City Council strengthens Preservation Ordinance

[TheNiche]

Permits should be required to convert property to surface parking - and they should be issued sparingly and cost dearly.

Uh huh, you do realize how large the City of Houston is, right?

[H-Town Man]

Musicman is right. Old abandoned highrises are moneypits. You don't realize what the expenses are when you just stand on the street looking at it. If you want to maintain it as-is without having tenants, the cost was and remains astronomical. And then you've got liability for anyone that wanders in there and gets hurt or killed. If there's a fire, you're responsible for cleaning it up and repairing it, or demolishing it at that point...and to prevent or suppress a fire, it helps to have security and sprinklers. Each of those cost money. And if the sprinklers burst a pipe on a wet system, you've got flood damage. For that matter, it may very well flood from out of the bayou so that eventually the City will either fine you for having a cesspool in your basement or you'll have to pump it out and clean up at least a little bit. This stuff doesn't sound common, but in an abandoned building, you've either got to pay people to maintain it or it is going to happen. ...and sometimes it happens anyways.

As for converting it to a parking garage, and that takes money too, you've still got to maintain the structure above you. Also, many buildings that were constructed back in that era may not be very suitable for a parking garage conversion. There are a lot of considerations that can sink this idea. The building may not be able to take the conversion, it may be able to convert, but not take the cars, the columns may be spaced akwardly so that your yield of spaces per floor is ridiculously small, it may just cost you too much per space so that it'd be more economical to tear the building down and build a garage from scratch...and on, and on.

In any case, I can assure you that holding onto a money-losing structure for twenty or thirty years is not worth the wait. It would not make financial sense. ...and that's assuming that the owner had a crystal ball and could forsee today's with precision. (After all, this is just a human existing in a modernist realm, not thinking that his style would one day be derided because it was the impetus for the destruction of what he and most others saw as a bunch of s**ty buildings standing in the way of progress.) Factor in risk to the equation, though, and the whole idea is just shot all to hell.

Many of us may not see it this way today, looking through our own sets of myopic perspectives, but that person made the right decision in his day.

Who said anything about converting it to a parking garage? Don't skim people's posts!

[TheNiche]

This was a magnificent building torn down for a surface parking lot. Within several blocks' radius are probably a dozen other surface parking lots. Now if the public needed parking so desperately, couldn't just one of those have been made into a garage?

Who said anything about converting it to a parking garage? Don't skim people's posts!

Oops. My fault. That's what happens when you've been running on Red Bull for the past three days without end.

But it doesn't help your argument much. Structured parking is expensive. Why spend gobs of money so as to preserve a building that is costing gobs of money?

[musicman]

Properties used for surface parking are severely undertaxed. Why reward people for poking holes in the urban fabric?

but that's the point, having an empty building is costing the owner more money than if they just tear it down. i don't see this as rewarding anyone. an empty lot is worth less than and adjacent one with an empty home on it.

[TheNiche]

but that's the point, having an empty building is costing the owner more money than if they just tear it down. i don't see this as rewarding anyone. an empty lot is worth less than and adjacent one with an empty home on it.

...unless the empty home is physically obsolete, uninhabitable, or on a site that has a higher and better economic use. In that case, the existence of the home is a liability that gets discounted from the price of the lot because it will have to be removed.

[H-Town Man]

Oops. My fault. That's what happens when you've been running on Red Bull for the past three days without end.

But it doesn't help your argument much. Structured parking is expensive. Why spend gobs of money so as to preserve a building that is costing gobs of money?

Still missing the point Niche! I didn't say the owners of the building had to build a structured parking garage. I said that having ONE LESS PARKING LOT in east downtown is not going to hurt the public. If the public needs parking so badly, somebody could build a parking garage on one of the other blocks.

These discussions would run a lot smoother if we would all just take a moment to understand what the other person is saying before we write 500 word replies.

but that's the point, having an empty building is costing the owner more money than if they just tear it down. i don't see this as rewarding anyone. an empty lot is worth less than and adjacent one with an empty home on it.

If you don't want to pour money into an old building then don't buy it.

[KinkaidAlum]

Why is everyone assuming this building was an empty money pit?

The earlier thread on this building stated that it was still open in 1986 just one year before it was torn down. Over the years, different entities like Baylor College of Medicine, Texaco, and a Hospital were housed in the Medical Arts.

