Demolished: 509 & 517 Louisiana St.

[H-Town Man]

This is good info. Why was it unsuccessful? What might be successful in that kind of spot?

 

This is the weakest aspect of your arguments on here - you keep using past track record as evidence of whether or not a building like this can be economically successful. Meanwhile, downtown's resident population is set to double in the next few years, and triple if all the proposed buildings are eventually built, which will have a huge effect on overall pedestrian life. There's a 40 story residential tower going up just down the street, Hines might build another one on the next block, and the nearby freeway is going to be removed, sparking untold development. This is a time of major transition. To say that retail has been unsuccessful here in the past really doesn't have much bearing when talking about even five years from now.

 

Shortsightedness at its best.

[Nate99]

So you would've let Grand Central go. Very interesting. And the Grand Canyon too, to the extent that there were private claims on the land (clifftop hotels and such, which there were).

 

Don't see why in principle you wouldn't want to live/do business in a city with historic preservation laws, considering that almost every city in the western world has them. I find that with free market/property rights advocates such as yourself, nothing is acceptable short of 100% purity. I tend to see it more in the Aristotelian sense of, "a virtue is always between two vices." The one vice being, an overly restricted and govt. controlled city where individual initiative is stifled, and the other vice being a chaotic free for all where the public has no collective input and any person rich and powerful enough can do anything. The virtuous position is between the two.

 

As to the building that preceded Grand Central, it wasn't near the landmark that Grand Central is. If that building were in downtown Houston today, I'd say preserve at almost any cost. In New York in 1912, there were many buildings that looked like that. Also, some of your history is wrong - Grand Central wasn't designed to accommodate that tower from the beginning, since the tower would have required destroying the vaulted ceiling. And no, it wasn't in "disrepair" for decades, maybe normal wear and tear but it looked just fine when I went in there in 1998, pre-renovation.

 

I didn't say I wouldn't live or do business in a place with more restrictions, I just prefer fewer.  The "virtuous position" can be found based on different places choosing different models, and I like the one we have with restrictions being more localized and not centrally governed by a really big city. There is no such thing 100% purity, especially with man-made theories what with them always being wrong..

 

As for my history, I only know what I read on it.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1998-10-02/news/9810020106_1_grand-central-terminal-train-commuter

 

 

In recent decades, with the glory days of train travel long gone, the sumptuously appointed building fell into a protracted decline, suffering the benign neglect of a city preoccupied with crime and near-bankruptcy. By the late 1980s, Grand Central was a dirty, dark, malodorous place, garishly lit with huge advertising signs and haunted at night by the homeless.

 

As for the tower expansion designed in...

 

http://untappedcities.com/2013/03/28/the-new-york-city-that-never-was-grand-central-terminal-towers/

 

 

Another $800,000 was spent on steel reinforcement, not needed for the terminal itself, but to support a skyscraper that eventually might rise above it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/20/nyregion/the-birth-of-grand-central-terminal-100-years-later.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

 

Whatever the proposed development was, there was contemplation of a building in the design.  Maybe they could have gone with the option pictured above and salvaged more value.

[H-Town Man]

I think you're confused - where that skyscraper is located, they built the Pan-Am building. The building proposed in the 70's would have gone through the lobby.

As to this late 80's description of Grand Central, the whole city was like that then. I went there in 1998. It was full of tourists taking photos.

[Nate99]

This is the weakest aspect of your arguments on here - you keep using past track record as evidence of whether or not a building like this can be economically successful. Meanwhile, downtown's resident population is set to double in the next few years, and triple if all the proposed buildings are eventually built, which will have a huge effect on overall pedestrian life. There's a 40 story residential tower going up just down the street, Hines might build another one on the next block, and the nearby freeway is going to be removed, sparking untold development. This is a time of major transition. To say that retail has been unsuccessful here in the past really doesn't have much bearing when talking about even five years from now.

 

Shortsightedness at its best.

 

You just answered my question as to what might, but no one showed up with an offer to buy it in order to capitalize on your long view of things.  The value you describe is speculative.

 

Do you think that they don't have a price at which they'll call off the excavators or that they didn't look at alternatives?

[Nate99]

I think you're confused - where that skyscraper is located, they built the Pan-Am building. The building proposed in the 70's would have gone through the lobby.

As to this late 80's description of Grand Central, the whole city was like that then. I went there in 1998. It was full of tourists taking photos.

