The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[KinkaidAlum]

Weingarten will do whatever they can to make a buck. It's the Houston way.

If one piece falls (the Black Eyed Pea section) then it just signals the inevitable...

[Trae]

Sometimes, Houston makes me sick. This is a time when. Why demolish it? If the Alamo was built in Houston, that thing would have already been demolished.

[Native Montrosian]

Find out which company is doing the demolition. Hack their system and send the bulldozers to Drew Alexander's address on Friar Tuck.

J/K

[sidegate]

this is all very depressing, all the more so when you look at GHPA's new endangereddeco.org website and see just how long those buildings have been there and the thought that went to creating that space. how long does the mighty buck have to prevail here?

[sevfiv]

i just got back in to town - i wondered on the ride home if it (the first demo area) would still be there when i got back

i need a few weeks, but i am gonna get something together

[MiDTOWNeR]

Sometimes, Houston makes me sick. This is a time when. Why demolish it? If the Alamo was built in Houston, that thing would have already been demolished.

Yet, we can't get rid of the Astro Dome.....yet!

[missmsry]

The Weingarten family just lost all the goodwill they originally created in our community. Not only that, but the demolition of the center was the final straw, so, my husband and I have decided to sell our house in the neighborhood and move to Padre Island. And I'm a native Houstonian. Ciao, Houston.

Edited June 5, 2007 by missmsry

[VicMan]

The Weingarten family just lost all the goodwill they originally created in our community. Not only that, but the demolition of the center was the final straw, so, my husband and I have decided to sell our house in the neighborhood and move to Padre Island. And I'm a native Houstonian. Ciao, Houston.

What's that gonna do? all that will do is allow them to do it.

Tell all of the staff that their social lives will go to hell if the section falls. Why not try to exclude all of the employees from A-List parties? Bring megaphones when they are sighted and scream "HISTORY KILLER!" and "MONEY GRUBBER" in their faces?

Edited June 5, 2007 by VicMan

[sevfiv]

there is going to be a Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission public hearing addressing the pending landmark designation for the shopping center on June 13 at 3pm at the City Hall Annex (900 Bagby)

i encourage anyone interested to attend and be seen and heard!

[musicman]

The Weingarten family just lost all the goodwill they originally created in our community. Not only that, but the demolition of the center was the final straw, so, my husband and I have decided to sell our house in the neighborhood and move to Padre Island. And I'm a native Houstonian. Ciao, Houston.

that'll show em

[Vertigo58]

What's that gonna do? all that will do is allow them to do it.

Tell all of the staff that their social lives will go to hell if the section falls. Why not try to exclude all of the employees from A-List parties? Bring megaphones when they are sighted and scream "HISTORY KILLER!" and "MONEY GRUBBER" in their faces?

Just don't get to this point...

Edited June 6, 2007 by Vertigo58

[TheNiche]

Bring megaphones when they are sighted and scream "HISTORY KILLER!" and "MONEY GRUBBER" in their faces?

Developers are the primary actors that have sought to create and shape urban form throughout history. This is no different. You could've screamed the very same thing in the faces of the original developers of the RO Shopping Center because they had to pave over what had been there before.

[sevfiv]

that is true, but some of us are not only more nostalgic than others and also can't see the harm in leaving something as-is. weingarten has its reasons, and i see them as rude and bogus.

aaaanyhow, here is a sanborn map from 1925 - not sure how far the country club extended, but Gray St. ended about a block west of Waugh. the location of the river oaks shopping center (below section 501 and to the left of section 508) wasn't even given a detailed map, so it was probably just greenspace. or just space.

Edited June 6, 2007 by sevfiv

[RedScare]

aaaanyhow, here is a sanborn map from 1925 - not sure how far the country club extended, but Gray St. ended about a block west of Waugh. the location of the river oaks shopping center (below section 501 and to the left of section 508) wasn't even given a detailed map, so it was probably just greenspace. or just space.

Kinda blew holes all in that theory, didn't it?

[TheNiche]

that is true, but some of us are not only more nostalgic than others and also can't see the harm in leaving something as-is. weingarten has its reasons, and i see them as rude and bogus.

aaaanyhow, here is a sanborn map from 1925 - not sure how far the country club extended, but Gray St. ended about a block west of Waugh. the location of the river oaks shopping center (below section 501 and to the left of section 508) wasn't even given a detailed map, so it was probably just greenspace. or just space.

It would probably not be difficult to find someone who would've objected to the original paving of greenfield or whatever else may have been there. That was the essence of my point. Even if 'nothing' was there, something was.

