The Driscoll High-Rise & River Oaks Shopping Center Developments

[jayshoota]

But what about continuity? The theater would look out of place if it were the only part saved from demolition and everything that went up around it looked like the piece of crap in that rendering. One of the great things about the River Oaks Shopping Center is its continuous uniformity, which is found so rarely in Houston as it is.

I agree. The continuity is one of the aspects that makes it so great. I remember when moved to Houston 2 years ago driving around coming across the River Oaks Shopping Center and really being impressed.

[TheNiche]

It took New York losing Penn Station. The problem is that Houston has already lost more landmarks than I could count, most notably the Shamrock, but as a city we just can't bring ourselves to stop it. Must be something in the water.

Do you think it might just have to do with demographics? I've noticed on this thread that the people that seem the most hurt by this whole thing tend to be those that grew up with it. But Houston having grown so much, and so many people having moved and moved again, it would seem like the voter pool of those that care the most becomes pretty diluted.

I for one don't really care that we lost a strip center. I didn't grow up with it, either, never shopped there, and only really associated it with a Lewis Black joke on account of the two Starbucks across the street from one another. Actually, I am kind of disappointed that Weingarten wasn't more ambitious on such a well-situated site. I would have preferred to see the whole thing transformed into a string of highrises and midrises, the kind of landmarks that I would have cared to lose...not some crappy new two-story retail like I can find in abundance out on Bellaire Blvd.

[dbigtex56]

Do you think it might just have to do with demographics? I've noticed on this thread that the people that seem the most hurt by this whole thing tend to be those that grew up with it.

The people 'most hurt by this' are those who have an appreciation for good architecture.

Age and place of birth have no bearing.

[memebag]

Do you think it might just have to do with demographics? I've noticed on this thread that the people that seem the most hurt by this whole thing tend to be those that grew up with it. But Houston having grown so much, and so many people having moved and moved again, it would seem like the voter pool of those that care the most becomes pretty diluted.

I sort of grew up with it. I lived down in Sagemont, so I didn't see a lot of River Oaks strip centers until I was in high school and started going to the theater (back when they were a repertory theater that showed different films every day, and the balcony was still a balcony). I'm not hurt by Weingarten tearing down the strip center; the architecture isn't that interesting to me. I miss the Black Eyed Pea and the Jamba Juice that used to be there, though. I used to take my daughter to both of them. She was a master at getting the Jamba Juice people to give her free squishy fruit toys. We still have a few around here.

Wow, I'm starting to sound like Grampa Simpson.

Edited May 26, 2008 by memebag

[capnmcbarnacle]

Do you think it might just have to do with demographics? I've noticed on this thread that the people that seem the most hurt by this whole thing tend to be those that grew up with it. But Houston having grown so much, and so many people having moved and moved again, it would seem like the voter pool of those that care the most becomes pretty diluted.

I for one don't really care that we lost a strip center. I didn't grow up with it, either, never shopped there, and only really associated it with a Lewis Black joke on account of the two Starbucks across the street from one another. Actually, I am kind of disappointed that Weingarten wasn't more ambitious on such a well-situated site. I would have preferred to see the whole thing transformed into a string of highrises and midrises, the kind of landmarks that I would have cared to lose...not some crappy new two-story retail like I can find in abundance out on Bellaire Blvd.

I agree inasmuch as I can handle losing something cool if it is replaced by something that is just as interesting or better. The real shame here is tearing something down and putting up something that is totally blah. Had they put up something innovative and different -- something that would elicit reaction 30 years down the road -- I could handle it. If they tore down the theater to put up the coolest building in Texas, I could deal with that. Most great buildings went up where something previously stood and the great buildings improved upon what was there. The problem with this rendering is that it is worse than what used to be there.

[Dan the Man]

I think we're forgetting the fact that the River Oaks Shopping center was the only the second strip center ever built in America (the designers were unaware of the first - Country Club Plaza in Kansas City). This shopping center created a prototype for one of the most ubiquitous commercial building types of the 20th century. It has tremendous architectural significance .

Edited May 27, 2008 by Dan the Man

[Subdude]

The people 'most hurt by this' are those who have an appreciation for good architecture.

Age and place of birth have no bearing.