It may have been run down but that is the fault of the owner. It was never emptied out nor was it ever boarded up like the Central Square buildings near the Pierce Elevated.

What I really don't understand is why it would have been torn down in 1986/1987. That was well after the oil bust hit. I would have assumed a greedy owner would have torn it down on a speculative basis, but he'd have to be pretty dumb to do so in 1987!

[musicman]

Still missing the point Niche! I didn't say the owners of the building had to build a structured parking garage. I said that having ONE LESS PARKING LOT in east downtown is not going to hurt the public. If the public needs parking so badly, somebody could build a parking garage on one of the other blocks.

These discussions would run a lot smoother if we would all just take a moment to understand what the other person is saying before we write 500 word replies.

If you don't want to pour money into an old building then don't buy it.

to quote you "These discussions would run a lot smoother if we would all just take a moment to understand what the other person is saying before we write 500 word replies."

this was an old building that someone/company owned for years. they didn't buy the building and then all of a sudden didn't want to remodel/restore it because it would cost too much money

[H-Town Man]

to quote you "These discussions would run a lot smoother if we would all just take a moment to understand what the other person is saying before we write 500 word replies."

this was an old building that someone/company owned for years. they didn't buy the building and then all of a sudden didn't want to remodel/restore it because it would cost too much money

In an above post you referred to "many of the old buildings," and then in the post I responded to you referred to "an empty building," speaking in general terms. I did not know you were talking about a specific building.

I do not think it is oppressive or unjust to prevent owners from tearing down landmark skyscrapers, even though doing so might be more cost-feasible for them in the short term. Every other city in this country has such laws, and yet somehow the building owners manage to survive.

[musicman]

In an above post you referred to "many of the old buildings," and then in the post I responded to you referred to "an empty building," speaking in general terms. I did not know you were talking about a specific building.

I do not think it is oppressive or unjust to prevent owners from tearing down landmark skyscrapers, even though doing so might be more cost-feasible for them in the short term. Every other city in this country has such laws, and yet somehow the building owners manage to survive.

We'll see what happens here. i went to a meeting last night on this subj lead by the Mayor himself. Seems their historical district plan has drawn quite a bit of opposition in the 6th ward. There were at least 3 property owners of who told the Mayor that they had had options on their property but when the developer/buyer found out the lots might be protected, they got out of the deals. one has owned for 2 yrs and another has owned for 65 yrs.

to specify particularly properties like the RO theater, etc seems like it would be harder to appease the owner

[TheNiche]

Still missing the point Niche! I didn't say the owners of the building had to build a structured parking garage. I said that having ONE LESS PARKING LOT in east downtown is not going to hurt the public. If the public needs parking so badly, somebody could build a parking garage on one of the other blocks.

You are missing the point. The primary benefit of tearing down an old physically and functionally obsolete building was not to create parking spaces, but to save money and reduce contingent liabilities. The prospect of being able to provide parking represents an additional stream of revenue that increases the value of the demolition option. However, just because there is a high demand for parking does not mean that the construction of a parking garage is justified, whether it be on the site of the old building or on another vacant block. And even if a parking garage were justified and constructed on another vacant block, that does not negate the value created by demolishing the old building and it will only reduce the stream of revenue from parking by some marginal amount, but not completely.

If you don't want to pour money into an old building then don't buy it.

That is a gross misrepresentation of financial reality.

[TheNiche]

What I really don't understand is why it would have been torn down in 1986/1987. That was well after the oil bust hit. I would have assumed a greedy owner would have torn it down on a speculative basis, but he'd have to be pretty dumb to do so in 1987!

The building would've been demolished because the cost of operating (much less maintaining or improving) it was too high relative to the rental rates that could be had. High-quality Class A office space was extremely inexpensive at that time, so older buildings tended to empty out with tenants moving toward quality space unless the asking rents in older buildings were set below-cost.

[TheNiche]

Every other city in this country has such laws, and yet somehow the building owners manage to survive.

Uh, no! Can you say "Bankruptcy"?

[H-Town Man]

You are missing the point. The primary benefit of tearing down an old physically and functionally obsolete building was not to create parking spaces, but to save money and reduce contingent liabilities. The prospect of being able to provide parking represents an additional stream of revenue that increases the value of the demolition option. However, just because there is a high demand for parking does not mean that the construction of a parking garage is justified, whether it be on the site of the old building or on another vacant block. And even if a parking garage were justified and constructed on another vacant block, that does not negate the value created by demolishing the old building and it will only reduce the stream of revenue from parking by some marginal amount, but not completely.

