The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[RyanJX5]

Public speakers' sessions are held on Tuesdays (not Thursdays) at 2:00PM.

They are shown live on the Municipal Channel (channel 16 on Warner Cable.)

Yes you are right it will be today or next tuesday. Lynn looks alot better than Carol Channing,and has a heck of alot more class.

[nmainguy]

Lynn looks alot better than Carol Channing,and has a heck of alot more class.

I just saw Caroyln Farb and SJL on the news. CF was very eloquent, SJL had her camera magnet on and I guess Lynn La Skank was holed up counting her Saddam loot.

[KimberlySayWhat]

Do you know Carol Channing is half black?

[sevfiv]

t-shirts are available online at

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=42007

or in person (tomorrow i'm assuming) at copy.com

t-shirts purchased online, though, benefit the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance

[Pumapayam]

I hope I am not repeting information. I heard on the radio this morning that the expected demolition date to start in late 2006, with the Landmark Theatre being demo'd in early 2008.

Here is a link to a petition site with already over 20,000 signatures

update: ok so the link is a repeat, I just found it earlier on the last page, but at least it might find some new eyes just in case people only read the latest post.

Edited August 2, 2006 by Pumapayam

[TJones]

I hope I am not repeting information. I heard on the radio this morning that the expected demolition date to star is late 2006, with the landmark theatre being demo'd in early 2008.

Here is a link to a petition site with already over 20,000 signatures

Just last night, Weingarten said that the demo of the theater is merely a RUMOR right now, and that there is no plan for anything at this point.

[gonzo1976]

t-shirts are available online at

http://www.spreadshirt.com/shop.php?sid=42007

or in person (tomorrow i'm assuming) at copy.com

t-shirts purchased online, though, benefit the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance

Can this be a thread of its own to allow more people to see it?

[sevfiv]

Can this be a thread of its own to allow more people to see it?

it would be neat if there was an "alert" section, or something of that nature, to post information and updates on current issues...editor?

[Pumapayam]

Can this be a thread of its own to allow more people to see it?

Like what Editor does for the Katrina/Rita time or the Flood from 2 months ago.

That would give it lots of attention.

[firstngoal]

Just last night, Weingarten said that the demo of the theater is merely a RUMOR right now, and that there is no plan for anything at this point.

Quite simply, damage control....

[lgg]

The city council report from yesterday's Chronicle:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ent/movies/4088344.html

Lynn Wyatt didn't make it after all, but the photo doesn't do justice to Carolyn Farb's sky-blue brocade jacket.

************

Also, several letters in today's Chron, including an interesting one from an architect and urban planner who says that back in the '80s, he tried to show Weingarten a more enlightened way to expand:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4090820.html

********************

I don't have the full text of Weingarten's statement here at home, but the company has been sending the same paragraph to everyone -- letter writers, TV, radio, you name it. They've given it to me at the Chronicle about five times now.

That carefully crafted paragraph doesn't actually deny anything. It says that Weingarten doesn't respond to "market rumors"; and that it will announce changes to the River Oaks Shopping Center if and when they occur.

I think that means "when we send out a press release to announce a grand opening."

[sevfiv]

I think that means "when we send out a press release to announce a grand opening."

i think that is dead-on

the stuff i have written pretty much says that weingarten is just waiting and keeping a low profile, and being less-than-good members of the community by keeping everyone in the dark (because yes, their one, very tired statement says absolutely nothing).

a few of us have been talking about what to do next, and what's sad is that there isn't too much to do at the moment. and there are so many that are willing to organize!

Edited August 3, 2006 by sevfiv

[H-Town Man]

I don't have the full text of Weingarten's statement here at home, but the company has been sending the same paragraph to everyone -- letter writers, TV, radio, you name it. They've given it to me at the Chronicle about five times now.

That carefully crafted paragraph doesn't actually deny anything. It says that Weingarten doesn't respond to "market rumors"; and that it will announce changes to the River Oaks Shopping Center if and when they occur.

I think that means "when we send out a press release to announce a grand opening."

