COMMENT OF THE DAY: A LOW-COST LIGHTING OPTION FOR THE 59 BRIDGES “Send someone over to Walgreens and you can cover the whole thing in holiday lights for a 100 bucks a bridge. Chevy Chase will install them for free.” [kilray, commenting on What It Would Cost To Get Those 59 Bridge Lights Working Again » Swamplot: Houston’s Real Estate Landscape]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Boulevard Oaks
WHAT IT WOULD COST TO GET THOSE 59 BRIDGE LIGHTS WORKING AGAIN 
Mike McGuff follows up with details on what might be holding up the undangling and rekindling of that fiber-optic lighting on the Dunlavy, Montrose, Hazard, Graustark, Mandell, and Woodhead St. bridges over 59: “The lights originally cost $275,000 when they were first installed. To get the old ones out and the new ones installed, you are looking at a price of $90,000 per bridge. With six bridges, that comes out to more than half a million dollars.” [39online; previously on Swamplot]
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
It’s not looking good for the few remaining low-slung postwar Ranch homes on Banks St. in once-aptly named Ranch Estates, in the northeastern stretch of Boulevard Oaks. Last year architect Karen Lantz took apart the Ranch at 1514 Banks, piece by piece. Three more of them have been idling on MLS for months, two at what the sellers consider lot value. The third, at 1515 Banks (pictured above), isn’t priced a whole lot higher, but it’s been out there since September of last year, shedding $50K from its initial $599,950 price tag. Will the owners even get back what they paid for it 15 months before putting it on the market?
“Beautiful corner lot, gorgeous oak trees. House has been added onto and has 8 ft ceilings,” begins the terse listing for this 80-year-old property with a $1.6-million asking price on live-oak-lined South Blvd. It’s part of the newly declared historic district portion of Boulevard Oaks.
A 4,270-sq.-ft. home with lowish ceilings — is that a problem? Nothing you can’t make up for by taking your interior shots from atop a stepstool:
Julia, the chicken who patrolled the parking lot and schmoozed with patio diners for many years at the Raven Grill at 1916 Bissonnet near Hazard St., passed away earlier this month of natural causes, a reader informs us. “We don’t know where she came from,” reads a note posted on the restaurant’s website, “only that she was a sweet bird who liked people and that she simply made us happy each time we saw her.”
Frequent diners of the Southampton-area restaurant have sent in their own website tributes to the “friendly and fearless” bird, who apparently exhibited much social grace in her daily appearances and egg-laying demonstrations for small impromptu gatherings of children, even while patrons devoured the carcasses of distant relatives only a few feet away:
She may have been ‘just a chicken’ but I watched Julia single-handedly form new friendships between diners. She was a tough, little city chicken. RIP Julia.
And:
CHIPPING AWAY AT THE MUSEUM DISTRICT 
Those little tree topper signs have been up throughout the larger neighborhood for a while now, but the new Boulevard Oaks Historic District was only approved by City Council this week. The designation means you’ll now have to wait 90 days before you can demolish that rambling South Blvd. mansion you just picked up. At the same meeting, council members approved an 8-acre extension to the Midtown TIRZ that takes a bite out of the Museum District. The area includes the new locations of Asia House, the Buffalo Soldiers Museum, and the Museum of African-American Culture. [Houston Chronicle, via Slampo’s Place] Photo: WhisperToMe
COMMENT OF THE DAY: LOCATING THE ASHBY HIGHRISE IN AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE “I’m not continuing an argument, but I’d really like to know. If the Ashby project had sailed through permitting and there had been no opposition at all and it went forward as Buckhead intended on their original timetable, where would it stand now? Would it be started? Completed? Vacant? Highly occupied?” [marmer, commenting on The “Only in Houston†Award: Vote for One of These Official Nominees]
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:
ASHBY HIGHRISE LOSES APPEAL The city’s General Appeals Board today rejected a request by the developers of the Ashby Highrise to gain permit approvals for the 23-story project’s original version — which includes a larger number of residences and more commercial space than the plans that finally received permits from the city. “Matthew Morgan, one of the two principals with Buckhead Investment Partners, said the next step would likely be to appeal to the Houston City Council. . . . Ironically, the prolonged battle that has been played out not only in the city bureaucracy but with yard signs, bumper stickers and vocal, packed protests did not draw any other media or public attention Thursday at this key city hearing.” [West University Examiner; previously on Swamplot]
Thursday is a big day for the Ashby Highrise:
Developers Matthew Morgan and Kevin Kirton, of Buckhead Investment Partners, will appear Thursday before the General Appeals Board, a city panel that hears appeals of permit denials. They will ask for approval of a 23-story building at 1717 Bissonnet with more than 200 apartments, a restaurant, a spa, retail space and offices, which the city repeatedly said would worsen traffic congestion to unacceptable levels.
In August, the city approved modified plans that stripped out all of the commercial uses except the restaurant. The developers have not picked up the permit, however, and said Tuesday that they still want to build the original project.
What’s the difference between the plan approved by the city and the original design Buckhead is still pushing for?
INTO THE HEART OF HOUSTON REAL ESTATE A short note appears on the Google Map NPR Morning Edition co-host Steve Inskeep is using to keep track of his multi-day visit here: “We met with the developer of the Ashby, a controversial new condo building that is slated to replace the Maryland Manor building.” [Google Maps; previously on Swamplot]
COMMENT OF THE DAY: AFTER THE ASHBY HIGHRISE “. . . My take on it is that this building MIGHT NOT be too bad, once the teeth-on-edge construction period is finished. (And I seem to be the only person who thinks the construction hassles should even matter to anyone. Big crane delivery and setup on Bissonnet, anyone?) But since there seems to be no legal way to stop this one, you can be sure that there will be some serious efforts to put rules in place to prevent any more. My own tongue-in-cheek explanation for why the neighborhood was so taken by surprise is that no-one ever thought for a minute that it made any kind of sense to build a high-rise on Bissonnet, for goodness sake.” [marmer, commenting on City to Ashby Highrise: Yes You Can!]
Note: Story updated below.
The 11th time’s the charm! According to Abc13 reporter Miya Shay, the city today gave the developers of the Ashby Highrise the final approval they needed to begin construction of the 23-story residential tower at the corner of Ashby and Bissonnet, next to Southampton.
Okay now everybody, show us your cards!
Update, 5:49 p.m.: Some details about why the most recent plans were approved, from a city news release via the River Oaks Examiner:
Wondering what’s been going on with the Ashby Highrise? Developer Matthew Morgan tells the River Oaks Examiner that Buckhead Development intends to respond to “the city’s attempts to reach an agreement” with a new submission for the proposed 23-story residential tower on Bissonnet, next to Southampton.
But the city rejected the highrise’s plans again yesterday . . . for the 10th time. The city said its own analysis showed the project as currently proposed would result in an “F” level of traffic at the corner of Shepherd and Bissonnet:
However, “A significant reduction in peak-hour trips, including appropriate trip offsets, could have a potential to address heightened concerns,†a city engineer, Mark L. Loethen, wrote in his comments.
Computing traffic level involves a formula that rates intersection flow from “A†(no traffic) to “F†(very slow).
The rejected plans were submitted April 7, making the three months until they were returned to the developers unusually long.
- Ashby gets delayed 10th rejection [River Oaks Examiner]
- Ashby Highrise coverage [Swamplot]
Rendering of proposed Ashby Highrise, 1717 Bissonnet: Buckhead Investment Partners