That is a gross misrepresentation of financial reality.

You have now changed my point to "the" point, and are saying things that are completely irrelevant to my original post. I am not talking about what decision made more sense for the owner. Clearly, in the short term, it made more sense to tear it down, even though the city has suffered as a consequence.

What I am attacking is this point you always make that the supposed rational decisions of individual property owners ultimately satisfy a public needed. You would have us think that by serving its own interests in tearing down a building and putting a parking lot in its place, the building owner simultaneously served the public's interest, since office space in that building was not in demand, but parking spaces were. For a free-market purist like you, the market is the best server of public interest, and the market in this case determined that the skyscraper should give way to a parking lot.

But, as I have argued, the public could have gotten by without those parking spaces much more easily than by losing one of its half dozen best early skyscrapers. The public interest was NOT served when that skyscraper was torn down, and almost any Houstonian who compares pictures before and after would agree with this. Hence it would behoove the public, in the future, to make sure that such demolitions do not happen again.

Uh, no! Can you say "Bankruptcy"?

Name a few management companies that have been bankrupted by not being able to tear down historic landmarks.

[musicman]

But, as I have argued, the public could have gotten by without those parking spaces much more easily than by losing one of its half dozen best early skyscrapers. The public interest was NOT served when that skyscraper was torn down, and almost any Houstonian who compares pictures before and after would agree with this. Hence it would behoove the public, in the future, to make sure that such demolitions do not happen again.

In theory i understand what you're attempting to say, however it isn't what is best for the public here, it is what is best for the buildnig owner. Yes the building was beautiful and full of history is how the public sees it. But from the owner's perspective, the bottom line is it is costing him/her money to maintain, to keep tenants happy, etc. if maintenance was relatively easy, then most likely he/she wouldn't haven't resorted to tearing the building down. If you owned the building and it was costing you money just to maintain, i'm sure tearing the structure down would come to mind first if you were strapped for money. Yes demolition would cost too, but it would be a one time cost.

if you own a house how, if someone prevented you from doing something on your property (house expanision for instance) i'm sure you wouldn't be a happy person. a preservation ordinance that prevents certain activities will definitely be bad for you if it prevents something that you want to do.

there will definitely be those who feel historical preservation is good (esp those who don't have to do a thing) and those who don't (will now have to modify to confirm to a standard/can't sell to a developer because developer wants to do something that preservation standards won't permit}

[TheNiche]

You have now changed my point to "the" point, and are saying things that are completely irrelevant to my original post. I am not talking about what decision made more sense for the owner. Clearly, in the short term, it made more sense to tear it down, even though the city has suffered as a consequence.

What I am attacking is this point you always make that the supposed rational decisions of individual property owners ultimately satisfy a public needed. You would have us think that by serving its own interests in tearing down a building and putting a parking lot in its place, the building owner simultaneously served the public's interest, since office space in that building was not in demand, but parking spaces were. For a free-market purist like you, the market is the best server of public interest, and the market in this case determined that the skyscraper should give way to a parking lot.

But, as I have argued, the public could have gotten by without those parking spaces much more easily than by losing one of its half dozen best early skyscrapers. The public interest was NOT served when that skyscraper was torn down, and almost any Houstonian who compares pictures before and after would agree with this. Hence it would behoove the public, in the future, to make sure that such demolitions do not happen again.

Go back and reread my last post. Everything that matters is there. ...and bear in mind that the building owner is a member of the public. It isn't one group vs. the other. It is all.

Name a few management companies that have been bankrupted by not being able to tear down historic landmarks.

Btw, you just exposed your ignorance of the subject. Management companies don't own buildings and don't tear them down.

