The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[TheNiche]

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.

Meet my new signature:

"Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that 'the public interest' supersedes private interests and rights can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of others."

--Ayn Rand

If you prefer to view real property as a public good, then please bear in mind that the public would also benefit from a condominium tower...particularly one that has such immediate access to RO Shopping Center. Yes, there are many places to put a condo tower, but few quite so perfect.

In many years' time, the public would also benefit from the then-historical condo tower.

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.

I never said that there weren't precedent for such forms of regulation.

I do not predict some doomsday scenario specifically resulting from historical protections. However, if the logic that is utilized to justify historical protection is taken to its fullest extent, then I can guarantee you the abandonment of the City by businesses and others that have been targeted by the fickle majority.

Weingarten has no obligation to listen to your petty 'wishes'...regardless of the bottom line on their income statement. There is no justification for legalized theft.

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

If you can go down to the courthouse and pull the contract that Weingarten signed, scan it, and post the image on this website, I'll buy that argument. Otherwise...there is no such obligation.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you could define a system by which concepts like the following can be measured and categorized:

"Historical"

"Significant"

"Important"

Remember that when the WTC was originally built in downtown NYC, a bunch of 18th century buildings (Radio Row) were knocked down without considerably public protest. Only the business owners really seemed to put up a fight...but that was just a time when 18th century buildings were a dime a dozen. No big deal. Now they're important for some reason and would be preserved as a historical gem...at what point did they transition from insignificant to signficant?

I might be able to respect the historical political movement if it could at the very least assure me that their measures are reasonable and that we aren't going to see whole neighborhoods "protected" by the votes of a few rogue councilmembers. Or for that matter, that councilmembers won't "protect" buildings in order to spite a particular landlord that contributed money to one of their opponents. The whole notion of protecting neighborhoods from their occupants...I shudder at the thought.

Edited July 29, 2006 by TheNiche

[TJones]

For the most part I always see Red and a few others on here yell about how this city is not "Urban" enough. Then when something "urban" in the truest form comes along, you want to condemn it because it is taking the place of something that is right out of Smallville. Which is it ladies and gentlemen ? Do you want more "sprawl" or do you want big "Urban Lofts" reaching for the heavens ? Make up your minds already. I have read post upon post about how we should have tons more Skyscrapers. Yet, you want to leave all the "historic" buildings in place and build elsewhere. Maybe that's why there is so much "sprawl" in this town. You have to start somewhere if you want more "urban" living, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Red, I was thinking about the nudie bars and liquor stores that can't be built within school shot. I think the same should be applied to a Starbuck's or any Java joint. Just all bad enviroments for the kids to be around.

[TheNiche]

You have to start somewhere if you want more "urban" living, and you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet.

Good point, TJones.

[KinkaidAlum]

TJones and Niche-

Both of you keep throwing out that we should buy the property. Last time I checked, it wasn't for sale. If it was, I guarantee you someone would make a play.

Additionally, how does building a tall condo tower on West Gray all of a sudden make the area more urban?

Do you two really think that plopping a tower down somewhere is the definition of urban?

How sad for you.

[H-Town Man]

There have been a great number of bizarre ideas in recent posts. Among the highlights:

There is no such thing as 'public good.' Ayn Rand says so.

Historic movie theaters contribute to sprawl. We should demolish them if we want to be more urban.

If we preserve the few historical buildings we have, businesses will leave Houston, and (I suppose the implication is) our economy will suffer. No mention of the economic hardships of all the cities that have historic preservation laws.

Any value that cannot be measured numerically is not worth the attention of city government.

It's hard to argue with this kind of logic. Maybe the best idea is just to ignore it.

[TJones]

TJones and Niche-

Both of you keep throwing out that we should buy the property. Last time I checked, it wasn't for sale. If it was, I guarantee you someone would make a play.

Additionally, how does building a tall condo tower on West Gray all of a sudden make the area more urban?

Do you two really think that plopping a tower down somewhere is the definition of urban?

How sad for you.

