Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't get it? Really? What is it that don't I get?

That people would rather hinder development than risk their own money to build their own theater...especially when such a theater could be "a great venue" to see certain types of movies?

That the city of Houston should concern itself with, and divert limited resources to, saving one building that very few people truly care about instead of, say, building a rail system, eliminating substandard housing, reducing levels of homelessness, providing world-class infrastructure, etc...any one of which will benefit a far greater segment of the community than the theater ever will?

That some patron's "way of life" should trump whatever a landowner, or in this case, a landlord, wishes to do with their own property?

Seriously, if it it isn't about the facade of the theater, then build your own theater that shows the same type of movies. And if it is about the facade, then just offer to relocate the theater to somewhere else. I fail to see the problem with either of these options, except, of course, it requires you (not personally, mind you, but "you" as in the people who are complaining here) to actually take some risk.

But if this is really all about keeping a building from being constructed or about a dislike for a landowner's potential use of his land, and somehow I think that is what it boils down to, then just get over it....because the ability to do whatever you want with your land, without having to consult your neighbors or patrons, is what makes owning property and living in Houston so great.

Do you work for Weingarten ??? :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it? Really? What is it that don't I get?

I see your point regarding property rights.

Maybe the current owners don't realize how much the RO and the Alabama Bookstop contribute to the *identity* of the community. Sure, developers could put up a similar theater that shows similar films in the same part of town. But losing the RO and the Bookstop would erase a little more of what connects a lot of us here to that location, which is, memories.

From that, it shapes our sense of community and our perception of what Houston is. No Barnes and Noble, vacant lot, or faded photograph can provide that.

The Bookstop seems to get pretty good business. The RO is usually busy on Friday and Saturday nights. I remember there was a line going all the way around Starbucks when "The Blair Witch Project" opened there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that losing the River Oaks theater would be a travesty and to demand the preservation of a place that probably no more than 1% of Houstonians ever set foot in

and a fraction of a fraction of RO River Oakies will ever live in an over-scaled high-rise.

I drive by the River Oaks theater at least once a week, and I've never seen a line of people outside waiting to get in

You must be driving by at 2 AM if you've NEVER seen a line.

...nor have I ever figured out where the movie-goers would park their car if they even wanted to see a movie there.

Uh...in the parking lots and on the streets?You know, where they always park. :blink:

Apparently, however, most people here would rather save what appears to be a pretty front and a (from what I read here) a middling interior, just to maintain a "historic landmark" that has no such real historic status to speak of....

...other than to many native Houstonians.

I suggest you hook up with Niche and construct a strip center from Shepherd to DT on both sides of Allen Parkway. Who needs trees, parks and trails when the city could reap big $$ in tax revenues...you could even fix it so you dump your sewage right out the back and into the Bayou.

I'm thinking a few dry cleaners, some liquor stores, a couple of high-rise residential units with garages on the bayou and then maybe just pave over the rest until you're ready to put in your Walmart.

Seriously, to answer a previous question: No. You don't get it-and it doesn't really impact what may or may not happen anyway.

Edited by nmainguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm all for building a high-rise condo on West Gray. It would have an incredible location, being within walking distance to a supermarket, retail shops, parks, and could possibly have an amazing view, although traffic could be a little rough at times. The only downside, for me, would be that any new condo would probably be out of my price range.

To me, it is the height of hypocrisy to claim that losing the River Oaks theater would be a travesty and to demand the preservation of a place that probably no more than 1% of Houstonians ever set foot in...

So, to paraphrase, YOUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "incredible" and "amazing", but OUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "hypocritical". Interesting observation you have there, traveller.

So, traveller, if 1% of Houstonians setting foot in a building is the height of hypocrisy, what would 2/100ths of 1% (400) be? As you yourself said, the price of these condos would be out of most people's range. The size of the lot suggests no more than 80 to 100 units, 150 at the outside, meaning only a few hundred Houstonians would ever see them. The Theater gets that many at one weekend showing.

Being a fan of mowing down every building over 20 years old does not make you unique in Houston. In fact, it would make you the typical developer. However, some of us see the value of history, as well as historic structures. And, no one here has the ability to stop Weingarten. We merely want to point out to them how popular the building is, in order to persuade them to rethink any decision to demolish it. If they find out beforehand how much the building means to so many, they might not make the mistake of demolishing it.

