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
I would be curious to know a) what is the current traffic level at the corner of Shepherd and Bissonnet and b) is the city engineer performing the traffic study, or if the developer’s traffic engineer/consultant? Having participated in a large number of commercial development projects, I’ve never had the city offer to do a traffic study for the owner.
Do any of you know if the city ever instituted a height restriction for buildings on streets with less than four lanes? I remember talk about it but am having trouble finding out if it’s actually in place.
to answer your questions RagingPopulist:
a) not much and not even noticable in comparison to the other major intersections in the area (shepherd/59, main/rice, bissonet/montrose)
b) with the money the university neighborhood is throwing at this to fight it i’m sure the city is doing it with the help of the opposing lawyers and consultants
Bill Burge, the height restriction does not exist in city code.
RagingPopulist, the city should just be reviewing the study. There are plenty of firms in Houston that can perform traffic studies.
I would like to know what the level of service (LOS) grade is currently at Shepherd and Bissonet.
The situation noted here is peak hour conditions. I would be suprised, especially since the neighborhoods first complaints were that the traffic was already so bad, if at peak times the intersection operates above a C level, which is still acceptable and functioning.
The Developer would have had to submit his own study, the City would have reviewed with its own traffic department and made comments.
Also, Mark Loethen is not a City Engineer, but The City Engineer, so you can be sure that this is getting scrutiny at the highest levels, because he does not see 95% of what comes through his office.
MikeH is right. Mr. Loethen is the City Engineer (head guy and really nice too). He doesn’t see all submittals that enter for review. He will typically get involved on projects that have come to an impasse where detailed scrutiny is needed.
The standard reviewers pretty much follow everything by the book. And anyone who has dealt with city rules realize that the book does not work for everything.
Mr. Loethen also represents sort of a public face for the city.
I can’t imagine that there’s even toxic money available in this environment for a project that virtually no one wants to see built and that’s going to be dogged every inch of the way by people who are quite capable of doing some serious dogging. Gotta be better things to do, even for those never-say-die Buckhead boys.
“virtually no one wants to see built”
When you find the real people let us know!
I think they should just forget it and make it a ten-story storage facility. Those orange cubes would really liven up the neighborhood, plus, hardly any new traffic at all!
Buildergeek you just made me spit coffee on my keyboard. If I were Buckhead I would think it would be worth it even if they have to take a loss, just to see the looks on the neighbors faces.
good.
No means no. Ten times no means no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no. Now, go away.
This project will be approved and building will begin w/in 3 mo.s after Mayor White leaves office IMHO, unless Buckhead gives up. Why? Because they will prevail in court, and the city knows it. Again, my educated opinion-I don’t know the B’head folks.
And yes, there are people who want this project to succeed – lots of us. Loopholes exploited on behalf of semi-wealthy neighborhoods by the city-with White’s more than tacit approval-is sleazy elitism.
It is sleazy because White, et al, have
stepped in when they failed to do so myriad other times. No equal protection.
Cronyism.
Ten times may seem like a lot, but tons of projects take many rounds down at the city. Personally it’s because bad communication between departments and some level of incompetence. Remember, smart people don’t aspire to a low level government job.
The onerous process to get things approved in the city can try anyone’s patience. Of course, the city of Houston is much easier than other cities in Texas and the U.S.
Ashby’s tough time is purely political. I’ve been on one project like this in my life as an engineer, when politics enter the fray you can only when by waiting the politicians out.
Devans is right, as soon as Mayor White gets really close to November, Buckhead will likely get through.
Rise High, Ashby!
I’d be curious to know what the traffic “grade” is/will be at the corner of Kirby and Westheimer with 2727 Kirby and the new montronCITY West Avenue…and also 2929 Westheimer…
RagingPopulist:
The traffic is bad enough Bissonnet without adding this to the mix. I know from experience.
And because of the construction on Kirby at Westheimer (and the eventual tenants in those hi-rises), Shepherd is almost impassable during peak hours. And by peak hours I mean any hour except 5:00 am Sunday morning.
Shepherd is only bad during the two hour peak windows in the morning and afternoon. Outside of that it’s just a busy inner city street. Shepherd could be easily better if all left turns (except where left turn lanes are present) should be not allowed. That’s the major back up on Shepherd from Dallas to US 59.
markd-
I would like a yard sign saying “RISE HIGH, ASHBY”. There could be a smiling building graphic on one side, smiling down on the spoiled, cry-baby neighbors.
Build it.
I think they should just forget it and make it a ten-story storage facility. Those orange cubes would really liven up the neighborhood, plus, hardly any new traffic at all!
