been arguing and stop making straw arguments for me. I never argued that this would prevent developers from buying up bungalows in the Heights to build towers. The reason I never made that argument is that it isn't happening and isn't going to happen. The problem is developers buying up old apartment complexes (like Ashby) or old commercial lots (like 11 1/2 studewood) and building up on them. There are a number of old apartment complexes and industrial buildings in the Heights that could potentially be a site for a 6+ story building. And there are larger industrial lots on the outer edges of the Heights that could be a site for anything a developer could imagine. The ordinance could make a difference in the former as the buffer requirement would make it very difficult to take an existing site and turn it into an 11 1/2 studewood. The odds of a developer being able to buy up five or six contiguous lots anywhere in the Heights is beyond remote. In fact, it would be exceptionally rare for a developer owning a large lot to be able to buy up an adjoining lot or two in order to meet the buffer requirement. And even if there were such developers out there, if the moon is blue and there are six bungalows available for sale, what right now is keeping them from buying all six instead of just four? At least with the new ordinance, they would have to give up a pound of flesh in the form of a buffer to mitigate impact on the neighborhood in order to stick a condo building in a single family neighborhood.

It is a good ordinance. It isn't perfect. If someone has platted, their rights have vested. People can build 74 feet wherever they want. There are potential lots for building up that do not meet the abutting requirment but are still close enough have an adverse impact on homeowners. But this is a good step from an administration that is pretty cozy with developers and engineers.

yeah, I don't think you quite understand.

this doesn't do anything to stop anyone. actually, it gives them more right to say 'we're following code'.

take the construction on 11.5, all they have to do is buy that little house next door to the site and level it. then sell it to starbucks. you think they would care about having to buy up just that one piece of property? you think the owner would hold out to selling, just because they have a moral obligation to the neighborhood? That moral obligation probably went out the window when their neighbors started taking pictures of their house to try and stop them from painting the front door.

here's an even more sinister thought, these restrictions are only in place when there is a residence touching the boundary at the time of getting a permit. so they buy the house next door, razz it, get their permit free and clear of any residence (as it is a vacant lot next door), and then put in a mcmansion, or some mctownhomes. sell.

I mean, if the land around it is vacant land, it can't be residential, and if someone comes in later and builds a row of 3 townhomes, they can't go back and pull the permit after the place is built. I don't think you're thinking this through...

Edited August 1, 2011 by samagon

[s3mh]

yeah, I don't think you quite understand.

this doesn't do anything to stop anyone. actually, it gives them more right to say 'we're following code'.

take the construction on 11.5, all they have to do is buy that little house next door to the site and level it. then sell it to starbucks. you think they would care about having to buy up just that one piece of property? you think the owner would hold out to selling, just because they have a moral obligation to the neighborhood? That moral obligation probably went out the window when their neighbors started taking pictures of their house to try and stop them from painting the front door.

here's an even more sinister thought, these restrictions are only in place when there is a residence touching the boundary at the time of getting a permit. so they buy the house next door, razz it, get their permit free and clear of any residence (as it is a vacant lot next door), and then put in a mcmansion, or some mctownhomes. sell.

I mean, if the land around it is vacant land, it can't be residential, and if someone comes in later and builds a row of 3 townhomes, they can't go back and pull the permit after the place is built. I don't think you're thinking this through...

If you think it is easy to just buy someone out, you are not thinking things through. There are many examples in the Heights and elsewhere in Houston of people going to their grave before selling for a huge wad of cash to a developer. And you are not considering the parking ordinance (starbucks on a 5000 or 6600 sq ft lot?), the minimum lot size (row of 3 townhomes?) and historic ordinance (raze a bungalow for the buffer zone?). Developers follow the path of least resistance. They are not going to go through all the trouble to try to buy someone out and run the risk of having a demo permit denied. Instead, they will have to build under 75 feet or find an appropriate tract of land.

[samagon]

If you think it is easy to just buy someone out, you are not thinking things through. There are many examples in the Heights and elsewhere in Houston of people going to their grave before selling for a huge wad of cash to a developer. And you are not considering the parking ordinance (starbucks on a 5000 or 6600 sq ft lot?), the minimum lot size (row of 3 townhomes?) and historic ordinance (raze a bungalow for the buffer zone?). Developers follow the path of least resistance. They are not going to go through all the trouble to try to buy someone out and run the risk of having a demo permit denied. Instead, they will have to build under 75 feet or find an appropriate tract of land.

If you say so.

I'd have a tough time not selling out if I were in such a hostile environment that my neighbors were taking pictures of my house to try and ensure I didn't do what I wanted to it. I guess some people don't mind that though.

I think the HD provision is for what you can do to the land after you demo for a specific period of time. so they can bulldoze whatever they want, they just can't do anything with the land for like 2 years. The land doesn't have to do anything, it just has to buffer.

As far as Starbucks, that was just a guess, but Houston doesn't have a minimum lot size any longer, there may be areas of the city that do, but those are block by block, as I understand it.