In that sense, you really don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's me, the Chronicle reporter again. I'm working on a followup story.

If you've sent e-mail or a letter to Weingarten or City Council, would you send me a copy? My address (slightly disguised, to protect me from spam) is lisa.gray(*at*) chron.com.

I've seen the houstonist petition, and I'm talking to the GHPA. But if you hear of any other save-the-theater organizing, would you let me know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm all for building a high-rise condo on West Gray. It would have an incredible location, being within walking distance to a supermarket, retail shops, parks, and could possibly have an amazing view, although traffic could be a little rough at times. The only downside, for me, would be that any new condo would probably be out of my price range.

I'm for building a high-rise condo on West Gray myself. Last time I checked, West Gray is a long street. There's a lot of junk buildings and unused space along it. Why build this condo in the one spot where there's a historic theater important to generations of Houstonians?

well, good grief, get over it and just build your own "historic" theater facade somewhere. There is plenty of land in Houston for you to build it...

I'm not sure I get it... so we can't build a condo anywhere else, but we can build a historic theater somewhere else. How exactly does one go about building a historic theater? What contractor specializes in installing seats that your grandparents sat in, or marquees that have looked down Houston's streets since the 1930's?

It's important that we track them down, because Houston is just about out of space, and we're going to have to rebuild all of our historic buildings elsewhere so as to make room for the condo towers that have nowhere to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Below is the email I sent Sunday, with email addresses.

This is a repost.

A copy of my email:

Brook,

I was reading the Houston Chronicle online edition regarding endangered buildings in Houston. I was born and raised in Houston and spent countless hours shopping and dinning in the River Oaks shopping center. Whenever I go home, I am always driving by or stopping in the center for one thing or another. I am alarmed to hear rumors that Weingarten might demolish part of, or the entire center itself.

The time has come to realize that Houston has many wonderful, significant buildings that deserve to be protected. They deserve to be shared by this generation and the generations that follow them. Leave something that will contribute to the mental growth of the city, something that will foster pride in the citizens of Houston. Whenever an old, beautiful structure is demolished, we loose a little piece of our city, a piece of who we are and what we represent. We can either represent pride in ourselves, in Houston, and the way we look at our city, or we can continue the trend and demolish yet another piece of our city.

The shopping center is a wonderful piece of architecture to the city of Houston. Not only that, it remains a vibrant, yet calming distraction to the new, yet garish, shopping centers that seem to overwhelm the senses.

Chris Dodson

Currently residing in Dallas, Texas

I emailed the following:

ir@weingarten.com

mayor@cityofhouston.net

districtd@cityofhouston.net

districtg@cityofhouston.net

districth@cityofhouston.net

atlarge1@cityofhouston.net

atlarge2@cityofhouston.net

atlarge3@cityofhouston.net

atlarge4@cityofhouston.net

atlarge5@cityofhouston.net

info@ghpa.org

rda@rice.edu

kfosdick@rice.edu

info@houstonmod.org

andy.cerota@abc.com

dominique@click2houston.com

sdean@click2houston.com

assignments@khou.com

ken.hoffman@chron.com

shelby.hodge@chron.com

loren.steffy@chron.com

jack.sweeney@chron.com

sylvan@rice.edu

dma@rice.edu

jelfenstein@menil.org

pmarzio@mfah.org

twalsh@menil.org

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, say this property was owned by some guy that was really strapped and this was a way for him to retire. do we have the right to tell him he can't make money because we want to save a building?

As Bill O'Reilly would say, you're living in a theoretical world. The guy (or corporation) who owns this isn't strapped for cash. In fact, he's making pretty good money off it as it is. The problem is that he wants to make even more money, and demolishing a landmark important to people across the city is the quickest way he's found of doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you over 20 years old?

Where are you from?

Yes. I grew up in Atlanta.

So, to paraphrase, YOUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "incredible" and "amazing", but OUR belief as to what is a good use of the property is "hypocritical". Interesting observation you have there, traveller.

Never once I did say that Wiengarten's potential use of its property is a "good use." So don't use the adjectives I used (which, by the way, modified a property's location and its potential view, and not the actual use of the property) to determine whether I think Weingarten's potential use is a good use or not. :angry2:

And, yeah, it is hypocritical to whine about Houston's sprawl and how condos are built without any retail component, and then when a potential development comes along that addresses those issues, moan about how it is such a bad idea.

