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

[nmainguy]

There are only two ways to acquire material wealth: 1) earn it, or 2) steal it.

Only 2 ways? What a maroon You are such a little putz, my petite rhinestone.

[TheNiche]

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

Of course it is replacable. Of course, the style will look inauthentic unless very high costs are incurred, but then preservation comes at a price too.

weingarten already owns it, for the sake of simplicity

Yes, they own it. That is not in dispute and does not represent a hurdle. At the right price, everything is for sale.

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

They aren't knocking it down for the sake of pissing people off, but so as to provide more functional space to retailers that sell to consumers. It is a prime example of the process of creative destruction whereby the use of finite resources in the form of labor and capital are minimized, that they might go to the highest and best uses.

[musicman]

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

ch 13 is about to have a story on historical preservation on 6pm news.

EDIT: they interviewed Mike Shapiro from CharBar. basically the city is introducing a program where you will get a tax break if you apply for historical designation status. Mike mentioned that up til now there was really no reason to apply for it because the building has been in his family since the 30's and he sees it remaining in the family.

Edited June 7, 2007 by musicman

[sevfiv]

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

i'll amend my previous post to clarify that taken concretely, anything can be replaced with anything

the term irreplaceable is often associated with items that are unique, and not done justice by something newer and similar

like merriam webster kindly illustrates:

: not replaceable <an irreplaceable antique>

Edited June 8, 2007 by sevfiv

[TheNiche]

i'll amend my previous post to clarify that taken concretely, anything can be replaced with anything

the term irreplaceable is often associated with items that are unique, and not done justice by something newer and similar

like merriam webster kindly illustrates:

: not replaceable <an irreplaceable antique>

Taken concretely (i.e. functionally), anything can be replaced with anything. If there are two steel ball bearings of equal dimensions, and one is destroyed or lost, another can be manufactured that will serve the same function with equal performance characteristics.

Taken literally (i.e. physically), nothing can replace anything. If there are two steel ball bearings of equal dimensions, and one is destroyed or lost, its unique arrangement of a discrete quantity of physical matter has been disrupted and cannot be repaired. Even if it were melted down and repoured from the same material, it would be different. Taken to a further extent, even light use of one of the ball bearings would cause it to become worn, altering it from one unique form to a new unique form. This is the state of the physical world: perpetual change. Nothing is preserved; furthermore, attempts at preservation often dramatically speed up the process by which the old state is changed.

[tmariar]

The fact that the Weingarten REIT that owns the property is publicly-traded makes the theaters/shopping center situation slightly more complex, as Weingarten has an obligation is to its shareholders. But (1) that's not the entity's only obligation, and (2) it's unclear to me that its current plans for the property are in the best interest of its shareholders. Determining what will most benefit Weingarten shareholders is not as simple as figuring out how the largest amount of money can be squeezed from those particular parcels of real estate. There are bigger-picture considerations for WRI that include such things as public/community relations, government relations, and brand association - to name a few. If there weren't, you wouldn't see public companies contributing the sums of money they do to charitable organizations - such donations wouldn't make economic sense when looked at purely on a superficial basis.

And that means there are ways that community members can/should influence the future of these properties without having to purchase them. It may sound like whining to some, but the surprisingly sustained public criticism - especially if it continues - will factor into Weingarten's decision-making process.

I don't think that it's unrealistic to believe that Weingarten could end up working with preservationists in this case. I do think that a sufficient amount of community pressure (perhaps combined with minor economic incentives from the city, such as the recently announced tax break) could tip the scales. But I also think that we're not to that point yet - and that Weingarten is waiting to see if the public interest and activism (by Houston standards at least) will die down over time.

Which it may. But it's also possible that the fight to save the buildings will be reinforced as more and more people read things like this thread, learn about the history of the structures, and make the utilitarian comparison of a decrease in Weingarten shareholders' profit margin to the loss of these unique and historically significant structures.

[sevfiv]

fyi via email:

Sarah Gish from Save Our Landmarks writes with this info about an impending ILLEGAL demolition -

There are rumors from very legitimate sources that a section of the River Oaks Shopping Center will be demolished soon, perhaps before Wednesday, when the city

[Dan the Man]

fyi via email:

I have heard the same rumor. However, I also heard that an illegal demolition will result in a 2-year moratorium on re-building on the property, under the new preservation ordinance. Wonder if Weingarten also knows this?

[KinkaidAlum]

I just got to town tonight for the first time since last November. My mother lives right down the street. As of 10:15, it is still standing and there are no construction/destruction vehicles on site. The "pad site' Starbucks was packed too, but sadly, the rest of that center, including the 2 story building, are dark. It is clearly a matter of when as the if part has sailed.

[sevfiv]

another email update, from Save Our Landmarks:

We are pleased to report that in spite of a serious rumor that Weingarten Realty Investments (WRI) was going to begin illegal demolition of the north curve of the River Oaks Shopping Center, there will be none. WRI has applied for a Certificate of Appropriation for that portion which is the first step in obtaining a demolition permit (see plans released by WRI that pertain to this demolition and re-building of the historic curve) and now has to wait until August 8 to demolish the historic curve. Demolishing this curve and building a new one is akin to taking an original door off a historic home and replacing it with a new one - it denigrates the historical value of the entire property.

