H-Town Man Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Only in very nebulous terms. Nothing in those posts addresses my question in any sort of useful detail. No one is going to rehab a building today based on pie in the sky estimates of new Downtown residents years from now. There is a very high risk of "if they build it, no one will come and pay as much as is necessary to make the deal economic". And, given the high failure rates for new restaurant and retail businesses, the vacancy costs will likely be high. As for Kinkaid Alums, if the location is so great, why didn't BB's just stick it out until the massive crowds appeared? That's right, the economics didn't work. If BB's bailed due to bad economics, why shouldn't the owner be able to make changes to satisfy his economic requirements? No, they're not going to rehab it today. But neither should they tear it down today, on the assumption that it will never be profitable. Walk through any city that has a beautiful, vibrant historic district. Do you think those buildings were always profitable? Every city has gone through eras where its history fell into neglect. At one time, Galveston's Strand was barren. Here in Houston, we tore down a bunch of buildings on Market Square in the 70's-80's that would no doubt be quite profitable today. There is a name for the logic you are using, and it's called "short-sighted thinking." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 No, they're not going to rehab it today. But neither should they tear it down today, on the assumption that it will never be profitable. Walk through any city that has a beautiful, vibrant historic district. Do you think those buildings were always profitable? Every city has gone through eras where its history fell into neglect. At one time, Galveston's Strand was barren. Here in Houston, we tore down a bunch of buildings on Market Square in the 70's-80's that would no doubt be quite profitable today. There is a name for the logic you are using, and it's called "short-sighted thinking." No, I am thinking like a rational business person. Unless you want to fund me holding on to a building that is costing me money every day, and increasing operations cost for the rest of my business, your views are irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 No, I am thinking like a rational business person. Unless you want to fund me holding on to a building that is costing me money every day, and increasing operations cost for the rest of my business, your views are irrelevant. No, I'm not going to fund anything, I'm just going to require you not to tear it down. When you bought it, you bought a piece of the city's history, and you should be required to be a good steward. The way you think produces ugly cities, scarred with parking lots. No historic district can survive without preservation laws. There's too many barbarians out there who will tear down anything for easy parking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Could they not gut the entire first floors and knock an opening in the side/widen the entryway for a vehicle entrance/exit, like some New Orleans style parking/renovation. Maybe there are too many load bearing walls on the interior to navigate a car through there? I know when I walked through the warehouse district in NOLA a lot of the old buildings were gutted for parking on the first floor, while retaining the historical facade/charm of the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Why do the buildings need to be rehabbed? The one we left was in solid shape and could easily be a restaurant. Truth be told, the landlords haven't tried to lease it out since because parking has always been on their radar regardless of the spin they are putting out. I just happen to know this first hand. As for the other building, it's been various offices for years. I'd love to rehab it into a live-work space. And, Ross, stop being obtuse. We went into the downtown market well before any of the current eateries, who are seemingly doing well did. We went well before there was any news of Market Square Tower, Aris Market Square, the Catalyst, Fingers ballpark project, and even the Texas Company conversion. We're not talking about adding just one One Park Place. Believe me, if we had known, we probably would have stuck it out waiting on more promising times but I also think we'd have lost our lease regardless because The Lancaster clearly has known about these plans for quite some time. You do not make a decision like the one they made quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The buildings don't need to be rehabbed, I just feel like it would be a win win for everyone if the Lancaster managed to get their valet parking, while saving the buildings and utilizing the upper floors for whatever is deemed best.. Ceilings aren't high enough for that ballroom idea earlier, I would imagine, but either some permanent loft style residences at the Lancaster, bars/restaurant space, or some sort of amenity space for the guests.. It doesn't take a math wizard to realize that three levels of usable space are better than one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate99 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The way you think produces ugly cities, scarred with parking lots. No historic district can survive without preservation laws. There's too many barbarians out there who will tear down anything for easy parking.The way you think produces cities with limited organic growth, cronyism and outside investment staying elsewhere with your pet version of aesthetics enforced by law if the buildings don't crumble under their own weight before someone is subsidized enough to bother with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The way you think produces cities with limited organic growth, cronyism and outside investment staying elsewhere with your pet version of aesthetics enforced by law if the buildings don't crumble under their own weight before someone is subsidized enough to bother with it. Tired old scare tactic. Every city besides Houston has these laws... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I got a response from Nancy Sarnoff. She want's to know what city leaders we contacted, etc. Should I redirect her here? Any suggestions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avossos Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I got a response from Nancy Sarnoff. She want's to know what city leaders we contacted, etc. Should I redirect her here? Any suggestions?There is a legitimate chance we can save these buildings. I have learned that the ONLY real problem with these buildings is outdated plumbing... (All old buildings have this issue) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 They need to sell those buildings. I'd buy the old Longhorn one in a heartbeat. Maybe the other one too. Then, they'd have plenty of cash to work a deal with the new Lyric Center garage going up right down the street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 They need to sell those buildings. I'd buy the old Longhorn one in a heartbeat. Maybe the other one too. Then, they'd have plenty of cash to work a deal with the new Lyric Center garage going up right down the street. Why would they sell the buildings when they have plans to use the space for future expansion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 I responded to Ms. Sarnoff this morning about our efforts to save these buildings. I also sent here a link to this topic page. Whether we can save these buildings or not, I believe our efforts in making our voice heard is important. HAIFers definitely have some respect in this city with knowing what's going on with potential development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 No, I'm not going to fund anything, I'm just going to require you not to tear it down. When you bought it, you bought a piece of the city's history, and you should be required to be a good steward. The way you think produces ugly cities, scarred with parking lots. No historic district can survive without preservation laws. There's too many barbarians out there who will tear down anything for easy parking. In most cases (specific to individuals) I am very much against changing the rules on someone after they have signed paperwork. I mean, you buy a thing (anything) with specific intentions, and then someone comes up to you after you've decided you want to do something with what you own, and they tell you that you can't do what you want to do, even though that thing that you want to do wasn't stipulated when you paid for it. well, what if that was the reason I bought it? You just completely devalued my investment. In the case of businesses, I'm less concerned. Despite this being a family owned business, it's still a business and there's risks involved. If one of the risks is that they can't demolish a historic building, then that's what needs to be done. Maybe they should have stuck with being a hotel, rather than dabbling in properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunstar Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 In most cases (specific to individuals) I am very much against changing the rules on someone after they have signed paperwork. I mean, you buy a thing (anything) with specific intentions, and then someone comes up to you after you've decided you want to do something with what you own, and they tell you that you can't do what you want to do, even though that thing that you want to do wasn't stipulated when you paid for it. well, what if that was the reason I bought it? You just completely devalued my investment. In the case of businesses, I'm less concerned. Despite this being a family owned business, it's still a business and there's risks involved. If one of the risks is that they can't demolish a historic building, then that's what needs to be done. Maybe they should have stuck with being a hotel, rather than dabbling in properties. Ultimately, I doubt anyone can stop them from doing it. The only hope would be to convince them otherwise somehow. But I do think that protesting this has merit, and shows that people do care about historical structures in this city. Otherwise you just have complacency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 In most cases (specific to individuals) I am very much against changing the rules on someone after they have signed paperwork.I mean, you buy a thing (anything) with specific intentions, and then someone comes up to you after you've decided you want to do something with what you own, and they tell you that you can't do what you want to do, even though that thing that you want to do wasn't stipulated when you paid for it. well, what if that was the reason I bought it? You just completely devalued my investment.In the case of businesses, I'm less concerned. Despite this being a family owned business, it's still a business and there's risks involved. If one of the risks is that they can't demolish a historic building, then that's what needs to be done. Maybe they should have stuck with being a hotel, rather than dabbling in properties.They weren't dabbling in property, they had a specific reason for owning them related to the hotel that is directly adjacent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_cuevas713 Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 They weren't dabbling in property, they had a specific reason for owning them related to the hotel that is directly adjacent.Yeah to eventually tear them down with little regard for the cities history. I'm more than appreciative of the renovation of the Lancaster Hotel but to destroy two historic pieces to this city for a parking lot is insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 Yeah to eventually tear them down with little regard for the cities history. I'm more than appreciative of the renovation of the Lancaster Hotel but to destroy to historic pieces to this city for a parking lot is insane. No, it's good business if they have an alternate use. They've owned those properties since at least 1994. That's not dabbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KinkaidAlum Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 They lied. Point blank. I don't like cowards who hide behind statements like "we tried our best to save them but they are so expensive so please don't hate us because we really do care about history. Look at what our Grandpa saved!" There are plenty of alternatives. They are choosing the one that destroys history, tears down a beautiful tree, ruins a great courtyard, and chases the all mighty dollar above all else. That is their right. It is also my right