So, traveller, if 1% of Houstonians setting foot in a building is the height of hypocrisy, what would 2/100ths of 1% (400) be? As you yourself said, the price of these condos would be out of most people's range. The size of the lot suggests no more than 80 to 100 units, 150 at the outside, meaning only a few hundred Houstonians would ever see them. The Theater gets that many at one weekend showing.

First, never once did I say that the condos would be "out of most people's range." I said they would probably be out of my price range. For someone who always screams about how people need to get their facts straight, I'm surprised you'd make such an obvious error.

Second, you are speculating as to the number of potential units and, as such, no further comment is necessary.

Third, you are clearly, and perhaps intentionally, confusing what I am saying is the height of hypocrisy.

Being a fan of mowing down every building over 20 years old does not make you unique in Houston. In fact, it would make you the typical developer. However, some of us see the value of history, as well as historic structures. And, no one here has the ability to stop Weingarten. We merely want to point out to them how popular the building is, in order to persuade them to rethink any decision to demolish it. If they find out beforehand how much the building means to so many, they might not make the mistake of demolishing it.

In that sense, you really don't get it.

Again, I never said I was unique in Houston, nor did I say that I was a fan of "mowing" any building down. It is just like you to put words in people's posts, and then to twist the nonexistent words to make your point. I know doing so is a very effective legal technique, but it is a horrible way to actually make a valid point that can stand on its own merit.

In any event, go ahead and protest. If doing so will make you feel better, fine. But when the time comes when you want to do something with your property, do you really want people you don't know signing petitions requesting, or even demanding, that you don't?

Clearly, what I'm arguing is an unpopular viewpoint, but I believe it is the correct viewpoint. For private property rights to mean anything, private property must be allowed to be developed as its owner sees fit to do so. Allowing non-owners to dictate, or even "strongly suggest," what someone can do with their property weakens everyone's right to do what they want with their own property.

If tearing down the theater bothers people so much because of the memories they have of the place, then, by extension, nothing should ever be torn down because someone will always have a memory of something at someplace. Heck, even crack-houses have memories associated with them. So, that being the case, who gets to decide what gets torn down? If you truly believe in private property rights, then only the property owner does.

However, if you believe that individuals and entities should have a say in the development of property owned by another, then you don't really believe in private property rights at all, but rather some sort of collectivism that generally results in economic stagnation (where, because of the myriad of opinions on what should be done with a particular piece of property, nothing is ever done) or development-by-consensus (which results in boring, please-the-masses development). Is that what you all want?

Or do you just want a city that is full of only the things that you like and that you believe should exist, regardless of what your fellow citizens, or, more importantly, the actual property owner, wants?

Note: for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions.

I'm not sure I get it... so we can't build a condo anywhere else, but we can build a historic theater somewhere else. How exactly does one go about building a historic theater? What contractor specializes in installing seats that your grandparents sat in, or marquees that have looked down Houston's streets since the 1930's?

You can build a condo wherever you want on your land. I never said you couldn't. So I'm not sure why you feel the need to distort my comments.

Likewise, you can build a historic theater wherever you want on your land. If the River Oaks theater means so much to you, then before it is torn down (assuming it will be, of course), why don't you contact Weingarten and work out a deal so that you move the building to your land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, yeah, it is hypocritical to whine about Houston's sprawl and how condos are built without any retail component, and then when a potential development comes along that addresses those issues, moan about how it is such a bad idea.

Actually there has been no talk of a retail element in this proposed condo. The only talk has been about the destruction of retail to accomodate this proposed out of scale-and clearly out of most people's price range- high rise residential building and multi-storied garage adjacent to River Oaks.

In any event, go ahead and protest. If doing so will make you feel better, fine. But when the time comes when you want to do something with your property, do you really want people you don't know signing petitions requesting, or even demanding, that you don't?

I think you'll find the vast majority on this forum would never be put in such a hypothetical position.

Likewise, you can build a historic theater wherever you want on your land.