Exactly. If a rumor came out that the owner was going to tear down the Empire State Building, they wouldn't say, "That's just a rumor... we don't respond to rumors." They'd say something more along the lines of "We at _____ are proud to own and maintain the Empire State Building, and have absolutely no plans to tear it down."

It's funny that they sent that to you five times. As though by continually sending you the same statement they'll eventually reach that magic number, and you'll just stop telling Houstonians what they need to know.

[sevfiv]

It's funny that they sent that to you five times. As though by continually sending you the same statement they'll eventually reach that magic number, and you'll just stop telling Houstonians what they need to know.

i think it's funny...and sad.

problem is, weingarten thinks they can keep sending out the same block of text over and over again, and expect things to die down.

quite frankly, that's what usually happens. people get riled up, a few reports are made, then it flutters away...until the permits are issued and the tractors arrive.

i am hoping that this time, there will be continued vigilance and persistence.

and i am an avid permit-checker, so i'll be ready to chain-up as soon as i see them >

[lgg]

I feel a little sorry for the poor Weingarten marketing person who has to keep giving me the same statement every time I call.

As for what to do next: Houston City Council seems responsive to pressure. At the council meeting Friday, there was talk of strengthening the preservation ordinance. The question seemed not to be whether to do it, but how much stronger to make it.

One thought is that a certain number of buildings would be designated "significant." Those would become eligible for city (and maybe county and state) tax breaks. And the owner would have to give public notice -- maybe six months -- before demolishing them. (I suppose that's the period for public shaming.)

I'm pretty sure that plan would still leave us with the weakest laws in the country. It doesn't address anything about a building's context or historic neighborhoods in general. And because the tax breaks would cost the city money, the number of significant buildings would probably be a tiny fraction of what's important to Houston. Still, it would be *something.*

And if the letters keep pouring in, the proposal might become stronger.

[gonzo1976]

As for what to do next: Houston City Council seems responsive to pressure. At the council meeting Friday, there was talk of strengthening the preservation ordinance. The question seemed not to be whether to do it, but how much stronger to make it.

One thought is that a certain number of buildings would be designated "significant." Those would become eligible for city (and maybe county and state) tax breaks. And the owner would have to give public notice -- maybe six months -- before demolishing them. (I suppose that's the period for public shaming.)

Haha! Somehow the term "preservation" doesn't quite fit. Sounds more like a six-month time-out to me.

Do you know (and maybe I just missed it in all the coverage) if the River Oaks theater has seen an increase in the number of moviegoers since this news broke?

[lgg]

Do you know (and maybe I just missed it in all the coverage) if the River Oaks theater has seen an increase in the number of moviegoers since this news broke?

I asked the manager the week after the story broke, and he wasn't sure. There might have been an increase, but it's hard to disentangle all the factors that determine whether people go to the movies -- the popularity of the movies showing, the weather, stuff like that.

The manager did say that customers have been asking about the theater's future. But he can't speak for Landmark's corporate office, which negotiates the company's leases, and is playing things close to the vest -- maybe in hopes of eventually working out something with Weingarten.

[UrbaNerd]

I just signed!

Save the River Oaks!

[TheNiche]

One thought is that a certain number of buildings would be designated "significant." Those would become eligible for city (and maybe county and state) tax breaks. And the owner would have to give public notice -- maybe six months -- before demolishing them. (I suppose that's the period for public shaming.)

I'm pretty sure that plan would still leave us with the weakest laws in the country. It doesn't address anything about a building's context or historic neighborhoods in general. And because the tax breaks would cost the city money, the number of significant buildings would probably be a tiny fraction of what's important to Houston. Still, it would be *something.*

Now this is something that I could get behind. It acknowledges that some buildings have special meanings to the public and would discourage redevelopment up to a certain threshold, but ultimately allows the owner the freedom to redevelop if and when the land becomes simply too valuable in another form.

I'm still waiting to see a non-profit that's willing to set up a fund for people to donate to that would go toward saving the theater.

[nmainguy]

One thought is that a certain number of buildings would be designated "significant." Those would become eligible for city (and maybe county and state) tax breaks. And the owner would have to give public notice -- maybe six months -- before demolishing them. (I suppose that's the period for public shaming.)

