Paul Barabash’s Grocery Store At 312, 314 Teetshorn St.

[hindesky]

[mkultra25]

Paul Barabash’s Store

There was a thread on Nextdoor about this a couple of days ago, but when I went to look for it just now I discovered that it had been removed. The gist of it was that a lot of people were upset about the demo, but as it turns out the demo apparently does not include the facade as pictured above - it is being preserved and will be incorporated into the new structure that is being built on the site. So, adaptive reuse as opposed to "scrape it all and throw up a townhome".

[Ross]

Nextdoor was full of the whining class that wants to tell other people what to do with their property without putting up any of their own money. Or even asking whether it would make economic sense to retain the building. Like Gulf Publishing years back getting a ration of crap for demolishing their building, and replying that they weren't going to spend millions of dollars and lose money on the project just to satisfy someone elses aesthetic sensibilities.

It's great if a property owner can come up with a way to reuse the existing structures, but it's not a disaster if they can't.

That thread on Nextdoor didn't last long. It disappeared while I was trying to reply.

[s3mh]

27 minutes ago, Ross said:

Nextdoor was full of the whining class that wants to tell other people what to do with their property without putting up any of their own money. Or even asking whether it would make economic sense to retain the building. Like Gulf Publishing years back getting a ration of crap for demolishing their building, and replying that they weren't going to spend millions of dollars and lose money on the project just to satisfy someone elses aesthetic sensibilities.

It's great if a property owner can come up with a way to reuse the existing structures, but it's not a disaster if they can't.

That thread on Nextdoor didn't last long. It disappeared while I was trying to reply.

Not sure I would cite 3333 Allen Parkway as an example of the "markets know best".  It was a flop as a high end apartment complex and the condo conversion was also a mess with the original conversion not getting enough interest (this was back when a developer was trying to pre-sell condos for a reincarnated Shamrock Hotel downtown and couldn't get enough interest to get financing) and another developer swooped in and bought up the remaining units at fire sale pricing.  And the building is butt ugly.  

 

 

[Ross]

2 hours ago, s3mh said:

Not sure I would cite 3333 Allen Parkway as an example of the "markets know best".  It was a flop as a high end apartment complex and the condo conversion was also a mess with the original conversion not getting enough interest (this was back when a developer was trying to pre-sell condos for a reincarnated Shamrock Hotel downtown and couldn't get enough interest to get financing) and another developer swooped in and bought up the remaining units at fire sale pricing.  And the building is butt ugly.  

 

 

But Gulf Publishing wasn't forced to spend money that made no sense to them from an economic perspective, which is what lots of folks wanted at the time.

[j_cuevas713]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:06 PM, mkultra25 said:

Paul Barabash’s Store

There was a thread on Nextdoor about this a couple of days ago, but when I went to look for it just now I discovered that it had been removed. The gist of it was that a lot of people were upset about the demo, but as it turns out the demo apparently does not include the facade as pictured above - it is being preserved and will be incorporated into the new structure that is being built on the site. So, adaptive reuse as opposed to "scrape it all and throw up a townhome".

This building is do damn charming and would be a huge loss for the neighborhood. Do you know if it will be an addition to a new building or just a few bricks saved?

[j_cuevas713]

On 1/24/2022 at 3:04 PM, Ross said:

Nextdoor was full of the whining class that wants to tell other people what to do with their property without putting up any of their own money. Or even asking whether it would make economic sense to retain the building. Like Gulf Publishing years back getting a ration of crap for demolishing their building, and replying that they weren't going to spend millions of dollars and lose money on the project just to satisfy someone elses aesthetic sensibilities.

It's great if a property owner can come up with a way to reuse the existing structures, but it's not a disaster if they can't.

That thread on Nextdoor didn't last long. It disappeared while I was trying to reply.

I don't think people are just whining to whine. There is legit concern when developers destroy charming architecture, no matter how "insignificant" the building may seem. The issue people have is that this has real historical value showing the Ukrainian influence that was in Houston and the neighborhood at the time. These are the type of small scale structures that keep the neighborhood at a pedestrian scale. When I visited Chicago a couple of years ago, not only did you have the towering skyscrapers but you had a ton of the small little brick buildings that made you feel like you were part of something bigger in the city. That's what the whole idea of placemaking is about and is an idea a city like ours needs to pay attention to before it's too late. Now I get your argument about "well it's not your property or money" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our concern. I'd be more worried if people didn't care. 

Edited January 31, 2022 by j_cuevas713

[Ross]

6 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

I don't think people are just whining to whine. There is legit concern when developers destroy charming architecture, no matter how "insignificant" the building may seem. The issue people have is that this has real historical value showing the Ukrainian influence that was in Houston and the neighborhood at the time. These are the type of small scale structures that keep the neighborhood at a pedestrian scale. When I visited Chicago a couple of years ago, not only did you have the towering skyscrapers but you had a ton of the small little brick buildings that made you feel like you were part of something bigger in the city. That's what the whole idea of placemaking is about and is an idea a city like ours needs to pay attention to before it's too late. Now I get your argument about "well it's not your property or money" but that doesn't mean we shouldn't voice our concern. I'd be more worried if people didn't care. 

The issue with the Nextdoor thread was many of the posters assumed the entire building was going to be demolished, and they started going nuts. I doubt many of them had any idea what the condition of the building was, or any idea of what was going on. It was a rush to judgement. Some of them were asking "Did Ed and Nancy sell the property?". Well, I hate to tell you this folks, but Ed and Nancy are dead. Ed died in 1994, and Nancy in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kienholz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Reddin_Kienholz They also owned 308 Teetshorn and 2718 N. Sabine, which is the property due south of the Barbash store. The Sabine property, a vacant lot, is owned by an entity associated with the owner of 312 Teetshorn. 312 Teetshorn had two buildings, the store and a small house built in 1950. Nancy Kienholz's probate inventory put the value of her estate at between $30 million and $55 million, depending on the blockage discount on the artwork that makes up the bulk of the estate.