[H-Town Man]

In theory i understand what you're attempting to say, however it isn't what is best for the public here, it is what is best for the buildnig owner. Yes the building was beautiful and full of history is how the public sees it. But from the owner's perspective, the bottom line is it is costing him/her money to maintain, to keep tenants happy, etc. if maintenance was relatively easy, then most likely he/she wouldn't haven't resorted to tearing the building down. If you owned the building and it was costing you money just to maintain, i'm sure tearing the structure down would come to mind first if you were strapped for money. Yes demolition would cost too, but it would be a one time cost.

if you own a house how, if someone prevented you from doing something on your property (house expanision for instance) i'm sure you wouldn't be a happy person. a preservation ordinance that prevents certain activities will definitely be bad for you if it prevents something that you want to do.

there will definitely be those who feel historical preservation is good (esp those who don't have to do a thing) and those who don't (will now have to modify to confirm to a standard/can't sell to a developer because developer wants to do something that preservation standards won't permit}

Well, of course the owner knows what's better for him. But the fact is that historic buildings are a public good, and the public has the right to make laws to preserve them.

[H-Town Man]

Go back and reread my last post. Everything that matters is there. ...and bear in mind that the building owner is a member of the public. It isn't one group vs. the other. It is all.

Your "last post" (I assume you meant third to last post) only talks about what was good for the owner. I'm talking about what is good for the public. Why should the public care whether one owner makes more money for himself if he is destroying an irreplaceable landmark? The argument that "the owner is a member of the public" is weak, and no one is going to be swayed by it.

Btw, you just exposed your ignorance of the subject. Management companies don't own buildings and don't tear them down.

Alright, forgive me. And tell me some building owners that have gone out of business because of historic preservation laws.

[TheNiche]

Your "last post" (I assume you meant third to last post) only talks about what was good for the owner. I'm talking about what is good for the public. Why should the public care whether one owner makes more money for himself if he is destroying an irreplaceable landmark? The argument that "the owner is a member of the public" is weak, and no one is going to be swayed by it.

My argument, to lay it out in the most simple way possible, is that for any matter subject to public input, the public is comprised of the entire universe of persons. As a subset within that universe, there are stakeholders. The rest of the public doesn't matter because they do not stand to be impacted (for instance, a random person from Burma was not a stakeholder in the Medical Arts Building). The value of a historical building is the summation of the value placed on it by stakeholders.

If there are five stakeholders to a building, and one values it at -$1,000,000, and each of the four others value it at +$10,000, it should be torn down. It each of the others valued it at +$250,000, then they should either be taxed to compensate the owner for what would otherwise be an arbitrary government-forced financial loss, or alternatively, the stakeholders could band together and buy the building. As a matter of policy, I'd rather see the latter happen...but I could guarantee you that you'd be in for some disappointments, because you clearly have little grasp of the true costs to society that would have to be overcome, and seem to overestimate that value that people place upon historical preservation relative to other goods.

In any case, though, the matter should not be subject to a popular vote, because then an enormous number of people who value it positively only a little override the very few people who value it very negatively.

But to say that it is a weak argument that the building owner is a member of the argument is absolutely wrong. Your views do not seem to acknowledge the existence of property rights in any meaningful way. The importance of property rights is that if they are not guaranteed, few people will want to own property. Policies such as those discourage development and lead to higher costs of living.

And tell me some building owners that have gone out of business because of historic preservation laws.

Seeing as how I wasn't even conceived through parts of the early 80's, I'm not in a good position to provide examples within the context of the Medical Arts Building. What I have communicated to you is oral history gathered from old folks in the industry supplimented in part by microeconomic theory that is supported by office market trends experienced during downturns such as the last one.

Interestingly enough, though, it seems that there were some Sixth Ward property owners that had deals fall through just recently, costing them time and money. It didn't even take hard regulations -- just the discussion of them -- for that to happen.

[H-Town Man]

My argument, to lay it out in the most simple way possible, is that for any matter subject to public input, the public is comprised of the entire universe of persons. As a subset within that universe, there are stakeholders. The rest of the public doesn't matter because they do not stand to be impacted (for instance, a random person from Burma was not a stakeholder in the Medical Arts Building). The value of a historical building is the summation of the value placed on it by stakeholders.

If there are five stakeholders to a building, and one values it at -$1,000,000, and each of the four others value it at +$10,000, it should be torn down. It each of the others valued it at +$250,000, then they should either be taxed to compensate the owner for what would otherwise be an arbitrary government-forced financial loss, or alternatively, the stakeholders could band together and buy the building. As a matter of policy, I'd rather see the latter happen...but I could guarantee you that you'd be in for some disappointments, because you clearly have little grasp of the true costs to society that would have to be overcome, and seem to overestimate that value that people place upon historical preservation relative to other goods.