You can't build a historic building without a time machine. This is just another straw man argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncertaintraveler, you are absolutely right. It's all about rights. For instance, it is my right to never shop at a Weingarten-owned property ever again if they tear down the River Oaks theater. It is my right to work to convince thousands of others to do the same. It is my right to maybe let Weingartens know what I plan to do, but it is also my right to definitely let the owners/managers of the businesses in the RO shopping center know that I will no longer be shopping or eating at their establishment, some of whom know me by name the amount of money I fork out. Now might be just the time to let Christophers know that I will be going to Specs for my wine from here on out if their landlord tears down the theater, Luke's Locker that I will no longer buy the Mizunos from them that I get every other month, and so on.

See, it's all about rights. Viva la Bellaire Theater and Mars Bar!

lgg, thanks, and keep it up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UncertainTraveler,

It's just foolish to say you can just rebuild the Landmark River Oaks Theater. You simply cannot. It's the last theater of it's kind in Houston. I can sit in a seat that my mother may have sat in when she attended Lamar High in the late 1940s. I can get a sense of history and feel connected to my hometown. You can't get that at a Loews or Edwards.

As for the shopping center, it's also a piece of our collective history. I've eaten at Tony Mandola's Gulf Coast Kitchen, the Black Eyed Pea, and used to eat at the old Chili's and One's A Meal. I've shopped for countless gifts and personalized stationary at Events. I used to get my camping gear at the Wilderness Company. My sister used to work at another local store made good; the Cotton Club.

My first date was a dinner (Birraporreti's) followed by the Unbearable Lightness of Being at the River Oaks. When I returned to Houston after college, I moved to Elmen Street just South of West Gray so that I could walk to two unique places; the West Gray Shopping Center and Lower Westheimer. There are many people in the neighborhood just South of West Gray that walk to the movies, restaurants, and stores in that center because it is one of the few that can make a pedestrian feel somewhat welcomed.

The real problem is that this is it for Houston. There are no more chances once the River Oaks gets ripped down. We cannot turn back time and wish that we had done things differently. It's the LAST ONE standing.

I suggest that you attend a movie this weekend. Take a date or a friend and grab a bite to eat before hand. Stroll around and window shop after you eat. Enjoy a high quality film. Maybe afterwards you can walk down the block and grab an ice cream or go get a drink at one of the area bars. Maybe then you'd see why the place is special. You cannot get that from looking out your driver's side window!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncertain traveler, you've inspired me. I'm going to write to my neighborhood association right now and tell them that these deed restrictions they have are a violation of my private property rights. If I want to tear down my house and build a cinder-block fortress, why should the community be able to prevent me from doing it?

After all, if the people in my neighborhood have any say in what I do with my property at all, then private property rights mean nothing! What exists now is some sort of collectivism, which will result in economic stagnation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's me, the Chronicle reporter again. I'm working on a followup story.

If you've sent e-mail or a letter to Weingarten or City Council, would you send me a copy? My address (slightly disguised, to protect me from spam) is lisa.gray(*at*) chron.com.

I've seen the houstonist petition, and I'm talking to the GHPA. But if you hear of any other save-the-theater organizing, would you let me know?

If you have any Weingarten email addresses we can send to, can you let us know. And would also appreciate info on any other organizing... Trust most of us will do anything to help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UncertainTraveler,

It's just foolish to say you can just rebuild the Landmark River Oaks Theater. You simply cannot. It's the last theater of it's kind in Houston. I can sit in a seat that my mother may have sat in when she attended Lamar High in the late 1940s. I can get a sense of history and feel connected to my hometown. You can't get that at a Loews or Edwards.

As for the shopping center, it's also a piece of our collective history. I've eaten at Tony Mandola's Gulf Coast Kitchen, the Black Eyed Pea, and used to eat at the old Chili's and One's A Meal. I've shopped for countless gifts and personalized stationary at Events. I used to get my camping gear at the Wilderness Company. My sister used to work at another local store made good; the Cotton Club.

My first date was a dinner (Birraporreti's) followed by the Unbearable Lightness of Being at the River Oaks. When I returned to Houston after college, I moved to Elmen Street just South of West Gray so that I could walk to two unique places; the West Gray Shopping Center and Lower Westheimer. There are many people in the neighborhood just South of West Gray that walk to the movies, restaurants, and stores in that center because it is one of the few that can make a pedestrian feel somewhat welcomed.

The real problem is that this is it for Houston. There are no more chances once the River Oaks gets ripped down. We cannot turn back time and wish that we had done things differently. It's the LAST ONE standing.