We have been meeting with WRI representatives and with community leaders to find a solution to save the Alabama and River Oaks Theatre sites. We have supplied them with alternate architectural renderings that would keep the curve from being demolished, we have encouraged them to become "Adaptive Re-Use" leaders in the building community, and we have told them we would wholeheartedly support the River Oaks Shopping Center continuing as a unique center with one-of-a-kind stores, many of which are run by local business owners. This is a great opportunity for WRI, one of the largest real estate investment trust companies listed on the New York Stock Exchange, to be a leader using this shopping center as an example. This shopping center is only one of approximately 325 retail properties owned by WRI, but is a jewel in their portfolio that is part of the growth of their company that began in Houston with Joe Weingarten and is still headquartered here.

Here is some action that you can take now and in the coming days to help our cause:

Attend public hearings that include consideration of designating both historic sites as landmarks: The first one is run by the Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission this Wednesday, June 13, 3pm at the City Hall Annex at 900 Bagby Street and the next one is run by the Planning Commission on Thursday, June 21, 2:30pm at the City Hall Annex. We would like to have people there in support of designating these two sites as historic landmarks.

Write WRI and Barnes and Noble as suggested on our website at www.saveourlandmarks.org.

Stay tuned to media and our emails about any news or help we or other preservation groups need with regards to this process.

Encourage your friends to sign on to our email list.

Thank you for your help in Saving Our Landmarks.

Edited June 13, 2007 by sevfiv

[sevfiv]

i unfortunately haven't had any time to devote to this lately, but this was given at the Three Brothers Bakery closing a little while back:

anyone keep up with replatting requests?

Edited June 15, 2007 by sevfiv

[Dan the Man]

anyone keep up with replatting requests?

Is replatting necessary in this case? I think the shopping center sits on a contiguous parcel, and Weingarten owns all of it.

Edited June 15, 2007 by Dan the Man

[sevfiv]

Is replatting necessary in this case? I think the shopping center sits on a contiguous parcel, and Weingarten owns all of it.

i don't know how that works -

but the gentleman who handed me the letter seemed to think a replat was necessary

Edited June 15, 2007 by sevfiv

[musicman]

Is replatting necessary in this case? I think the shopping center sits on a contiguous parcel, and Weingarten owns all of it.

a replatting would depend on how it is originally platted. in the older days setbacks were defined in the original plat. in order to change this, they'd have to submit a plan to change to the planning department, which then requires the owner to erect a sign/notice. AND they'll have to contact property owners within 200' i believe. many times that is just a few property owners.

[musicman]

The Houston Planning Commission recommended Thursday that two iconic shopping centers be designated as landmarks, making them eligible for tax breaks intended to discourage their expected demolition.

The commission delayed a decision for two weeks on another historic preservation proposal: the creation of a protected district that would forbid demolition of historic houses in the Old Sixth Ward west of downtown.

The landmark designations, if approved by the City Council, will apply to the Alabama Shopping Center in the 2900 block of South Shepherd

Edited June 22, 2007 by musicman

[EatSleepMOD]

June 22, 2007, 8:02AM

Plan offered to save 2 city icons

Panel suggests listing endangered River Oaks and Alabama sites as landmarks

By MIKE SNYDER

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4911051.html

I am a fool for thinking that Weingarten will take this into consideration, but I can still hope so.

It would just be disgusting and sick if they tore down these landmarks or OSW, etc...

[ArchitecturalPRGirl]

June 22, 2007, 8:02AM

Plan offered to save 2 city icons

Panel suggests listing endangered River Oaks and Alabama sites as landmarks

By MIKE SNYDER

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4911051.html

I am a fool for thinking that Weingarten will take this into consideration, but I can still hope so.

It would just be disgusting and sick if they tore down these landmarks or OSW, etc...

I hope if the landmark proposal actually passes it will help save them, but even then it's not guaranteed. The 6th ward holds so much history as well.

[EatSleepMOD]

I know!!! Gosh, what is wrong with these people! If they tear down the landmarks, I vow to not ever do business

or frequent any part of the new development. I can't even believe we have to discuss these issues, it should not BE an issue.

Ok...I am off the soapbox now

[TxDave]

This sounds like great news, especially for the Alabama.

I was under the impression that parts of the River Oaks Center (black-eyed pea section) were already demolished.

These historical buildings help define an area - new development should be designed around them (within limits, of course).

Any new development around these centers should focus on highlighting and building around what is there, rather than replacing it.

[Subdude]

"Even though this doesn't ensure that the buildings will be preserved, it does send a message that this city really cares about its history and the built environment," said Councilman Peter Brown.

full article

that means a lot to us Peter.

is right. Letting the buildings be demolished sends an even stronger message, Peter.