Weingartens are business people. They aren't like Gollum, holding The River Oaks theater in their hand saying," Precious, OOOOOOOOOO, my Precious." Make them a reasonable offer, you may get in the game.

Edited July 29, 2006 by TJones

[MarthaG]

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.

I agree that much of the charm is the original surrounding structures. And if/when the NE corner is destroyed, the whole center will be compromised. And for that reason, I am more than willing to "chain myself to the door" of Black Eye Pea or Three Brothers. Actually it will most likely be Three Brothers since that is my all time favorite Bakery.

[editor]

For those of you interested, I put these together:

Here's a direct link if you want to buy one. ($2.25 each)

Clicking this link will take you to a page with more options for buttons, magnets, etc...

1 button or magnet - $2.25

10 buttons or magnets - $11.00

100 buttons or magnets - $76.00

1 mini button - $1.99

10 mini buttons - $8.99

100 mini buttons - $70.99

I was originally going to use a picture of the theater, but then decided that simple was best. Better to get the message across in one quick glance, than to clutter it up. But if you guys want, I can do one with the theater. I think I have a photo somewhere.

Too bad the Westheimer festival isn't coming up soon. I'd send a hundred down to one of the moderators to pass out to the people. Maybe if there's another HAIF gathering soon I'll send some down.

[Gary]

For those of you interested, I put these together:

Here's a direct link if you want to buy one. ($2.25 each)

Clicking this link will take you to a page with more options for buttons, magnets, etc...

1 button or magnet - $2.25

10 buttons or magnets - $11.00

100 buttons or magnets - $76.00

1 mini button - $1.99

10 mini buttons - $8.99

100 mini buttons - $70.99

I was originally going to use a picture of the theater, but then decided that simple was best. Better to get the message across in one quick glance, than to clutter it up. But if you guys want, I can do one with the theater. I think I have a photo somewhere.

Too bad the Westheimer festival isn't coming up soon. I'd send a hundred down to one of the moderators to pass out to the people. Maybe if there's another HAIF gathering soon I'll send some down.

I know it's more of an investment, but what about t-shirts?

[nmainguy]

I might be able to respect the historical political movement if it could at the very least assure me that their measures are reasonable and that we aren't going to see whole neighborhoods "protected" by the votes of a few rogue councilmembers.

I'm not sure they are "rouge"-having been elected by the majority of their constituents. As far as garnering your respect for anything outside your ethereal fantasy market-based society, that would be as pointless as the above wasted band-width.

[sevfiv]

ooh buttons!

weingarten is in the consumer-driven industry, and most of the people who enjoy the lesser-homogeneity of this shopping center are its consumers, they feel that it IS weingarten's duty to please them to some extent.

also, at weingarten's 2006 second quarter earnings meeting, there was no report of business being bad, or needing a "boost" by doing something like this

I know it's more of an investment, but what about t-shirts?

there are t-shirts! (maybe just added)

Edited July 29, 2006 by sevfiv

[nmainguy]

also, at weingarten's 2006 second quarter earnings meeting, there was no report of business being bad, or needing a "boost" by doing something like this

Weingarten (WRI/NYSC) is a highly regarded stock with very low risk. I don't think they're having any cash problems. I just think they're not a good corporate citizen when it comes to their plans for ROC and ROT.

For a full list of their area holdings, go to http://www.weingarten.com/retail/?st_abbr=TX if you are interested in no longer patronizing their developments. Personally, I'm against boycotting them because it only hurts their tenants. I'm more inclined to lobby the tenants as opposed to lobbying Weingarten-they seem immune to public sentiment.

[editor]

I know it's more of an investment, but what about t-shirts?

They're there. Just click the second link.

[Gary]

ooh buttons!

there are t-shirts! (maybe just added)

DOH! Your right, I was in a hurry and didn't look at the link.

[TheNiche]

There have been a great number of bizarre ideas in recent posts. Among the highlights:

There is no such thing as 'public good.' Ayn Rand says so.

You misquoted.

Historic movie theaters contribute to sprawl. We should demolish them if we want to be more urban.

