The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[sevfiv]

And i'm telling you the plans the chronicle has are not up to date.

They may not be speculating.. but they are wrong.

Since when is everything the media reports.. especially the houston chronicle... correct

indeed, march 2005 wasn't yesterday, but still...

weingarten isn't helping by not responding

Edited July 28, 2006 by sevfiv

[Highway6]

indeed, march 2005 wasn't yesterday, but still...

weingarten isn't helping by not responding

a) march 2005 is indeed quite a ways back.

b ) where are you getting that date from ? that wasnt in the chronicle article.

[MarthaG]

That came from an archirtectural site plan with Weingarten's logo created by Hermes Architects. Apparently the chron got their hands on one. I'd kill to see it. >

Lisa, I don't think he'd actually "kill", but anyway you can share that site plan with us?

BTW, Great to see your article in the Chron this morning. Please keep them coming!

[TJones]

Again, I guess a $90.3 million QUARTERLY profit isn't enough.

Anyone else notice that they (Weingarten) just announced a $450 million offering to help raise cash for "general business purposes" yesterday? How timely.

Weingarten owns 53 shopping centers in the city of Houston. Most of them are typical crap. Why can't they build a nice multi-floor Barnes and Noble with a parking garage at one of their other centers?

When's the last time you took in a movie at the River Oaks theater ? Just how many movies HAVE you seen at that theater ?

[ricco67]

When's the last time you took in a movie at the River Oaks theater ? Just how many movies HAVE you seen at that theater ?

To be honest, last time *I* was there was about 10 years ago, and that was to see Rocky Horror with a girlfriend (went to 10 shows) and it was packed everytime!

[Highway6]

nope, wasn't in the article, but on the hermes plan

Alright.. well, i'd be willing to accept that what i've heard may be the outdated info, and the plans the chronicle has could be more current.

But still.. if they're still early enough in the project.. lots can change as far as site concept is concerned.

I think given the fact the plans the chronicle has is almost 5 months old (according to sevfiv).. we also have to assume it could just as easily be way off as it is right on.

Edited July 28, 2006 by Highway6

[sevfiv]

Alright.. well, i'd be willing to accept that what i've heard may be the outdated info, and the plans the chronicle has could be more current.

But still.. if they're still early enough in the project.. lots can change as far as site concept is concerned.

I think given the fact the plans the chronicle has is almost 5 months old (according to sevfiv).. we also have to assume it could just as easily be way off as it is right on.

march 2005, not this year

[KinkaidAlum]

Last time I was there was in February, which also happens to be the last time I was in Houston.

My mother went last Saturday to see the Inconvenient Truth. She went with her best friend.

When I lived in Houston, I went to the River Oaks about once a month. Have seen some great films there and always enjoyed walking from my house on Elmen Street.

[lilyheights]

Alright.. well, i'd be willing to accept that what i've heard may be the outdated info, and the plans the chronicle has could be more current.

But still.. if they're still early enough in the project.. lots can change as far as site concept is concerned.

I think given the fact the plans the chronicle has is almost 5 months old (according to sevfiv).. we also have to assume it could just as easily be way off as it is right on.

But usually nothing will change if you don't talk about problems.

Since these are the only plans out there and since they are real (whether on not they're outdated), this is what people can talk to.

I don't see anything wrong with saying, "we don't want this plan." Whether it is right or wrong doesn't matter when talking about your opinion of the ideas presented in that plan.

Weingarten is more than welcome to issue or provide copies of the most up-to-date plans at any time.

[TJones]

Last time I was there was in February, which also happens to be the last time I was in Houston.

My mother went last Saturday to see the Inconvenient Truth. She went with her best friend.

When I lived in Houston, I went to the River Oaks about once a month. Have seen some great films there and always enjoyed walking from my house on Elmen Street.

I can say the same about MY all-time favorite Theater, The Windsor, that was on Richmond @610. I lost my place to City Streets. It happens, people want to sell their property for profit, I am sure the previous owner of The River Oaks knew full well what Weingarten's intentions were for the place. People don't can't complain about what other peoples visions are. The masses can't dictate what can be done with personal property, unless it is THEIR tax dollars footing the bill. As I beleive it to be MORALLY WRONG, to demolish such type architecture, it is even more LEGALLY wrong to try to exercise your beliefs on other peoples property in a free society.

