LTAWACS Posted June 3, 2008 Share Posted June 3, 2008 So what's the latest on this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talltexan83 Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Latest news from the City of Houston; plans returned to the applicant without approval on 6/3/2008:Plan Check Inquiry Details Project Number: 07042588Address: 1717 BISSONNET STDescription: SITEWORK AND FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE 23 STORY HIGH RISE APARTMENTSApplicant Name: MINER-DEDERICK CONSTRUCTIONSubmittal(s): .These plans were originally submitted on: 07/30/2007 .To date, the plans have been submitted four times.The last submittal was: 05/21/2008Approval Date: These plans have NOT been approved for permittingPlan Location: Plans were returned to applicant on 06/03/2008Today is : 6/10/2008 11:33:22 AM Central TimeDEPARTMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Added Department/Section Review Status Review Date 07/30/2007 PLANNING 140 - PLANNING Passed department/section review 07/30/2007 08/01/2007 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING 220 - WATER/SEWER Passed department/section review 10/26/2007 08/01/2007 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING 120 - TRAFFIC Did not pass dept/section review 06/03/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 360 - STORM DRAIN Passed department/section review 03/26/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 330 - STRUCTURAL P Did not pass dept/section review 06/02/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 310 - ELECTRICAL Passed department/section review 03/26/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 320 - PLUMBING Passed department/section review 03/26/2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totheskies Posted June 10, 2008 Share Posted June 10, 2008 Latest news from the City of Houston; plans returned to the applicant without approval on 6/3/2008:Plan Check Inquiry Details Project Number: 07042588Address: 1717 BISSONNET STDescription: SITEWORK AND FOUNDATION FOR FUTURE 23 STORY HIGH RISE APARTMENTSApplicant Name: MINER-DEDERICK CONSTRUCTIONSubmittal(s): .These plans were originally submitted on: 07/30/2007 .To date, the plans have been submitted four times.The last submittal was: 05/21/2008Approval Date: These plans have NOT been approved for permittingPlan Location: Plans were returned to applicant on 06/03/2008Today is : 6/10/2008 11:33:22 AM Central TimeDEPARTMENT REVIEW SUMMARY Added Department/Section Review Status Review Date 07/30/2007 PLANNING 140 - PLANNING Passed department/section review 07/30/2007 08/01/2007 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING 220 - WATER/SEWER Passed department/section review 10/26/2007 08/01/2007 PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING 120 - TRAFFIC Did not pass dept/section review 06/03/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 360 - STORM DRAIN Passed department/section review 03/26/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 330 - STRUCTURAL P Did not pass dept/section review 06/02/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 310 - ELECTRICAL Passed department/section review 03/26/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENT 320 - PLUMBING Passed department/section review 03/26/2008Ahh, yes. The joys of being rich and getting whatever you want... must be niiice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swtsig Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Ahh, yes. The joys of being rich and getting whatever you want... must be niiice this is an absolute joke... these bastards are no different than those in river oaks (highrises throughout) and tanglewood (the four leaf towers and four post oak are practically in our backyard). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 120 - TRAFFIC Did not pass dept/section review 06/03/2008 08/01/2007 CODE ENFORCEMENTWhatA Joke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 (edited) WhatA JokeWilliamHWhite Edited June 11, 2008 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChannelTwoNews Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 http://www.examinernews.com/articles/2008/...news/news02.txtLooks like they'll be sending the plans back, yet again... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjb434 Posted July 3, 2008 Share Posted July 3, 2008 I've been fighting it out at the Swamplot blog. This high-rise needs to move forward. If it doesn't, will be a massive loss for property rights! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 ^Loss of property rights? Not for the current homeowners that oppose the highrise...Anyhow, the pariahs of the neighborhood will continue to try:As the Ashby high-rise controversy enters its second year, however, city officials have abandoned their efforts to craft an ordinance that would ease the impact of dense developments on established neighborhoods nearby.The battle over the Ashby project itself is a stalemate.Developer Kevin Kirton said he and partner Matthew Morgan would continue to seek approval of permits that the city has rejected five times on the basis of traffic concerns. Throughout the surrounding neighborhoods, meanwhile, "Stop Ashby High Rise" signs still adorn many front lawns.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5910551.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 The proposal is to replace 67 apartment units with 187, an increase of 120 units. The average apartment occupancy is about 1.5, resulting in an increase of about 180 vehicles. With a daily vehicle count of over 17,000, a 180 vehicle increase is indeed negligible. If the neighborhood is so concerned about a restaurant, whose primary busy period is in the evening after rush hour, It would seem that an offer to delete the restaurant component would solve the "problem". That would be a shame, since most residents probably would enjoy a nice restaurant nearby, but that is what often happens in these battles...the good stuff gets deleted, and the main structure that no one wants stays.The developer said they'd make it with fewer units, right? Does anyone remember the new number? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metrop...an/5910551.htmlMore brilliance from my "wonderful" council member..."In a broader sense, Clutterbuck said, the months of meetings show how difficult it is to regulate land use in a city without zoning."That's the whole point of not having zoning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jax Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 I spotted the Ashby Highrise last night (thought you guys would like this). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatesdisastr Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 haha that is great! that guy was creative. Hey bill what were you for halloween? something scary? YEAH! i was the ashby highrise! yikes!...thats scary . lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wernicke Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 Some info about the Ashby in Sarnhoff's article today.http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/busine...ff/6089456.htmlStill, Kevin Kirton and Matthew Morgan of Houston-based Buckhead Investment Partners, the company that wants to build the contentious high-rise at 1717 Bissonnet, said they have more than one bank on the sidelines waiting to finance the project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CandacitaBonita Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 In my opinion the location of this project is completely ridiculous. The intersection has no need for a high rise development. I understand that they plan to demolish older apartment buildings, but the existing structures fit the look and feel of the overall neighborhood. A high rise would be completely out of place there. I am all for building up, but I am also all for preserving the exitisting integrity of certain areas. I have to say that the people who think it's a good idea to continue this project at it's currently proposed location are out of their minds. I equate this with slapping a high rise in the middle of Heights Blvd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenoaksguy Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I understand after reading the Chron last weekend that this project "bit the dust"....although the developers are blaming on red tape instead of the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 In my opinion the location of this project is completely ridiculous. The intersection has no need for a high rise development.Kirby Drive didn't "need" a highrise either, but some developer built one anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 That area's already pretty dense. I think it makes sense to put a high rise there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I actually agree that it is ridiculous to put a high rise on the corner of Ashby and Bissonnet. But, that's what we are known for. Houston development is nothing if not crazy.What I don't like is that this hasn't caused the folks in Southampton, Cresmere Place, Boulevard Oaks and the like to organize for a zoning ordinance to protect ALL neighborhoods. They just don't want this in their back yard. NIMBYism at its absolute worst. They could care less if this were built in the Heights, Tanglewood, or Clear Lake but we'll all be damned if it casts shadows on their lawns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 It's too bad this one didnt go through. What a bunch of clowns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 At least they didn't get the chance to decimate everything in sight (like Sonoma)... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 At least they didn't get the chance to decimate everything in sight (like Sonoma)...Are people still living there? I would what new renter rates are like in situations like this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porchman Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I understand after reading the Chron last weekend that this project "bit the dust"....although the developers are blaming on red tape instead of the economy.Not sure if it bit the dust. The article inidcated it was delayed (while other mentioned projects are biting the dust)The developers behind this residential high-rise designed for the corner of Bissonnet and Ashby say red tape, not access to financing, has slowed its progress. Dubbed the "Ashby high-rise" and "tower of traffic" by angry neighbors, the building has been denied city permits multiple times since area residents started putting up a stink over a year ago.Neither http://www.stopashbyhighrise.org/ or Buckhead Investment Partners indicate that this is a no-go..yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted January 9, 2009 Share Posted January 9, 2009 I have my fingers crossed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 What I don't like is that this hasn't caused the folks in Southampton, Cresmere Place, Boulevard Oaks and the like to organize for a zoning ordinance to protect ALL neighborhoods. They just don't want this in their back yard. NIMBYism at its absolute worst. They could care less if this were built in the Heights, Tanglewood, or Clear Lake but we'll all be damned if it casts shadows on their lawns.I don't think NIMBYism is such a bad thing. It's only natural that people want to protect their neighborhoods. In the event, at least it appears to be a more successful strategy than pushing for a zoning ordinance would have been. Lacking a realistic shot at zoning, NIMBYism is the only way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gardenoaksguy Posted January 10, 2009 Share Posted January 10, 2009 Can't say I wouldn't be a NIMBY on this project either. I mean, think about it, you have invested a great deal of money in your own property (doesn't matter if you are rich or not, money is money), and along comes a project that may ultimately devalue your property or make it much more difficult to sell. Zoning or not, would you REALLY want a 20-30 story building in the backyard of your house? For many people, that is no better than a porn shop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Can't say I wouldn't be a NIMBY on this project either. I mean, think about it, you have invested a great deal of money in your own property (doesn't matter if you are rich or not, money is money), and along comes a project that may ultimately devalue your property or make it much more difficult to sell. Zoning or not, would you REALLY want a 20-30 story building in the backyard of your house? For many people, that is no better than a porn shop.If that is important to a home buyer, then they would be well-advised to purchase in a deed restricted neighborhood, and avoid buying a house that has apartments in its backyard, especially old, run-down apartments that front on an arterial street. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 If that is important to a home buyer, then they would be well-advised to purchase in a deed restricted neighborhood, and avoid buying a house that has apartments in its backyard, especially old, run-down apartments that front on an arterial street.I generally don't see Maryland Manor when driving by (blends in well?) but are they that bad off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 Can't say I wouldn't be a NIMBY on this project either. I mean, think about it, you have invested a great deal of money in your own property (doesn't matter if you are rich or not, money is money), and along comes a project that may ultimately devalue your property or make it much more difficult to sell. Zoning or not, would you REALLY want a 20-30 story building in the backyard of your house? For many people, that is no better than a porn shop.Excellent use of hyperbole in your post. I see a bright future for you in writing homeowners association newsletters and public comment speaking at city council and METRO meetings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N Judah Posted January 11, 2009 Share Posted January 11, 2009 (edited) There are some really pretty, dense buildings along Bissonnet (right near where this high rise is supposed to go). In particular I like the collection of white townhome-style buildings. I can understand the fear, given other high rise disasters, but there's no reason density in and of itself is unable to fit in with a particular neighborhood. Edited January 11, 2009 by N Judah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.