Retail Center At 250 West 20th St.

[s3mh]

This is the kind of quote that makes those people who never go to 19th Street say, 'Oh, they should keep all of those cute stores', but it makes those of us who live here roll our eyes and gag at the sheer over-exaggeration of it all. 

 

I've noticed that the opposing viewpoint is evolving in his argument. First, he accused us of wanting big niteclubs and wholesale demolitions when no one ever said that. Now, he is actually using our arguments as his own. He claims 19th will evolve (which is what we are saying), and uses Torchy's as an example (which is what we want). Seems the only point left is that he loves the junk dealers (we don't care). He even admits evolution will occur (we said it first).

 

This debate is over. We win.

 

I argued that a live music venue or big bar like Christians would not be good for 19th street.  Here is your response:

 

It just occurred to me how unlikely it is that anyone has ever uttered these statements to you, or anyone else. Since 19th Street shops all close at 5 or 6, the strip is dead after that. Therefore, no one would be anywhere near 19th Street to even notice whether a live music venue or big bar was even open at night. I'd be willing to bet that the shop owners wish there was a draw to bring people to 19th Street at night. Some of them might stay open later.

 

In conclusion, I can think of no reason why anyone would be opposed to more business and entertainment opportunities on 19th Street after 5 pm. I am all for it.

 

And the issue is not whether 19th st evovles, but how it evolves.  Marksmu wants to see nothing but mainstream/national retailers.  You have repeatedly denigrated the current genre of retail (second hand, antiques, home decor, etc.) and claim that it will all fail and be demolished ("Progress will eventually steamroll the old 19th Street in favor of something useful. Its supporters will be left to lament its decline and fall, likely blaming other Heights residents and "big box" stores for its demise.").   My point has always been that businesses may come and go from 19th St., but the character of the street will never change because that character is what makes it successful.  Also, as noted in a previous post, the rise of a number of new retail developments inside and just outside the loop will decline any interest in displacing current tenants in favor of national retailers.  And I win because you continue to ignore the fact that 19th st. is leasing at a brisk pace without a single national retailer while Ainbinder's strip mall next door has had two empty pads for as long as I can recall.  You may think 19th st. is full of junk, but National Geographic Traveler, Fodors, and Frommers have highlighted 19th st.  The debate over 19th st is over because it does not exist outside this message board.

[SilverJK]

You can repeat yourself as many times as you want... it won't make what your saying true...

 

 

About the renting to Torchy's,  here I'll use your style to make my argument... (read completely fabricated)

 

The fact of the matter is that Torchy's is paying as much as a national chain, the majority of people know this.

[RedScare]

So, my shooting down of your ridiculous statement is proof that I advocated for it? Brilliant.

[s3mh]

You can repeat yourself as many times as you want... it won't make what your saying true...

 

 

About the renting to Torchy's,  here I'll use your style to make my argument... (read completely fabricated)

 

The fact of the matter is that Torchy's is paying as much as a national chain, the majority of people know this.

 

You do not know how much Torchy's is paying or how much the competing national chain is paying.  That information is always closely held by the parties.  If you know the terms of the lease, tell us what they are.  I will wait patiently for your response.

[s3mh]

So, my shooting down of your ridiculous statement is proof that I advocated for it? Brilliant.

 

You shot nothing down.  I quoted you directly and you obviously have no substantive response to your own words.  That is fine because you and the few others in this anti-Heights echo chamber are the only people in the Heights that think that 19th street is something negative that should be demo-ed in favor of more retail from the burbs.

[SilverJK]

You do not know how much Torchy's is paying or how much the competing national chain is paying.  That information is always closely held by the parties.  If you know the terms of the lease, tell us what they are.  I will wait patiently for your response.

 

You really think Braun took a hit just to get Torchy's?  GTFO, you don't actually think that.  Your the one always using the pronoun game  "we, they, eveyone" when you only can truly say "I" but you choose to call me out on stating they are getting the same money... REALLY? 

[Marksmu]

You shot nothing down.  I quoted you directly and you obviously have no substantive response to your own words.  That is fine because you and the few others in this anti-Heights echo chamber are the only people in the Heights that think that 19th street is something negative that should be demo-ed in favor of more retail from the burbs.