[lilyheights]

I can say the same about MY all-time favorite Theater, The Windsor, that was on Richmond @610. I lost my place to City Streets. It happens, people want to sell their property for profit, I am sure the previous owner of The River Oaks knew full well what Weingarten's intentions were for the place. People don't can't complain about what other peoples visions are. The masses can't dictate what can be done with personal property, unless it is THEIR tax dollars footing the bill. As I beleive it to be MORALLY WRONG, to demolish such type architecture, it is even more LEGALLY wrong to try to exercise your beliefs on other peoples property in a free society.

You can critique anything you want to. Someone else's "vision" especially.

What happens in the end is another matter, but you can always complain, critique, and express your thoughts. You can even ask the person in power for what you want and see what you get.

Why do so many people in this discussion think that expressing your dislike of a concept leads directly to dictating what's done with a property? If only complaints had that much power...

It is a free society. That's why everyone on here is able to express a viewpoint counter to what those in power in this situation (Weingarten) believe.

I don't think it is morally wrong for me to dislike someone's ideas or vision about what they want to do to their property. Morally wrong? That's reaching.

[TheNiche]

Weingarten owns 53 shopping centers in the city of Houston. Most of them are typical crap. Why can't they build a nice multi-floor Barnes and Noble with a parking garage at one of their other centers?

Because most of them are in "typical crap" locations. I suppose you think that a B&N and condo tower would be appropriate on Griggs Road?

Btw, the amount of profit that any firm makes in a given quarter is irrelevant in and of itself. There is no such thing as having 'enough' profit. Any and all opportunities that yield a return that is at or above the required internal rate should be undertaken. That's how you give consumers the highest and best use of an asset in an economy with finite resources.

[dbigtex56]

For me at the Chronicle, it comes down to sources -- hacked-off tenants and others -- willing to tell me about Weingarten's plans at the River Oaks Shopping Center. Weingarten appears very ready to begin demolition at the northeast corner of Shepherd and West Gray; and the leasing agent has told tenants that the theater's building is next.

I suspect that the GHPA is right about Bookstop. But I haven't yet been able to prove it independently.

If any of you hear anything definite -- or, oh, can slip me a site plan -- do get in touch. The address is lisa.gray*at*chron.com.

And that's why I'm afraid the River Oaks is doomed.

Much of the theater's charm comes from the surrounding architecture. Compared with the Tower or Alabama theaters, River Oaks is actually quite plain. Its chief assets are the terrazzo sidewalks by the ticket windows, the marquee, and some of the interior fixtures. Aside from that, it's just a box. But set amid the other Moderne buildings which comprise River Oaks Plaza, it just looks so right. And once the integrity of its setting has been compromised, the illusion is ruined.

No one is going to chain themselves to the front door of the former Black Eyed Pea (as some claim they're eager to do at the door of the theater.) Once demolition begins on that northeast section of the plaza, the delicious symmatry which is an integral part of the total design is gone. The streetscape will be lopsided; it will no longer have that lovely Deco/Moderne flow.

In this case, context is everything. The River Oaks Theater is a rather ugly box of a building with some lovely decorations, set in the midst of one of our nation's most beautiful examples of 1930s Moderne/Streamline architecture. I'm really going to miss it.

[marmer]

Ugh. The more I think about it, the more I think that this is exactly the reason NOT to allow property owners to do anything they want. I'm sure that no one really thought that Weingarten Realty would deliberately destroy one of the nicest shopping areas in the city, and the last functioning pre-war movie palace. Especially since we're not talking about a blighted, dilapidated area. This is a cultural venue, not just an old building. The ability to see a movie in an environment that is the last surviving reminder of the way that past generations saw movies is something that you can't recreate anywhere else. Doesn't anyone else wonder what Houston was like before you were born?

It's not just about the facade. It's about the lobby, and the snack bar, and the stairway, and the seats, and the carved relief panels, and the overhead details.

And to give up the Pea, and Jos. A Bank, and Three Brothers, and Archway Gallery for a *Barnes and Noble*? Ummm... why don't they just change the Bookstop's name? And there's a perfectly fine Barnes and Noble on Holcombe which is about five minutes away. To say nothing of Borders just a few blocks away.

Ya know what? Developers are stupid. How many super-size stores have opened and then failed less than five years later? Planet Hollywood, anyone? or Incredible Universe?

Maybe the Menil Collection could be redeveloped into a CVS. It's private property, after all, and it's about the right size...

Marty

[nmainguy]

I can say the same about MY all-time favorite Theater, The Windsor, that was on Richmond @610. I lost my place to City Streets. It happens, people want to sell their property for profit, I am sure the previous owner of The River Oaks knew full well what Weingarten's intentions were for the place. People don't can't complain about what other peoples visions are. The masses can't dictate what can be done with personal property, unless it is THEIR tax dollars footing the bill. As I beleive it to be MORALLY WRONG, to demolish such type architecture, it is even more LEGALLY wrong to try to exercise your beliefs on other peoples property in a free society.

