ASHBY HIGHRISE DEVELOPERS DROP NAMES, MOVE TO DISTRICT COURT 
What do the Fairmont Museum District, La Maison on Revere, Millennium Greenway, and 2121 Mid Lane apartments, the Medical Clinic of Houston, and the trigger-happy Sonoma development in the Rice Village have in common? They all make cameo appearances in the latest version of Buckhead Investment Partners’ lawsuit against the city of Houston. The claim: that none of those projects were subjected to the same traffic restrictions as Buckhead’s proposed 23-story tower on the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby, next to Southampton: “The Ashby high-rise developers re-filed their lawsuit April 7 in state district court, where it will focus more heavily on claims the project was denied permits for its original design because it was subjected to ‘capricious and unreasonable’ standards.
Court documents submitted by attorneys for the Buckhead Development Partners, show the suit against Houston continues to center on the city’s application of the driveway ordinance as a basis to refuse a final building permit.
The city has said it is correct in its application of the ordinance and the inclusion of ‘trip-count’ standards to guarantee safety and ensure streets in the neighborhood remain passable.” [River Oaks Examiner; previously on Swamplot] Rendering: Buckhead Investment Partners
Sign up for the Newsletter
Maybe the new administration will lay down and let these poor guys finally build their building on their land….probably not.
Hopefully this court case will go in Ashby’s favor. If it doesn’t, the city could go on creating situations to block any development because of politically influential donors not liking it.
BRAVO!!! Start Ashby High Rise….
Hope they win, I bet they need the additional equity
All the anti-Ashby signs actually are far more visually detrimental to the aesthetic of the neighborhood than the building itself would be.
It’s really quite disgusting to walk down the street and/or ride your bike and see a loud yellow sign every 40 feet.
One can only hope the Mayor makes yet another equally tough decision and let’s this project go through for the good of development in all of Houston.
This project is a terrible idea, not to mention an ugly design. The developers may have been jerked around by City Hall, and may well win their suit, but in any other city with reasonable land use controls, this project would not happen.
I just got back from Dallas and continue to be impressed at what they have accomplished there over the past 25 years, in terms of walkable development, mass transit, etc. The difference is that Dallas has planning and land use controls, while Houston has blind faith in the free market and property rights.
I just got back from Dallas and continue to be impressed at what they have accomplished there over the past 25 years, in terms of walkable development, mass transit, etc. The difference is that Dallas has planning and land use controls, while Houston has blind faith in the free market and property rights.
_________________________
The difference is the voters in Dallas voted yes at some point and the voters in Houston have voted no at several points to planning and use controls aka zoning.
So move to Dallas. And take Southampton with you. It might fit in somewhere. The atttitude anyway.
Corruption undermines the integrity and usefulness of land use controls as Dallas implements them. There was even a recent conviction against one of their city councilmembers on account of this…and the only way he got caught was because he double-crossed the developer…but you’ll just have to TRUST ME that it wasn’t just him. It’s part of the system.
Matt Mystery you have more of an attitude than those you despise in Southampton. Could you possibly beat a dead horse any longer?
I guess Dallas voters are more intelligent than Houston voters when it comes to planning, zoning and land use. The city is much easier to traverse, the neighborhoods are more stableand because of zoning there is more selection of better housing stock within a 10 mile radius of Downtown.And let’s not even compare our rag tag METRO to DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit.
Corruption undermines the integrity and usefulness of land use controls as Dallas implements them.
__________________
Corruption seems to undermine the integrity and usefulness of land use controls in Houston as well. And we don’t even have them. Some just want to think we do.
Some really need to read the city charter. Including the new mayor.
One of the actions specified in the suit is with regard to color of law violations with regard to federal civil rights violations. That means someone applied different standards of the law. Which the law says you cannot do. Even if you’re the mayor. And a moron can drive by the properties that were permitted without regard to the ordinance and see that the provisions of the ordinance were not applied. Let alone even considered.
The former mayor huffed and puffed and threatened to blow the old hirise down.