 

Please tell me where anyone said lets demo 19th street and bring in chain retail.  Please quote it b/c nobody, not one soul, especially me has said that.  You have mischaracterized everything I have said.

 

What I said, what I will repeat again, for the third or fourth time - is that the niche stores suck, and that they do pathetic business for the demographics of our area...that does not mean replace them with a pottery barn - what it means is replace them with stores that dont suck!   Also, nobody said to demo the existing buildings - the buildings themselves are nice looking - I can see how folks are attracted to the look, and I am not advocating demolishing them.  I am advocating for restaurants, wine bars, and retail that normal folks shop at....that does not have to mean Chilis/Pottery Barn/Outback

 

So just to be clear, b/c your reading comprehension has shown some area for improvement.

1.  I do not want to tear down the existing buildings on 19th to replace them with new buildings.

2.  I do not want to create a bar/night club area

3.  I do not want to replace the existing stores with national chains and "more retail from the burbs"

4.  I do want to get rid of shops that few people in the area shops at.

5.  I do want to get more restaurants and family friendly places on 19th - see Menchi's & Collinas as examples of success.  These can be chef driven places like Shade.  I like Shade, though I do think it is over priced for what you get.

6.  I do want to see 19th street become a street that has a night life - places open past 5, places where you can have dinner, walk down somewhere for a drink, coffee and walk home.

7.  I do want those places to serve alcohol b/c if they don't they will not succeed.

 

19th street looks nice, unfortunately its current tenants mostly suck.  It IS a matter of time before the niche is replaced with actually successful stores/restaurants.....I'd like to see that happen sooner rather than later....I can assure you with absolute certainty that less than 1% of the population of the Heights moved to the Heights b/c of 19th street and its shops.  They may think they are cute/quaint but almost nobody, if anyone at all, would have moved to the Heights b/c of 19th.

[TGM]

You shot nothing down. I quoted you directly and you obviously have no substantive response to your own words. That is fine because you and the few others in this anti-Heights echo chamber are the only people in the Heights that think that 19th street is something negative that should be demo-ed in favor of more retail from the burbs.

More like Anti-your-Luddite-vision-of-the-Heights. Your labeling of this forum an echo chamber makes sense given your previous statement that the debate was over. Typical tyrant action when views run opposite of ones own vision or belief system. The debate is never over because nothing in life is ever finished. The whole Heights Local movement is preposterous and laughable at best, given that the equally stupid, anti-global market Local movement defines "Local" as a journey of no more than 500 miles.

As the Heights grows your 19th street landlords will "turn evil" when they accept the more lucrative rent offers from evil corporate chains.

[JJxvi]

Just think, niche stores out, stores we want in. And you get to blame WalMart for destruction of Mom and Pop. Everybody wins!

[Angostura]

Weird... I thought the whole purpose of the 19th street businesses supporting WLN was to help drive their businesses which need more people.  You are so out of touch with reality it is amazing.  If what 19th street was was so successful, then why did its most iconic store (Harrold's) have to close down?  I know a few places on 19th street are only open because the owners don't care about money.  One person I spoke with several years ago (who's shop has since closed) told me they had actually operated at a loss for the past year, but kept the store open because it gave them something to do.  I have a feeling some of the other places are in a similar situation, eventually they will be priced out.  I'm curious about the new "Green Painter" store.  Their other store (New Living) does pretty well over near Rice Village...  I think what we are seeing on 19th street is just a prolonged death of several stores and the eventual phasing in of new desirable stores/restaurants/bars/etc.  Torchy's replacing Harrolds is a great example.

 

I guess your still new here,   there has been a ton of turnover on 19th, and at least 3-4 places had going out of business signs up in their windows for the longest time.  (they eventually did go out of business). 

 

 

One Green Street has apparently just gone out of business.

[s3mh]

One Green Street has apparently just gone out of business.