It actually is a quality design for a strip center. It could be improved a bit by removing the black canvas awnings and reverting to the original backlit signage.

[dbigtex56]

It actually is a quality design for a strip center. It could be improved a bit by removing the black canvas awnings and reverting to the original backlit signage.

Like many brilliant design concepts, the concept has been perverted.

If all strip centers had the dedication to good design so apparent at River Oaks Plaza, their presence would be less odious - even welcome - and we snide ameteur architecture critics could busy ourselves with other matters.

With the exception of Highland Village, few strip centers in Houston have observed the simple rules that make River Oaks Plaza memorable:

The architecture of the building, and the landscaping are attractive to motorists.

The architecture of the building, and the landscaping are attractive to pedestrians.

The courageousness of its design is what makes River Oaks Plaza work.

I'll never forget my first sight of River Oaks Plaza, and how impressed I was that this sort of glamour exists in Houstion. It's exceptional.

[TheNiche]

I agree inasmuch as I can handle losing something cool if it is replaced by something that is just as interesting or better. The real shame here is tearing something down and putting up something that is totally blah. Had they put up something innovative and different -- something that would elicit reaction 30 years down the road -- I could handle it. If they tore down the theater to put up the coolest building in Texas, I could deal with that. Most great buildings went up where something previously stood and the great buildings improved upon what was there. The problem with this rendering is that it is worse than what used to be there.

I won't begrudge the possibility that the tenants in this exapanded area will be somebody else's Jamba Juice or Black Eyed Pea...but you get exactly what I'm saying. I'm sort of disappointed at the opportunity cost, too.

[TheNiche]

I think we're forgetting the fact that the River Oaks Shopping center was the only the second strip center ever built in America (the designers were unaware of the first - Country Club Plaza in Kansas City). This shopping center created a prototype for one of the most ubiquitous commercial building types of the 20th century. It has tremendous architectural significance .

Was the second government building built in America, the second school, the second house, the second fort, the second hospital, the second subdivision of tract housing, the second block of apartment projects, the second tiltwall warehouse, etc., all worthy architecture? Are they worthy of preservation just because they were the second ones of a new class of real estate investment? Or is architecture really more related to artistic merit, with the underlying class of real estate being a given?

...or have planners so totally hijacked what architecture used to mean so as that all strip centers suck, now? I'm sure that there are a lot of people with that opinion, too.

[TheNiche]

The people 'most hurt by this' are those who have an appreciation for good architecture.

Age and place of birth have no bearing.

Perhaps...although I resent the notion that good architecture is presented as some kind of universal concept. I consider it something closer to the heart of the individual experiencing it.

But to say that age and place have no bearing (on the political process that Subdude was talking about) seems very unlikely. As I said earlier, look at who feels the most hurt by this, and it is clear that they are people that have had experiences, especially in their youth, with the place. These are the people that will rally to their politicians and seek landmark protection, but with Houston's growth, their influence is diluted.

[Native Montrosian]

Heard through the grapevine that a number of other cities that WR has a presence in have been contacted with warnings not to trust them citing the River Oaks Center as an example. Their stock has also taken quite a dive. I know; whose hasn't, but it would be amusing if the calls & e-mails had something to do with it.

There's a really good article in the June 2008 issue of Houston House & Home about a Woodland Heights home that Pam Lowe, former commercial real estate broker, bought and restored. This isn't her first - apparently, she turns enough of a profit to do so on a regular basis. Also got our first communications regarding my firm's impending move to City Centre in February 2009. Now that's revitalization of a truly outdated property; not destruction of a beloved community icon. Maybe dull old sad old Drew Alexander needs to hire some imaginative people or call Pam Lowe, as well as Brad Freels of Midway Companies up and ask them how they do it....

Edited June 2, 2008 by Native Montrosian

[TheNiche]

There's a really good article in the June 2008 issue of Houston House & Home about a Woodland Heights home that Pam Lowe, former commercial real estate broker, bought and restored. This isn't her first - apparently, she turns enough of a profit to do so on a regular basis. Also got our first communications regarding my firm's impending move to City Centre in February 2009. Now that's revitalization of a truly outdated property; not destruction of a beloved community icon. Maybe dull old sad old Drew Alexander needs to hire some imaginative people or call Pam Lowe, as well as Brad Freels of Midway Companies up and ask them how they do it....

