Shamrock Tower At 617 Main St.

[N Judah]

I don't doubt that many property owners and developers love zoning for the level of control it gives them. But from the point of view of someone who wants what's best for the city as a whole, I don't know if taking away the one thing Houston has going for it for the sake of creating a walkable pedestrian-friendly environment in 1/100th of the cityis the best idea. I think if zoning happens it should happen around the LRT transit nodes, because those are the areas that (I thought) are supposed to be pedestrian-friendly. Any other use of zoning will just be a way for certain property owners to protect/increase their property values and resist change.

Zoning won't reduce eyesores or empty lots, and zoning will never stop the powerful, patient developers from trampling on an area's history. Zoning will not magically zip Houston to the top of the quality of life lists.

[N Judah]

If anything, property owners generally like it because it helps preserve the value of their property. (Ask residents of West U.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, not everyone in Houston owns property.

Property owners benefit from the artificial restrictions on housing supply. Renters and people who have not yet moved to the area are the ones who lose out.

[Subdude]

I don't doubt that many property owners and developers love zoning for the level of control it gives them.  But from the point of view of someone who wants what's best for the city as a whole, I don't know if taking away the one thing Houston has going for it for the sake of creating a walkable pedestrian-friendly environment in 1/100th of the cityis the best idea.  I think if zoning happens it should happen around the LRT transit nodes, because those are the areas that (I thought) are supposed to be pedestrian-friendly.  Any other use of zoning will just be a way for certain property owners to protect/increase their property values and resist change. 

Zoning won't reduce eyesores or empty lots, and zoning will never stop the powerful, patient developers from trampling on an area's history.  Zoning will not magically zip Houston to the top of the quality of life lists.

Are you saying that lack of zoning is the one thing that Houston has going for it? How so? Has it proved a big benefit to city? The idea isn't just to benefit 1/100th of the city. Why would zoning ordinances not protect neighborhoods all over the city? I would think neighborhoods such as the East End would benefit enormously. The point isn't just to create pedestrian-friendly zones. It is to protect neighborhoods by resticting disruptive development, such as apartment houses on residential streets.

Property owners benefit from the artificial restrictions on housing supply. Renters and people who have not yet moved to the area are the ones who lose out.

I don't think anyone views zoning as a means to artificially restrict the housing supply. You might be correct though that renters might lose out, although I can't think of any examples of other cities in which renters suffer terribly from zoning.

[midtownguy]

What you end up with is a city where everything is turned away from the street, where dwellings are walled off or turned to face towards an inner courtyard, and where the only thing that greets the street are throw-away facades and parking spots - because it's too risky to do anything else!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow, H-town man, I've never really thought about this. I've often wondered why there were so many "courtyard" types of development in Houston. Thanks for the insight.

[Houston19514]

Campaigns for local issues are decided by who has the advertising money.  In the 1993 (or was it '91?) zoning referendum, early polls showed that Houstonians favored zoning.  Then a large coalition of powerful developers hired Dennis Calabrese to design an advertising campaign that would scare Houstonians away from zoning.  The slogan he came up with was "The Only Thing Worse Than A Bad Plan Is No Plan At All."  The idea was to admit that planning in Houston was bad, but that with zoning it would be miserable, because the zoners didn't have a plan.  It didn't make a lot of sense, but it worked, and zoning lost by a huge margin.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zoning lost by a margin of 52-48.

[Houston19514]

For the past couple of years the City Planning Dept. has been trying to pass an "Area Plan" ordinance that would allow neighborhoods to create design regulations and incentives for their area, the main area in mind being Main St., but so far it has been brought down by property rights opposition.  If you pass zoning, you don't have to have this battle - things like this simply get decided on whenever the zoning ordinance is revised. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why would you think a zoning ordinance would eliminate such battles? If anything, it would probably increase the number of such battles. Every part of every zoning ordinance (including non-zoning items like design standards, etc) would have to be adopted by City Council or some zoning board. All of the "zones" would have to be defined and adopted by the City Council or zoning board. And then the real fun begins... when developers and builders and property owners and homeowners start appearing before City Council or zoning boards to seek variances.

[N Judah]

"Are you saying that lack of zoning is the one thing that Houston has going for it? How so? Has it proved a big benefit to city?"

