The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[fernz]

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...

The article is no longer in the Chronicle website. Can anyone tell me what the proposal was?

[sevfiv]

The article is no longer in the Chronicle website. Can anyone tell me what the proposal was?

here is the archived article (login required):

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive....id=2007_4371021

The landmark designations, if approved by the City Council, will apply to the Alabama Shopping Center in the 2900 block of South Shepherd - including the Alabama Theater building that now houses a bookstore - and the crescent-shaped River Oaks Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Shepherd and West Gray.

Both areas, along with the River Oaks Theater across the street from the River Oaks Shopping Center, have been listed as endangered by the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance. Weingarten Realty Investors, which owns all three properties, has asked tenants to vacate the River Oaks Shopping Center and may legally begin demolition on Aug. 8.

here is the big River Oaks thread, too:

http://www.houstonarchitecture.info/haif/i...?showtopic=6732

[Native Montrosian]

the internet archive to the rescue (i just grabbed one from 2006):

Sevfiv to the rescue again!

Aside from being one of Houston's premiere shopping, dining and entertainment experiences, River Oaks Shopping Center is also a historical landmark!

But now that it's being declared a landmark, Weingarten's goes "lalalala" with fingers stuck in ears. Cracks me up the way they used to pimp this. Kind of like making a good living from sending one's daughter to work on the streetcorner, then disowning her because she's no longer a virgin.

[gnu]

Looks like Weingarten is pressing forward...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nb/hei...ws/4961385.html

Contractors removed a line of trees, including several large oaks, from the edge of the River Oaks Shopping Center Wednesday as Weingarten Realty Investors continued its preparations to demolish part of the 70-year-old center.

[musicman]

remember it is election yr for councilmember peter brown who was going to save historic houston.

Edited July 12, 2007 by musicman

[Subdude]

Note merged River Oaks Shopping Center topics.

[sevfiv]

well, gather your pictures and memories, because the dominoes are about to begin falling.

and all this after the Planning Commission and HAHC involvement, letters, emails, the petition...

[sifuwong]

remember it is election yr for councilmember peter brown who was going to save historic houston.

Was Peter Brown an owner of an architectural firm called "Civic Design" back in the late 90's? His name is familiar.

[nmainguy]

remember it is election yr for councilmember peter brown who was going to save historic houston.

So good for you, Mary. You'll have 2 more years to senselessly bash him and Mayor White.

[musicman]

Was Peter Brown an owner of an architectural firm called "Civic Design" back in the late 90's? His name is familiar.

i believe it was civic design associates. i don't know whether he was the owner but he is associated with them.

[musicman]

You'll have 2 more years to senselessly bash him .

at least try and be accurate. this is peter brown's first term so we may have him for 4 more yrs.

[KinkaidAlum]

Hooray. We're not only going to lose the nation's 2nd oldest shopping plaza (once one section falls there really will be no desire to save the rest) but we also get to see the destruction of 70 year old live oak trees. What a proud day for Houston.

Maybe Weingarten will throw Houstonians a bone and have an architect design fake live oaks to replicate the real things we're losing? That seems to be their peace offering for the building. I mean, HECK, this new thing will have a curve too. Thanks Weingarten. I certainly appreciate that.

[Native Montrosian]

There's a rental hall on Long Point with fake light-up palm trees in the parking lot. Maybe WR can give them a call and find out where they can get some.

One of my clients made an interesting comment. My firm does business with some individuals whose names frequently appear bold-typed in the society column, and one called me yesterday. After 10 years, we have a good chatty relationship and she brought up the Chronicle article. She then chuckled and asked if I had seen mention of Drew Alexander attending any "important" parties lately. I hadn't, not that I look for his name, considering I get queasy every time I see it. She then made a kind of sing-songy hum and said "You'd be amazed at how many multi-million deals start over a cocktail glass and there are a lot of people in this town with long memories...."

It's still a business relationship, so I didn't press any further, just said, "Uh-oh!" and laughed with her, but what I got from that is that he's now PNG with at least some of Houston society, and his decisions regarding the River Oaks Center could possibly affect his business here for quite a while.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Native Montrosian

[cwrm4]

She then made a kind of sing-songy hum and said "You'd be amazed at how many multi-million deals start over a cocktail glass and there are a lot of people in this town with long memories...."