[j_cuevas713]

1 minute ago, Ross said:

The issue with the Nextdoor thread was many of the posters assumed the entire building was going to be demolished, and they started going nuts. I doubt many of them had any idea what the condition of the building was, or any idea of what was going on. It was a rush to judgement. Some of them were asking "Did Ed and Nancy sell the property?". Well, I hate to tell you this folks, but Ed and Nancy are dead. Ed died in 1994, and Nancy in 2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Kienholz and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Reddin_Kienholz They also owned 308 Teetshorn and 2718 N. Sabine, which is the property due south of the Barbash store. The Sabine property, a vacant lot, is owned by an entity associated with the owner of 312 Teetshorn. 312 Teetshorn had two buildings, the store and a small house built in 1950. Nancy Kienholz's probate inventory put the value of her estate at between $30 million and $55 million, depending on the blockage discount on the artwork that makes up the bulk of the estate.

Lol I hear ya, but I am happy this is staying. These little properties are great for the neighborhood. Do you know of any renderings? 

[mkultra25]

7 hours ago, j_cuevas713 said:

This building is do damn charming and would be a huge loss for the neighborhood. Do you know if it will be an addition to a new building or just a few bricks saved?

I can't access the Nextdoor thread any more as it was removed, but Ross pretty much summed up my recollection of it. I assume the reason it was removed is that the original premise (the building was going to be completely demolished) turned out to be false, after someone that appeared to be more informed posted in the thread in an attempt to clear the air. My impression was that there's going to be a lot more than just a few bricks saved, but I guess we'll see what the new owner has in mind. I've walked by there many times and the property always seemed to be pretty well cared-for and in reasonably good shape, even after Nancy Kienholz died. 

[Specwriter]

On 1/24/2022 at 2:06 PM, mkultra25 said:

Paul Barabash’s Store

There was a thread on Nextdoor about this a couple of days ago, but when I went to look for it just now I discovered that it had been removed. The gist of it was that a lot of people were upset about the demo, but as it turns out the demo apparently does not include the facade as pictured above - it is being preserved and will be incorporated into the new structure that is being built on the site. So, adaptive reuse as opposed to "scrape it all and throw up a townhome".

Saving the facade is not exactly adaptive reuse. That would entail saving much more of the original structure. However, I am pleased to see that the facade is being saved. It does speak to the significance of the contribution of the original owners to the neighborhood.

Recall that in San Antonio about 30 years ago the developer of a multi-story office building was encouraged to preserve the facade of the Texas Theater. It was a pity that the wonderful interior was lost and the subject remains controversial to this day but, IMO, the historic front is much better than what might have been built in its place.

Apologies for ending on a tacky note but I am compelled to recount the story. One of my architecture professors at the time of the Texas Theater demolition would not be satisfied with the preservation of the entry to the 1926 building. He said it was a "blatant case of facade-omy." Ugh! 🙄

 

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by Specwriter
reattach image

[mkultra25]

28 minutes ago, Specwriter said:

Saving the facade is not exactly adaptive reuse. That would entail saving much more of the original structure. However, I am pleased to see that the facade is being saved. It does speak to the significance of the contribution of the original owners to the neighborhood.

Recall that in San Antonio about 30 years ago the developer of a multi-story office building was encouraged to preserve the facade of the Texas Theater. It was a pity that the wonderful interior was lost and the subject remains controversial to this day but, IMO, the historic front is much better than what might have been built in its place.

Apologies for ending on a tacky note but I am compelled to recount the story. One of my architecture professors at the time of the Texas Theater demolition would not be satisfied with the preservation of the entry to the 1926 building. He said it was a "blatant case of facade-omy." Ugh! 🙄

 

 

I'm not sure how much of the original building is being preserved. There was at least one comment indicating that the facade would be kept intact. I'll be happy to be proven wrong if it turns out that it's more/most of the building, as opposed to just the facade. Given that there was a lot more heat than light in that thread, the numerous contradictory comments were a bit confusing. 

Also, "facadeomy" deserves to be formally enshrined in the HAIF lexicon. :-)

[kbates2]

I believe that they are already down to the facade so definitely not more than that.  Does look like it’s staying though.

[twisterhunt]

The Next Door thread has a link to the Instagram page for B Ingenious Designs which has a couple rendering previews from early 2021. Sharing below - also work is quickly progressing on the site. 

[BigRed]

Is this going to be a home or what?!

[s3mh]

Is this one of those deals where the builder keeps the front facade to avoid having to get a variance for setbacks?  Also, this kind of reminds me of the giant modern at 806 Alexander.  That one seems like a safehouse for cartel informants who were allowed to walk away with millions.  

[twisterhunt]

On 2/14/2022 at 4:50 PM, BigRed said:

Is this going to be a home or what?!

Both, according to the Next Door posts. The storefront will be turned into a private art gallery. The other portion of the property will be a single family residence for the owner...

[hindesky]

[Ross]

Nextdoor was blowing up on this one again, although the thread didn't deleted(the last time I looked). Folks decrying the demolition of the house at the back of the property, and how horrible it was that the renters who had lived there for 30+ years had to leave.

[Avossos]

24 minutes ago, Ross said:

Nextdoor was blowing up on this one again, although the thread didn't deleted(the last time I looked). Folks decrying the demolition of the house at the back of the property, and how horrible it was that the renters who had lived there for 30+ years had to leave.

They were lucky if renters and rentees both enjoyed that situation for 30 years.

[pokemonizepic]