Is Pam Lowe a REIT? Do you think that, as manager of her own personal finances, she might get sued by her shareholders for gross negligence or have a special tax status revoked because she wasn't acting within the IRS guidelines?

Please. I don't mind it so much when people complain about one thing or another that might possibly be chalked up to PR. But Weingarten is not a philanthropic organization, nor can it be.

[Native Montrosian]

But Weingarten is not a philanthropic organization, nor can it be.

And Midway Companies is?

WR has the legal right to raze the River Oaks Center from one end to the other as they own the property. Seems like the more protests, the more resolved they will be to tear down both the River Oaks and the Alabama. I find it amusing that so many other cities seem to be able to make revitalization of historic properties pay off enough to interest developers and Houston apparently cannot. I salute Pam Lowe for her vision and imagination in the private sector. I salute Midway for taking what was rapidly becoming yet another run-down mall and realizing the potential of the area. WR has a repetitive formula that makes money. I've never said otherwise. Some people like stucco-clad strip malls.

If WR only considers the bottom line, that is their choice. The one inescapable fact is that every choice has consequences. All I know is that cities in other parts of the country with considerably-stronger interest in historic preservation have been made aware of the firm's actions. They may elect to do business with other firms as a result - I really don't have time to call the movers and shakers in each one and ask. Risk taking is an important element in any business, and if WR feels that the notoriety elsewhere and hostility in their home base is worth the potential gain, I'm certain that the wrecking ball will swing. But if the decision does come back to bite them in an inconvenient and painful area, I won't apologize for laughing.

[VicMan]

And the more Weingarten does that, the more the stocks tumble, the more heckling the board members face, the more bottles of Vicodin consumed by the employees, and the less clients the group faces.

If it wants to remain viable as a company, Weingarten must realize that Houstonians want control.

We need to write our city council members and beg them to strengthen preservation laws. That will itself save Weingarten from itself.

And Midway Companies is?

WR has the legal right to raze the River Oaks Center from one end to the other as they own the property. Seems like the more protests, the more resolved they will be to tear down both the River Oaks and the Alabama.

[TheNiche]

And Midway Companies is?

WR has the legal right to raze the River Oaks Center from one end to the other as they own the property. Seems like the more protests, the more resolved they will be to tear down both the River Oaks and the Alabama. I find it amusing that so many other cities seem to be able to make revitalization of historic properties pay off enough to interest developers and Houston apparently cannot. I salute Pam Lowe for her vision and imagination in the private sector. I salute Midway for taking what was rapidly becoming yet another run-down mall and realizing the potential of the area. WR has a repetitive formula that makes money. I've never said otherwise. Some people like stucco-clad strip malls.

As I've already said, I'm just disappointed that Weingarten didn't raze the entire shopping center and redevelop it intensively, all at once. So I don't begrudge you the lament that they couldn't be more like Midway. And I didn't criticize you on that basis. My criticism stems from what is a terribly inappropriate analogy, where you threw Pam Lowe into the mix. The comparison just can not be made. Trying to is inane and a waste of time.

All I know is that cities in other parts of the country with considerably-stronger interest in historic preservation have been made aware of the firm's actions. They may elect to do business with other firms as a result - I really don't have time to call the movers and shakers in each one and ask.

Take a good hard look at where Weingarten is doing new retail development. Truely urban product is pretty much alien to them. They do a lot of greenfield suburban stuff, and more often than not in places that desperately want it. The locals won't care that WRI knocked down an old strip center in Houston. They really just want nice new stores and a larger commercial tax base.

[TheNiche]

We need to write our city council members and beg them to strengthen preservation laws. That will itself save Weingarten from itself.

Yeah...of course. Because citizens and politicians know more about real estate investment than they do.

And because their portfolio is so heavily weighted in River Oaks.

People, there are a lot of ways to express dissatisfaction with Weingarten. Bull____ing is not a very good one.