I'm pretty sure that plan would still leave us with the weakest laws in the country. It doesn't address anything about a building's context or historic neighborhoods in general. And because the tax breaks would cost the city money, the number of significant buildings would probably be a tiny fraction of what's important to Houston. Still, it would be *something.*

Not much of "something" because the Weingartens of the world are still guaranteed that they will be allowed to rape, plunder and doze at the slightest whim.

As for public shaming-these people had no shame to begin with.Council and the Mayor need to grow a spine and pass something with some teeth-not just window dressing.

[KinkaidAlum]

Niche-

Why would a non-profit start a fund to help save the River Oaks Theater from a company that just posted a $90 million quarterly profit and floated around a $700 million offering last week to raise cash for general business practices?

Seems to me that MONEY isn't the issue here. Weingarten has plenty. From all intents and purposes, The River Oaks Shopping Center is successful. The impending demolition has NOTHING to do with a failing retail center.

What we need are simple laws. They seem to work every where else BUT Houston.

[TheNiche]

Not much of "something" because the Weingartens of the world are still guaranteed that they will be allowed to rape, plunder and doze at the slightest whim.

That's right...those bastards are out to get you. They want nothing more than to drive as many people crazy as possible. Their incidious management is comprised of antisocial maniacs whose unspoken goal is to wipe out every 'historic' building on the planet.

And what they put in place of these buildings is merely crap. Nobody will use it. Nobody will pay for it. It will sit vacant, a scar on the landscape. A big middle finger to River Oaks.

Seriously, dude. There is no such thing as a "slightest whim" in real estate. Not even for a REIT.

Haven't you ever heard of "creative destruction"?

[sevfiv]

It will sit vacant, a scar on the landscape. A big middle finger to River Oaks.

one can only hope the highrise sits vacant (okay, a handful of well-to-do impudent people will benefit from it).

and it WILL BE a big middle finger to river oaks...and it'll kind of look like one, too, being a narrow, tall, obtrusive structure...

[TheNiche]

Niche-

Why would a non-profit start a fund to help save the River Oaks Theater from a company that just posted a $90 million quarterly profit and floated around a $700 million offering last week to raise cash for general business practices?

Seems to me that MONEY isn't the issue here. Weingarten has plenty. From all intents and purposes, The River Oaks Shopping Center is successful. The impending demolition has NOTHING to do with a failing retail center.

Money is always the issue and the analysis of investments occurs on the project level. Regardless of how much cash Weingarten has on hand, if a condo tower were unprofitable, less profitable than holding the existing building, or even insufficiently profitable to perform better than alternative investments that carry less risk, it won't happen. On the other hand, if there is sufficient demand from the public for housing or retail that could only possibly exist in a different kind of structure, then they will reconstruct the center in order to meet the public's demand.

Their goal is not to tear down the theater in order to spite the public. Their goal is not to build things in order to serve the public. Their goal is to make money. They don't do that by throwing money after something that isn't going to pay off for them. And who allows for it to pay off for them? The public...that's who.

and it WILL BE a big middle finger to river oaks...and it'll kind of look like one, too, being a narrow, tall, obtrusive structure...

You mean like the classic facades of so many theaters that have already been demolished?

[sevfiv]

You mean like the classic facades of so many theaters that have already been demolished?

i mean that weingarten has more options for location, and should heed the some of the objections being put forth.

as far as classic theater facades (or theaters in full), well, there aren't too many left, and many are in bad states (santa rosa, ost/paris, brunson...).

they are not in use at all, and are in deplorable condition (and then there's the capitan/granada set, which is have a little more hope).

river oaks is not in bad condition, is actually still functioning as a theater, and serves a diverse population. in my opinion (which seems to be more widespread than i once thought), there is no worthy reason to put it to rest.

[KinkaidAlum]

Unfortunately, money is THE ONLY issue in Houston.

A myth exists in Houston that the only way to make money is to build bigger and newer and provide ample parking right out front so nobody will have to walk more than 500 feet!

