11/21/11 12:11pm

An architecture firm headquartered in Dallas has filed suit against the developers of the Ashby Highrise, alleging that Buckhead Investment Partners made “copies and derivatives” of the firm’s design for the 27-story Grant Park Condominiums tower in Minneapolis. Humphreys and Partners Architects designed that complex (pictured above) in 2003. The lawsuit is also directed at EDI Architecture, the firm Buckhead hired to produce drawings for the proposed highrise at the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby near Southampton.

The lawsuit claims that Buckhead infringed on Humphreys’ copyright by submitting plans for a proposed 23-story tower at 1717 Bissonnet to the city of Houston. Those plans have already received permits. The lawsuit seeks an injunction to prevent Buckhead from constructing the building, because doing so would “necessarily create additional copies and derivatives” of Humphreys’ intellectual property.

How closely does Houston’s proposed tower follow Grant Park’s design?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

10/11/11 12:00pm

PAYING THE ASHBY HIGHRISE AWAY Former apartment manager and accountant Randy Locke, who’s running for city council in the district that includes the site of the Ashby Highrise, has a plan to stop the proposed 23-story development at 1717 Bissonnet St. — but it’ll cost: “I don’t believe that the monies offered these builders were sufficient enough to get them to go away,” he tells reporter Chris Moran. “[Locke] did not identify the private interests he said offered the developers money, but pledged that, if elected, he would convene a meeting between the developers and those private interests within 30 days, and, “‘I’ll convince the other people that were chipping in the money to give them a little bit more and we’ll make the whole thing go away.’” [Houston Chronicle; previously on Swamplot; Ashby Highrise coverage]

09/28/11 5:06pm

The development company behind a proposed 23-story residential tower at 1717 Bissonnet near Southampton known as the Ashby Highrise submitted its plans to the city again today, after taking a 2-year break. Buckhead Investment partner Matthew Morgan tells the West U Examiner‘s Michael Reed that the plans sent in today are mostly identical to those submitted in August 2009. Those plans, which the city ultimately approved, were for a version of the tower that axed some of the buildings’ commercial features, including retail and office space and a pedestrian plaza in front of the building. The lawsuit Buckhead filed against the city early last year, challenging the repeated rejection of its earlier plans for the building, is still pending in U.S. District Court.

There is one notable difference in the new plans: The units will be rented, not sold, Morgan says.

Rendering: Buckhead Investment Partners

10/27/10 4:40pm

Included in the $1,470,000 asking price of this just-finished 3-bedroom, 3-1/2 bath house in the northern reaches of Boulevard Oaks: a pair of doors from a 19th-century house near Osaka; that Chinese wine pot (of similar vintage) sitting at the end of the central hall by the kitchen; a 46” Sony Edgelit TV; those planters on the back terrace; the dining room table and chairs; and of course the coffee table, upholstered pieces, and Buddha in the living room. “Many of my buyers have relocated to Houston without anything to sit on,” explains developer Carol Isaak Barden.

Barden’s house replacement at 1916 Banks St. is the 15th project she’s built to sell — if you count each townhouse in her earlier multi-unit ventures separately — and the second one designed by Seattle architect Rick Sundberg. Sundberg, who’s since left to start a new firm with his daughter, was still with Olson Sundberg Kundig Allen when he designed Barden’s Wabi Sabi house a few years ago (they’re now down to Olson Kundig without him). Barden called this house Wabi Sabi II until she started spending a lot of time coordinating the work of local designers and craftsmen on the project.

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

10/04/10 4:42pm

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]

10/01/10 5:05pm

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]

04/12/10 3:35pm

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

02/18/10 7:40am

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?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

02/08/10 5:20pm

“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:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

01/25/10 10:31am

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:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

12/31/09 11:41am

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

12/18/09 2:13pm

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]

12/10/09 12:08pm

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:

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY

10/22/09 10:58pm

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]

10/21/09 11:21am

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?

CONTINUE READING THIS STORY