_________________________________________
Actually they should donate the land to West U for a new sewage treatment plant.
I live in the neighborhood and walk my dogs by the old Maryland Manor apts almost daily. This site is a STUPID place for a high rise, BUT, then again, Houston has stupid rules for development.
In the end, Buckhead should just focus on the court case and then maybe 88% of the people can walk away happy… Buckhead with TONS of cash and the neighborhood without the evil shadows.
Not living in the area I don’t really have a horse in this race, but I do find the frequent comments anytime the subject comes up anywhere regarding the income brackets of the opposition amusing. Unless the marketing strategy has changed drastically, this luxury high-rise was supposed to be priced for and appeal to the very people opposing it.
It was pointed out that the proximity to the Hillel Center might violate the 300-foot rule. I love the idea of the residents stepping off the lifts, brown-wrapped bottles in hand, to dine at the on-site restaurant.
Shepherd would be better served if the existing right of way were used to create a left turn lane! Eliminating left turns on a vital street makes no sense whatsoever. All that does is force more traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods. Of course, if our Public Works could allow us or upgrade the signals to have unprotected left turns at most traffic light locations, it would help.
JT,
It’s makes perfect sense to eliminate the left turn movement. Cities throughout the world have implemented this concept. There was a huge discussion about how gridded street patterns can alleviate traffic. Removing the left turn maneuver (unless an existing left turn lane is present) will allow the capacity of the gridded street pattern to be utilized. It will allow more traffic to move through on the interior lane with only the right lane experiencing slow downs from a right turn only movement.
This concept is called Right-Turn-In-Right-Turn-Out. It is utilized on streets that were in the exactly the same situation at Shepherd. A street with little to no right of way available for expansion.
Now that Mayor White is heading for the door where does the well heeled neighborhood direct their cash? Parker? Locke? Brown? Who will best protect them from the menacing shadow of the Ashby highrise?
kjb434 – I am aware that there are many traffic engineers who do traffic studies, having hired many of them to perform such studies. My question arose in response to the statement “The city said its own analysis showed…” which implied that perhaps the developer’s traffic study didn’t reveal an LOS of F for that intersection. I would like one of the reporters covering this story to show mild curiosity and a smidgen of critical thinking skill, not to mention some basic understanding of the subject matter he/she is covering.
JT wrote: “Shepherd would be better served if the existing right of way were used to create a left turn lane! Eliminating left turns on a vital street makes no sense whatsoever. All that does is force more traffic through the adjacent neighborhoods.”
I agree with kjb434–in a sense, you want traffic to move into the neighborhood in a gridded street configuration. That takes some of the pressure off the arterial. You can slow the traffic through the neighborhood through a variety of means–street parking, speed bumps, small traffic circles at intersections (very common in Seattle for some reason–but they have some here in Houston, too), etc.
This solution wouldn’t work for Bissonet between Montrose and Mandel, though, because of the way the neighborhoods are laid out. But from Mandel to Shepherd, it might work. Maybe this could address some of the traffic issue on Bissonet. (And it has to be said that traffic on Bissonet in that area does get really bad during rush hour, in my experience.)
Everyone here just needs to calm down about all this.
The developer does not have financing for the project, the developer has not paid the architect, and the architect is about to be out of business! (EDI Architeture)
The Ashby High Rise will never get built, so we need to move onto a different topic!
What is the latest news on our friend Randall Davis.
Kathry E.
What information do you have that this developer doesn’t have any financing?
I know it’s hard to get financing right now, but it’s not impossible. Just figured you might have an article or something detailing this?
Now that Mayor White is heading for the door where does the well heeled neighborhood direct their cash? Parker? Locke? Brown? Who will best protect them from the menacing shadow of the Ashby highrise?
________________________________________
No doubt the two chairmen of “Stop Ashby” are having their law firm “spread the money around” in order to make sure they have an “in” with whoever wins in November.
Developers and METRO are pushing for Locke and campaign donation show this.
Parker has been critical of METRO and how it’s tossing needy riders of buses to the curb for light rail and developers.
Brown is dangerous for his totalitarian planning beliefs.
What information do you have that this developer doesn’t have any financing?
_______________________________________
It’s reasonable to assume they do have financing. If they didn’t, wouldn’t continuing to fight the city be a little silly?
I still think they should donate the land to West U for a new sewage treatment plant.
Developers that don’t have financing to move a project to construction still push for agency approvals all the time.
Some of my coworkers here in Houston are working on about 100 acres of single family residential in areas of Montgomery and Waller Counties. The developer has no plan to go to construction, but are getting there approvals to move forward now.