My beef with VicMan's statement is more or less that this is not an issue about history per se. It is an issue about nostalgia, aesthetics, or something else. Shouting "HISTORY KILLER!" at people is really very nonsensical, as is the concept of "historical preservation". "Nostalgia preservation," I could grasp, but a new B&N is no more historic than the existing shopping center, which is no more historic than whatever was there before or the virgin timberland, coastal prairie, marsh, seabed, bare earth, or molten rock that was there in varying stages of geologic history.

Edited June 6, 2007 by TheNiche

[Subdude]

Whatever. Call it "nostalgia preservation" if you must, but the fact remains that nostalgia is important to a lot of people. Those nostalgic buildings give a city character.

[TheNiche]

Whatever. Call it "nostalgia preservation" if you must, but the fact remains that nostalgia is important to a lot of people. Those nostalgic buildings give a city character.

I would if I knew that that was the correct term for it, but I'm still not sure what the underlying motivation really is...not that it will matter on account of that I'm no activist. They are the ones that tend to create new vocabulary, rhetorically charged, in such a way as to accomodate their objectives. Similarly, that's how we have come to frame the abortion issue in terms of "pro-life" or "pro-choice", when each of those are inherently absurd descriptors.

Edited June 6, 2007 by TheNiche

[VicMan]

Developers are the primary actors that have sought to create and shape urban form throughout history. This is no different. You could've screamed the very same thing in the faces of the original developers of the RO Shopping Center because they had to pave over what had been there before.

The reason why RO is getting attention is precisely due to nostalgia and to the feeling that the center builds the character of near-west Houston. While I value the theater more than the center around the theater, I have a feeling that the destruction of the center somehow threatens the theater.

Anyway, what was on the lot that is occupied by the River Oaks Theatre? River Oaks was developed in the 1920s, and the theater opened in 1939.

Also, the statements that would be yelled to the Weingarten people weren't really meant to be accurate - they were meant to shame executives who would ignore community consensus (Hey, that's what propaganda is about - stir feelings of shame inside suddenly blacklisted execs to get them to leave town).

I feel that Weingarten ought to build that new B&N... however, the new store should not appear in the place of a half of a shopping center valued by the River Oaks community.

Since Eastwood, Second Ward, and Downtown are gentrifying, that B&N and a shopping center (perhaps across from Downtown in the warehouse district) would be beneficial for the loft and yuppie crowd moving into those areas. I understand that Eastwood does not have the demographics that River Oaks has, but a yuppie crowd should be more than enough to maintain an urban chain bookstore.

Edited June 6, 2007 by VicMan

[gonzo1976]

I feel that Weingarten ought to build that new B&N... however, the new store should not appear in the place of a half of a shopping center valued by the River Oaks community.

True. I just don't know why that area needs a B&N. The Alabama seems to have a pretty good selection of books. Sure, it's not as big as the Borders on Kirby, but I have no complaints about the Alabama.

Remember when there was a bookstore on West Gray? I think it was near the Pier 1 imports. It closed, but then again, I'm not sure what led to it.

[musicman]

Also, the statements that would be yelled to the Weingarten people weren't really meant to be accurate - they were meant to shame executives who would ignore community consensus

it would be interesting to determine whether it is really community consensus OR just relatively a few vocal ones.

[VicMan]

True. I just don't know why that area needs a B&N. The Alabama seems to have a pretty good selection of books. Sure, it's not as big as the Borders on Kirby, but I have no complaints about the Alabama.

Remember when there was a bookstore on West Gray? I think it was near the Pier 1 imports. It closed, but then again, I'm not sure what led to it.

The Bookstop (formerly the Alabama Theatre) on West Alabama is a Barnes and Noble - hence, some people feel the Bookstop is threatened by a new B&N opening nearby.

it would be interesting to determine whether it is really community consensus OR just relatively a few vocal ones.

Ah, perhaps a polling of River Oaks residents could reveal this.

At any rate, my mother is opposed to the demolition of the RO Shopping Center period. My father does not care so much about the surrounding center, but is opposed to the demolition of the theatre.

[sevfiv]

over 21 years ago about 900 people marched on main st. to protest the demolition of the Shamrock, and a group was formed with over 3,000 individual offers of help. even Glenn McCarthy spoke out.

the TMC speculated they would build eight structures on the site.

with more and better means of communication these days, one would think something similar could be put together. sure, the shopping center/theater is not the Shamrock, but it is nonetheless a vital and central part of the neighborhood and Houston as a whole, and the architectural style in itself is dwindling away.

i guess those of us who advocate for preservation/restoration/adaptive reuse can explain the reasoning over and over to deaf ears (civic history, pride, education, aesthetics, and yes, economic incentives) but overall, it is just something you feel and inherently want to support

Edited June 7, 2007 by sevfiv

[TheNiche]

Ah, perhaps a polling of River Oaks residents could reveal this.