I believe that Houston's architectural diversity, entrepreneurial atmosphere, and low cost of living make up most of Houston's appeal and are a result of the absence of zoning in Houston. Or, to put it another way: people don't exactly move here for the views, the weather, or the people.

"Why would zoning ordinances not protect neighborhoods all over the city?"

That is exactly what zoning ordinances would do. It's disingenuous to pretend that zoning will magically solve Houston's quality of life woes, when the real reason for zoning is simply to pump up property values.

"It is to protect neighborhoods by resticting disruptive development, such as apartment houses on residential streets."

In a city that doubles in population every 20 years, I can't help but wonder if what we really need is a process that actually *restricts* denser development. It's bad enough that we're already super sprawly, and it's bad enough that most people -given the choice- seem to choose suburban living over urban, but to deny denser living to the few people who *do* want it is, imho, strange thinking.

"I don't think anyone views zoning as a means to artificially restrict the housing supply."

That's usually the end result. I mean, I wonder what else big developers would mean when they complain that they can't "protect" their investment. As far as I can tell, for them, it's the less competition, the better. The more competition, the less they can charge and the slimmer their profits. Maybe it's not unlike oil -- higher prices are always great for the industry, and lower prices are always bad. Like housing, oil's a finite resource that absolutely everybody needs. And it's in the best interests of the majors to find ways to keep supply down and prices up so they can keep pulling in the cash.

"You might be correct though that renters might lose out, although I can't think of any examples of other cities in which renters suffer terribly from zoning."

There are many cities with abormally high rents because of (imo) super strict limitations on development like strict zoning laws and extensive review processes.

[N Judah]

Wow, H-town man, I've never really thought about this. I've often wondered why there were so many "courtyard" types of development in Houston. Thanks for the insight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I always figured that "courtyard"developments prevail in Houston these days because developers (hardly the risk takers) seem to want to replicate the already-popular inward-looking developments of the suburbs.

If you look at old pictures of Houston's downtown, it hardly seems like the absence of zoning hindered their ability to construct something pedestrian-friendly and busy.

[kzseattle]

It is possible to have planning and design ordinances without zoning, but it is extremely difficult.  Typically planning and architecture stuff goes with the zoning ordinance, because the way you regulate design works in tandem with the way you regulate land - e.g., if Maple St. is a commercial avenue, then you will put all your guidelines for commercial architecture on it.

For the past couple of years the City Planning Dept. has been trying to pass an "Area Plan" ordinance that would allow neighborhoods to create design regulations and incentives for their area, the main area in mind being Main St., but so far it has been brought down by property rights opposition.  If you pass zoning, you don't have to have this battle - things like this simply get decided on whenever the zoning ordinance is revised. 

The zoning ordinance for College Station states that any commercial building facade must have at least 25% natural materials (i.e. brick, stone), and if painted, the paint must be selected from a list of 243 approved "earth-tone" colors.  In Austin, there is currently a plan to rezone the area west of Guadalupe St. (near UT campus) to allow taller residential buildings with a greater number of units per lot, and to stipulate that such buildings must provide ground floor retail.  The idea is to make possible an exciting urban environment.

The reason why it is so difficult to have quality, pedestrian friendly development without zoning is that there is no way for developers to protect their investment.  What if someone decides to take a risk with a mixed-use apartment complex with balcony lofts and a sidewalk cafe environment, and then somebody else builds a monstrous parking garage across the street, with cars spilling out or trucks unloading all evening long right across from our nice cafe?  People stop going there, noone wants a balcony loft facing a parking garage, and the developer loses on his investment.

The top developers in Houston - Richard Everett, Ed Wulfe, etc. - guys who build fancy stuff like this in other cities, have said repeatedly that they cannot build their best stuff in Houston because there is nothing to protect the investment.  In a sense, the developers have their hands tied behind their back architecturally, and the only environment they can afford to worry about is the private environment - not the public one. 

What you end up with is a city where everything is turned away from the street, where dwellings are walled off or turned to face towards an inner courtyard, and where the only thing that greets the street are throw-away facades and parking spots - because it's too risky to do anything else!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good points, H-Town man! However, there are a couple of things that I would like to say.