The current mayor appointed one of the two co-chairs of “Stop Ashby” to a planning and development committee. Her way of huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the old hirise down?
Corruption is not limited to Dallas. And attitude is of course not limited to Southampton. But Southampton does have its share of pretentious spoiled little brats who think law, and ordinances as reflected by the city charter, don’t apply to them.
Which may explain why some call it Enronville.
The difference? Most of the named projects, if not on multi-laned streets are at least adjacent with access to major arteries.
Ashby is an island surrounded by neighborhood streets and Bissonnet, which is a 2 lane street.
Big difference.
And I don’t even have a cock in this fight.
Bissonnet is a major east-west arterial people. Why doesn’t anyone get this?! It moves tons of people everyday. It’s simply fallacious to think that the addition of this one building is going to be the straw on camel’s back that’s already broken. Congestion on Bissonnet during peak traffic hours is already beyond what anyone would deem acceptable for a small neighborhood street in that area. It’s surrounded by the Village, Rice, major shopping developments at Buffalo Speedway, Edloe, Kirby, and just a mile down the road enters into the museum district..
It’s just ridiculous that anyone would suggest that Bissonnet is some quiet neighborhood street that will be completely disrupted. If anything, Ashby as originally planned, would make the whole neighborhood a more walkable place.
Ashby is an island surrounded by neighborhood streets and Bissonnet, which is a 2 lane street.
____________________
Actually as anyone who drives it, and goes around the people turning left, knows it is a 3 lane street. Same as West Alabama. It’s just not marked as a 3 lane street. And most likely at some point will be marked as a 3 lane street with one way in the middle lane in one direction during rush hours. Oh, the tangled web some weave. Most of the people who believe Bisonnet is some quiet little 2 lane street and Southampton is some quiet little single-family only residential neighborhood probably have never driven Bissonnet or even know where Southampton is. But think the little guy is standing up for their rights and so everyone should applaud them. They are not the little guy. They are pretentious spoiled little brats who believe the law doesn’t apply to them.
And have their very big and powerful law firm standing behind them. One of the two law firms named in the Batson Report. And not named because of their adherence to ethical standards or adherence to the law.
You have to wonder if one of the other partners from their law firm lives at 2520 Robinhood. And was the first to turn on the hose.
They have gotten the city embroiled in what probably will be an expensive lawsuit. That the taxpayers will pay for.
If they lose hopefully the next mayor will sue them as well. And get the taxpayers’ money back.
Hopefully the next mayor will sue Bill White and Annise Parker as well. That might teach them to be more “fiscally conservative” with the taxpayers money when pandering to the powerful. Who hopefully the courts will rule really aren’t so powerful. And really are just pretentious spoiled brats.
Matt, I’m completely in agreement with the strictest aspects of your reasoning, but you need to dial down the rhetoric. It’s working against you.
If there’s a traffic problem on Bissonnet, the City should to the exact same thing they do everywhere else in the City: widen the street.
There’s no excuse for Bissonnet to be two lanes other than the fact than Southampton residents don’t want it to be any wider AND they have the political clout to keep it just the way it is.
I guess the City can use all the taxes it collects from the red light cameras to pay the damages that will be awarded in this lawsuit. Thanks for nothing, Bill White.
From Mies:
“This project is a terrible idea, not to mention an ugly design. The developers may have been jerked around by City Hall, and may well win their suit, but in any other city with reasonable land use controls, this project would not happen.”
Who’s reasonable land use controls? This place is right next to Rice, ~2 miles from the Medical Center, ~1 mile from a light rail station, ~4 miles from Downtown, would replace an apartment complex, sounds like an incredibly reasonable place to allow a mixed used development.
The primary conceit of Planners is that they can ever know enough to decide what should go where.
The primary conceit of those who want planning, is that they are so self evidently correct in their beliefs, that everyone else will agree with them.
@anon
All planning relies on the development of a shared vision of what the community wants to look like in the future. It is not easy, but I certainly am more willing to put my trust in trained experts than in the hands of a couple of guys looking to make a quick buck.