In any case, though, the matter should not be subject to a popular vote, because then an enormous number of people who value it positively only a little override the very few people who value it very negatively.

If they value it so negatively, they should probably take that into consideration when they buy buildings. Building owners in cities that have preservation laws know the risk, and can plan accordingly.

But to say that it is a weak argument that the building owner is a member of the argument is absolutely wrong. Your views do not seem to acknowledge the existence of property rights in any meaningful way.

I believe in property rights. But I also believe we are members of a society, not just an anarchy of individuals, and that the public has a certain stake in what gets built, and a right to make certain guidelines regarding what can be done with it. In other words, I am interested in balancing the public good with the private good, without being a property rights absolutist.

The importance of property rights is that if they are not guaranteed, few people will want to own property. Policies such as those discourage development and lead to higher costs of living.

Typical world's-going-to-end argument from the property rights crowd. If we protect a couple dozen landmarks, are people going to want to stop owning property? Have people stopped desiring to own property in all the cities that protect their historic buildings (read: every other city in America)? Give me a break.

Seeing as how I wasn't even conceived through parts of the early 80's, I'm not in a good position to provide examples within the context of the Medical Arts Building. What I have communicated to you is oral history gathered from old folks in the industry supplimented in part by microeconomic theory that is supported by office market trends experienced during downturns such as the last one.

If you've been reading the posts carefully, you would remember that I was asking for examples from other cities - cities that have preservation laws. You said that preservation laws would drive people to bankruptcy, and I am just asking for examples of that happening. I'm waiting.

[TheNiche]

If they value it so negatively, they should probably take that into consideration when they buy buildings. Building owners in cities that have preservation laws know the risk, and can plan accordingly.

Yeah, that tends to be built into the internal rate of return as a factor of political and market risk. Unfortunately, when such considerations make investments harder to justify, there are fewer investors willing to make them. And when a city becomes very well known for being difficult to invest in, those cities are often avoided.

Unfortunately, it is impossible for anyone to reliably predict political risk, even in cities that are already to some extent regulated. Any municipal codes and ordinances can change unpredictably at any time.

I believe in property rights. But I also believe we are members of a society, not just an anarchy of individuals, and that the public has a certain stake in what gets built, and a right to make certain guidelines regarding what can be done with it. In other words, I am interested in balancing the public good with the private good, without being a property rights absolutist.

I agree with you; the public has a stake. But there are productive ways to excercise that stake and there are counter-productive ways. And I may be willing to recognize you as a reasonable individual, but I don't much like the idea of giving even a presently-responsible government entity the power because they won't always control it. Those who I do not trust are the incompetent boobs that we are sure to elect in the future, and those that will create a bureaucracy so large that we cannot at some point in the future unravel and simplify it.

Typical world's-going-to-end argument from the property rights crowd. If we protect a couple dozen landmarks, are people going to want to stop owning property? Have people stopped desiring to own property in all the cities that protect their historic buildings (read: every other city in America)? Give me a break.

No one ever said that the world was going to end. Don't exaggerate.

The danger is not that we will protect a couple dozen landmarks, it is that we will go California-style. Red tape is bad. It discourages development and places a barrier to entry for new construction. As a result, housing prices go up.

If you've been reading the posts carefully, you would remember that I was asking for examples from other cities - cities that have preservation laws. You said that preservation laws would drive people to bankruptcy, and I am just asking for examples of that happening. I'm waiting.

Yeah, well I can't give them to you because I haven't devoted an enormous amount of time into researching this matter. Nor am I going to. But that has no bearing upon the validity of my arguments.

[KinkaidAlum]

The funny thing is, in cities that seem to value historical buildings (Boston, NY, San Fran, etc...), building values are much higher than they are in free-wheeling Houston.

Yeah Yeah, I know there are other factors involved too...

Another problem is that far too many properties are owned by speculative out-of-towners looking to make a quick buck in a market that is cheap compared to other cities. Of course, the local owners (like Weingarten Realty) tend to lack vision. They seem to think the only money makers are suburban style shopping centers with ample parking.

[TheNiche]

The funny thing is, in cities that seem to value historical buildings (Boston, NY, San Fran, etc...), building values are much higher than they are in free-wheeling Houston.

Yeah, they're higher because of the regulations (and geography)! That is a bad thing!