I suggest that you attend a movie this weekend. Take a date or a friend and grab a bite to eat before hand. Stroll around and window shop after you eat. Enjoy a high quality film. Maybe afterwards you can walk down the block and grab an ice cream or go get a drink at one of the area bars. Maybe then you'd see why the place is special. You cannot get that from looking out your driver's side window!

Damn that's a nice post. Unfortunately for Houston, those who have no appreciation of this cities history seem to have the checkbook. Greedy bastards. :angry:

I think I'll do what was suggested by Kinkaid and hit the theater this weekend. I better hurry though before they slap up that stupid B&N.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I really need to keep up with these topics...

I remember seeing so many movies at the River Oaks theatre, it was the closest one to us when we lived in the West End. I've eaten at the Black Eyed Pea countless times, more then likely spent a fortune at BOTH Starbucks, gained a million pounds at Marble Slab, and bought clothes @ Luke's Locker to lose it all. I've shopped at "I do, I do" for weddings, went grocery shopping at Kroger's, bought many books & magazines at the Book store, and even when Cactus was around I bought a few c.d.s.

That was the everyday life for me. Now that I live in the suburbs, I begin to realize how special this area is to me.

I watched Farenheit 911 in a packed River Oakes theatre. The lines were so long, and I remember an odd man standing out side asking people if they were registered to vote.

This place holds a time period in my life I'll never get back, but I sure as hell won't sit here and let them tear it down. Tell me when were chaining ourselves to the theatre door, I'll be there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NMAINGUY, if, as you say, "the vast majority on this forum would never be put in such a hypothetical position," does that mean that those who may be put in such a situation have less rights than those who may be? In other words, you can't say that it is fine to protest one person's use of their property when you know that the same type of protest would probably never happen to you.

Also, my understanding is that there is, in fact, talk of a retail element in the proposed condo, either as part of the overall development or in marketing any new condos as being within walking distance of a grocery store and high-end shops.

uncertain traveler, you've inspired me. I'm going to write to my neighborhood association right now and tell them that these deed restrictions they have are a violation of my private property rights. If I want to tear down my house and build a cinder-block fortress, why should the community be able to prevent me from doing it?

After all, if the people in my neighborhood have any say in what I do with my property at all, then private property rights mean nothing! What exists now is some sort of collectivism, which will result in economic stagnation.

Good grief, you really should read someone's full post before you post. Note the disclaimer I had towards the end of my post, which stated "for the purpose of simplicity, I am not discussing the role that government or prior land-use restrictions play in the development of property. So if you wish to argue my point, please don't bring up the role of goverment, restrictive covenants, equitable servitudes, or deed restrictions." Deed restrictions aren't at issue here---and, furthermore, if your property is burdened by deed restrictions, then you took your property with notice of such restrictions and have no right to complain of their effect. So either argue my point on its merits or shut-up.

KINKAIDALUM, if, as you claim, "It's just foolish to say you can just rebuild the Landmark River Oaks Theater. You simply cannot. It's the last theater of it's kind in Houston. I can sit in a seat that my mother may have sat in when she attended Lamar High in the late 1940s. I can get a sense of history and feel connected to my hometown," then I suppose you dislike relocating "historic" structures? As in, it is not acceptable to you to have open-air museums (like those found all across Europe) where old buildings that some historic value are relocated and preserved? Or do you believe that a certain building should always be in its original location?

I think you can just rebuild the theater or, at the very least, simply relocate it. I've said as much many times over here. So if you want to sit in a seat that your mother may have sat in, then just offer to relocate the theater. But, once again, it is becoming clear that people would rather whine and prevent an owner's right to develop their own land than fork out their own money and take a risk in running and managing the place on their own. After all, it is easier to demand someone else do something for you than it is to do it for yourself.

And as a final note, I find it intriguing that responses to my original post fail to actually argue the central issue here: should a property owner be allowed to do what they want with their own property. Instead, people prefer to speak about their emotional connection to the property, as if their own personal experiences and connections to a place gives them the right to trump the owner's wishes.

So, again, I ask you, do you believe that you should be prevented from developing your own property as you wish simply because someone you don't know claims to have an emotional connection to your land? I suspect everyone here would say no, insofar as the question applies to their own land. So why should the answer be any different when the question applies to someone else's land?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weingarten is fully aware of the existance of the petition at this point.

I think the plans of Houstonist, "to present the petition to Weingarten at the end of the year" will accomplish nothing.