In the case of the Ashby High-Rise, the problem is that the scale of the building completely dwarfs everything around it. This sort of project would be a much better fit on Montrose.
…I’m completely in agreement with the strictest aspects of your reasoning, but you need to dial down the rhetoric. It’s working against you.
_____________
Doesn’t have to work for or against me. I’m not a party to the lawsuit. Obviously won’t be a juror. And thankfully, for the city and all the pandering politicians involved in this, not the judge.
In the case of the Ashby High-Rise, the problem is that the scale of the building completely dwarfs everything around it. This sort of project would be a much better fit on Montrose.
___________________________
Wrong. The problem is the city charter does not allow for “zoning” and that includes “zoning by ordinance” and if you want zoning, put it on the ballot and see if the voters will approve it. More than likely, the voters will not.
We do have deed restrictions which do restrict the use of land. Unfortunately they don’t apply to that section of unrestricted land between Ashby and Cherokee. Obviously. You build four story townhomes, a six story office building, you have to allow for a 23 story hirise.
The way it works. Unless of course you are pretentious and spoiled and a brat.
From Mies:
“@anon
All planning relies on the development of a shared vision of what the community wants to look like in the future. It is not easy, but I certainly am more willing to put my trust in trained experts than in the hands of a couple of guys looking to make a quick buck.”
————————–
See, I’m more willing to put my trust in those willing to put their own money on the line – and risk failure in the market – than some unaccountable “experts” playing with other people’s money (OPM) and other people’s real property. If the “experts” make the wrong decisions, who cares? It’s just OPM.
Go Buckhead!
I’m in favor of SOME land use controls, but this project was too far along to throw up ad hoc nickel-and-dime barriers that seek to change the status quo for development.
Elect mayors and councilpeople who support significant land-use controls OPENLY. I’m one who believes this will happen at some point-then we may get some ordinances with teeth.
Buckhead deserves punitive damages for the disingenuous political nit-picking by the City. There was NO precedent for this unfair singling-out, irrespective of the cries from the “victims”.
This issue may do it; especially when the dollar damages awarded to Buckhead become public. Houston needs incentives for InFill developments, coupled with controls the public can tolerate.
it’ll be hilarious when they put the university rail line in and bissonnet comes to a complete standstill with all the displaced richmond traffic.
anyone seen the traffic studies for that?
Bissonnet isn’t anywhere close to being a 3 lane street in many sections, including the location where this project is planned (The Maryland Apts).
Secondly, how do you suppose the city widen Bissonnet without taking private property? It appears many of you that are commenting haven’t driven there in awhile…
Thirdly, I believe these guys SHOULD win in their lawsuit. However, the anger being directed at Southampton is misguided. Since when is protecting your property or neighborhood a “crime?” Since when is trying to protect what most would perceive as a historical hood a bad thing? I sense ole Matt has a little class envy going on.
i’m pretty sure it becomes a crime once you hire lawyers to do the talking for you and throw around your influence/support/money to get the city directors/close friends to mis-apply the law in your favor.
when you speak of anger being directed at southampton as misguided, what else would one expect?
as far as class envy, everyone should have it. money equals power and priviliges whether for good or bad.
Rise High Ashby!
Bobby Hadley writes:
Bissonnet is a major east-west arterial people. Why doesn’t anyone get this?! It moves tons of people everyday. It’s simply fallacious to think that the addition of this one building is going to be the straw on camel’s back that’s already broken. Congestion on Bissonnet during peak traffic hours is already beyond what anyone would deem acceptable for a small neighborhood street in that area…[snip]If anything, Ashby as originally planned, would make the whole neighborhood a more walkable place.
