This handy list of addresses tells you where the ground-hitting action is:
***
Residences
- 2003 Albans St. 77005 (Southampton Place)
- 237 Knox St. 77007
- 1002 Worthshire St. 77008 (photos)
- 911 Robbie St. 77009 (photos)
- 1942 W. Clay St. 77019 (Hyde Park Court)
- 9614 Bundy Ln. 77080 (partial demo of unpermitted addition)
- 2017 Branard St. 77098 (new construction by Reuther Homes)
- 2021 Branard St. 77098 (Dearborn Place; new construction by Reuther Homes)
- 2629 Newman St. 77098 (photos)
Photo of 2003 Albans St.: HAR
Regarding the house on BUndy: Does this mean someone added on to their home without a permit, and now they are forced to tear it down?
I love that Goolge Street View shows 2003 Albans with multiple “Stop Ashby Highrise” signs in the yard.
I’m guessing the prior home owner was more than happy to sell to the highest bidder without asking his neighbors for their opinions of the new buyer’s plans to demolish the existing house and replace it with something much larger.
This Albans House Makes me so sad… It was one of my favorite homes as a kid…
@Bernard. First of all, there’s nothing incongruous about selling a residential lot to the highest bidder and simultaneously opposing a massive, multi-storied skyscraper in a mostly two-story residential neighborhood. People should be allowed to do whatever the law allows and if that means they can build something big and/or ugly on their lot, so be it. There’s a big difference between a McMansion and the Ashby high rise. And second, the previous owner of the house had every intention of demolishing it and building a McMansion, but couldn’t get funding. No one has actually lived in the house for a couple of years.
@Caroline Agreed. It is precious in the inside, as well.
@Local, not having the first clue what they’re talking about is no obstacle for the Swamplot peanut gallery’s condescending, smarmy wannabe snark.
Just what I would expect from a “Southampton local”. So let me get this straight. First you proclaim, “People should be allowed to do whatever the law allows and if that means they can build something big and/or ugly on their lot, so be it.” Then, when someone tries to do exactly that, you and your neighbors march straight down to City Hall and have your mercenary politicians illegally shut down the project. Got it.
Hey, they have every right to try to build Ashby high rise–more power to them. And people have every right to oppose it. If your across the street neighbor wants to build an ugly McMansion and you oppose it, it’s their right to try to build it and yours to write your local politician for help and put a sign in your lawn opposing it. It’s a great country we live in, no? I think my original point was that when selling a residential piece of property, the notion of “asking his neighbors for their opinions of the new buyer’s plans to demolish the existing house and replace it with something much larger” (in your words) is patently ridiculous even if that person simultaneously opposes something like the Ashby high rise. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive. There are limits to what people are comfortable with. An ugly McMansion? OK, not ideally what I want to look at when I go out to get my morning paper every morning, but other than that it’s ugly, I’ll live with it. A 30-story monstrosity that’s going to be an eyesore and create massive congestion on Bissonnet and other surrounding streets? Maybe not so much.
Southampton Local: “A 30-story monstrosity that’s going to be an eyesore and create massive congestion on Bissonnet and other surrounding streets?”
Facts, please…
1002 Worthshire went down yesterday. It was a fairly undistinguished Timbergrove ranch, so no great loss. The builder is City Cottage, who just finished a house on Nashua that looks nice , but has a floor plan I don’t like at all. I would be happier if they didn’t rebuild with street facing garages, though.