Depending on the agency reviewing, an approval can last 2 to 5 years or longer.
The developers held an in-house meeting at EDI’s office to discuss the issues. This meeting took place in February, 2009. I personally sat in for this meeting.
They are building a case against the city. The developer is glad that the city keeps rejecting it; they are not out any money while the project keeps getting rejected.
One or two things will have to happen.
1. The city will have to implement zoning.
OR
2. Approve the project and recieve a permit.
i’m looking at the rendering, and as an architect with 20 years in the profession i don’t see how those streets as they are can possibly support the volume of traffic this project will generate. let’s face it, this proposal is a developer shoe-horning a beast into a residential neighborhood. but being houston, where potentially anything goes, maybe it will happen…
20-years architect = traffic expert?
That’s new to me!
I have 10-years in civil engineering experience with some background in transportation and traffic analysis from collegiate courses and I still wouldn’t use that as justification for knowing all the intricacies of the traffic volume.
At the surface, looking at a large building you would think that traffic is automatically going to go up! The reality is that this buildings residents won’t contribute much more traffic than that apartment complex there right now. The major change is the commercial development aspect at the base and that can be easily mitigated.
so you say…
and thanks for rudly insulting my profession.
I’m not insulting your profession. I didn’t think architects (unless curriculum used to include it) have transportation and traffic analysis backgrounds.
Most civil engineers would need a dedicated course work geared to transportation/traffic in therir BS degree (which most don’t) or move on to a Masters degree to practice in traffic analysis. My limited coursework pretty much gave me a background, but I would never consider myself and expert though.
Kjb34 = Know it all–not.
Hmmmmmnnnnn. Currently 67 apartments occupy the lot and let’s just say everyone who lived there if it were 100% occupied had 2 vehicles. 67 x 2 =134 cars. If each car made 2 trips daily that would be 268 cars on Bissonnet (a 2 lane street) at some point. The original proposal called for a 464 space parking garage and 23 stories. 464 x 2 trips = 936. I’m no mathematician but it seems like the building would more than triple the amount of cars entering and exiting Bissonnet (not counting the delivery trucks needed to service the restaurants). alone. Now how that isn’t significant beats the hell out of me. One doesn’t need to be an engineer, an architect or even a postal clerk to figure that out.
The original proposal called for a 464 space parking garage and 23 stories. 464 x 2 trips = 936
__________________________
Okay lets see the projected traffic impact studies for the Medical Center of Houston Clinic on Sunset, just to the south of 1717 Bissonnet. If you can find them.
Obviously there is going to be be quite a bit more traffic on Sunset and on Rice and on other streets as well including Bissonnet. And yet that wasn’t a concern to anyone. Some really do “doth protesteth too much.”
Medical Clinic of Houston.
While I don’t know if any protested The Medical Clinic of Houston adding traffic (what did it replace, by the way?), a residential is inherently different from a business in that a good portion of the traffic leaving and returning to a apartment complex or condos happens all at once–in the morning when folks leave for work and in the evening when they return. And those are the times when the traffic on Bissonnet is at its worst. SO it seems disingenuous to suggest that the Ashby highrise and the Houston Medical Clinic will necessarily be similar in terms of their respective traffic impacts. Different uses–different impacts.
SO it seems disingenuous to suggest that the Ashby highrise and the Houston Medical Clinic will necessarily be similar in terms of their respective traffic impacts.
_______________________________________
It would depend on how many employees, not to mention patients, are arriving and departing during those same times. The point is as I recall not one objection to traffic impact was made. There are 600 parking spaces in the new garage. You do the math.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=2007_4373567
They just didn’t like it. They also didn’t like Sonoma in the Village. The mayor said “too bad” and the permits were issued. Without one word about traffic impact. Then suddenly the mayor declared war on 1717 Bissonnet. Curious at best.
That section to the east of Ashby between Bissonnet and Rice is unrestricted land with the exception of the west side of Cherokee between Bissonnet and Sunset.
Everyone knew that when they bought and built their homes in Southampton and in
Boulevard Oaks. The problem is that some believe the city charter doesn’t apply to them. And so far it appears it doesn’t.
The developers of 1717 Bissonnet didn’t have the weight to throw around the way Medical Clinic of Houston did. And that’s what it comes down to. Having the weight to throw around. Not city ordinance. Not the city charter. A lot of people including some dvelopers really don’t like that. And will support the developers of 1717 Bissonnet if they sue the city and the homeowners. Among other things they have a case for harassment and defamation.
Personally, again, I think they should just donate the land to West U for a new sewage treatment plant.