———–
Well, I had sworn off commenting on this topic but I can’t let this go. You’re saying that traffic on Bissonnet is so bad that it’s OK to make it worse? That adding a couple hundred residents right in the center of the area, who will HAVE to drive on Bissonnet or Ashby to get anywhere, is just a wash? A lot of people forget it’s not just Bissonnet that will be affected, but probably most of the other neighborhood streets as well. And Boulevard Oaks and Southampton are already among the most “walkable” areas of Houston in the sense of shade, sidewalks, traffic, and crime. At least from an exercise and recreation standpoint. But Ashby High-Rise is too far from the likely employment centers like Rice and TMC (probably also too expensive for many of their staff) for people to walk routinely to work and one or two little beauty salons and restaurants isn’t going to make a difference one way or another. I’m always amused by those people who seriously think that urbanistic density is a necessity and Bissonnet is where it’s gotta start. These are the same people who think you can magically create “walkability” by simply not having adequate parking. It’s like cutting the trunk lid off of a Cadillac and using it to haul cinder blocks. Yes, it will do it. Not well. And you have the right to do it if you own it. And I have the right to call you stupid if you do.
I sense ole Matt has a little class envy going on.
____________________
Oh, I don’t know about that. I have more than just Pizza Hut in my Rolodex…
@eiioi
‘See, I’m more willing to put my trust in those willing to put their own money on the line – and risk failure in the market’
FYI – Equity Investor plus Bank Loan equals OTHER PEOPLE”S MONEY. Lots of developers walk away from poorly conceived projects leaving others holding the bag. Lather, rinse, repeat….
Mies,
But all the money involved in the project has risk. When you invest money into a bank by having an account, you are taking risk. It is no long your money when you open an account. A checking, savings, retirement, and investment accounts are essentially a long you give to the bank. Giving you returns on your money is their way of thanking you.
With that said, you have to have trust in the bankers you are giving you money to.
The money you are force to hand over to government officials is rarely ever worth the value it is taken away from you. It is generally wasted and many of the people who wasted are not accountable such as an unelected zoning board.
It’s a completely different situation.
kjb434,
The reason you can have trust in your bank account is because of the FDIC, a government institution! The FDIC guarantees your deposits up to a certain amount.
Before the FDIC, when depositors were at the mercy of the unregulated free market and the “trust” of the bankers, this country had runs on banks all the time. Thankfully the government “forced” the FDIC upon us in that situation!
Given the wreck unregulated real estate thrust on this country recently, I trust most unregulated land development about as much as I trust unregulated banks and finance…
Martin,
Only for up to $250,000 (used to be less).
And the FDIC is actually funded by the banks themselves. The government doesn’t pay much. The positive thing the government did was set this up as an insurance. The FDIC can only guarantee based upon what it has in its reserves. All the banks that went under in the past couple of years ran the reserves dangerously low.
In the end, it still comes down to “do you trust the banking institution you are putting your money in?”
Surprisingly, most people choose a bank based off some special offer ($100 check) or because it has lots of ATMS. Not on something more substantial.
In the end, you still have a choice to participate in a bank. You don’t have much of a choice in participating in your government through taxes. You go to jail if you don’t.
I will gladly trust a bank (primarily small local banks) than I’ll ever trust someone in government (even of my own political views).
Some prefer not to trust banks at all and put their money into other things. Like partnerships. And Buckhead is a partnership. One of the things we don’t know and I bet no one knows is who the other investors in Buckhead are. Whoever they are, they are obviously confident enough to proceed with what obviously is going to be an expensive lawsuit. And willing to take the risk.
@marmer
You clearly missed my point, which is that traffic on Bissonnet (and Greenbriar, Shepherd, Hazard, Mandell, Rice and every other connector) is already bad, not because of a few hundred people, but because of the 20,000 people that use these streets everyday.
From a traffic analysis standpoint, the addition of Ashby would NOT significantly increase commute times, or decrease average travel speed on Bissonnet. A simple reading of METRO’s mobility reports about the status of Bissonnet in general, reveals that fact.
If anything, people making local trips to and from destinations in the retail portion of the development, would be able to walk there–potentially mitigating or even offsetting the *relatively speaking* few added cars.