Edited June 3, 2008 by TheNiche

[VicMan]

And what about historic holdings in other parts of the United States? With the internet people know what is going on in Houston. I don't smell any bull butt product. What I said, Niche, was based on what Montrosian said, anyway. The desires of Houstonians indeed affect Weingarten outside of Houston; the struggle for the theater makes headlines in newspapers read by non-Houstonians. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/us/12pre...70&emc=eta1 -- <--The New York Times

It may be true, Niche, that much of Weingarten focuses on new suburban products, but this could force Weingarten out of the urban, historic markets.

Yeah...of course. Because citizens and politicians know more about real estate investment than they do.

And because their portfolio is so heavily weighted in River Oaks.

People, there are a lot of ways to express dissatisfaction with Weingarten. Bull____ing is not a very good one.

Edited June 3, 2008 by VicMan

[TheNiche]

It may be true, Niche, that much of Weingarten focuses on new suburban products, but this could force Weingarten out of the urban, historic markets.

Yeah? Which ones?

And to the extent that they're already in those markets (if at all, really), who is going to dislodge them?

Edited June 3, 2008 by TheNiche

[missmsry]

All those Weingarten projects are atrocious. Do they let their children design them?

[Native Montrosian]

And because their portfolio is so heavily weighted in River Oaks.

Exactly. WR could lease both the RO and the Alabama back to the city for a peppercorn rent, quite cover themselves in civic glory, and not affect their shareholders one whit. But they don't want to. If Bill White having more than one discussion with the Alexanders regarding pride in Houston history won't budge them and the diva of fundraising Carolyn Farb cannot come up with enough pledges to meet any theoretical price (and would that price include use of the parking lots?), it's only a matter of time.

My criticism stems from what is a terribly inappropriate analogy, where you threw Pam Lowe into the mix. The comparison just can not be made. Trying to is inane and a waste of time.

My apologies for not being clear. I work with many insurance carriers and have been hearing discussions about future discounts for "green building" and increased credits for renovation in both the personal and commercial sectors. There are numerous articles regarding reuse of existing buildings as the best option - the one that immediately comes to mind is on the American Institute of Architecture website. My comparison was made in admiration of innovation and an entrepreneur

[TheNiche]

Exactly. WR could lease both the RO and the Alabama back to the city for a peppercorn rent, quite cover themselves in civic glory, and not affect their shareholders one whit.

No, their shareholders would not be happy. PR is not particularly important in their business model in the first place, and throwing away such a valuable asset as the RO Shopping Center by leasing it all for peanuts (and to the City!? ) would lead to all kinds of corporate governance skirmishes and even lawsuits.

[Native Montrosian]

Gracious, not the entire shopping center - the 9510 square feet comprising the River Oaks Theater, which at last report, would be part of the section razed for luxury condos. One property out of all the properties they own, leased as a gesture of goodwill to the city which, after all, gave the very civic-minded Joe Weingarten his start. But I suppose it's too late to put a vote on the matter to the actual shareholders; see what they might think....too bad. I'll enjoy it while I can - The Children of Huang Shi coming up next week, and The Duchess of Langeais the week after. In the meantime, I'm going to go and peruse my Red and Rover Waggin' Tales book, fresh from the mail and shipped for free. Thanks, Amazon!

[VicMan]

Let's see - Who makes the decision that the theater has to go? We should examine the corporate structure - If we had minutes of the meetings it would be great.

Just from looking at the website I found some key people, but I do not know which of them makes the decision "the theater has to go"

So far, the only name I could get is the VP of Investor Relations: Richard Summers.

Edited June 3, 2008 by VicMan

[Subdude]

Exactly. WR could lease both the RO and the Alabama back to the city for a peppercorn rent, quite cover themselves in civic glory, and not affect their shareholders one whit. But they don't want to.

Good post, and hits the proverbial nail right on the head. I think somehow that WR is taking a perverse pleasure in doing this. They want to destroy it because they can. As I mentioned, having worked before with one of their big dogs, I can especially believe it. It's like when the Med Center destroyed the Shamrock and they made a point of putting the ugliest building imaginable on the site. It is almost like thumbing their noses at the city. I don't seriously believe that working with a local government on preservation is going to cause governance and legal issues. I think most corporations actually make an effort to contribute to their communities, and you don't see that many shareholders up in arms about it.