It would be nice to think that would be the case here, but we're not talking about $100mm independent oil companies, we're talking about a public corporation whose tenants are by and large either other public companies (B&N, Starbucks, Gap) or non-Houston-based private companies (e.g. Sur La Table).

Furthermore, occasionally I am forced to attend functions that are written up in the society column, and, while the "old" money is still around, there is a lot of "newer" money infiltrating the high-end Houston scene. Many of those who constitute the newer money crowd are gleefully tearing down the original River Oaks homes so that they can have an additional 6000 sq ft for a media room and professional kitchen. If these folks don't even care about saving their houses, they are not going to care about the River Oaks shopping center, especially when the new plans give them a modern B&N at their doorstep.

The only way the River Oaks shopping center, or the Victorian on Heights Blvd, will be saved is if the city designates them as protected landmarks - where protected means you can't tear it down, no matter if you own the property. Good luck.

[Native Montrosian]

*shrug* No idea what she meant, then. Maybe she was referring to one specific project that didn't happen, or maybe his wife liked to attend parties to which he was invited, and as a wise man once said, "If Momma ain't happy, ain't nobody happy!" I remember hearing about a universal shunning of Suzanne Saperstein before she & David moved to Malibu - Houston society doesn't strike me as a group anyone to whom that sort of thing is important wants to cross.

Or maybe some of that set just doesn

Edited July 16, 2007 by Native Montrosian

[sevfiv]

the resolution to designate the River Oaks and Alabama historic landmarks was tagged at the City Council meeting today.

the GHPA is probably is correct when they wrote that if the resolution is passed, demolition will have probably already begun (the next vote is either on or after the expiration of Weingarten's 90 day waiting period).

[jb4647]

Looks like they are just about to demolish the north side of the River Oaks Shopping Center. I walked around it today and saw work crews pulling up pipe and constucting a fence around the complex. For posterty, I took these photos yesterday so that we can remember it the way it was. Why they couldn't just turn the existing structure into a BN I have no idea.

The River Oaks Shopping Center on August 3, 2007

Edited August 4, 2007 by jb4647

[Subdude]

That cheerful "For Fun, For Life, For You" banner they hung is a nice touch.

[KinkaidAlum]

How sad.

What's worse, I have a friend that is generally for preservation but he is excited about this project. He can't wait to see how the lines mimic the old center and he bought hook, line, and sinker into Weingarten's press release that this will pay homage to the old center.

However, what works about the current style of the center is the balance and symmetry. Clean lined facades that mirror each other cannot be duplicated. Simply by adding a two story addition and a parking garage on one side of West Gray without doing anything to the other side will throw the whole thing off balance.

Once people see this and once people realize that the integrity of the entire center has now been ruined but the precedent has already been set for demolition, the entire thing will eventually fall. It is unavoidable.

[sidegate]

i've already stopped shopping at any BNs in protest. dunno if borders is any better but it's not BN so that's good enough for me.

Looks like they are just about to demolish the north side of the River Oaks Shopping Center. I walked around it today and saw work crews pulling up pipe and constucting a fence around the complex. For posterty, I took these photos yesterday so that we can remember it the way it was. Why they couldn't just turn the existing structure into a BN I have no idea.

The River Oaks Shopping Center on August 3, 2007

[Dan the Man]

How sad.

What's worse, I have a friend that is generally for preservation but he is excited about this project. He can't wait to see how the lines mimic the old center and he bought hook, line, and sinker into Weingarten's press release that this will pay homage to the old center.

However, what works about the current style of the center is the balance and symmetry. Clean lined facades that mirror each other cannot be duplicated. Simply by adding a two story addition and a parking garage on one side of West Gray without doing anything to the other side will throw the whole thing off balance.

Once people see this and once people realize that the integrity of the entire center has now been ruined but the precedent has already been set for demolition, the entire thing will eventually fall. It is unavoidable.

You are correct, the Art Moderne architecture of the 1937 buildings are dominated by clean lines, planar facades, and strong horizontal lines. This is a little difficult to see, since those 1980s black awnings obscure much of the buildings' intended appearance. I have attached a photo from the 1940s, so you can see the buildings without the awnings.

The proposed buildings are not a successful interpretation of the original architecture. Yes, they have a curve facing Shepherd, but the buildings posess strong vertical elements that completely detract from the planar surfaces and horizontal emphasis that is inherent in the original architecture. The vertical elements also dramatically increase the perceived scale of the buildings, making them stick out like a sore thumb.