And as an aside, which may or may not be reflective of the fringes of Houston society… I walk everyday from the OTHER side of 59 to Rice along Greenbriar. Willingly. Attitudes towards pedestrian mobility can’t be changed if people aren’t given the option. And that option, as far as Houston zoning laws (or the lack thereof) are concerned, is a prerogative of the property owner at the Ashby site.
Close to the Med Center, close to Rice U., close to Metro rail; why not the SW corner of Fannin and S. Braeswood for Ashby? The residents of the Southampton have a say of how they want to keep their neighborhood for they are the fabric and backbone of the neighborhood and don’t need parasitic developers sucking the life out of their years of community spirit and presence of maintenance. Ashby doesn’t fit. I ain’t no “local” but I morally could not screw the Southampton residents as Buckhead Investments plan to do.
The residents of the Southampton have a say of how they want to keep their neighborhood for they are the fabric and backbone of the neighborhood and don’t need parasitic developers sucking the life out of their years of community spirit and presence of maintenance.
_____________________
They do have that right but that right does not extend to adjacent neighborhoods and there are several adjacent neighborhoods in those two parcels of land between Bissonnet and Rice and Ashby and Cherokee that are not deed-restricted and in fact are unrestricted which is why there has always been a mix of single-family homes, multi-family duplexes, fourplexes and complexes, including Cheyne Walk on Sunset, office buildings and commercial businesses including a gas station at one time at Sunset and Ashby.
Buyer beware. The problem is some recent buyers decided that city ordinance, and the principle of law behind those ordinances, didn’t matter. So they got a mayor to “pull strings” and violate the city charter when he did so and opened up a proverbial can of worms for everyone and created a situation where the city basically is having to defend its right to violate its own charter if it chooses to do so. To please those with checkboooks. That’s pretty appalling when you think about it. Which few apparently have.
Maybe some believe it will help them stop similar development in their neighborhoods. It won’t. And that is made clear by the development that was approved, as stated in the lawsuit, without application of the same ordinance that was applied to 1717 Bissonnet.
The people with the checkbooks aren’t writing the checks to pay for the city to defend itself. The taxpayers are.
The people with the checkbooks aren’t going to write the checks to pay for the judgements. The taxpayers will.
Annise Parker should call it a day and reverse the previous administration’s positions and allow the building to be permitted per the original plans which it would have been had it not been for the temper tantrum of a few. And then tell the few to file their own lawsuit and pay for it themselves if they want to stop the development which is what Bill White should have told them. But they waved their checkbooks. And of course are waving their checkbooks at Annise Parker as well.
So of course she won’t. And if the city loses the lawsuit, well, the taxpayhers will pay for it all. So why should she care? Hopefully the voters will tell her why she should have as they bounce her out of office next year. Her and several others who pandered to two attorneys and their law firm believing there was political advantage in doing so.
There probably was. Until the lawsuit was filed.
Lord knows what the Perry camp is going to treat us all to in the fall. But I suspect “The Monster That Devoured Southampton” is going to become almost iconic. It will most likely devour several political careers. And give the rest of us indigestion. Along with a tax hike to pay for the judgement.
@MattMystery
Matt says…
“So move to Dallas. And take Southampton with you. It might fit in somewhere. The atttitude anyway.”
Then Matt says…
“The way it works. Unless of course you are pretentious and spoiled and a brat.”
zzzz…
Dude, you don’t score many debating points by going ad hominem all the time. The tea party doesn’t provide a good model for civil discourse. And in reality, there are legit philosophical disagreements regarding the role of planning vs private property rights in building a city. Too bad you prefer to hurl invective instead of actually discussing the issues.
And in reality, there are legit philosophical disagreements regarding the role of planning vs private property rights in building a city.
_____________________
There is also a legit issue of the city charter that everyone seems to want to overlook. No zoning means what?
@Matt
“No zoning means what?”
Well, for one, it means you have a high-rise condo being developed in the midst of a neighborhood of 2 story, predominantly single-family homes. While the developers were fully within their rights to develop Ashby, it is hard to see something like this happening in any city with zoning.
Case closed….
