Houstonians are banding together in what seems like an unprecedented collaboration for historic preservation. In actuality, many of us have always cared, but this time we have some notice. A sketch from Hermes Architects shows clear plans to demolish the current location of Black-eyed Pea restaurant with an anchor (Barnes & Noble), and the implementation of a three-level parking garage that would run along the back side of the center.
According to the Chronicle:
"They're scheduled to take us down," said Fredericka Hunter, owner of Texas Gallery, in the same building as the theater.Hunter said her leasing agent offered her replacement space on the third floor of the new building whose anchor tenant, she was told, would be Barnes & Noble.
Other tenants say the leasing agent has described similar plans. They say the building at the corner of Shepherd and West Gray is slated to be razed at the end of this year, and the building containing the theater could be demolished in early 2008.
The Houston Archaeological and Historical Commission has a meeting at the end of August, and on the agenda could be the possibility of designating a portion or more of the buildings as historic landmarks. Unfortunately, the City of Houston has never seen property designated as such without consent (or against) the property owners. Of course, Weingarten has been behind closed doors concerning this issue so far.
So, you ask: What can I do to help?
- First, visit the petition, read information provided there, and sign.
- Visit a few sites to gather more information, such as names and emails of people to voice concerns:
• riveroaks.arch-ive.org
• Greater Houston Preservation Alliance
• Historic Houston
Even though no one in the city can get hold of Weingarten, Drew Alexander and his pops Stanford Alexander sounded happy to report that they have 95.2% retail occupancy (the highest percentage in the last twenty years), and gazillions of dollars in profits at the 2006 Second Quarter Earnings conference call meeting.
Of course, demolition or not, we all know what these recent happenings spell out: a public relations nightmare for Weingarten Realty Investors.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
The online petition will not list your name or comments on the petition unless you make a "donation" to them!
Manuel Olivo
Lauren is correct. Just close out of that window and your petition and comments will be registered.
Thanks Lauren and Laanba I went back and closed out of the donation window and I saw my comments on the petition.
:-)
Manuel Olivo
You aren't the only one that was confused by that. I'm glad you asked. This way people will read this discussion and then go sign the petition! GO. SIGN. :-)
Instead of signing a petition, y'all should get together and buy the place. Then you would own it and you'd be justified in deciding the property's future. You'll probably respond, "Oh, that's ridiculous."
It's no more ridiculous than a moviegoer dictating what a landlord may do with his private property.
You're demanding that the company refrain from a perfectly legal, profit-maximizing action. In doing so, you're demanding that Weingarten betray its employees and shareholders -- to whom it has a duty, so that it may please you -- to whom it does not have a duty.
demanding? no...asking? well, yes.
many believe that Weingarten, as property owners entitled to do whatever they may please (aside from a handful of regulations) with their assets, would be better stewards of the property by not removing certain nostalgic parts.
of course, big business usually wins over history in houston.
also, since weingarten is in the consumer-driven industry, and most of the people who enjoy the lesser-homogeneity of this shopping center are its consumers, they feel that it IS weingarten's duty to please them to some extent.
pooling together $41,252,561 (appraised value of their west gray holdings) and buying something that isn't for sale (or did something change while i blinked?) might not be the most efficient solution.
pooling together $41,252,561 (appraised value of their west gray holdings) and buying something that isn't for sale (or did something change while i blinked?) might not be the most efficient solution.
Real estate is always for sale. Come up with the right price, and they'll sell.
It's interesting, though, that you bring up "the most efficient solution." Since when is the save-the-theater crowd enamored with efficiency?
Weingarten is maximizing the efficiency of its center by redeveloping it up to its highest and best use. There's nothing "efficient" about an ancient, three-screen theater sitting on land that's worth 40 bucks a square foot.
the whole thing on efficiency was said tongue-in-cheek, so no worries (facetiousness never goes over well on quick postings). i *do* hope that a development company with some cojones and some big bucks *does* make them an offer, and see what happens. kaldis, are you reading?
you and the save river oaks crowd are going to have to agree to disagree.
reminds me of the many i've talked to that liken the different attitudes to the rift between people who prefer the 1920's and 30s bungalows to the rows of boring townhomes in the area...
those with money will build what they please, and maybe, just maybe look back in twenty or thirty with a tinge of regret and confusion.