Funny thing is, cities all over America are finding that historical preservation, smart growth, mixed-use, and green buildings can be wildly popular and wildly PROFITABLE.

Unfortunately, by the time Houston developers pick up on this trend, there will be nothing left to convert.

On the bright side, in 25 years when the fake stucco strip malls, vinyl siding suburban style condos, and drive thru pharmacies start to show their age, maybe we can just bulldoze most of the Inner Loop crap and start all over?

[TheNiche]

Unfortunately, money is THE ONLY issue in Houston.

A myth exists in Houston that the only way to make money is to build bigger and newer and provide ample parking right out front so nobody will have to walk more than 500 feet!

Funny thing is, cities all over America are finding that historical preservation, smart growth, mixed-use, and green buildings can be wildly popular and wildly PROFITABLE.

Unfortunately, by the time Houston developers pick up on this trend, there will be nothing left to convert.

On the bright side, in 25 years when the fake stucco strip malls, vinyl siding suburban style condos, and drive thru pharmacies start to show their age, maybe we can just bulldoze most of the Inner Loop crap and start all over?

That's odd. In a previous post, you stated:

Seems to me that MONEY isn't the issue here.

Make up your mind.

Also, how does a developer encourage use of a retail center with 'destination' tenants (i.e. not a neighborhood center) when there isn't already a high-density concentration of households within a quarter-mile radius or a form of mass transit that eliminates the need for parking? They make distances to the front door shorter. They reduce physical and psychological barriers and people's wasted time. If they have enough land, they can even manufacture the density.

Weingarten is simply attempting to make the best of what it has. Ultimately, it must serve the customer.

The green building concept appeals to a very narrow audience, disproportionately including government and non-profit entities. Its going to take corporate-level acceptance (and more than the ones that must pander to an environmentally concious customer base, i.e. Whole Foods, Ben & Jerry's, etc.) to advance the concept into anything mainstream. Niche markets can be very profitable, but to develop green buildings speculatively is a very risky proposition when there are relatively few comparables for financial analysts to draw from, so very few banks will lend on such projects. As a result, supply is constrained and profits are higher. So basically, with risk comes reward. Not surprising.

[Native Montrosian]

On a related note, here's an interesting post from the petition:

In my almost-three decades in finance, I have seen a one particular scenario repeat more than once: the eventual devaluation of a company viewed as too willing to disregard its reputation and integrity for profit. Were I at the helm of Weingarten Realty, I would not be so hasty to damn the torpedoes of public outrage, especially so close on the heels of Enron. Considering that the Weingarten family fortune is rooted in Houston, many place a certain obligation of stewardship regarding the River Oaks Center, especially considering the many years the company has touted the Center

[gto250us]

Unfortunately, money is THE ONLY issue in Houston.

A myth exists in Houston that the only way to make money is to build bigger and newer and provide ample parking right out front so nobody will have to walk more than 500 feet!

Funny thing is, cities all over America are finding that historical preservation, smart growth, mixed-use, and green buildings can be wildly popular and wildly PROFITABLE.

Unfortunately, by the time Houston developers pick up on this trend, there will be nothing left to convert.

On the bright side, in 25 years when the fake stucco strip malls, vinyl siding suburban style condos, and drive thru pharmacies start to show their age, maybe we can just bulldoze most of the Inner Loop crap and start all over?

Look at what happened to Market Square in Downtown. But, unfortunately Houston has always been run by developers.

[TheNiche]

On a related note, here's an interesting post from the petition:

This person fails to make a convincing argument.

In my almost-three decades in finance, I have seen a one particular scenario repeat more than once: the eventual devaluation of a company viewed as too willing to disregard its reputation and integrity for profit. Were I at the helm of Weingarten Realty, I would not be so hasty to damn the torpedoes of public outrage, especially so close on the heels of Enron.

A lot of people are pissed at oil companies, too. Doesn't mean that their stock prices are depressed. That's all that really matters in the end.

Considering that the Weingarten family fortune is rooted in Houston, many place a certain obligation of stewardship regarding the River Oaks Center, especially considering the many years the company has touted the Center

Edited August 4, 2006 by TheNiche