Mies,
This happens a lot in a city with zoning and especially in neighborhoods with lower property values. The zoning boards want to raise property values to increase property tax revenue. Tearing apart lower income single family neighborhoods is a good way to do that. Zoning cities where this doesn’t happen isn’t because of the zoning laws, but the richer neighborhoods lobby the zoning board to not allow it.
Zoning isn’t the panacea because land-use can quickly change at the vote of the board from a single family to denser urban styles.
Much of the upper east and west sides of Manhattan were large single family homes that knocked out to be build high-rises. At a time there were high-rises with single family homes scattered around it.
If we had zoning there is a good chance Southhampton wouldn’t exist. I could see most single family housing being pushed west of downtown.
Cd,
To add on that. If we add Zoning now to mix, many will be surprised at how many older neighborhoods close in will be zoned dense multi-family. The zoning board will slowly force transition in the neighborhood. If the neighborhood is very politically active, then the zoning board will hit neighborhoods that don’t fight back.
People celebrating Dallas doing good with zoning should see the neighborhoods that were destroyed in the name of dense mixed used walkable neighborhoods.
@Bobby Hadley:
I understand your point, but I don’t agree. If traffic speeds are already approaching zero, as they do at certain times, then it is accurate to say that more cars will have little to no effect on time. The people who can’t get onto Bissonnet because there’s not ROOM for their cars will just have to drive on other streets in the neighborhood. Like Ashby and Sunset.
If you can walk that far that often, well, that’s great for you. I used to live just north of 59 myself and I could certainly walk to Rice, though I wouldn’t want to do it to go to work every day for lots of reasons — time, weather, security, having to carry a lot of stuff. Yes, I know plenty of people who live car-free, but that’s not what this is about. If someone converted one or two more of the existing houses on Bissonnet into restaurants or shops, no one would really object, probably, and a few people in the neighborhood would walk to them. Like they probably do to Raven Grill. I have a lot more problem with the loss of Maryland Manor, the impact of construction traffic and noise on the area, and the fact that it’s too big and too close to the houses nearby.
@kjb
At the end of the day, the real estate developer’s goal is to maximize his profit. That goal has absolutely nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the neighborhood, or the city as a whole. Like it or not, looking out for the interest of the larger community is the job of government. Houston lacks a cohesive process for figuring out where we want to go, and any sort of mechanism for encouraging the sort of development that might flesh out the community’s vision.
Our recent history provides some great examples of situations in which planning might have made a difference in developing the sorts of neighborhoods that people around the country are clamoring for.
A prime example is mid-town, where an opportunity to create a walkable, mixed-use neighborhood adjacent to downtown was missed. Likewise, Washington Avenue could have easily become a walkable boulevard, instead of the hodge-podge that it is.
Mies,
Washington Avenue’s massive development primarily occurred because there was massive demand for denser inner city living. The reason it happened there instead of the more logical place in midtown is due to the light rail line and it’s affect at ballooning the prices of the prime land around it. Even today in the economic dip, the asking price for much of the land is way to much to make any project feasible. The only new project in that area built is Camden’s superblock which they owned prior to the planning of the light rail.
If zoning/detailed land plan was in place to make midtown dense and keep much of
Washington Avenue at a lower density or as-is, you would have seen development push to other areas. Developers that would build in Midtown would demand massive tax breaks and/or other incentives from the city like in Dallas and Atlanta to offset the outrageous land price. That’s money being taken away from other good uses just to push a neighborhood concept.
@kjB
I’ve been around for awhile and certainly understand the history of development and land prices in both parts of town. We just happen to disagree on the impact of land-use controls. Establishing form-based controls on Washington Avenue would not have pushed development anywhere else. That is nonsense.
By the way, property owners in Midtown and the 4th Ward were asking a pretty penny for their land as far back as the 80’s.
Kjb34 says “People celebrating Dallas doing good with zoning should see the neighborhoods that were destroyed in the name of dense mixed used walkable neighborhoods.”