 

Ok, I understand the building option better now, I think.  I did not gather that the Pan Am/Metife building precluded the tower as designed. The tower in the old rendering above looks like it would mostly fit on the current structure, but would be right up against the new building.

 

While the whole city might have been like that, your assertion that "it wasn't in "disrepair"" was directly refuted by the quote I found. You must have been confused too.

[H-Town Man]

I didn't say I wouldn't live or do business in a place with more restrictions, I just prefer fewer. The "virtuous position" can be found based on different places choosing different models, and I like the one we have with restrictions being more localized and not centrally governed by a really big city. There is no such thing 100% purity, especially with man-made theories what with them always being wrong..

As for my history, I only know what I read on it.

Now wait a second - I thought your objections were based on principles of property rights! Now you're just saying that any city can do what it wants, and you simply prefer cities that regulate less? If it's simply a matter of preferring more or less regulations, what concrete objection do you have to the people who prefer more?

[H-Town Man]

Ok, I understand the building option better now, I think. I did not gather that the Pan Am/Metife building precluded the tower as designed.

While the whole city might have been like that, your assertion that "it wasn't in "disrepair"" was directly refuted by the quote I found. You must have been confused too.

It was probably in the same level of disrepair as our county courthouse or the Esperson building was before renovation. Wear and tear, some soot. Basically par for the course in most European train stations, but in America we tend to like things either super shiny or bulldozed.

[Nate99]

Now wait a second - I thought your objections were based on principles of property rights! Now you're just saying that any city can do what it wants, and you simply prefer cities that regulate less? If it's simply a matter of preferring more or less regulations, what concrete objection do you have to the people who prefer more?

 

None. I just want the rights known and adhered to as designed in the political process, not someone calling someone else who has the mayor's ear to "do something" after the fact.

 

It's not up to me and I'm open to different cities trying different things to see what works. I prefer less and will vote accordingly. 

[Nate99]

Ummm, yeah, the Montagu/Hogan Allnoch/Ben Milam were discussed prior to their demolition - and now these buildings are being discussed prior to their demolition.

 

Also, there has been PLENTY of discussion on here of the ever dwindling stock of historic buildings downtown, buildings of detail and character. See what I wrote above - a building does not have to be an individual landmark to be important. Most buildings in the French Quarter aren't standout individual landmarks, they're just contributing. But if you keep on taking them away, it's no longer the French Quarter.

 

Missed this at the bottom of the page.  The others had threads and mentions and concerns raised about their long vacancy and/or decay prior to the announcement of their demolition. 

 

I think the French Quarter ship of the 500 block of Louisiana sailed quite a while ago, and the detail and character of these two is just a notch above a parking lot.  One of them is 2/3 stucco. Shall I refer you to the Hampton Inn thread?

[Nate99]

It was probably in the same level of disrepair as our county courthouse or the Esperson building was before renovation. Wear and tear, some soot. Basically par for the course in most European train stations, but in America we tend to like things either super shiny or bulldozed.

 

Yet even in "Houston is gonna Houston" someone made a go at renovating the Esperson.

 

Everything is case by case.

[H-Town Man]

Missed this at the bottom of the page. The others had threads and mentions and concerns raised about their long vacancy and/or decay prior to the announcement of their demolition.

I think the French Quarter ship of the 500 block of Louisiana sailed quite a while ago, and the detail and character of these two is just a notch above a parking lot. One of them is 2/3 stucco. Shall I refer you to the Hampton Inn thread?

Give me a break, this in no way comparable to the Hampton Inn, these are brick buildings with plenty of detail. If you think they are "a notch above a parking lot," I'm calling you out as a troll, simply here for the sake of arguing and reveling in our dismay.

 

 

Really, Nate? A notch above a parking lot?

 

[H-Town Man]

Yet even in "Houston is gonna Houston" someone made a go at renovating the Esperson.

Everything is case by case.

See comment above - if you preserve 80% of the buildings each decade and let 20% go, in 5 decades you've lost 2/3 of your historic buildings. You can't just keep losing some here and some there, every time somebody wants more parking.

[BigFootsSocks]

You guys sound like Hitler. There's Godwin's law for everyone, guess we can pack up and move on.

[Sunstar]

You guys sound like Hitler. There's Godwin's law for everyone, guess we can pack up and move on.

 

I had to look this up, and then laughed out loud. 

[Sunstar]

I think the French Quarter ship of the 500 block of Louisiana sailed quite a while ago, and the detail and character of these two is just a notch above a parking lot.  One of them is 2/3 stucco. Shall I refer you to the Hampton Inn thread?