No one is dictating-they are just sharing opinions. Other than the mayor and city counsil intervening, Weingarten will do what Weingarten will do.

Now, as to you question, "When's the last time you took in a movie at the River Oaks theater ? Just how many movies HAVE you seen at that theater ?":

Strangers with Candy this week and I've been going all my life so since I'm over 50, do you really expect me to REMEMBER how many movies I've seen? That was so many dead brain cells ago.

Edited July 28, 2006 by nmainguy

[Highway6]

march 2005, not this year

2005.. my mistake.

Still... that even adds more weight to rendering those plans meaningless...

[gnu]

When's the last time you took in a movie at the River Oaks theater ? Just how many movies HAVE you seen at that theater ?

I saw my last 4 movies there. The ONLY other theaters I have patronized this year have been the Greenway and the Angelika. I go out of my way to spend my money at these businesses because I believe they offer something more substancial to the community than the typical megaplex.

...The masses can't dictate what can be done with personal property, unless it is THEIR tax dollars footing the bill. As I beleive it to be MORALLY WRONG, to demolish such type architecture, it is even more LEGALLY wrong to try to exercise your beliefs on other peoples property in a free society.

ah..it is only NOT legally wrong in houston. and that's why houston is so screwed up. is it legal to build an incinerator there? probably. Landowners should not have free reign, there should be constraints. if you can restrict the location of sewage plants, then you should, similarly, be able to prohibit the decimation of an historic structure. i see no difference.

The River Oaks Shopping Center is within the government entity of the city of houston and the city should have the right to protect their jurisdiction.

these buildings exist in the public domain. they are a part of the fabric that is houston. it is Weingarten's responsibility as owners of historic property to maintain it as such. If they didn't feel they could handle that responsibility then they should not have purchased the property.

Edited July 28, 2006 by gnu

[soifan]

TV ALERT - 4pm

I haven't read this thread in the last 2 days, but wanted to tell you all that Channel 2 is running a story about a strong, new ally for this fight on the 4pm newscast. Sorry if this has already been posted.

[bachanon]

just watched the story on 2. city council member, peter brown, is going to put an ordinance before the mayor to help preserve houston landmarks. peter brown is the perfect council member for this issue. check out his stats at this link.

Edited July 28, 2006 by bachanon

[sevfiv]

TV ALERT - 4pm

I haven't read this thread in the last 2 days, but wanted to tell you all that Channel 2 is running a story about a strong, new ally for this fight on the 4pm newscast. Sorry if this has already been posted.

just watched the story on 2. city council member, peter brown, is going to put an ordinance before the mayor to help preserve houston landmarks. peter brown is the perfect council member for this issue. check out his stats at this link.

excellent - thanks for the updates!

[nmainguy]

2005.. my mistake.

Still... that even adds more weight to rendering those plans meaningless...

I just received an email from Lisa:

It was presented as current two or three months ago, and it matches the tenants' current ideas about what's going on.

That's all I got, guys.

[TJones]

I saw my last 4 movies there. The ONLY other theaters I have patronized this year have been the Greenway and the Angelika. I go out of my way to spend my money at these businesses because I believe they offer something more substancial to the community than the typical megaplex.

ah..it is only NOT legally wrong in houston. and that's why houston is so screwed up. is it legal to build an incinerator there? probably. Landowners should not have free reign, there should be constraints. if you can restrict the location of sewage plants, then you should, similarly, be able to prohibit the decimation of an historic structure. i see no difference.

The River Oaks Shopping Center is within the government entity of the city of houston and the city should have the right to protect their jurisdiction.

these buildings exist in the public domain. they are a part of the fabric that is houston. it is Weingarten's responsibility as owners of historic property to maintain it as such. If they didn't feel they could handle that responsibility then they should not have purchased the property.

Unless it is a nudie bar being built 500 ft. from a church or school, I think Mr. Weingarten is well within his right to build what he pleases.

Again, if the protestors are so against it, then why not buy the property themselves and save it ? Why do they always have to put the burden on someone else ?

[lgg]

Lisa, I don't think he'd actually "kill", but anyway you can share that site plan with us?

I'm afraid I can't post the site plan for the same reason I couldn't print it in the Chron: It would violate copyright.

But if you have specific questions, I'll do my best to answer them Sunday, when I'm back in the office and can look at the plan.