[TheNiche]

One property out of all the properties they own, leased as a gesture of goodwill to the city which, after all, gave the very civic-minded Joe Weingarten his start.

Ah well in that context, who knows...a spoonful of sugar may be appropriate for this deal. I'll leave that for WRI's political consultants and lawyers to figure out.

But just to be perfectly clear, my criticism of your opinions roots from that many of them are not based in reality (and you certainly aren't alone on HAIF). Joe Weingarten wasn't a REIT. And neither is Drew Alexander...but Drew Alexander also isn't Weingarten. He is an employee of Weingarten, and his employment is not contingent upon his popularity with River Oaks socialites or the general public--it is about bottom dollar.

And Weingarten, which has a totally unsexy B2B marketing approach, just doesn't really have to care so much about PR. Their holdings in places where well-informed people actually care are extremely limited.

[TheNiche]

Let's see - Who makes the decision that the theater has to go? We should examine the corporate structure - If we had minutes of the meetings it would be great.

Just from looking at the website I found some key people, but I do not know which of them makes the decision "the theater has to go"

So far, the only name I could get is the VP of Investor Relations: Richard Summers.

Basically, you're talking about a third-tier guy who is frequently kept out of the loop when key decisions are being made. This person probably has a background in the media or public relations, and may not be well-versed in the specifics of any particular deal, most certainly not the deals' pro formas.

Unless you can find an insider at Weingarten that will talk (and I know of a couple that will not), the world may never know.

I think somehow that WR is taking a perverse pleasure in doing this. They want to destroy it because they can.

Yeah, that's right. They just wanted to piss you off.

It had absolutely nothing to do with profit.

[sevfiv]

Here's a quick snapshot while passing by:

[KinkaidAlum]

What an elegant addition that compliments Weingarten's historic holdings in the area. The graceful curviture of the new build indeed appears to be a tip of the hat to the long lost structure that once stood. I want to thank Weingarten for delivering to Houstonians this lovely piece of ____________.

[tmariar]

I don't expect Weingarten to spare the theater unless it is legally required to do so, or believes it is in its interest to do so.

In the absence of an historical preservation ordinance with teeth, however, it does not necessarily follow that those who would see the theater saved have no ability to influence WR's decision short of raising the money to buy or lease the theather.

PR and similar concerns will enter into WR's decision only to the extent they impact WR's expected profit.

Still, I think it is theoretically possible that a well-organized anti-demolition effort could influence WR's decision, as long as it was not focused solely on the theater itself, but also on a larger historical preservation goal - for these reasons:

I think saving the theater would require a large number of Houstonians to sign a pledge that they would boycott any retail or residential development that replaces the theater (and perhaps any retail in the shopping center as a whole that opened in a location previously occupied by an historic shopping center building), commit to picketing both for a couple/few hours prior to demolition and for a couple/few hours after any demolition, and give real contact information so that organizers could follow up on the picketing pledge for scheduling purposes.

Key to this effort, though, would be looking beyond the fate of the theater and planning to actually follow through with the boycott and picketing should the theater be destroyed. (Which would require organizers who could follow up with those who had pledged to picket and ensure that there are picketers covering any retail development during prime hours and any residential development during key periods of the sales/leasing phase.) If the people signing the pledge weren't clearly prepared to act even after the destruction of the theater, then WR would have no reason to believe they are a threat to their profits. The way the pledgers can communicate that they are serious about boycotts/picketing after any demolition, and still work to avoid demolition, is to picket (and perhaps even boycott) prior to the destruction of the theater at the new development on the corner, and emphasize that their concerns are larger than just the theater.

This is already too long, so hopefully I don't need to explain how financial impacts on businesses that open where historic ROSC structures used to stand would financially impact WR.

I really do think something along those lines could save the theater if even 1/10 the number of people who have already signed the existing online petition would seriously commit to boycotting and picketing before and after the demolition. I'd do it (I'm planning to boycott anyhow), but wouldn't commit the extra time to being an organizer. Which I hope isn't being hypocritical, as I'm not actually urging anyone to do anything - just saying what I think it would take to save the theater without passing a real historical preservation ordinance or purchasing or leasing the theater.

Edited June 16, 2008 by tmariar