 

If I wanted to help the Lancaster folks out, I think I know where I could find them some cheap demolition labor. Nate sounds like he's ready to show up with a sledgehammer after this thread. 

[Nate99]

Give me a break, this in no way comparable to the Hampton Inn, these are brick buildings with plenty of detail. If you think they are "a notch above a parking lot," I'm calling you out as a troll, simply here for the sake of arguing and reveling in our dismay.

Really, Nate? A notch above a parking lot?

I'm probably trolling a bit, but I really don't see anything remarkable there. The one on the left is something that looks decent, but once bog standard, just because the rest of them were already replaced doesn't confer any special quality to me. Plenty of new stuff is nicer to look at.

The stucco comment is tongue and cheek given the hysterics over on the other thread, but it does cover 2/3 of the one on the right, which is a plain box that I could have designed.

[Nate99]

See comment above - if you preserve 80% of the buildings each decade and let 20% go, in 5 decades you've lost 2/3 of your historic buildings. You can't just keep losing some here and some there, every time somebody wants more parking.

So last one to swing the hammer gets stuck with something they might rather not have?

[Nate99]

If I wanted to help the Lancaster folks out, I think I know where I could find them some cheap demolition labor. Nate sounds like he's ready to show up with a sledgehammer after this thread.

They would have to pay me. Financial incentives only.

[H-Town Man]

I'm probably trolling a bit, but I really don't see anything remarkable there. The one on the left is something that looks decent, but once bog standard, just because the rest of them were already replaced doesn't confer any special quality to me. Plenty of new stuff is nicer to look at.

The stucco comment is tongue and cheek given the hysterics over on the other thread, but it does cover 2/3 of the one on the right, which is a plain box that I could have designed.

 

I think somehow in reading this forum you were misled into thinking that just because a building has stucco, it must be considered poor architecture. If having a stucco facade made a building poor architecture, then most buildings in Italy would be considered poor architecture. The building on the right is not a "plain box" - it has cornice and pediment, lintels above the windows, shutters, balconies. The brickwork spanning the windows is something you can point to and teach a child how masonry works - how the bricks are angled so that the weight is carried to the sides. Unlike modern buildings where brick is just a veneer that is supported by the steel underneath.

 

If as you admit you are trolling, it moves me from the category of not agreeing with you to not respecting you. You don't understand how it feels to people like me to see your city's historic buildings slowly erode away. We both know that the buildings will be torn down, so you have already won.

[Nate99]

If as you admit you are trolling, it moves me from the category of not agreeing with you to not respecting you. You don't understand how it feels to people like me to see your city's historic buildings slowly erode away. We both know that the buildings will be torn down, so you have already won.

I don't understand, I'll admit to that.

The trolling was just a joke.

I am not trying to make you mad, I figured you were secure enough in your convictions to not be so bothered by a contrary opinion. If my insensitivity loses your respect, that's your choice.

The thought of a politically connected bullying campaign prohibiting someone from doing something with their property for some notion of aesthetics is every bit as odious to me as the loss of examples of obsolete building techniques are to you. Your refusal to acknowledge that never led me to suspect that there was ever much respect involved.

[BigFootsSocks]

NATE YOU R LITERALLY HITLER RIGHT NOW DUDE

[H-Town Man]

I don't understand, I'll admit to that.

The trolling was just a joke.

I am not trying to make you mad, I figured you were secure enough in your convictions to not be so bothered by a contrary opinion. If my insensitivity loses your respect, that's your choice.

The thought of a politically connected bullying campaign prohibiting someone from doing something with their property for some notion of aesthetics is every bit as odious to me as the loss of examples of obsolete building techniques are to you. Your refusal to acknowledge that never led me to suspect that there was ever much respect involved.

 

I never mentioned getting politicians involved. Is that what you're worried about?

[Nate99]

I never mentioned getting politicians involved. Is that what you're worried about?

Pretty much.

Was that not the intention of of those (not you) sending emails to people that are close to Parker? They threaten that and I get all hyper on principle, just like you and demolition of old stuff and we find ourselves arguing again.

Something for everyone.

[H-Town Man]

Pretty much.

Was that not the intention of of those (not you) sending emails to people that are close to Parker? They threaten that and I get all hyper on principle, just like you and demolition of old stuff and we find ourselves arguing again.

Something for everyone.

 

Gotta keep track of who you're talking to and what that person actually said. Can't just lump everyone together whom you disagree with.