This was a clothing/women's boutique on White Oak. Green Painter is a different business. I was surprised to see them go out of business. They moved from a strip mall over by Kroger on Buffalo Speedway to be in the Heights. I thought being somewhat isolated on White Oak was a bad idea, but La Camella is supposed to be doing well.

[Marksmu]

How is it surprising that a boutique nobody shops at goes out of business? Only in your world is that a surprise.

[livincinco]

How is it surprising that a boutique nobody shops at goes out of business? Only in your world is that a surprise.

 

I've gone through this before, but the obsession with boutique retail always fascinates me.  Most of the time, chains are boutique retail that succeeded due to running their business well.  They then leverage their size and buying capabilities to create more value either for their customers, their shareholders, or both.

 

Earlier in the thread, having Torchy's open on 19th street was viewed as a good thing.  Torchy's is a chain.  It's just a chain that opens its locations in urban areas.  My guess is that Torchy's will continue to grow, will start to open locations in suburban areas and then Heights hipsters will turn on it. 

 

Hey, if feeling like you have to personally approve of every store that opens in your neighborhood makes you feel special, more power to you.  I prefer to judge a store on service, price and quality of product rather than whether they are "boutique."

[s3mh]

I've gone through this before, but the obsession with boutique retail always fascinates me.  Most of the time, chains are boutique retail that succeeded due to running their business well.  They then leverage their size and buying capabilities to create more value either for their customers, their shareholders, or both.

 

Earlier in the thread, having Torchy's open on 19th street was viewed as a good thing.  Torchy's is a chain.  It's just a chain that opens its locations in urban areas.  My guess is that Torchy's will continue to grow, will start to open locations in suburban areas and then Heights hipsters will turn on it. 

 

Hey, if feeling like you have to personally approve of every store that opens in your neighborhood makes you feel special, more power to you.  I prefer to judge a store on service, price and quality of product rather than whether they are "boutique."

This store had a solid following. I do not know whether it closed due to financial reasons or whether the owner had personal issues that required them to make the change. It could also be that the landlord had someone eyeing the property and jacked up the rent to clear them out. I think the main problem was the location. It was just to dislocated from other retail/restaurants. They would have had a much better shot if they were on 19th street.

I am not a boutique clothing store shopper. But for people with the kind of money to afford to live in the Heights, boutiques are preferred because they tend to be more fashion forward than the large chains. People are willing to pay the premium to get something that is unique and not what everyone else is wearing from the mall stores. Not my cup of tea, but it is a real market.

The preference in the Heights for boutiques over chains is not some superficial hipster thing. One Green Street held lots of little events for the neighborhood. That kind of out reach is rare with the larger chains. People in the Heights also appreciate getting to know the owners of the stores they patronize instead of dealing with some annonymous minimum wage employee at the mall. I like going to the Lift and having the owner know my kids' names. The economic efficiencies of large chains serve a purpose, but the human connection of dealing with local/independent stores is also something that has real value. And it is pretty sad that people on this message board look down upon the desire of people in the Heights to have that interaction with the businesses that land in their neighborhood.

[livincinco]

The preference in the Heights for boutiques over chains is not some superficial hipster thing. One Green Street held lots of little events for the neighborhood. That kind of out reach is rare with the larger chains. People in the Heights also appreciate getting to know the owners of the stores they patronize instead of dealing with some annonymous minimum wage employee at the mall. I like going to the Lift and having the owner know my kids' names. The economic efficiencies of large chains serve a purpose, but the human connection of dealing with local/independent stores is also something that has real value. And it is pretty sad that people on this message board look down upon the desire of people in the Heights to have that interaction with the businesses that land in their neighborhood.

I'm not looking down interaction with businesses, but I am disagreeing with your generalization of large chains having anonymous minimum wage employees. You're assigning attributes that aren't related to the size of the business. Businesses staff based on their target audience and any business, regardless of size, that appeals to higher income levels is going to staff accordingly. The same is true with any company that appeals to a price conscious customer. You're essentially lumping all chains into a single category and that's a gross generalization.

I have no problem with small businesses, I support them when possible, but I also don't complain about large chains because most of them are small businesses that succeeded.