The area that was “destroyed” to create Uptown was much like the 4th Ward–decrepit homes that had fallen into disrepair, crack houses, vacant lots and shuttered small businesses. It looked like a war zone and, redeveloped with midrise apartments, condos and townhomes and a number of businesses including the Hotel ZaZa and a host of popular eateries, it far exceeds anything in Houston interms of walkability.
The other areas that were destroyed contained many 1950’s and 1960’s small apartment complexes that had long outlived their heyday to be replaced mainly by owner occupied townhomes. It seems that the idea of bringing a new generation of residents back to the inner city has worked.
JT,
By that logic, we need to bulldoze all of third ward and fourth ward to build the Utopian neighborhoods central planners want. I’m sure if Houston had a zoning board, Quannell X (Q-tip as I like to call him) would be raising hell and the development wouldn’t happen. You would destroy two black communities.
Isn’t Houston demolishing many older inner city complexes and building new ones? It seems to me Houston’s had a massive increase in inner city population and neighborhood gentrification just like Dallas without the magical planning of a zoning board.
Look to your own neighborhood, Cottage Grove or mine, Rice Military to see redevelopment Houston style. Absolutely no street improvements, drainage improvements, few sidewalks, no underground utilities and townhomes that are built with no relationship to their plots of land and a general see of Hollywood movie set front facades surrounded by 3 sides of Hardi Plank. I’m sorry but our redevelopment only strains the chronically substandard streets and the developers have no regard for the neighborhhods the gentrify.
And, in Dallas, the zoning is determined(or was many years ago) by city plannners employed by the City, not a politically appointed zoning board. If one wishes to get a variance or a zoning change then that is done with a hearing before the planning commission after city staff makes recommendations pro or con.
Many developers have lost their battles due to neighborhood interests ( twin 20 story apartment towers in the midst of some 1940s cottages and 1960’s garden apartments comes to mind )and the City in general has been cognizant to preserving the integrity of extant neighborhoods.
OK whoever said Dallas neighborhoods are “more stable” needs to fuck off. Dallas neighborhoods are more STATIC. So yes, if a neighborhood was platted out as some nice haven for the rich, with big mansion-houses and such, it probably still is.
But the flipside: blighted areas tend to STAY blighted, as opposed to spontaneously rejuvenating the way Houston neighborhoods do. Have you ever noticed how crazily lopsided Dallas’s development is? On the north side it’s crazy intense, but on the south side there’s naught but a Dairy Queen and a few Crown Vics waiting to pick you off as the speed limit drops.
Why is that? Simply the natural result of the Big D’s “intelligent” zoning and land-use policy.
Many developers have lost their battles due to neighborhood interests ( twin 20 story apartment towers in the midst of some 1940s cottages and 1960’s garden apartments comes to mind )and the City in general has been cognizant to preserving the integrity of extant neighborhoods.
___________________
But their city charter allows them to because the voters approved zoning. The voters in Houston have not approve zoning. Several times. Some believe the will of the voters doesn’t matter and that the cithy charter doesn’t matter. That their will matters. Because they are, as indicated by many of their comments online the past two years, pillars of our community. Very shaky pillars if they believe they alone should decide what will and will not be despite what the voters have said will and will not be.
Most of them of course are attorneys. Who are very good at manipulating law. But in the end really have no respect for the law. Just what their spoiled little brat hearts desire.
“And, in Dallas, the zoning is determined(or was many years ago) by city planners employed by the City, not a politically appointed zoning board.”
And if you believe the city planners are unbiased and not influence by the city council and the developers lobbying the council member, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
KHH is right about how Dallas’ zoning has pretty much led to them only focusing on certain areas and very much neglecting others.
KHH is right about how Dallas’ zoning has pretty much led to them only focusing on certain areas and very much neglecting others.
___________________
The bottom line of zoning and “planned land use” and all the other “euphemisms” for zoning is that rich people get what they want and poor people get what the rich people don’t want. Preferably close enough for the rich people to drive to but not close enough to ruin the view.
You got the right Matt.
Houston’s development method has allowed many people to afford homes and apartments close in without some master planner involved. The diversity of homes, apartments, and price ranges close to downtown is amazing compared to other cities.
