Hey, good one! Remember all those revisions Buckhead Investment Partners finally made to the Ashby High Rise plans — cutting out a bunch of the ground-floor retail space, enlarging the restaurant, and putting that big driveway loop on Bissonnet — so that the city might finally approve the Southampton-side tower? Yesterday the developers told the Chronicle‘s Mike Snyder they were really just part of an elaborate fake-out maneuver:
Between July 2007 and August of this year, city officials rejected applications for the project 11 times on grounds that traffic it generated would increase congestion on nearby streets to unacceptable levels.
In August, the city approved a 12th application after [Buckhead’s Matthew] Morgan and [Kevin] Kirton removed all the commercial uses except the restaurant and reduced the number of residential units. The developers said Wednesday that they changed their plans to test whether the city would approve their project under any circumstances, but never intended to build anything other than the project they designed in 2007.
Aw, c’mon: If you actually did go ahead and build the approved plans, that would be a great stunt too! But how did these fun-loving developers happen upon such a wacky strategy? Snyder provides some insight into their inspiration:
***
Morgan and Kirton said they haven’t given up hope that a new administration would approve the original project, even though both mayoral candidates committed to the neighborhood recently they wouldn’t do so.
“In the political process, people don’t always say and do the same things after an election,†Morgan said.
Yesterday, city council members turned down an appeal by the developers to let them build the original plans rejected by the city engineer — y’know, the version they were really serious about.
- City Council rejects Ashby high-rise [Houston Chronicle]
- Council rules against Ashby developers’ appeal [River Oaks Examiner]
- Ashby Highrise coverage [Swamplot]
Rendering of original Ashby Highrise: Buckhead Investment Partners
I am waiting for another commenter to rant on “West U yuppies” without realizing that the location isn’t even in West U.
If nothing else it provided more basis for a lawsuit. There really is nothing in any city ordinance that could be legally used to force them to alter their plans. Except for an obscure driveway ordinance and this nonsense about traffic impact which are standards that obviously have not been used by the city to deny other projects.
And the longer the city maintains it was in its legal right to do what it did, the more likely it will go to court. Maybe they don’t want spend the money to go to court. And maybe they just want to have a “slam-dunk” against the city and the homeowners.
They’ve been harassed and defamed and even had their children threatened. Which really hasn’t done much for the reputation of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks.
Hopefully they will try again in January and then sue and then after they collect the judgement just donate the land to the city of West U, which everyone hates so much for some reason, for a new sewage treatment plant.
In my ideal world, they’d build it but compensate by disallowing *all* vehicle traffic on that block of Bissonnet. Works for me, since I live right there and bike everywhere, but it would stink for most of my neighbors. Of course, that’s the point: we mostly want what’s best for ourselves now, hence the whole AHR controversy. I honestly don’t know whether Houston would be better with or without this tower, but I know I hate the traffic on Bissonnet already.
Who cares, this topic is about as interesting as Tiger’s whores. Still hope they get it built though, just to piss off the elitists.
Well, I owe a client a lunch who said Morgan & Kirton would do exactly this. She won’t say how she knew, though….
And I love the broad (pun intended) interpretation of the street. In their dreams!
huh, good fake-out guys. you sure kept us all guessing.
“cross” – that is a priceless comment.
OK, off topic, but isn’t Tiger the whore?
Hey Buckheads, there is a piece of crap apartment building across the street from me you are more than welcome to bulldoze and build anything you want. It’s called TakaraSo.
Thanks.
miss_msry, who lives there?? An apartment locator tried to get me to rent there 25 years ago, and it was crappy then.
Emme, agreed, both sides are whores
From miss_msry:
Hey Buckheads, there is a piece of crap apartment building across the street from me you are more than welcome to bulldoze and build anything you want. It’s called TakaraSo.
___________________
The city should have torn Takara So down instead of Wilshire Village.
As for Ashby some expect Annise Parker to appoint Chris Bell, who is friends with one of the two “co-chairs” of the vigilante commmittee, as city attorney.
Look for your city property taxes to go up once the dust from the lawsuits settles.
look for your (insert every tax you have ever paid throughout your entire life) to go up as our $ falls and debt blasts to $20T
look for your (insert every tax you have ever paid throughout your entire life) to go up as our $ falls and debt blasts to $20T
____________________
Yes. But adding lawsuits the city doesn’t need to add is not really very fiscally responsible. Or to use the political catchword of the moment fiscally conservative. Not that any politician anywhere understands the meaning of the term.