Vertical elements are more indicative of the Art Deco of the 1920s and early 1930s. The current buildings, which date from 1937, are Art Moderne - a derivative of Art Deco that emerged in the late 1930s and lasted until the early 1950s. Art Moderne favors a horizonal emphasis, rather than a vertical emphasis. To say that the proposed buildings are a successful replacement shows a grave misunderstanding of architecture. Like you said, it is a shame that we will have to lose the old buildings in order for many people to see this fact.

The new buildings look like cheap tilt-up to me...

Edited August 4, 2007 by Dan the Man

[jb4647]

You are correct, the Art Moderne architecture of the 1937 buildings are dominated by clean lines, planar facades, and strong horizontal lines. This is a little difficult to see, since those 1980s black awnings obscure much of the buildings' intended appearance. I have attached a photo from the 1940s, so you can see the buildings without the awnings.

The proposed buildings are not a successful interpretation of the original architecture. Yes, they have a curve facing Shepherd, but the buildings posess strong vertical elements that completely detract from the planar surfaces and horizontal emphasis that is inherent in the original architecture. The vertical elements also dramatically increase the perceived scale of the buildings, making them stick out like a sore thumb.

Vertical elements are more indicative of the Art Deco of the 1920s and early 1930s. The current buildings, which date from 1937, are Art Moderne - a derivative of Art Deco that emerged in the late 1930s and lasted until the early 1950s. Art Moderne favors a horizonal emphasis, rather than a vertical emphasis. To say that the proposed buildings are a successful replacement shows a grave misunderstanding of architecture. Like you said, it is a shame that we will have to lose the old buildings in order for many people to see this fact.

The new buildings look like cheap tilt-up to me...

I had never seen this old photo of the shopping center. If anyone else has any photos of the River Oaks, they should post them here.

[sevfiv]

As of about noon today, the perimeter construction fencing was about halfway constructed.

Wednesday is apparently the day that they can officially demolish, and it also happens to be the same day city council meets to vote on the landmark status of the properties.

after talking with several others about council member Wiseman's tag at the other meeting, it looks like the River Oaks Shopping Center will be the official martyr/poster child for preservation, since demolishing it on the same day it could potentially become a landmark is sort of...dramatic.

I had never seen this old photo of the shopping center. If anyone else has any photos of the River Oaks, they should post them here.

Subdude posted the Bob Bailey postcard a few pages back, but when i have it as well. when i locate my scanned version i'll repost.

[gonzo1976]

As of about noon today, the perimeter construction fencing was about halfway constructed.

Wednesday is apparently the day that they can officially demolish, and it also happens to be the same day city council meets to vote on the landmark status of the properties.

I suppose Weingarten can begin demolition at 12:01 a.m., right? The idea that City Council can vote on landmark status for a structure that's undergoing demolition just boggles my mind.

[sevfiv]

I suppose Weingarten can begin demolition at 12:01 a.m., right? The idea that City Council can vote on landmark status for a structure that's undergoing demolition just boggles my mind.

yep - according to GHPA, that's how it went for the Jefferson Davis Hospital on Allen Parkway - it was demolished, then voted a landmark afterward.

[VicMan]

yep - according to GHPA, that's how it went for the Jefferson Davis Hospital on Allen Parkway - it was demolished, then voted a landmark afterward.

So, why hasn't this loophole been corrected if

Why can't the GHPA hire some people to "sit-in" to interfere with the demolition until the city votes? If it fails to attain the landmark status, the "sit-in" guys will allow for the demolition.

[musicman]

As of about noon today, the perimeter construction fencing was about halfway constructed.

Wednesday is apparently the day that they can officially demolish, and it also happens to be the same day city council meets to vote on the landmark status of the properties.

i thought landmark status was only symbolic.

[sevfiv]

i thought landmark status was only symbolic.

it is - only protected landmarks have true protection. the issue here is just the irony of it all.

[KinkaidAlum]

I am in town. I am staying literally one block away. I had visions all day of placing some flowers at the site and making some posters to put up on the fencing. A little visibility doesn't hurt anyone other than Weingarten (which would be the point and could be fun).

[VicMan]

I am in town. I am staying literally one block away. I had visions all day of placing some flowers at the site and making some posters to put up on the fencing. A little visibility doesn't hurt anyone other than Weingarten (which would be the point and could be fun).

Kinkaid, go ahead and play some games with Weingarten. If you find enough people, you could interfere with the demolition by doing a sit-in.