Although I might add that in Houston some rich epople like being able to walk across the street to the “Stop ‘N Shop” which is probably why the rich people, the unpretentious ones, as well as the poor people have consistently said “NO” to zoning in Houston.
Eventually they will realize that no one at City Hall of late understands the word “NO” and will retire them all from public service since they are not really serving the majority of the people who elected them.
The point is that Houston’s laissez faire development system has yet to create an actual dense urban neighborhood that is walkable and vibrant. The two blocks in Midtown that Post created do not exactly constitute a neighborhood.
kjb34– You go on about Dallas as though you know everything about it. Like Houston, Dallas does have its share of blighted neighborhoods. And KHH is apparently unaware of anything except I-45 South in Dallas. Yes, development is skewered to the North but that is free market dynamics at work not a conspiracy on the part of the City. KHH have you been to NorthHouston/Northeast Houston?
I’d say that those are miles and miles of
blight and I don’t see that as a hotbed of activity nor is anything really happening in East Houston or Southeast Houston.
Zoning basically protects neighborhoods from the encroachment of Jiffy Lubes,bars and high rises and the like from changing the character of a neighborhood. That is why you can buy a $250k single family home
within 10 miles of Downtown Dallas and not be afraid that tomorrow a set of 4 Faux Stucco Townhouses will be built within 3 feet of your property line.
JT,
You must have missed the class on how the free market works.
Zoning and central planning are the pain in the free market’s back. The free market has to jump through hoops and perform the limbo to keep going in those situations.
Houston brings the reality of risk based free market. If you want security in your home purchase, move into a deed restricted community. If you want to throw the dice, move to unrestricted community. There are lots of choices in Houston for where you can live with or without restrictions. Houston gives you the choice that many cities don’t.
@kjb
“You must have missed the class on how the free market works.” – You crack me up…
.
Anyone who has lived through the past two years has had received a graduate degree in how the free market works. And a major lesson is that without sufficient regulation, the free market managed to come close to destroying the global economy, through the unregulated credit default swap market. Were you asleep during that class?
Mies,
Don’t showcase your lack of knowledge by thinking the free market did any of this destruction.
Regulation since the early 90s modified on legislation from the late 70s built the problems that the free market had to work around. The regulations created the mess of subprime loans, and credit default swaps that would have never existed in the free market prior to government intervention. To think that more regulation to push the same agenda that led to the current mess will solve anything is quite naive.
KHH & Matt – Maybe you don’t drive around Sunnyside, the Nickle or Acres Homes much, but there are big swaths of Houston that have not seen much in the way of ‘rejuvenation’. It is stupid to blame the lack of developers’ interest in ghettos on zoning.
@ Matt Mystery: YES. A couple weekends ago I met up with a friend at Cha-Cho’s on Westheimer. As we were waiting for the 81/82 a Gallardo pulls into the parking lot. I commented then that Houston is the kinda place where even after you’ve made enough money to buy a 200mph sportscar that costs more than many peoples’ houses, you can still go chill at the same $8-a-plate burrito joint as the rest of us – and it’s normal.
@Mies: Maybe you don’t ride your goddamn bike around the Nickel often enough. Everything between Jensen and the old KBR building is gentrified. More is on the way in other areas… albeit on hold for a couple years, given the current market conditions.
By the way, property owners in Midtown and the 4th Ward were asking a pretty penny for their land as far back as the 80’s.
_______________________
They were asking for a pretty penny in 4th Ward until Houston Renaissance, whose board was comprised with some of our city’s “pillars,” decided to offer $6 a square foot with the threat of condemnation as an “incentive” which they might have gotten away with had the Attorney General’s Office not intervened. Houston Renaissance of course then offered the land to developers for $16 a square foot. Until the Attorney General’s Office intervened. Just to make sure the $6.5 million in land Houston Renaissance spent $24.5 million buying, at $6 a square foot, was made available ONLY for affordable housing. Per their non-profit purpose.
Gotta love these pillars of our community.