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!]
Sign up for the Newsletter
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.
________________________
Most are not capable of any substantive thought beyond themselves. Word is that they are beginning to devour their own over this. Should be fun to watch.
As Houston grew in the 60’s and 70’s, all attempts for the dreaded “Z-word” were shot down with indignant enthusiasm. Not in OUR town!! We don’t want zoning restrictions! (unless, of course, it’s OUR neighborhood that’s in question.) A high-rise in a residential neighborhood? Never! And if I ask a home owner in West U how they voted on the most recent zoning ordinance, they are always against zoning, but “developmental restrictions” and “land use regulations” are OK…cute spinning of new terminology doesn’t change what Houston needs no matter what you call it. Mayor White has done a poor job handling this one.
Residents of West U wouldn’t be voting on zoning in Houston. But have concerns, just the same, about the perimeter, so to speak, just as others do.
There is growing concern in the Tanglewood, Briargrove, and Memorial areas about this “traffic impact” ordinance that seems not to be used when issuing permits in their neighborhoods – if it was used to delay 1717 Bissonnet and used to force modifications, why has it not been used in other areas of the city?
That is where the city and the homeowners of Southampton and Boulevard Oaks are going to lose in this. And certainly is not winning them any friends, so to speak, in other areas of the city.
High-rises aren’t unusual in residential neighborhoods (even in zoned cities).
The Upper East and West sides of Manhattan was a suburban area of large mansions. Then high rises starting popping up all over the place.
It’s called change.
Most are not capable of any substantive thought beyond themselves. Word is that they are beginning to devour their own over this. Should be fun to watch.
——–Matt—————-
Is there any point to your posts? Are YOU capable of any substantive thought beyond ridicule?
Has anyone stopped to think how the developers will finance this ambitious project? I don’t know if you’ve heard, but it’s hard to get a loan these days. No money, no development.
I would throw the blanket statement “it’s hard to get a loan right now.”
It’s not as easy as it was before, but there area plenty of construction projects that started well after the banking fiascos to show there is still some lending available.
Since this is a rental project, as long as the developer can show there is a market for more rental units in their price range, they should qualify for funding.
There is currently two high rise apartment under construction (uptown and memorial heights). The uptown was stalled when the banks were in turmoil, but started several months after when funding was secured.
To me, if the developer saw all potential funding dry up, they would have stopped trying to get this plan approved. Most developers would have just killed the project and maybe even put the existing land up for sale.
I WOULDN’T through the blanket statement…
Is there any point to your posts? Are YOU capable of any substantive thought beyond ridicule?
__________________________
Only when there is something substantive to think about. Which there isn’t in this case. I assume the SH in SH snooty refers to Southampton?
I just hate it when the rich people get upset. ;)
I just hate it when the rich people get upset. ;)
________________________________
I suspect if they follow through with their threat to file lawsuits some of them will be a little less rich. Although some of them of course are attorneys so they will be a little more rich.
Houston’s basically been a free-fire zone for real estate development ever since the Allen brothers lied about the mosquitoes. Since calling a lot of attention to the way things tend to work around here isn’t great for business, I suspect that the folks who informally run the club into which the Buckheads seek admission are quietly none too pleased that the boys have knocked over the wrong hive. That can’t be helpful.
So long as properties like the Mosaic are being thrown into bankruptcy, the luxury high rise business is going to be undermined by a glut of supply chasing too little demand. Proving the latter exists isn’t easy. Even if you could, it’s hard to separate oneself, particularly in a lending environment where banks can cherry pick whatever deals they want to make loans on. If it were so easy, why has Randall Davis canceled two proposed developments? Each with better locations? And he has a better track record…
Since calling a lot of attention to the way things tend to work around here isn’t great for business, I suspect that the folks who informally run the club into which the Buckheads seek admission are quietly none too pleased that the boys have knocked over the wrong hive.
________________________________
I disagree. If anything the hive they knocked over stung the wrong people.
Developers don’t like anyone intruding into their business. And that means anyone. That’s why Bob Lanier and the others formed their own group to fight this attempt to circumvent the city charter and they will continue to fight it if it is pursued further. The city has approved the project. End of subject although you are obviuosly dealing with people who don’t like not having it their way. Most expect a lawsuit to be filed.
This is a threat to all developers and all development in this city. You cannot allow individual subdivisions to decide what can and cannot be built on their borders. And again, 1717 Bissonnet is not in Southampton or Boulevard Oaks. Neither subdivision has any right on that basis to object until the voters or city council give them a basis to object. And as we saw city council was not willing to do that.
Which was the point at which the mayor pulled the “traffic impact ordinance” out of his hat. Which has become a skunk as someone put it in a comment in the Houston Chronicle.
Obviously, the neighborhoods don’t have the right to control what’s built on their borders and, from that perspective, the Buckhead guys probably have the better end of the legal argument since the tract isn’t deed restricted. On the other hand, if you don’t have meaningful land use regulation, other things like political influence and money tend to play a larger role in deciding what gets built and where. There is a lot of both in those neighborhoods and they’ve used it successfully in the past–the SW Freeway redo and Rick’s Cabaret come to mind. I personally think the project is greedy, nitwitted and doomed for a number of reasons, but the more attention it gets, the more likely it is that other neighborhoods will organize opposition to undesirable projects, the more the local politicos and media will get involved, etc., all of which makes life more difficult/expensive for other developers. The fact that they oppose an ordinance doesn’t mean that they support the project or that they aren’t willing to, shall we say, relieve the pressure off the radar. Just my guess, of course.
Mitch,
Land use regulation can actually breed more use of political influence and money since it’s harder to override the regulation.
Dallas and Austin have strict land use regulations and the relationship of developers to political players is just as stronger and potentially more devious.
Even on a local level, Pearland and Sugar Land have strict zoning regs and in the same situation, money will buy developers influence in order to develop their properties.
Regulation never rids of political corruption. Just look at every legislation passed concerning campaign finance. There is always a way around it legally.
I would rather have private land usage dictated by just about anyone than some control freak governmental bureaucrat(s). There have been waay too many instances of corrupted land use zoning nazis skewing reasonable outcomes of otherwise simple zoning issues all over the country for many years. I’ll bet every one of us reading this has at least one or two tales friends of theirs has told concerning their own undesirable encounters with zoning officials in zoned land usage determinations.
hey Matt – get a life. Ashby Highrise is good progress for the area. It will bring more of the young professional working crowd to the area restaurants and retail shops which will be great for the Rice area economy. You’re just too obsessed with this project to be useful at this point, so stop with your bitter attitude and go with the flow, or maybe you should consider relocating somewhere else.
hey Matt – get a life. Ashby Highrise is good progress for the area. It will bring more of the young professional working crowd to the area restaurants and retail shops which will be great for the Rice area economy. You’re just too obsessed with this project to be useful at this point, so stop with your bitter attitude and go with the flow, or maybe you should consider relocating somewhere else.
_____________________________
Apparently you somehow have missed something somewhere and believe I oppose 1717 Bissonnet. If so, you’re the only one in this city who does.