Bottom line is the same for any business. At the end of the day, you have to provide a compelling reason for someone to buy from you. If you can't do that, you go out of business. If you do it extremely well, you continue to open locations and become a dreaded chain. The person that I have issue with is the person that will eat at Torchys now and then will stop eating at them when they start opening locations in the suburbs.

[s3mh]

I'm not looking down interaction with businesses, but I am disagreeing with your generalization of large chains having anonymous minimum wage employees. You're assigning attributes that aren't related to the size of the business. Businesses staff based on their target audience and any business, regardless of size, that appeals to higher income levels is going to staff accordingly. The same is true with any company that appeals to a price conscious customer. You're essentially lumping all chains into a single category and that's a gross generalization.

I have no problem with small businesses, I support them when possible, but I also don't complain about large chains because most of them are small businesses that succeeded.

Bottom line is the same for any business. At the end of the day, you have to provide a compelling reason for someone to buy from you. If you can't do that, you go out of business. If you do it extremely well, you continue to open locations and become a dreaded chain. The person that I have issue with is the person that will eat at Torchys now and then will stop eating at them when they start opening locations in the suburbs.

So, you chide me for making generalizations, but readily make your own. Not all businesses that do well become a dreaded chain. In fact, many small business owners have no intention of trying to become a chain because their success depends on the knowledge/skill etc. of the owner. Multiple locations can just lead to a cheapening of the brand and dimish the quality of the enterprise (See, e.g. anything Tilman Fertita gets his hand on).

And I am not lumping all chains together. Cartier, the Palm and Roche Bobois are chains. But the boutiques in the Heights are no where near that end of the market. Their competitors are the mall stores like Banana Republic, AX, etc. The employees at those stores may not be right at minimum wage, but they certainly won't be working there next year and won't know your name or your kids name or organize neighborhood events at their stores.

[RedScare]

This obsession with shopping by some people is just amazing. But, it is not just any shopping. No, this materialism must be of a certain style and pattern, lest it be bad materialism. So, Shopping at Walmart = bad materialism. Shopping at "boutique stores" = good materialism. In other words, if you spend enough money, and put enough thought into it, your materialism magically changes from bad to good. So, buying Folgers coffee is bad materialism, but buying fair trade coffee at twice the price is good materialism. That only wealthy people would appear to afford the needlessly expensive latter coffee is perished.

[livincinco]

I find the benevolent shop keeper who isn't interested in growing his/her business to be an urban legend that is mostly perpetuated by movies from the 1930s. The ones who claim that's what they want are the ones that don't run their businesses well enough to grow them.

Am I generalizing? Heck ya.

[SilverJK]

I saw a big sign for One Green Street on White Oak,  I guess they relocated?

 

I actually like boutique clothing stores... I disagree with Red.  I find that a lot of boutique stores have better pricing than your nicer mall stores.  Most of the stores are catered to women, so I don't buy very much for myself from these stores (or the men's clothes look like they could also be for women).  One of the sister stores to Langford Market though carries nice men's clothing similar to that of Banana Republic or Express but more unique and at a lower cost.  My wife loves going to New Orleans for all the boutique clothing stores and always manages to get good deals on clothes.  The boutique stores that are crazy expensive are trying to compete with the regular stores that are crazy expensive...  we generally don't shop at those stores anyway...

 

I understand your point about coffee... but folgers barely even qualifies as coffee.

[s3mh]

This obsession with shopping by some people is just amazing. But, it is not just any shopping. No, this materialism must be of a certain style and pattern, lest it be bad materialism. So, Shopping at Walmart = bad materialism. Shopping at "boutique stores" = good materialism. In other words, if you spend enough money, and put enough thought into it, your materialism magically changes from bad to good. So, buying Folgers coffee is bad materialism, but buying fair trade coffee at twice the price is good materialism. That only wealthy people would appear to afford the needlessly expensive latter coffee is perished.

Or you can live in your fantasy world where economic choices people make in a consumer market place are all ethically neutral and the only value in a transaction is whether you can get the lowest price. Also, you do not have to be wealthy to make socially conscious consumer decisions. I know plenty of people who spend significantly more on food, clothes, etc. in order to buy organic, fair trade, independent, locally owned, etc. They just spend less on other things (cable TV, vacations, cars, consumer electronics, etc.).