No...'historic' buildings don't contribute to sprawl, but poorly-developed policy has the potential to...particularly if what becomes defined as 'historic' is taken too far. I am not so much concerned with a local politicians intervening to save a single structure as I am with them gaining the power to 'save' structures that don't need 'saving' in order to satiate special interest groups. Honestly, are I and TJones the only ones that distrust politicians?

If we preserve the few historical buildings we have, businesses will leave Houston, and (I suppose the implication is) our economy will suffer. No mention of the economic hardships of all the cities that have historic preservation laws.

Again, you have misapplied my statements. It is not so much the act of protecting a few buildings that would cause adverse economic impacts; it is the idea that if citizens were to apply the same logic that they seem so intent upon using to 'save' the RO Theater to other buildings, neighborhoods, and cities...then the whole notion of property rights is compromised entirely...left to the control of governments. If governments should have such power and owners of property are somehow already subject to some notion of a social contract, then why not just simplify things by reverting ownership of all real private property within the city limits to the City of Houston? We could just pay the landlords (or not) and boot them out...after all, the property was never REALLY theirs to begin with, right? And they are the ones that owe individuals, rather than the other way around, right? BS.

Any value that cannot be measured numerically is not worth the attention of city government.

Its not a matter of numbers...its a matter of objectivity. Having specific rules to play by so that investors don't have all these uncertainties floating around.

Take Central Square in Midtown, for instance: the building itself is owned by an ***hole that is presently asking way too much for it given its present condition. As a rehab project, it is completely infeasible. But say that an investor came along that wanted to demolish it and put in something similar to Post Midtown. It would be a hell of an improvement compared to the derelict structure that is there right now. But with historical protection ordinances that are unclear as to what is historical, how would this developer's lender have any means of ensuring that once the deal goes through, the City won't come in and shut the project down based upon the whims of a few nostalgic protestors? Given the choice between this and some other less risky project with a similar yield, the lender will put their money elsewhere and nothing will come of it.

This particular case makes for a great example, but for that matter, what if a townhome developer wanted to remove some decrepit old shacks in Third Ward to put up a few townhomes? The shacks may not have almost any 'historical' value at all...but Ada Edwards may not see it that way.

Without objective measures, investors (and homeowners for that matter) can't know what they're getting into when they become property owners. It'd be one thing if deed restrictions were made easier to enact and enforce within the various neighborhoods (and nothing as large as Superneighborhoods) of the City so as to promote variety and consumer and investor choice...but to apply unclear regulations throught a city the size of Houston...I'm very much against that. And it basically comes down to the fact that I don't trust politicians.

[TheNiche]

Both of you keep throwing out that we should buy the property. Last time I checked, it wasn't for sale. If it was, I guarantee you someone would make a play.

Additionally, how does building a tall condo tower on West Gray all of a sudden make the area more urban?

Do you two really think that plopping a tower down somewhere is the definition of urban?

How sad for you.

Like TJones suggested, MAKE AN OFFER. Anything is for sale at the right price...especially when you're talking about a publicly traded corporation. They've got to look after the interest of their shareholders, after all...and I can guarantee you that the shareholders could care less where the money came from.

As for definitions of 'urbanity', my personal definition requires that for an area to be urban, it must be vibrant, buzzing with activity of all sort. Every kind of option is available to every kind of consumer. The last thing that I think of when I think of something 'urban' is a place that is static. History has little if anything to do with it. I am one who lives in the present and for the future.

But then, I suspect that my definition has little bearing on your own...that's fine. It's one that is open to interpretation.

[TJones]

TJones and Niche-

Both of you keep throwing out that we should buy the property. Last time I checked, it wasn't for sale. If it was, I guarantee you someone would make a play.

Additionally, how does building a tall condo tower on West Gray all of a sudden make the area more urban?

Do you two really think that plopping a tower down somewhere is the definition of urban?

How sad for you.

Here is another idea, if you haven't thought of it already. Since Weingarten's is a publicly traded company, and you feel that they wouldn't put the River Oaks up for sale at a fair price, here is what you do. Get you and all your protestors together to form a coalition to buy a controlling share of Weingarten stock. Then "VOILA", instant stoppage of said property being demolished, and free indie movies for all.