Edited by Highway6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....because the ability to do whatever you want with your land, without having to consult your neighbors or patrons, is what makes owning property and living in Houston so great.

Yes, Houston has no zoning, which constitutes a certain freedom to do what you will with the land. But there is a rapidly vanishing element to this freedom that I'm certain our city fathers had in mind when they chose to avoid zoning -it's something called SOCIAL REPONSIBILITY.

'Social responsibility' means that, although you don't exactly let your neighbor dictate what you do on or with your property, you DO consider their wishes and needs before doing something you KNOW is going to piss them off. Then you try to work it out so everyone feels that they have a win. It's an unspoken oath that applies whether you own residential or commercial property, and no amount of Deed Restrictions, zoning or land use codes can quite duplicate it, because it relies on the good common sense of humanity to make it work.

I will argue that for the owners of the properties in question (which I will also argue have attained their 'highest and best use' FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC in their present form) to consider razing the theatre for another high dollar high rise is the absolute antithesis of Social Responsibility, in that this would allow realtively few Mr&Mrs Megabucks to live a lavish life at the top in exchange for depriving countless future theatregoers the rare treat of seeing the likes of 'White Christmas' in an original-condition venue that probably showed it when it was first released in 1954.

I have absolutely no interest in a wordsmithing fight with you, UncertainTraveler, you are entitled to your opinions - but the instincts of this lifelong Houstonian tell me that you CAN be certain of one thing ... the River Oaks Theatre isn't going down without THE biggest, most public preservation fight you've ever seen in the history of this city.

SAVE THE RIVER OAKS !!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as a final note, I find it intriguing that responses to my original post fail to actually argue the central issue here: should a property owner be allowed to do what they want with their own property. Instead, people prefer to speak about their emotional connection to the property, as if their own personal experiences and connections to a place gives them the right to trump the owner's wishes.

So, again, I ask you, do you believe that you should be prevented from developing your own property as you wish simply because someone you don't know claims to have an emotional connection to your land? I suspect everyone here would say no, insofar as the question applies to their own land. So why should the answer be any different when the question applies to someone else's land?

Actually, you are not reading the responses carefully. No one is claiming that Weingarten should have no right to do as they please. The outpouring of responses is intended to get Weingarten to rethink whether they want to do this. Weingarten is a real estate company. They build and lease property to retailers. If their actions offend potential customers, those customers may decide to take their business elsewhere. Weingarten must decide if the new construction outweighs the offended potential customers.

Your posts suggest that non-owners are obligated to applaud anything the property owner does, or at a minimum, keep their mouths shut. There is a huge difference between government regulation of an owner's use of the property and neighbors speaking up about the intended use. No regulations exist to impede Weingarten, and no one here is advocating such. However, many of us patronize Weingarten's retailers. If Weingarten chooses to gut this historic property, we may decide to shop elsewhere. I would think they want to know that, before they make their decision.

BTW, as an owner of an 86 year old bungalow in the Heights, I am confronted with the wishes of the neighborhood on a regular basis. I am not required to keep my bungalow, but I am aware of the sentiments of my neighbors in keeping the look of the neighborhood intact, and I take that into consideration. It is called "being a good neighbor". I don't have to. I choose to. I hope Weingarten does the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'uncertaintraveler'

Any further discussion with you regarding land rights use is pointless. We know your position and we also have seen you demonize those who just want to save a couple of the remaining pieces of Houston's history.

All my side has is overwhelming public opinion and the Historic Preservation Ordinance.

Your side involves very powerful people with seemingly little or no regard of the importance of history and community. Unfortunatly for Houston, your side normally wins.

Maybe for once we can affect a change in this myopic attitude of bulldoze, pave and build at any cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you are not reading the responses carefully. No one is claiming that Weingarten should have no right to do as they please. The outpouring of responses is intended to get Weingarten to rethink whether they want to do this. Weingarten is a real estate company. They build and lease property to retailers. If their actions offend potential customers, those customers may decide to take their business elsewhere. Weingarten must decide if the new construction outweighs the offended potential customers.

Your posts suggest that non-owners are obligated to applaud anything the property owner does, or at a minimum, keep their mouths shut. There is a huge difference between government regulation of an owner's use of the property and neighbors speaking up about the intended use. No regulations exist to impede Weingarten, and no one here is advocating such. However, many of us patronize Weingarten's retailers. If Weingarten chooses to gut this historic property, we may decide to shop elsewhere. I would think they want to know that, before they make their decision.