 

What precedent made you so worried that a politican would come bullying the Lancaster Hotel people? Have politicians been bullying people for legal teardowns?

[Sunstar]

The thought of a politically connected bullying campaign prohibiting someone from doing something with their property for some notion of aesthetics is every bit as odious to me as the loss of examples of obsolete building techniques are to you. 

 

Again, I have to disagree. This isn't just about some subjective notion of aesthetics, these buildings are historic, certainly by Houston standards. Based on the development date in the Sarnoff article, they are close to 110 years old. From all outward appearances, and based on the testimony of an earlier forumer on this thread, they are in fine shape. The Lancaster wants to tear them down and replace them with surface lots, and you find nothing objectionable about this. Yet you do find it objectionable that anyone would bring this to the attention of someone in public office?

 

Personally, I think we should enact some kind of mandatory waiting period that forces them to have a good long think about knocking down those buildings. I believe there is a similar law in this and many other states, but used for different purposes. 

[Tumbleweed_Tx]

my mom was the owner of the Longhorn's secretary back in the 90's. One of the reasons why they moved from 507 Louisiana to The Park Shops is because the building was all eaten up with termites, and they were afraid of it collapsing.

[KinkaidAlum]

We were two years too early for downtown. Lunch did gangbusters but there wasn't enough traffic at night. We assumed some of our loyal customers would come downtown for the patio but that didn't pan out as they remained loyal to the Heights location. 

 

However, in about one year, there will be 2-3,000 more people living within a 10 block radius. A restaurant with access to a huge and private back patio with a beautiful shade tree would mint money unless it sucked. Our buddies run Botanga and they are wildly successful with their huge space (albeit, a better location). The new restaurants that have opened downtown and have a solid business model and stellar food/drink, are doing really well right now. Things are only going to get better as all these residential units come on line.

 

The Lancaster Hotel and Bistro are being short-sighted. Sure, 50 parking spaces would be nice for any venture, but they run the risk of alienating their neighbors. I imagine most folks who live downtown are not going to take the news of this demolition too well and the added scar on the streetscape will not be appreciated by the folks who live near Market Square just as the city is starting to be pieced back together. Adding another surface lot, removing shade trees, and adding another means of vehicular egress does nothing but detract from downtown life.

[Ross]

However, in about one year, there will be 2-3,000 more people living within a 10 block radius. A restaurant with access to a huge and private back patio with a beautiful shade tree would mint money unless it sucked. Our buddies run Botanga and they are wildly successful with their huge space (albeit, a better location). The new restaurants that have opened downtown and have a solid business model and stellar food/drink, are doing really well right now. Things are only going to get better as all these residential units come on line.

 

The Lancaster Hotel and Bistro are being short-sighted. Sure, 50 parking spaces would be nice for any venture, but they run the risk of alienating their neighbors. I imagine most folks who live downtown are not going to take the news of this demolition too well and the added scar on the streetscape will not be appreciated by the folks who live near Market Square just as the city is starting to be pieced back together. Adding another surface lot, removing shade trees, and adding another means of vehicular egress does nothing but detract from downtown life.

 

Do you think that any business located in these buildings can generate enough rental income for the building owners to make a decent return on the costs to rehab the buildings, plus cover the incremental costs to find suitable parking spots on a long term basis within a reasonable distance (no one likes to wait more than a few minutes for their car to show up)?

 

[H-Town Man]

Do you think that any business located in these buildings can generate enough rental income for the building owners to make a decent return on the costs to rehab the buildings, plus cover the incremental costs to find suitable parking spots on a long term basis within a reasonable distance (no one likes to wait more than a few minutes for their car to show up)?

 

 

This has been addressed. See post 91 at top of this page.

 

Edit: Or read the second paragraph of Kinkaid's post right above.

 

[Ross]

This has been addressed. See post 91 at top of this page.

 

Edit: Or read the second paragraph of Kinkaid's post right above.

 

Only in very nebulous terms. Nothing in those posts addresses my question in any sort of useful detail. No one is going to rehab a building today based on pie in the sky estimates of new Downtown residents years from now. There is a very  high risk of "if they build it, no one will come and pay as much as is necessary to make the deal economic". And, given the high failure rates for new restaurant and retail businesses, the vacancy costs will likely be high.

 

As for Kinkaid Alums, if the location is so great, why didn't BB's just stick it out until the massive crowds appeared? That's right, the economics didn't work. If BB's bailed due to bad economics, why shouldn't the owner be able to make changes to satisfy his economic requirements?