First, the walled out dwellings can be found just about anywhere. You can find them in the zoned city of Sugarland as well as in any master-planned community. It seems to me therefore that it has more to do with "prestige" or perceived sense of heightened security than zoning. Also, I think another purpose of the walls or turning the front of houses inward is to shield those homes from heavy traffic on major thoroughfares. Besides, homeowners wouldnt want their kids playing on the sidewalks of a heavily traveled road. For instance, can you imagine the homes in Briar Grove Park facing the Westheimer instead of quite residential street as they do now?

About developers not putting out their best stuff, that certainly makes sense in a risky area or an area in transition. I would think, actually, I would hope that they could build their best stuff in an established area such as River Oaks, Uptown or Memorial.

By the way, just to make my position clear, I actually favor zoning. However, like I said before, some time I think there may be other factors responsible for current state of affairs that need to be considered as well.

[H-Town Man]

I always figured that "courtyard"developments prevail in Houston these days because developers (hardly the risk takers) seem to want to replicate the already-popular inward-looking developments of the suburbs.

If you look at old pictures of Houston's downtown, it hardly seems like the absence of zoning hindered their ability to construct something pedestrian-friendly and busy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course not, they couldn't, it was still a pre-automobile paradigm. Look, forget courtyards... almost everything in this city is built defensively. Look at the walled apartment complexes, the gated developments, the landscaped office building "coves," the number of buildings that are only enterable via a parking garage... Have you ever noticed that we do not have ONE university whose classroom buildings greet or attempt to interact with the surrounding neighborhood? Go up to Dallas and drive past SMU, or to Austin and drive past UT or St. Edward's, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Yes kzseattle, I agree that there are other factors, but it is just telling when you almost NEVER see an exception to the cases I mentioned, whereas you see exceptions to it all the time in Austin and Dallas. Drive around Austin sometime... you will see intact neighborhoods on main thoroughfares that have still preserved their original look, scale, and charm, even though the location could support huge sprawling parking lots and big-box stores like you would find on those roads in Houston. The only place in town where I have seen these kinds of quaint retail alcoves nestled within lush, residential surroundings is West U. Dallas has them all over the place.

[H-Town Man]

Zoning lost by a margin of 52-48.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's not true, you're probably thinking of the light rail campaign. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know it was over 10%.

[N Judah]

Have you ever noticed that we do not have ONE university whose classroom buildings greet or attempt to interact with the surrounding neighborhood?  Go up to Dallas and drive past SMU, or to Austin and drive past UT or St. Edward's, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure that has more to do with available land than some kind of zoning-related neighborhood-friendly motives. (Especially in the case of the public ones, which are often exempt from zoning and planning rules.) There are universities out there in zoned communities that don't interact at all with the surrounding neighborhoods. How about Stanford? Or UC Santa Cruz? The neighborhoods around these schools (though these neighborhoods are zoned and planned very strictly) just aren't worth interacting with, or are too far away, and so the schools aren't situated to take that into account.

If Houston is "defensively" built then, like you noted with the case of old-time downtown being pedestrian friendly, it mostly has to do with the time period and context in which these developments were built. Specifically, they are made to cater to the car. Walled apartment complexes, gated developments, and all that stuff exists in zoned cities too. So do big box retailers and strip malls. It's not going to change anything in Houston. If one neighborhood refuses a Wal-Mart, then the Wal-Mart will just go find one that will accept it (and I'm guessing this will be a poorer one). And if that neighborhood refuses it, Wal Mart will just find another one. And you'll never run the Wal-Marts out of town completely because people seem to really like them. Zoning will never trump culture.

And at any rate, I'd rather live in a city with gated developments than live in a city which is, itself, through xenophobic land-use policies, one large gated development. I'd rather live in a city with walled apartment complexes than be priced out of a city full of pricey million-dollar co-ops...which interact well with the street. I'd rather live in a city that has enough land available for its universities to expand at their leisure than in one that has a planning process that puts scientific research on hold while the neighbors give their inane "input" on what the design of a new research lab should look like (all the while harboring a secret wish that it not be built at all). But that's just me.

[Houston19514]

That's not true, you're probably thinking of the light rail campaign.  I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know it was over 10%.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you should get the numbers in front of you before repeatedly making incorrect claims... In ten seconds you could do a search on the web and find sources telling you that, in fact, zoning lost by a margin of 52-48.