Edited July 30, 2006 by TJones

[TheNiche]

Here is another idea, if you haven't thought of it already. Since Weingarten's is a publicly traded company, and you feel that they wouldn't put the River Oaks up for sale at a fair price, here is what you do. Get you and all your protestors together to form a coalition to buy a controlling share of Weingarten stock. Then "VIOLA", instant stoppage of said property being demolished, and free indie movies for all.

That'd probably be way more expensive than just buying out the theater building...but one thing that they could do relatively easily is to do some research and find out who the big players are in Weingarten and then directly appeal to their sensibilities.

[firstngoal]

There have been a great number of bizarre ideas in recent posts. Among the highlights:

There is no such thing as 'public good.' Ayn Rand says so.

Historic movie theaters contribute to sprawl. We should demolish them if we want to be more urban.

If we preserve the few historical buildings we have, businesses will leave Houston, and (I suppose the implication is) our economy will suffer. No mention of the economic hardships of all the cities that have historic preservation laws.

Any value that cannot be measured numerically is not worth the attention of city government.

It's hard to argue with this kind of logic.

Maybe the best idea is just to ignore it.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why waste time getting into it with folks that are set with their ideas on "property rights" and "capitalism is always first"?... (and always being contrarian.) We have some theaters to save people... let's get to work!!!

I live in in the River Oaks Theater 'hood and the last thing I want is a condo tower looking down on me. Keeping the neighborhood in scale and preserving a valuable neighborhood asset (which generates lots of pedestrian traffic and civic pride!) are my priorities... and I'll do what I can to save these rare commodities in Houston. I'm appealling to my neighbors - and those of you who agree with me - to stay vigilant and keep the pressure on Weingarten. If you don't agree with me... c'est la vie!

Have a good weekend all...

Edited July 29, 2006 by firstngoal

[TJones]

That'd probably be way more expensive than just buying out the theater building...but one thing that they could do relatively easily is to do some research and find out who the big players are in Weingarten and then directly appeal to their sensibilities.

Just being a little fecesious Niche. It's a slow day.

As I have stated, "I think it is MORALLY wrong" to tear down that building. I am a huge fan of Art Deco. The plans call for salvaging the facade, and I would venture that they may even try to leave the lobby to look like the existing one, but the building will have a ten gallon hat on it.

Edited July 29, 2006 by TJones

[TheNiche]

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why waste time getting into it with folks that are set with their ideas on "property rights" and "capitalism is always first"?... (and always being contrarian.) We have some theaters to save people... let's get to work!!!

I respect your desire to keep the theater, but to the extent that this is at all a policy debate, ignoring the many consequences of your proposals and failing to provide a rigorous philosophical justification for removing someone's property rights is a practice that I consider to be the moral equivalent of grand theft.

I will accept that there are times when it becomes necessary for government entities to acquire property, but at least eminent domain proceedings allow for compensation to the previous owner for lost use of their property. I hear no such concern for the property owner in this case; furthermore, there is no existing precedent among other cities of which I am aware that compensation to the owner would be required for the implementation of historical regulations.

Ignore me if you will, but your character shall become no less dignified than a white-collar version of a remorseless street thug.

I live in in the River Oaks Theater 'hood and the last thing I want is a condo tower looking down on me. Keeping the neighborhood in scale and preserving a valuable neighborhood asset (which generates lots of pedestrian traffic and civic pride!) are my priorities... and I'll do what I can to save these rare commodities in Houston. I'm appealling to my neighbors - and those of you who agree with me - to stay vigilant and keep the pressure on Weingarten. If you don't agree with me... c'est la vie!

Selfish motives. Don't you realize that other people like your neighborhood's characteristics (and for more reasons than just the RO Theater) and want to live there? Who are you to tell them that they cannot?

[nmainguy]

I respect your desire to keep the theater, but to the extent that this is at all a policy debate, ignoring the many consequences of your proposals and failing to provide a rigorous philosophical justification for removing someone's property rights is a practice that I consider to be the moral equivalent of grand theft.