to think they SUCK balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 They should have demolished them in '94 when they bought them. I'd encourage anyone who would like these people to know how they feel to use the internet. Yelp, Google, Reddit, etc. Give them bad reviews for hypocrisy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Urbannizer Posted January 8, 2016 Author Share Posted January 8, 2016 The owner should work with Skanska for 50 parking spaces. If they need to expand to meed demand, do it by expanding the hotel upwards by a few floors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nole23 Posted January 8, 2016 Share Posted January 8, 2016 They should have demolished them in '94 when they bought them. I'd encourage anyone who would like these people to know how they feel to use the internet. Yelp, Google, Reddit, etc. Give them bad reviews for hypocrisy. A bunch of us posted our displeasure to their FB page.... and they deleted all of our comments. The Houston preservation FB page posted the article and a ton of people commented on it not wanting the buildings to be torn down, then whoever runs the Lancaster Hotel FB commented on there explaining the decision and that its not about a parking lot and blah blah blah... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It sort of has the smell of, when the previous generation ran the hotel, they held onto the buildings out of concern for history and the trust that sooner or later they'd be profitable, but when the kids took over the business, they saw dollar signs and ordered the demolition. Just a shot in the dark, but that's how these things often go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samagon Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 A bunch of us posted our displeasure to their FB page.... and they deleted all of our comments. The Houston preservation FB page posted the article and a ton of people commented on it not wanting the buildings to be torn down, then whoever runs the Lancaster Hotel FB commented on there explaining the decision and that its not about a parking lot and blah blah blah...Facebook does no good, cause as you mentioned, they can remove the comments. There's a historic preservation section of Reddit. If you can show sources, and have a compelling story, there's no telling how far it could get with the Reddit army. If you try Reddit, do let them know they are deleting content from their Facebook. Also, rather than posting on their fb page, tag them in a post, they can remove the tag, but I believe you can just add the tag back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 It sort of has the smell of, when the previous generation ran the hotel, they held onto the buildings out of concern for history and the trust that sooner or later they'd be profitable, but when the kids took over the business, they saw dollar signs and ordered the demolition. Just a shot in the dark, but that's how these things often go. I'm not understanding why you think it would be unreasonable for the owners to make a profit. Are you saying that the owners should suck it up and make less profit simply so you can enjoy looking at a couple of mediocre buildings with no real historical significance(they are merely old, not historic)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Lulz.. Ross is the epitome of the anti-preservation twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jgriff Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Lulz.. Ross is the epitome of the anti-preservation twins.And he's absolutely right. I suggest that if you want to save these buildings that you start raising the money to do it. Until preservationists do that you are nothing but talk. I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously.... someone start a gofundme campaign or something. I'd do it myself but I just don't care enough. I suspect the rest of you don't care enough either. Prove me wrong. If enough people care then the money will be raised.Edit: I'll be the first to put in money to save these buildings if someone else will do the work of setting up a way to fund it. I'll put in $5. Let's see if we can get another few hundred thousand people that care as much as I do to pitch in and save these buildings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 And he's absolutely right. I suggest that if you want to save these buildings that you start raising the money to do it. Until preservationists do that you are nothing but talk. I'm not trying to be snarky here, seriously.... someone start a gofundme campaign or something. I'd do it myself but I just don't care enough. I suspect the rest of you don't care enough either. Prove me wrong. If enough people care then the money will be raised.Edit: I'll be the first to put in money to save these buildings if someone else will do the work of setting up a way to fund it. I'll put in $5. Let's see if we can get another few hundred thousand people that care as much as I do to pitch in and save these buildings.Yawn. Someone change the record... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ross Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Lulz.. Ross is the epitome of the anti-preservation twins.More of a proponent of property rights where the property owner generally gets to decide what is done with the property. I am happy when a property owner chooses preservation, I just don't think it is right to force that decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 More of a proponent of property rights where the property owner generally gets to decide what is done with the property. I am happy when a property owner chooses preservation, I just don't think it is right to force that decision.I agree it's not right to "force" something onto anyone. Just seems like I've seen you in other renovation threads hating on the people who think we should save our history, like 800 Bell.Do 50 parking spaces (for valet I assume?) really bring in more revenue than two buildings that could be repurposed? I guess some of us appreciate the character old buildings add to our city more than others.. Unfortunately there aren't many old buildings left, so you should hopefully be able to understand our displeasure towards destroying what little history remains in Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.