52-48

Yes, it was 52-48

And for everyone else here interested in the zoning issue. These are both links to some pretty interesting articles. I'd recommend we all read them.

[MidtownCoog]

kill this thread!

[largeTEXAS]

kill this thread!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why?

[H-Town Man]

Why?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe because some people are letting their personal emotions turn an otherwise polite discussion into hostility.

I want to mention again that I am personally not decided for or against zoning. The fact that my innocuous information-giving has aroused the ire of certain members makes me wonder what sore spot it is hitting.

Houston 19514, you are right. It was 52-48. I must have been thinking of one of the previous elections. Of course if I were a zoning supporter, the fact that the election lost so narrowly after so much money was poured in against it by private interests would make me all the more angry and dismayed.

N Judah, I am wondering what your stake in this issue is. Some of these scenarios you paint seem hard to swallow - the poor downtrodden regular folks who suddenly cannot afford housing because the city has been turned into a giant gated community by zoning. I have been to other cities with zoning (San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, College Station), and this just doesn't seem to be the case.

The issue of universities interacting with the surrounding neighborhood was brought up in Ephemeral City, I believe in the article on University of St. Thomas; perhaps you should look there. Drive down Hillcrest Ave. in Dallas past SMU and you will see a dramatic example of how classroom buildings approach the street, staring out at a balanced, elegant array of retail shops on the other side. Nothing like this has been tried in Houston, nor has mixed-use development been attempted in Houston to anywhere near the extent that it has in Dallas or Austin, both of which have the same non-zoning-related factors that you describe, and someone who wishes to defend zoning will have to treat this unfortunate matter seriously.

It should be noted that high quality urban design, although it may only occur to its fullest extent in wealthy areas, does not just favor the rich. It gives a grand quality to one's city that can be enjoyed by anyone. When I used to drive down the beautiful avenues of Chicago, it did not bother me that I could never afford to live on one of them; it gave the city an elevated quality that everyone who lived there could enjoy. The same is true whenever I drive down Memorial Dr. between Beltway 8 and 610: although I could never live anywhere near it, I still enjoy this tranquil drive through shady trees and houses with no gas stations, vacant lots, or strip malls in sight - something that could never exist inside Houston proper.

I agree that there are advantages to not having zoning - perhaps a calm and rational layout of those advantages would make your case more convincing?

[ssullivan]

If you look at old pictures of Houston's downtown, it hardly seems like the absence of zoning hindered their ability to construct something pedestrian-friendly and busy.

Some of that comes from the fact that until the 1930s more people in this city depended on walking and streetcars to get around than automobiles. Everything was pedestrian friendly because walking was a lot more involved in getting to and from work, shopping, church, school, and other activities than it is now here.

But I do see your point. Zoning wouldn't solve all of the city's problems, but it probably would help with some of them.

[kzseattle]

Some of that comes from the fact that until the 1930s more people in this city depended on walking and streetcars to get around than automobiles. Everything was pedestrian friendly because walking was a lot more involved in getting to and from work, shopping, church, school, and other activities than it is now here.

But I do see your point. Zoning wouldn't solve all of the city's problems, but it probably would help with some of them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sometimes I wonder if absence of quaint pedestrian-friendly shopping venues has more to do with culture or availability than lack of zoning. For instance, Sugarland is zoned but until Town Center was built, it didn

[H-Town Man]

If only they would build smaller parking lots or build grassy medians and grow trees within the parking lots, then that could make a big difference. That's what I saw in Austin. What we instead see in Houston area are cold, treeless giant parking lots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

lol... What you saw in Austin was a carefully crafted set of zoning restrictions on size, shape, and design of parking lots, as well as number of trees that the owner must plant per acre of parking.

One thing they're doing here in College Station is requiring businesses on certain roads to not put more than two rows of parking spaces between the building and the road; the rest must either be placed to the side of or behind the business. Is this disadvantageous to property owners? Well, only if you force some to do it and not others. But if you limit the parking lots of all the businesses, then the disadvantage cancels out - it's as hard to get into one business as it is to get into another. So you don't have businesses trying to outdo each other in offering bigger and wider parking lots, uglifying the city. What you gain though is a nicer road, and a more human-scaled retail environment.

Think of the restaurants on Barton Springs Dr. in Austin. The buildings are all along the street - you park behind them. So you have an interesting, exciting street to walk down. This didn't happen by accident.