[RedScare]

Unless it is a nudie bar being built 500 ft. from a church or school, I think Mr. Weingarten is well within his right to build what he pleases.

Oh, so there ARE situations when it is OK to tell a landowner what he can do with his property....as long as those situations are religion-based morality.

Seems to me, we ought to convince management to stop showing Al Gore's movie, and bring back 'The Passion of the Christ'. Then, it would be OK to tell Weingarten to leave the theater in place.

[TheNiche]

ah..it is only NOT legally wrong in houston. and that's why houston is so screwed up. is it legal to build an incinerator there? probably. Landowners should not have free reign, there should be constraints. if you can restrict the location of sewage plants, then you should, similarly, be able to prohibit the decimation of an historic structure. i see no difference.

So you're comparing the positive effect of a historic building to the adverse effect of pollutants on the health of the public? Wow.

Pollution sources must comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulation when they are placed somewhere. Moreover, a governmental agency chooses where to put a sewage plant. That is clearly the perrogative of the City.

But nobody chooses where to place a historic building. They're just built as rather ordinary structures. They're considered very typical when they're built.

The River Oaks Shopping Center is within the government entity of the city of houston and the city should have the right to protect their jurisdiction.

How does a City "protect their jurisdiciton"? If they kill the condo tower and start haphazardly identifying various buildings as "historic", they'll forgo the opportunity to provide housing to people that spend so much money demanding it. If they allow the condo tower to be built, then they piss off some people and not others.

these buildings exist in the public domain. they are a part of the fabric that is houston. it is Weingarten's responsibility as owners of historic property to maintain it as such. If they didn't feel they could handle that responsibility then they should not have purchased the property.

Weingarten has owned the River Oaks Shopping Center since long before it was considered 'historical'. They didn't buy into it with any expectation of being anything other than the owners of a retail center...and they've run it as such, exploiting the opportunities of the site as well as they could through the decades. It was their "responsibility" to exploit these opportunities. Without a profit-maximization strategy, they would fail to provide optimally for the demands of their customer base. They continue to pursue this goal today. Even as you protest the demolition of a tiny theater, they plan to build a tower. One that will eventually be considered historic. Do you have the right to deny them the right to provide you with a future historic building?

You say that the building exists in the public domain, but the public has not paid for it. If the public desires to retain the structure, then perhaps they should compensate Weingarten for its loss. You should not expect that a corporation just 'give' something to the public. If that is what you expect, and you opt to enforce those expectations to their fullest extent, then you shall receive even less. Business owners would just pick up shop and move to the burbs... Simple as that.

[TJones]

Oh, so there ARE situations when it is OK to tell a landowner what he can do with his property....as long as those situations are religion-based morality.

Seems to me, we ought to convince management to stop showing Al Gore's movie, and bring back 'The Passion of the Christ'. Then, it would be OK to tell Weingarten to leave the theater in place.

Ummm...........isn't that the law though Red ? Also, I don't think an elementary school is a religion based moral institution. You seem to always agree that certain situations garner certain attention, an old movie theater isn't one of them. Don't try to turn this into a political issue there Spindoctor.

[gnu]

So you're comparing the positive effect of a historic building to the adverse effect of pollutants on the health of the public? Wow.

yep..i guess i am just a crazy liberal pinko commie.

Pollution sources must comply with all municipal, state, and federal regulation when they are placed somewhere. Moreover, a governmental agency chooses where to put a sewage plant. That is clearly the perrogative of the City.

the destruction of historic structures are a "pollutant" on the city's psyche.

If pollution sources must comply with various regulations - thoughout their lifespan, then why not significant buildings of other purposes. i don't see the difference.

But nobody chooses where to place a historic building. They're just built as rather ordinary structures. They're considered very typical when they're built.

Somebody chooses where to put any building, just like somebody chooses where to put a sewage plant. The River Oaks Shopping Center was designed to be something special and was certainly never typical.

How does a City "protect their jurisdiciton"? If they kill the condo tower and start haphazardly identifying various buildings as "historic", they'll forgo the opportunity to provide housing to people that spend so much money demanding it.

There are plenty of locations for condos out there that are not historic. The city should protect locations and structures that have become such.

Weingarten has owned the River Oaks Shopping Center since long before it was considered 'historical'. They didn't buy into it with any expectation of being anything other than the owners of a retail center...and they've run it as such, exploiting the opportunities of the site as well as they could through the decades.

River Oaks shopping center has always been a significant structure and was so when they purchased it.