That doesn't stop them from buying the land, cratering the old bungalow, building their monster 10 story sky scraper as they are now within the variance, and then selling the land in 2 years to whoever for whatever purpose.

Yeah, it certainly sounds like a lot more trouble, but I guess developers will do what they have to, in order to make things that people want.

[RedScare]

If you think it is easy to just buy someone out, you are not thinking things through. There are many examples in the Heights and elsewhere in Houston of people going to their grave before selling for a huge wad of cash to a developer. And you are not considering the parking ordinance (starbucks on a 5000 or 6600 sq ft lot?), the minimum lot size (row of 3 townhomes?) and historic ordinance (raze a bungalow for the buffer zone?). Developers follow the path of least resistance. They are not going to go through all the trouble to try to buy someone out and run the risk of having a demo permit denied. Instead, they will have to build under 75 feet or find an appropriate tract of land.

Like Ainbinder? Like Ashby hihrise? Yeah, deveopers constantly give in at the slightest hint of resistance.

Of the 4700 homeowners in the Heights, I would put the percentage who would "go to their graves" before selling out at the right price at somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2%. Even those people who supported the historic ordinance are intelligent enough to know that selling at a premium allows them to buy another house in the Heights and improve it. And, it wouldn't take much of a premium to get them to sell, either. As little as $50,000 would get 95% of the sellers. $100,000 would get all but a dozen or so. And, ANYONE with a house next door to a large developable lot knows that something will be built there eventually, and would gladly sell at a premium in order to buy a better property deeper in the neighborhood.

Once again, s3mh lives in her own alternate reality. While she would never admit it here, even SHE would sell that dump she lives in at the right price. All of us would, and there isn't a thing wrong with it. There is nothing historic or sentimental about her home. She has only owned it for a year. It isn't the family ranch deeded to her family by the Spanish. Neither is mine. For the right price, both she and I would be gone.

[s3mh]

Like Ainbinder? Like Ashby hihrise? Yeah, deveopers constantly give in at the slightest hint of resistance.

Of the 4700 homeowners in the Heights, I would put the percentage who would "go to their graves" before selling out at the right price at somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2%. Even those people who supported the historic ordinance are intelligent enough to know that selling at a premium allows them to buy another house in the Heights and improve it. And, it wouldn't take much of a premium to get them to sell, either. As little as $50,000 would get 95% of the sellers. $100,000 would get all but a dozen or so. And, ANYONE with a house next door to a large developable lot knows that something will be built there eventually, and would gladly sell at a premium in order to buy a better property deeper in the neighborhood.

Once again, s3mh lives in her own alternate reality. While she would never admit it here, even SHE would sell that dump she lives in at the right price. All of us would, and there isn't a thing wrong with it. There is nothing historic or sentimental about her home. She has only owned it for a year. It isn't the family ranch deeded to her family by the Spanish. Neither is mine. For the right price, both she and I would be gone.

If you think buyouts are that easy, you are living in an alternate reality. I have been involved in an attempted buyout. Someone walked away from over a $200k premium on about $450k worth of property just to be able to live out their last days in the family home. They even looked at million dollar homes around Rice and River Oaks and chose their cruddy home instead. And then you get people who will hold out for a ridiculous sum of money. Someone made a fortune being the last one to sell out to the Greenway developer. Relying on a buyout is a huge risk for a developer. And it is an even bigger risk in the Heights where land values are already very high and many homes are worth over $500k. Give someone in a $350k house $50k and there is no guaranty that they will be able to find something in the short time frame that buyout buyers usually demand.

The last thing a developer wants to do is to have to start off a project a few $100k over budget on the land cost. What will happen is that developers will develop unrestricted land long before they take a chance on the whims of a Heights resident. It will not make it more likely that developers will go around throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars just to comply with the City's buffer requirements. They will avoid it like the plague.

[RedScare]

Like I said, 1 or 2%. Not a huge deal when considering a $100 million tower. It probably scares small fries like yourself, but not the big players. And, considering these properties are located next to busy streets like Studewood or Yale, even fewer would be that attached to the property.

I notice that Greenway did indeed get built, in spite of that last holdout. You prove my point. The holdout in the Target development on Sawyer also sold for a premium. It happens all the time. It is built into the developers' cost analysis. But, if this ordinance makes you sleep better, just as Heights residents thought the lot line ordinance would save bungalows from McMansions and condos, good for you. It has already been clearly shown that this ordinance will not affect midrises, which are the only multi-family developments that are suited for the Heights anyway. Land values are not high enough to support highrises in the Heights. There is no threat from them here.

[samagon]

If you think buyouts are that easy, you are living in an alternate reality. I have been involved in an attempted buyout. Someone walked away from over a $200k premium on about $450k worth of property just to be able to live out their last days in the family home. They even looked at million dollar homes around Rice and River Oaks and chose their cruddy home instead. And then you get people who will hold out for a ridiculous sum of money. Someone made a fortune being the last one to sell out to the Greenway developer. Relying on a buyout is a huge risk for a developer. And it is an even bigger risk in the Heights where land values are already very high and many homes are worth over $500k. Give someone in a $350k house $50k and there is no guaranty that they will be able to find something in the short time frame that buyout buyers usually demand.