[kzseattle]

lol... What you saw in Austin was a carefully crafted set of zoning restrictions on size, shape, and design of parking lots, as well as number of trees that the owner must plant per acre of parking. 

One thing they're doing here in College Station is requiring businesses on certain roads to not put more than two rows of parking spaces between the building and the road; the rest must either be placed to the side of or behind the business.  Is this disadvantageous to property owners?  Well, only if you force some to do it and not others.  But if you limit the parking lots of all the businesses, then the disadvantage cancels out - it's as hard to get into one business as it is to get into another.  So you don't have businesses trying to outdo each other in offering bigger and wider parking lots, uglifying the city.  What you gain though is a nicer road, and a more human-scaled retail environment.

Think of the restaurants on Barton Springs Dr. in Austin.  The buildings are all along the street - you park behind them.  So you have an interesting, exciting street to walk down.  This didn't happen by accident.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Wow! I didnt know zoning dictates that much. Well, if only for this, we need zoning pronto!

By the way, someone on this forum mentioned that businesses in Houston are required to allocate a certain space for parking lot and that space is too large. If a business wanted to build the structure closer to the street, they needed to get a special permit to bypass the setback requirement. I wonder why the heck would city impose such a requirement. The new planning guidelines are supposed to rectify that. Or so I heard.

[jt16]

I know it's been mentioned before, but when was the last time voters went to the polls for zoning? Maybe another petition is in order to try and get it back on a ballot.

[brijonmang]

I'll be the first to sign a petition for that category, no doubt

[Houston19514]

I know it's been mentioned before, but when was the last time voters went to the polls for zoning?  Maybe another petition is in order to try and get it back on a ballot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1993

[N Judah]

lol... What you saw in Austin was a carefully crafted set of zoning restrictions on size, shape, and design of parking lots, as well as number of trees that the owner must plant per acre of parking. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't see why an ordinance couldn't cover that.

[Lowbrow]

Excellent quote in your sig, N_Judah.

[N Judah]

"Of course if I were a zoning supporter, the fact that the election lost so narrowly after so much money was poured in against it by private interests would make me all the more angry and dismayed."

I personally find the 10% turnout much more dismaying. Also, I'm not sure where the idea came from that "private interests" decided the election. Big developers (like the ones mentioned who want to "protect" their investment) stand to gain huge from zoning. They're not scared of the neighborhood associations, either. The working class is the one who get punished -- and, in fact, if you look at the stats in the article it's the low income people who seem to have decided against zoning (a demographic with almost no representation on this board, which makes the pro-zoning cadre here seem more powerful than they are in real life).

"N Judah, I am wondering what your stake in this issue is."

My stake is that I have none. I don't own land in Houston, so I'm not motivated to "protect" my neighborhood. I grew up here and just recently returned, so I feel like I "get" Houston even more now, and I'm always happy to talk about Houston with people to see how they see it.

"Some of these scenarios you paint seem hard to swallow - the poor downtrodden regular folks who suddenly cannot afford housing because the city has been turned into a giant gated community by zoning."

Of course they're hard to swallow -- they're worst-case scenarios. In the same way, I find it hard to believe that the best-case scenarios on here will come about simply by enacting zoning laws. To get the results people here are expecting, Houston's going to have to take it up a notch and have a long-range master plan (which can include zoning, but which will have to be able to override the inevitable pettiness of the neighborhood association NIMBYs), or at least bring in some real estate people who have the expansive, all inclusive vision needed to take Houston to the next level and give them carte blanche.

"I have been to other cities with zoning (San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, College Station), and this just doesn't seem to be the case."

Well, I've been to cities with zoning where it has, and it's not that pleasant. Pleasant to visit, maybe, but not so much to live.

"Nothing like this has been tried in Houston, nor has mixed-use development been attempted in Houston to anywhere near the extent that it has in Dallas or Austin, both of which have the same non-zoning-related factors that you describe, and someone who wishes to defend zoning will have to treat this unfortunate matter seriously."

Patience. Houston is late to the game, but we'll catch up and then surpass them like we always do. Rest assured that whatever does happen in Houston will be completely authentic. Apparently it only took Fort Worth 15-20 years to cultivate their downtown, and they didn't have the advantage we do of having several million new residents destined to move in.