Regardless, and unfortunately, they did not have to have any expectations to deal with anything other than what is best for their pocketbook because it is located in Houston: The Open City! :closedeyes:

It was their "responsibility" to exploit these opportunities. Without a profit-maximization strategy, they would fail to provide optimally for the demands of their customer base. They continue to pursue this goal today. Even as you protest the demolition of a tiny theater, they plan to build a tower. One that will eventually be considered historic. Do you have the right to deny them the right to provide you with a future historic building?

I am not only protesting the loss of a "tiny" theater, i am protesting the loss of a sigificant and contributing part of the whole River Oak Shopping Center and a loss to the fabric of the City itself. A city should have the ability to protect any structure they deem of civic value.

Unfortunately, there is no way to tell if something will be historic in the future but there is certainly something there now that is.

You say that the building exists in the public domain, but the public has not paid for it. If the public desires to retain the structure, then perhaps they should compensate Weingarten for its loss. You should not expect that a corporation just 'give' something to the public. If that is what you expect, and you opt to enforce those expectations to their fullest extent, then you shall receive even less. Business owners would just pick up shop and move to the burbs... Simple as that.

i don't want weingarten to give the public anything.

Weingarten entered into a contract with the public when they purchased such an important city structure. simple as that.

[sevfiv]

Unless it is a nudie bar being built 500 ft. from a church or school, I think Mr. Weingarten is well within his right to build what he pleases.

Again, if the protestors are so against it, then why not buy the property themselves and save it ? Why do they always have to put the burden on someone else ?

you're right, weingarten does have the liberty to build (almost) whatever they want - and they just might. it just makes them jerkies and to most, bad stewards of the property.

regarding the plan, it does exactly match what has been said recently by the tenants

Edited July 29, 2006 by sevfiv

[H-Town Man]

Oh, so there ARE situations when it is OK to tell a landowner what he can do with his property....as long as those situations are religion-based morality.

Seems to me, we ought to convince management to stop showing Al Gore's movie, and bring back 'The Passion of the Christ'. Then, it would be OK to tell Weingarten to leave the theater in place.

I don't see how you jumped from that to "religion-based morality," Red. Plenty of people have a problem with nudie bars next to schools who aren't religious.

Unless it is a nudie bar being built 500 ft. from a church or school, I think Mr. Weingarten is well within his right to build what he pleases.

Again, if the protestors are so against it, then why not buy the property themselves and save it ? Why do they always have to put the burden on someone else ?

Where do you draw the line between what limits can be put on property use, and what can't? Why shouldn't people have to buy the site of the nudie bar to prevent it from going up?

The built environment of a city is a public good, not an assemblage of private goods. What one person builds or destroys affects everyone else. Hence there is no reason why the public should not impose regulations to protect this good.

[RedScare]

I don't see how you jumped from that to "religion-based morality," Red. Plenty of people have a problem with nudie bars next to schools who aren't religious.

That's exactly my point. Government restricts the owner's use of property all the time. There is little complaint when it is a restriction of SOB establishments. But, TJ's point was to rail against any restriction on the owners....right after he pointed out restrictions that he approved of. So, it is HIS limits on restriction that I was pointing out.

There are other limits on an owner's use that many agree with. In Spring, they protested a concrete plant near a subdivision. Homeowners want restrictions on the City owned airport. Wealthy people who buy ranches suddenly want restrictions on the smelly pig farms that have grown too large and smelly. Even Libertarians generally accept limits on where nuclear plants are located. And, neighbors of military bases don't like it when they drop too many bombs nearby.

The argument here is whether historical structures should qualify for protection. Despite Niche's protestations to the contrary, there is ample precedent for restricting property owners, not only as pointed out above, but of historical structures. Cities around the world limit destruction of historical structures. Charleston, New Orleans, San Francisco, Boston...all have historic restrictions. Houston is at the bottom, in that it has virtually none.

Niche and others may claim doomsday scenarios if there are some reasonable restrictions. However, the rest of the world functions with them. Further, Houston has few historic buildings. Only 45,000 people lived here 100 years ago, and there has been unfettered destruction of old buildings for decades. Anything the city does will still be among the weakest ordinances, and will affect few structures. Depending on what is proposed, I may support it or may not. But, for anyone to suggest that it does not occur, and that preservationists are out of line, is just incorrect. Houston happens to be one of the only places where it does NOT occur. Asking a company that makes $90 million in 3 MONTHS to find a way to spare a building won't bankrupt them.

And, considering they make all of that money from Houstonians, it is not too much to ask them to listens to OUR wishes for once.