Ignore me if you will, but your character shall become no less dignified than a white-collar version of a remorseless street thug.

As the debate rolls on, you become more illogical. Your backdoor accusation of firstngoal wanting to take away an individual's property rights is just illogical as he said no such thing. You are grasping at straws.

And for you to decide what a persons character "shall become"-do you really want to go there?

Can the BS-we've all heard it all before-ad nauseam.

______________________________________________________________

9:35 PM-17,749

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/riveroaks/

[Heights2Bastrop]

Just being a little fecesious Niche. It's a slow day.

"Fecesious"! I love it! I know quite a few people who are fecesious.

TJones, are you a good punster, or a bad speller?

[bachanon]

[GoAtomic]

If you prefer to view real property as a public good, then please bear in mind that the public would also benefit from a condominium tower...particularly one that has such immediate access to RO Shopping Center. Yes, there are many places to put a condo tower, but few quite so perfect.

Er, what? Would someone please explain to me how ' ... the public would also benefit from a condominium tower .... ' built to replace a public access venue like the RO Theatre ???

I am live in the city (not the suburbs), own a home that I pay full city taxes on, and make what I recently read is right at the average US salary; therefore I consider myself a decent representation of the Houston 'public' referenced here.

But, exactly how will a new condo building in which units will likely be priced in the 400-700K range (about 4 to 7 times more what I, the average salaried public, can afford to buy and which I will likely never set foot in) BENEFIT ME ? How will it benefit anyone besides the upper income residents who will inhabit it ???

I would really like to know, so that I can be sure I'm not on the wrong side of this argument (the side trying to wake up Weingarten to the travesty they are planning to commit, and simultaneously wake Houston up to the fact that we'll never be a world-class city if we don't start somewhere to preserve the most iconic examples of our illustrious past ...).

[TJones]

"Fecesious"! I love it! I know quite a few people who are fecesious.

TJones, are you a good punster, or a bad speller?

Somebody got it. I was throwing sarcasm, and being "sh)tty" so yes, it was a pun ! H2B gets 100 points.

Edited July 30, 2006 by TJones

[musicman]

[but, exactly how will a new condo building in which units will likely be priced in the 400-700K range (about 4 to 7 times more what I, the average salaried public, can afford to buy and which I will likely never set foot in) BENEFIT ME ? How will it benefit anyone besides the upper income residents who will inhabit it ???

I would really like to know, so that I can be sure I'm not on the wrong side of this argument (the side trying to wake up Weingarten to the travesty they are planning to commit, and simultaneously wake Houston up to the fact that we'll never be a world-class city if we don't start somewhere to preserve the most iconic examples of our illustrious past ...).

Well...i'm FOR keeping the theater however the City would LOVE to see a new condo building on the spot. They would receive monies from new permits, more property taxes generated.....and it would even generate more sales tax with the additional population in the area. For some reason, people don't realize that the City stands to benefit from something like this. Construction such as this is what the City LIVES for! This is why the supposed historical preservation ordinance has no teeth to it cause most of the buildings that people are trying to save don't generate much protest.

It costs money to save and restore a small home and the city doesn't gain much relatively. But if it is replaced with 4 new condos, just look at how much additional money the City stands to gain.

The possible River Oaks theater razing has drawn lots of protests. The City knows it would make them look good if they saved it. I believe that is why councilman Peter Brown is stepping up on the City's behalf. He is always behind new development though. If he was so concerned about other historical buildings you would think one of his prioirities would be to strengthen the ordinance. He is an architect and would be a good advocate. But so far he has been a major disappointment.

Edited July 31, 2006 by musicman

[Heights2Bastrop]

so yes, it was a pun

I thought maybe you were just being a scatbrain - uh, I mean, a scatterbrain!

[TJones]

I thought maybe you were just being a scatbrain - uh, I mean, a scatterbrain!

I have been accused of being a sh-thead before !

[dbigtex56]

Enough of this, please. Let's get back on topic.