The last thing a developer wants to do is to have to start off a project a few $100k over budget on the land cost. What will happen is that developers will develop unrestricted land long before they take a chance on the whims of a Heights resident. It will not make it more likely that developers will go around throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars just to comply with the City's buffer requirements. They will avoid it like the plague.

the ordinance will exist everywhere in Houston, not just the Heights.

If a dev wants to build in the Heights because it is a desirable location for people to live and work, and there aren't options that fit the buffer requirements, they'll do what they have to.

[pschawe]

Some more pics here:

http://zdaarchitecture.com/StudewoodDevelopment.aspx

[LTAWACS]

Is that a little too much for the area or no?

[Utinga]

Question. Does or has any one lived in this type of condo, with a ground floor restaurant. Are there odors in your apt or balcony? I realize the vent hood would be placed on the rooftop of course. I would hope by code at least those built now.

[native_Houstonian]

Now listed on HAR.com....

http://search.har.com/engine/1111-E-Studewood-402-Houston-TX-77008_HAR43049594.htm

[SilverJK]

Maintenance fee is pretty high per month, I wonder how they will sell.

[west20th]

Maintenance fee is pretty high per month, I wonder how they will sell.

Can you make your font size a little larger?

[samagon]

Maintenance fee is pretty high per month, I wonder how they will sell.

$3.20/sf is what I calculate, yeah, that's pretty high, especially for Houston, but it is The Heights!

They should really be talking up the fact that you get to peer down into people's private backyards, and you get the benefit of blocking their sun, and ruining their gardens.

Just sayin'

Edited February 1, 2012 by samagon

[SilverJK]

Can you make your font size a little larger?

probably... but thats just how it came out from the computer i was on... I didn't figure anyone would actually care about it...

[west20th]

probably... but thats just how it came out from the computer i was on... I didn't figure anyone would actually care about it...

I really didn't. You just reminded me I have old eyes.

[lockmat]

Just one photo update: http://goo.gl/XfsbQ

[lockmat]

just some brick http://goo.gl/5O75W

[lockmat]

starting to lay brick on the front http://goo.gl/lEJLZ

[fwki]

I am no architect, but this building strikes me as ugly. Perhaps they will spruce it up with some gargoyles or something. In that one shot with the SFH....put bars on the windows and we have a psychiatric hospital right out of the sixties.

[SilverJK]

I am no architect, but this building strikes me as ugly. Perhaps they will spruce it up with some gargoyles or something. In that one shot with the SFH....put bars on the windows and we have a psychiatric hospital right out of the sixties.

funny, i was just thinking this morning... that is going to be a nice looking building when complete. Its rare to see all brick sided construction on buildings this size these days.

[fwki]

funny, i was just thinking this morning... that is going to be a nice looking building when complete. Its rare to see all brick sided construction on buildings this size these days.

True, but I have bad memories of four years in a snow-covered midwestern dormitory that was very similar. However, it is a huge improvement over the eyesore, contaminated lot.

[s3mh]

So, lots of rumors have been swirling as construction has slowed and the reported lease with Union Kitchen fell through. Recently noticed this posted comment on swamplot that kind of came out of the blue on an old story:

42

From Max:

The Union Kitchen restaurant lease negotiations for 1111 Studewood were terminated last fall. The Leader’s Charlotte Aguilar “jumped the gun” in saying this was a done deal. Nonetheless 1111 Studewood is moving forward these days. The first condominium models will be ready to preview to the public in less than 6 weeks. They will prove the doubters on this board wrong as they are some very cool units with high ceilings and really attractive build-out. Several restaurants are presently vying for space on the ground floor of the building; although it’s too early to get specific.

Anyone see any work getting done on this site? It has been a bit too long since they first broke ground to think that everything is going smoothly for this development. Could it be that architecture really does matter and no one wants to live in this place? Or is it the usual problems in real estate development with cash flow, financing, contractors and the six hundred different ways even the best in the business can have their developments slowed down to a crawl before reaching the finish line.

Anyone know what is going on here?

Edited February 11, 2013 by s3mh

[RedScare]

Looks more like the standard construction project to me. There is a lot of activity as dirt work, foundation framing and exterior are built. Then, nothing appears to be happening as the electrical, plumbing and mechanical trades perform their work on the inside, out of sight of onlookers. Sounds like you are engaging in wishful thinking more than insightful observation.

[Specwriter]

It looks like the "designer" of the exterior of the building was trying to evoke the warehouse lofts on the near north side, e.g. Dakota Lofts, which was originally the Bute Paint plant. I don't know how well this "style" will fly in this particular neighborhood. Time will tell.

 

Hopefully the all brick veneer will give fewer maintenace issue that EIFS or even true stucco. Successful use of real stucco requires proper design and placement of control joints, etc. and application by skilled trades people. That is harder to find these days.