COSMOPOLITAN’S CONDO ASSOCIATION PREEMPTIVELY SUED BY WOULD-BE NEXT-DOOR HIGHRISE DEVELOPER IN UPTOWN 
Dinerstein is evidently embracing the ‘inevitable lawsuit’ over its proposed 40-story Vantage highrise (planned for the northwest corner of Post Oak Blvd. and San Felipe Dr. next to the 22-story Cosmopolitan condo tower) by suing first, reports Nancy Sarnoff. In 2014, Cosmo residents formed a political action committee to oppose a now-scrapped 50-story tower planned by AmREIT for the same Uptown corner; Sarnoff reports that the lot’s current owner has filed a suit against the condo association to preemptively block nuisance claims related to the tower’s construction (which featured prominently in the legal fight surrounding the Ashby highrise). The plaintiff also wants a judge’s declaration that the condo group doesn’t have legal standing to sue based on alleged violation of city ordinances; the developer wants attorney’s fees paid, too. [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot] Elevation of proposed Vantage tower: GenslerÂ
Sign up for the Newsletter
Delicious irony that a high rise views another high rise as a noisance. Swamplot alluded to this but no one picked up on it.
The developer took a move straight out of Commonsense’s playbook, daddy is so proud.
Cosmo buyers should have looked at all the vacant/underbuilt sites around their building and figured out that eventually they would be surrounded by much taller buildings. They only have themselves to blame.
So, the lawsuit basically says that if I am a nice guy and enter into an agreement where we both allow each other to swing our construction cranes over each other’s property when we build our buildings, the guy who builds second is free to commit a private nuisance with impunity on the guy who builds first.
At the same time, it is very transparent that the Cosmo owners are probably most upset about losing their stunning views of the Galleria area traffic jams and probably do not have much of a private nuisance claim. So, maybe they deserve each other.
High rises all over chicago block the view of another building. Don’t be moving in to the first building. it will only get worse.
This move makes sense to stop any delays in construction. If the developer wants to build in the next cycle then they can’t wait for injunctions and court cases to be completed. They would miss the opportunity to build and another developer would take their place in a less desirable location.
Telling the defendant to pay for your premtive suit is probably more of a negotiation tactic than a real request.
Isn’t one of the views people pay for is views of various buildings? I know when I’ve stayed in NY or other large cities, I’ve enjoyed looking out at all the other buildings.
Last time I drove by the Ashby Highrise site, it was still dirt. Is this the fate of developments that fail to pre-litigate?
Only guarantee to protect your view is to buy the air rights. Not sure it is possible but you can buy mineral rights why not air rights. Maybe this will be a new trend in real estate to protect and guarantee views. Otherwise buy the land so you can determine what does and does not go up.
Back in the day’ high rise condo developers built on sites where views would be protected long term , like next to parks, restricted single family neighborhoods etc, think of Inwood Manor, The Huntingdon, Bayou Bend Towers, Warwick Towers. Randall Davis does not trouble himself with such concerns. Let the buyer beware!
The Cosmopolitan Residents have every right to question a monstrous developments that is 10 ft away from their property.
In particular knowing that is is the so called flag ship project that the two 25 year old Dinersteins inheritance trust fund babies, who have no experience in urban development, dreamt up to make a public statement.
I wish there was more public scrutiny concerning these kind of project who have a big impact on traffic and environment in urban area.