lockmat Posted December 19, 2013 Share Posted December 19, 2013 (edited) Really good article on this: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/Verdict-in-Ashby-high-rise-trial-fuels-other-5076112.php?t=9da956ccec3b9e5e12 If anything this could force dense developments in urban areas. What a concept. As much as I disagree with the verdict it's probably good for us who like density. Face it, an Ashby or San Felipe high rise doesn't create urbanity. Edited December 19, 2013 by lockmat 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota79 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What is the scoop on this. I haven't heard a thing since the judgement against the developer. Anyone have an update? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What is the scoop on this. I haven't heard a thing since the judgement against the developer. Anyone have an update? There is no news. The court has not yet ruled on the plaintiff's motion for a permanent injunction. Whatever the ruling is, expect an appeal. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dakota79 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 What is the latest on this? Seems all is silent. Except of course for the yellow signs everywhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 The whole thing is a bit farcical--I remember in 2008, seeing the "Stop Ashby High Rise" signs for the first time all up and down streets in the Museum District. My cousins explained the controversy and site, Maryland Manor apartments, that the building would replace. Five years past, I'm in the same area, and all that's occurred is that the apartments are an overgrown lot. That's it. Five years of yellow signs and all that has been done is demolishing an aging apartment complex. Truly strange--though I attribute part of its delay with a recession that set in during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Delay with a recession..... uh, well, there was this small legal battle. You may have heard about it... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Yes, the other reason is an enormous neighborhood revolt backed with lots of money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talltexan83 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Ironically, I still think they could flip this lot for a very healthly return right now. Some well funded builder could put up 20 single family homes (probably a gated drive down the middle?) at $1.5+ million each. But I think for this property to just end up as another gated enclave would be shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nate Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 What is the latest on this? Seems all is silent. Except of course for the yellow signs everywhere. LOTS of legal work (see attached). It also appears that there was a hearing on entering a judgement on 3/31, but doesn't say what's going on since.Cause 201326155 - Docs.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 this looks like a beautiful building and I want to see this go up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted April 9, 2014 Share Posted April 9, 2014 Ironically, I still think they could flip this lot for a very healthly return right now. Some well funded builder could put up 20 single family homes (probably a gated drive down the middle?) at $1.5+ million each. But I think for this property to just end up as another gated enclave would be shame. A cluster of townhomes would take home lots of money for somebody, or even some sort of 4-5 story apartment building--it seems rather chic now to tear down a 1970s/1980s era Inner Loop apartment complex and replace it with a denser, more modern, upscale development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Houston's city attorney told a Harris County judge on Friday that halting the Ashby high-rise project would "irreparably impair future developments in the city," despite a jury verdict last year in favor of nearby residents who successfully sued developers of the 21-story tower planned for 1717 Bissonnet."The uncertainty surrounding the outcome of such lawsuits would hinder developers from financing, leasing and constructing real estate developments in Houston, which require long-term secure contracts," City Attorney David Feldman wrote in a letter delivered to state District Judge Randy Wilson. "We urge the Court to consider the serious public policy considerations involved."A jury in Wilson's court last year sided with residents who opposed the project and awarded them $1.7 million in damages while agreeing the building would hurt their property values, damage their homes and create a traffic nuisance.Four months after that verdict, Wilson will convene a hearing Monday for attorneys to present final arguments over whether the project should be allowed to move forward and how much of the jury damages the developer should pay.Feldman's letter says the city is concerned that granting a permanent injunction would create uncertainty that could stall other developments. He noted that the project at 1717 Bissonnet is fully permitted and satisfies all deed restrictions as well as regulations that were in effect when it was approved.http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/real-estate/article/City-weighs-in-as-court-grapples-with-decision-5413793.php?cmpid=btfpm#/0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted April 18, 2014 Share Posted April 18, 2014 Good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Translation, developers own City Hall. Since that verdict, how many projects have been announced and how many have broken ground? Hundreds. Everything from skyscrapers to strip malls. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 While I don't think that halting the project will "impair" future developments, I do think that this development should move forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Translation, developers own City Hall. Since that verdict, how many projects have been announced and how many have broken ground? Hundreds. Everything from skyscrapers to strip malls. How do you come to that conclusion considering they met all requirements? I don't think government should control developers if they meet all requirements, otherwise, what's the point of the requirements? They become meaningless or just guidelines, giving uncertainty for banks. If they're not allowed to build, it won't affect most developments, probably just ones like this one and San Felipe. But like everything, give an inch, give up a mile and residents will be able to stop almost anything. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted April 19, 2014 Share Posted April 19, 2014 Between this and developers "threatening" taller building if variances aren't granted; I think it's about time to put zoning up for a vote, again. I agree that if this project is stopped it would be bad for developments in the city. This would definitely set a precedent that it doesn't matter if your project is approved and follows all the rules, it could be stopped at any time, even if you're willing to compensate neighbors for their problems. Why spend the time and money? Developers and lenders are by nature risk-averse - they will take only calculated risks, and price those risks into their proformas. This is not the type of risk that can be priced in. If you don't want tall buildings in your cozy residential neighborhood, then vote for zoning. Put up or shut up. For the record, I also think it makes no sense to build this tower in this neighborhood, but based on our city's laws, that is completely irrelevant. In fact, that is exactly what we asked for when we voted zoning down. We collectively said we want to be able to build whatever we want, wherever we want. That also means our nehighboors can build whatever they want. And this is not just about residential buildings in residential neighborhoods by the way. What's to keep business owners in midtown stoping an apartment building because construction will affect business? In fact, if neighbors can band together to stop a building because of unwritten rules, what will keep a bunch of apartment owners from blocking a new apartment building they see as competition? Or a new apartment building for middle-income families that could drive down the rents for neighboring luxury rentals? This list could go on and on.... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 How do you come to that conclusion considering they met all requirements? I don't think government should control developers if they meet all requirements, otherwise, what's the point of the requirements? They become meaningless or just guidelines, giving uncertainty for banks. If they're not allowed to build, it won't affect most developments, probably just ones like this one and San Felipe. But like everything, give an inch, give up a mile and residents will be able to stop almost anything. I came to that conclusion because the city attorney is asking the judge to overturn a 12-0 Jury verdict. Apparently, developers like "activist judges" when it suits their needs... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 I don't think he's asking him to overturn a verdict. If I remember correctly, the verdict was that the developer should pay damages, and the judge in the case said he would decide whether the project should continue or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Trial is now over. Judge "expected to rule soon" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 Trial is now over. Judge "expected to rule soon"This is on tv? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted April 21, 2014 Share Posted April 21, 2014 This is on tv?https://twitter.com/miyashay/status/458287953869955072 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Has there not been a decision yet? I was under the assumption that there would be a decision today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonMidtown Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Has there not been a decision yet? I was under the assumption that there would be a decision today. The report on Channel 13 said the judge would decide "soon" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triton Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Has there not been a decision yet? I was under the assumption that there would be a decision today.Right? I was thinking soon meant a few minutes or hours later. Guess not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoustonMidtown Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Right? I was thinking soon meant a few minutes or hours later. Guess not. Judge denies motion to stop the Ashby high-rise.... http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2014/05/breaking-ashby-case-ruling-will-not-stop-high-rise/#18972101=0 Edited May 1, 2014 by HoustonMidtown 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naviguessor Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 So...the Judge saying that they can build. But, they have to pay for damages that have been caused and will have to pay damages to future claims awarded by courts? Is that what I am reading? Is that different than how things are for other construction projects/buildings? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Same here, the Judge said they will not be awarded damages because it has not been built. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 So...the Judge saying that they can build. But, they have to pay for damages that have been caused and will have to pay damages to future claims awarded by courts? Is that what I am reading? Is that different than how things are for other construction projects/buildings? This can't be right... They cannot be on tap to pay damages to whoever wants to file a claim... that is outrageous. What I took from it is: They have to pay damages either way, now, and they can build. Green light in my mind. Just an added 1.7 million dollar cost (for damages). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nativehoustonion Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Lawyer Josh Blackman called the residents' claim of nuisance " backdoor zoning for the wealthy" which isn't proper use of the land. 1 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.