Another problem is that far too many properties are owned by speculative out-of-towners looking to make a quick buck in a market that is cheap compared to other cities. Of course, the local owners (like Weingarten Realty) tend to lack vision. They seem to think the only money makers are suburban style shopping centers with ample parking.

Upon what grounds have you drawn these conclusions?

Btw, for the most part, Weingarten is absolutely and unequivocably right. In fact, any developer that does not include adequate parking for a retail center in Houston will be quite literally laughed at by lenders.

[H-Town Man]

Yeah, that tends to be built into the internal rate of return as a factor of political and market risk. Unfortunately, when such considerations make investments harder to justify, there are fewer investors willing to make them. And when a city becomes very well known for being difficult to invest in, those cities are often avoided.

If every other city in the country has historic preservation laws, there is little chance that Houston will be avoided if it passes a few.

The danger is not that we will protect a couple dozen landmarks, it is that we will go California-style. Red tape is bad. It discourages development and places a barrier to entry for new construction.

So are you saying it's okay to protect a couple dozen landmarks? What evidence is there that, if the city of Houston passed a stronger preservation ordinance, we would go "California-style," as opposed to Dallas-style or San Antonio-style?

[TheNiche]

If every other city in the country has historic preservation laws, there is little chance that Houston will be avoided if it passes a few.

So are you saying it's okay to protect a couple dozen landmarks? What evidence is there that, if the city of Houston passed a stronger preservation ordinance, we would go "California-style," as opposed to Dallas-style or San Antonio-style?

Houston is a city of both domestic and international immigrants. I do not trust that our local culture will survive another decade, much less a century.

But even then, I'm less concerned with the people as a whole than I am with the future imbeciles that we will elect, whether we know what we're getting into or not.

[H-Town Man]

Houston is a city of both domestic and international immigrants. I do not trust that our local culture will survive another decade, much less a century.

But even then, I'm less concerned with the people as a whole than I am with the future imbeciles that we will elect, whether we know what we're getting into or not.

Immigrants very rarely fundamentally alter the culture of a city to any great degree, unless their numbers are just overwhelming. For decades in the early twentieth century, Chicago was over 50% foreign born (and back then the city was pretty much the whole metro area), yet it is still resembles a Midwestern city more than an Italian or Polish one. Houston does not have near that concentration of immigrants.

[TheNiche]

Immigrants very rarely fundamentally alter the culture of a city to any great degree, unless their numbers are just overwhelming. For decades in the early twentieth century, Chicago was over 50% foreign born (and back then the city was pretty much the whole metro area), yet it is still resembles a Midwestern city more than an Italian or Polish one. Houston does not have near that concentration of immigrants.

You'll note that I was referring not only to international immigration, but to domestic. In fact, I gave domestic first billing.

When I was at UH, one of my professors that was old Houston asked several questions of a class-full of people: "Who was from here? Who had parents that were from here? Who had grandparents from here?" I was the only one with the hand raised by the third question (and even I am not personally "from here"). Granted, those being sampled were UH students, not the general population, but if you look at how Houston has grown over the past century, most folks had to come from somewhere else. And I'd argue that they have most certainly diluted the culture.

I've seen consumer surveys of inner city areas that indicate that a disproportionate number of new residents are coming in from the coasts, and that the old Houston residents are tending to relocate outside of the city. And so I'd argue that the culture of the municipality is changing extremely rapidly within a metropolitan area that is also gradually changing.

...but I like the voting patterns of the culture that we have (or had). And I'd be less concerned if Houston was just like most other central cities and didn't have such a large land area, but since they do have such a regional impact, it has become a matter that concerns me greatly.

[KinkaidAlum]

Yeah, they're higher because of the regulations (and geography)! That is a bad thing!

Upon what grounds have you drawn these conclusions?

Higher values are bad for owners?

I learn something new everyday.

[TheNiche]

Higher values are bad for owners?

I learn something new everyday.

Higher values are bad for society. What is good about expensive housing!?

[KinkaidAlum]

Higher values are bad for society. What is good about expensive housing!?

This entire post, you spoke on behalf of property owners and property rights. Then, when it blows up in your face, you become a champion of society at large and the greater good for all. Nice bait and switch.

And, since when did the Medical Arts Building, The Alabama Bookstop, or the River Oaks Shopping Center have anything to do with housing prices?

You're getting sloppy.