I'm still waiting for someone to form a nonprofit to try and buy the RO shopping center from Weingarten. If it's so important to the residents of River Oaks, it honestly surprises me that no one is at all willing to put money where their mouth is. Hell, it's not like they aren't making plenty of donations as it is, just for the sake of reducing their tax liability...

Edited June 7, 2007 by TheNiche

[sevfiv]

submitting a certificate of formation with the secretary of state, assigning a registered agent / three directors, and naming a board of directors (and filing for 501

Edited June 7, 2007 by sevfiv

[nmainguy]

Developers are the primary This is no different. You could've screamed the very same thing in the faces of the original developers of the RO Shopping Center because they had to pave over what had been there before.

Yes, something was there: renewable trees, wildlife and coastal grasslands. Developers choose to remove the aforementioned and build the center. It became a huge generator of tax income for the city and revenue for the tenants for decades. It's a great center with high-end tenants. Now Weingarten has decided to go generic! Nothing says generic like Anna's and Big Lots. Life is good.

It would probably not be difficult to find someone who would've objected to the original paving of greenfield or whatever else may have been there. That was the essence of my point. Even if 'nothing' was there, something was.

Exactly! Something was definatly there. I'm thinking I should hook up with a smart dude like you!

My beef with VicMan's statement is more or less that this is not an issue about history per se. It is an issue about nostalgia, aesthetics, or something else. Shouting "HISTORY KILLER!" at people is really very nonsensical, as is the concept of "historical preservation". "Nostalgia preservation," I could grasp, but a new B&N is no more historic than the existing shopping center, which is no more historic than whatever was there before or the virgin timberland, coastal prairie, marsh, seabed, bare earth, or molten rock that was there in varying stages of geologic history.

Absolutly! Screw heritage! Embrace the moment! Commit to the lowest common denominator! Denounce the past! Ignore the concequences! Retort with unsustainable rebuttals!

I would if I knew that that was the correct term for it, but I'm still not sure what the underlying motivation really is...not that it will matter on account of that I'm no activist. They are the ones that tend to create new vocabulary, rhetorically charged, in such a way as to accomodate their objectives. Similarly, that's how we have come to frame the abortion issue in terms of "pro-life" or "pro-choice", when each of those are inherently absurd descriptors.

Boy you said it! I heard someone say they were pro-life because they advocate life whenever possible but then they said they were pro-choice because they advocated choice when it became essential to the life of the mother or in the case of insest or rape. You are so consistatantly on top of things...I marvel at your wisdom!

I'm still waiting for someone to form a nonprofit to try and buy the RO shopping center from Weingarten. If it's so important to the residents of River Oaks, it honestly surprises me that no one is at all willing to put money where their mouth is. Hell, it's not like they aren't making plenty of donations as it is, just for the sake of reducing their tax liability...

ABSOLUTLY! I can't believe ROers can't convince Weingarten to sell off their long-term cash cow! It's not like they were sitting on an East end piece of crap they can't even unload to the lowest bidder.

[musicman]

most would like weingarten to give back to the area in a different way (yes - in a way that aligns with personal preferences). many have spoken out about a common preference, though, and that is the preservation of the center - something that would still bring in revenue (as it always has) for weingarten, and also maintain the architectural and historical aspects of the area.

i read and understand your appeal, however with Houston's propensity to support developers and city council's nonsupport for a "real" preservation ordinance it will be a challenge to protect River Oaks and any other valued structures. having someone come in to save a house for several hundred thousand it one thing, having them come in to spend millions is another. thank good ole Mayor Lanier for opening the door more for developers.

[sevfiv]

oh, most definitely it is a challenge, and one that is met with mostly repudiation from developers and the city it seems

if this one case follows in true Houston style, the shopping center will be altered and the theater gone.

sorry about the fragmented sentences earlier this morning - i was tired and left a few participles...dangling

Edited June 7, 2007 by sevfiv

[TheNiche]

submitting a certificate of formation with the secretary of state, assigning a registered agent / three directors, and naming a board of directors (and filing for 501

[TheNiche]

Retort with unsustainable rebuttals!

Nah, not worth it. When you get like this, you're your own worst enemy.

[sevfiv]

ugh.

in houston, it is becoming irreplaceable (the architectural style/period)

weingarten already owns it, for the sake of simplicity

and as far as taking things from society, they haven't yet, but it will occur when the wrecking ball appears - it is a "give" - corporations don't have to make the decision to preserve

i am glad that i and others that promote preservation add to your amazement

Edited June 7, 2007 by sevfiv