[s3mh]

I find the benevolent shop keeper who isn't interested in growing his/her business to be an urban legend that is mostly perpetuated by movies from the 1930s. The ones who claim that's what they want are the ones that don't run their businesses well enough to grow them.

Am I generalizing? Heck ya.

I will be sure to tell Monica Pope that she sucks at cooking because she only has one restaurant.

[SilverJK]

I will be sure to tell Monica Pope that she sucks at cooking because she only has one restaurant.

 

A chef even if business owner is not the same as a typical business owner.  There is a level of micromanagement that can only be achieved in certain scales as a chef...  I would place that as the exception to the rule, you are trying to say it is the normal way of things. 

 

So no... we don't see higher end boutique restaurants break off into chains very often...

Edited June 28, 2013 by SilverJK

[barracuda]

A chef even if business owner is not the same as a typical business owner.  There is a level of micromanagement that can only be achieved in certain scales as a chef...  I would place that as the exception to the rule, you are trying to say it is the normal way of things. 

 

So no... we don't see higher end boutique restaurants break off into chains very often...

 

I completely agree when it comes to restaurants. Economies of scale and good food are not usually related.

 

There are very few chain restaurants in Houston that I go to since there are so many wonderful local restaurants run by local chefs or families. If I do go to a chain, it's usually out of convenience when I'm traveling. 

 

Where I would differentiate this is with commodity products, where you can almost certainly find a better price for the same item at a chain store vs. a local one. The only reason for going local in this case is if there is some added service or convenience provided. 

[RedScare]

Or you can live in your fantasy world where economic choices people make in a consumer market place are all ethically neutral and the only value in a transaction is whether you can get the lowest price. Also, you do not have to be wealthy to make socially conscious consumer decisions. I know plenty of people who spend significantly more on food, clothes, etc. in order to buy organic, fair trade, independent, locally owned, etc. They just spend less on other things (cable TV, vacations, cars, consumer electronics, etc.).

 

Heh heh. I wonder which of these is really the fantasy world, looking for the best price, or thinking that paying more for your crap actually means anything in the real world?

[livincinco]

I will be sure to tell Monica Pope that she sucks at cooking because she only has one restaurant.

You apparently missed the words "shop keeper" in my post. BTW, I have nothing against personal choice in buying organic, fair trade, independent, etc. It's your money, do what you want with it. I do many of those things myself. I do not however place value judgements on people who choose to live their life differently.

[HoustonMidtown]

I will be sure to tell Monica Pope that she sucks at cooking because she only has one restaurant.

 

I thought she had 2 -- Beavers and Sparrow -- did she close one ?

[s3mh]

It's down. Haven't seen any renderings of the new building yet. Getting enough parking on that lot to meet city requirements will be a challenge if they do a restaurant.

[s3mh]

http://www.braunenterprises.com/?q=Property/PropertyDetail&id=a906aff5-3005-3e9e-0da5-528fa51b92ec

 

Looks like Braun is doing a typical parking in front strip mall.  Had hopes that they would put the store fronts along the sidewalk to connect with the retail on 19th st.  But it looks like setbacks and developer groupthink rule the day.  Also looks like Zoe's Kitchen is signed up as a tenant.  moo.  Already one on Washington Ave.  Braun owns the Yale St. Grill & Gifts property.  So, this is probably a look into the future for that property.

[Angostura]

That rendering is incredibly deceptive. Looks like the building is up against the street with space for parallel parking. Instead, it's set back by one row of head-in parking on Rutland and two rows on 20th.

 

City of Houston setback and parking regulations make me want to tear my hair out.

 

This is a walkable district with plenty of street parking. Why 8000 s.f. of retail in this area requires 53 (!) parking spaces is beyond me.

 

Even so, there's no reason why this couldn't be built with 5-ft setbacks and parking in the back to maintain the pedestrian-friendly blockfaces on Rutland and 20th.  Very disappointing.

 

 

 

[Texasota]

Oh wow. That's horrible.