BTW, as an owner of an 86 year old bungalow in the Heights, I am confronted with the wishes of the neighborhood on a regular basis. I am not required to keep my bungalow, but I am aware of the sentiments of my neighbors in keeping the look of the neighborhood intact, and I take that into consideration. It is called "being a good neighbor". I don't have to. I choose to. I hope Weingarten does the same.

No, I am reading the posts carefully. The overwhelming responses have not been merely requesting that Weingarten rethink what they want to do, but rather outright hostility towards their plans and possible obstructionism to prevent Weingarten's proposed actions. Trying to spin the responses as being merely "neighborly concern" is weak.

And, if I may ask, what is your definition of a "neighbor"? A person who lives adjacent to you? A person who lives a block from you? A person who lives 10 miles away from you? Or is distance irrelevant and what matters is how often they visit your property? Is a person who visits you every week your neighbor? What if they only visit once a year? At what point do you draw the line? Should a property owner have to consult, or even listen to, the wishes and desires of every person in a community, even if their connection to the owner's property is limited and tangential at best?

Edited to add: Also, Red, in skimming through another thread entitled "Save the Bungalows," at post #34, you state, "When all is said and done, I don't think it is my right to tell a land owner what to do with his lot." At post #41, in the same thread, you state, "I am not entitled to tell my neighbor what to do with his property, nor may he tell me what to do with mine." You also wrote, at post #41, that "Part of freedom and liberty is accepting the freedom and liberty of your neighbor. I am forced to live with the fact that too many of my neighbors willingly give up the liberties that were handed down to them by our forebears. I will not vote, advocate, or otherwise give away what few liberties I have left in this brainwashed country, even if that means a McMansion is built across the street...which it already has. I apologize if this post sounds political. But, I have to say, trying to save old houses by giving away our property rights sounds little different than giving away our Constitutional rights because the government said it will make me safer. Both sound suspiciously like someone telling me how to live my life..."

So, Red, where exactly do you stand on the issue of property rights, and why do the comments you posted in the "Save the Bungalows" thread not apply here???

Edited by uncertaintraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was very reluctant to move away from The Heights since I was born there and lived there for all but 4 of my (then) 56 years. I was raised on 14th near Beall, and lived in Timbergrove for the last 20 years in Houston.

There was no direction I could go from my house that there wasn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'uncertaintraveler'

Any further discussion with you regarding land rights use is pointless. We know your position and we also have seen you demonize those who just want to save a couple of the remaining pieces of Houston's history.

I haven't demonized anyone.

I find it discouraging, but not surprising given your track record on this forum, that instead of engaging in an healthy debate on a particular subject, you choose to answer those whose opinions differ from your own with an insult and one-liners.

In any event, I'm done with this subject--it appears everyone's position on the issue is already set, including, I suppose, my own. Good luck with the petition, and I mean that in all sincerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was very reluctant to move away from The Heights since I was born there and lived there for all but 4 of my (then) 56 years. I was raised on 14th near Beall, and lived in Timbergrove for the last 20 years in Houston.

There was no direction I could go from my house that there wasn

Edited by bachanon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also realized that having the physical was a way to show others my memories, and to share my past with them. The fly in that thought is that my memories usually meant little or nothing to anyone but myself.

I cannot agree with this statement. I have lived most of my 47 years in the same home. My kids went to the same Elementary School that I attended. It means a great deal to them. A few years back they tore the school down to build a bigger and better school. I agree the new school is nice, but even my kids say they wish they had not torn down "our school". When demo began it was my sons that wanted to go get some bricks, which we did...one for each of us.

River Oaks Theater has that same "our theater" feeling for myself. My mom and I went there often and we spent many a day shopping in RO Shopping Center. I lost my mother over 20 years ago and cherish each memory I have. Just 2 weekends ago I was at the RO Shopping center and remembered about the little dress shop "Buttonwood Tree" that we loved to go to, and was saddened that it was no longer there. But the shopping center and theatre are there and it means a lot to me that they are. And that I can still go there.

I guess I'm saying that I WANT the physical to show others the memories... and I know they mean something to my sons. They ask questions about when I was a child all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...