"It should be noted that high quality urban design, although it may only occur to its fullest extent in wealthy areas, does not just favor the rich. It gives a grand quality to one's city that can be enjoyed by anyone. When I used to drive down the beautiful avenues of Chicago, it did not bother me that I could never afford to live on one of them; it gave the city an elevated quality that everyone who lived there could enjoy. The same is true whenever I drive down Memorial Dr. between Beltway 8 and 610: although I could never live anywhere near it, I still enjoy this tranquil drive through shady trees and houses with no gas stations, vacant lots, or strip malls in sight - something that could never exist inside Houston proper."

I think it's nice that you have a drive you can enjoy. Everyone needs one of those. However, it's important not to forget the people out there for whom cities aren't museums -- for them, a drive is a way to get from place to place, from their work to their house to take care of their kids.

To the people out there who have an aesthete's appreciation for beautiful spaces I suggest Orange County. Houston probably won't have what you're looking for for some time to come, and in the meantime, the weather in SoCal is fantastic.

"I agree that there are advantages to not having zoning - perhaps a calm and rational layout of those advantages would make your case more convincing?"

The two articles mentioned above make the case better than I ever could...the academic-journal one is a little long though. Basically I think zoning, in Houston's case, would do more harm than good.

The irony here is that I'm not really against zoning (though I'm not exactly *for* it, either). I'm simply opposed to the process advocated bysome of the other posters here. I truly don't see how adding zoning would somehow get rid of eyesores, vacant lots, and magically change Houston's quality of life. Changing Houston's quality of life in a substantial, sustainable way means it's going to have to be done through visionary, inclusive means instead of petty, inward-looking ones.

[H-Town Man]

Wow! I didnt know zoning dictates that much. Well, if only for this, we need zoning pronto!

By the way, someone on this forum mentioned that businesses in Houston are required to allocate a certain space for parking lot and that space is too large. If a business wanted to build the structure closer to the street, they needed to get a special permit to bypass the setback requirement. I wonder why the heck would city impose such a  requirement. The new planning guidelines are supposed to rectify that. Or so I heard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In the early 80's the city of Houston enacted an ordinance requiring businesses to maintain a certain setback from the street, and a lengthy petition process before property owners could cut off streets going through their land, as happened with the Galleria. The idea was to ensure that streets could be widened in the future if need be, and that traffic flow could not be endangered by the whims of individual property owners. The difficulty now is that with these setback laws, you cannot have urban-style development on streets like Main.

[houston-development]

from yesterday's business section. yes, it's the same tracy suttles.

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE

Date: SUN 03/13/05

Section: BUSINESS

Page: 3

Edition: 2 STAR

Foreclosure on mansion avoided /Local developer purchased home built for prince from Saudi Arabia

By NANCY SARNOFF

Staff

Houston developer Tracy Suttles apparently has struck a deal with a creditor who threatened to foreclose on a River Oaks mansion owned by the local builder.

Suttles , who purchased the 22,000-square-foot home with his wife in 2002, was in default on a loan to Progressive Lending Group of California, according to Patton Boggs, a Dallas law firm representing the lender.

Apparently, an agreement was negotiated to keep the property from being sold at a foreclosure auction.

An attorney involved said the property is not currently posted for foreclosure, but he refused to discuss details about how the matter was settled. Suttles did not return calls.

With three acres in pricey River Oaks, the property at 1000 Kirby was built in the mid-1980s for a Saudi prince. Located on the banks of Buffalo Bayou, it features a 60-foot swimming pool, separate staff quarters and massive brass and beveled glass doors said to have cost $100,000.

Former owner Prince Abdul Faisal of Saudi Arabia, who owned commercial property in Houston, built the house for his family to stay in when he would come here on business. He soon decided to sell the home, and the property was put up for sale.

Suttles bought the house for an estimated $6.25 million, although it was on the market for $15 million about five years ago.

Until recently, this elusive real estate developer had stayed below the radar while stockpiling huge numbers of apartments. But he made headlines for wanting to build Shamrock Tower, a high-rise condo building cater-cornered from the Rice lofts downtown.

[LTAWACS]

I guess that's that.... oh well... maybe in a few years we will get a quality developer who knows what he's doing. ugh

[jt16]

can i go back and change my vote?