In doing so, you're demanding that Weingarten betray its employees and shareholders -- to whom it has a duty, so that it may please you -- to whom it does not have a duty.
Though I agree that Weingarten does have a duty to best serve its employees and shareholders, I would argue that, by managing the River Oaks and Alabama centers, it also has a duty to the citizens of Houston. Both are significant pieces of the city's architectural heritage, which brings the question of apporopriate stewardship into the deal. There are often ways to make preservation work even as new, responsible development goes on around it.
Unfortunately, Houston developers haven't looked into that option very often, though surprising decisions have been made before: After Texas Commerce Tower opened downtown, Texas Commerce Bank was advised to demolish the outdated, inefficient (but extremely significant) Gulf Building. Instead, it chose to restore the building, a project that cost tens of millions of dollars and has proved a profitable — and, many people would say, responsible — choice.
It's true that no one can tell Weingarten what to do with the River Oaks center, but I hope the company will find a way to strike a balance between profit and stewardship.
you and the save river oaks crowd are going to have to agree to disagree.
reminds me of the many i've talked to that liken the different attitudes to the rift between people who prefer the 1920's and 30s bungalows to the rows of boring townhomes in the area...
Very true. Different strokes, you know?
If Weingarten wants to knock it down and build a high-rise, bully for them. If they want to keep the art deco building, hey, that's cool too.
I guess my main beef is that far too many of those petitioners are willing to turn this decision over to the power of government or to take matters into their own hands. The petition is studded with comments like "I can't believe that the City of Houston would allow the destruction of an historic, cultural landmark such as the River Oaks Cinema" as though the City has (or should have) the that power.
Indeed, copies of the petition are being sent to the mayor and two a couple of Councilmembers, an action that can only be a subtle threat, suggesting action by the City.
I wonder what the modern-day preservation crowd would've said had they been around when the center was first being built. Probably "save our green space."
Indeed, copies of the petition are being sent to the mayor and two a couple of Councilmembers, an action that can only be a subtle threat, suggesting action by the City.
Not so much a subtle threat as a way to show elected officials that people do care about these things. Part of the reason that we've already lost so much of our tangible history around here, I think, is that there hasn't been a whole lot of thought about how to save it. I don't mean the government should step in and taking contol of private property, but it could work to create an atmosphere more conducive to preservation. There are a lot of cases around the country where that has happened and people have found ways to combine preservation with development in ways that work really well. Maybe we'll get there one of these days.
I guess I just think there are more important things than profit and preserving historic landmarks would be one of them. I'm sure that the Washington Monument could bring a hell of a lot of $$$ if sold to developers or Central Park or the Empire State Building or the Alamo or land inside the Grand Canyon. But, everyone would cringe if one of those landmarks was bulldozed in the name of progress and profit.
Granted, River Oaks Theater isn't the Grand Canyon, but given how many of Houston's historic landmarks and buildings have been bulldozed, it just doesn't seem like a lot to ask to preserve this one.
With the exception of the Empire State Building (which really wouldn't bring much profit at all) all of those pieces of property are existing government parks. You're talking about expanding the city's authority
I guess I just think there are more important things than profit
It is a SHOPPING CENTER. It raison d'etre is to provide leased retail space to tenants so they can sell t-shirts and lattes and makeup for profit.
I've learned that it's impossible to have a rational argument with someone who profits from and believes deeply in the 'free market' as a divine right that trumps all other rights and desires of people in a community. Responsibility to shareholders, etc., blah, blah, blah. The 'free market' true believers cling to a belief system that is just as unverifiable and mysterious as the beliefs held by devoutly religious people. Unfortuntely, the invisible hand stubbornly remains invisible.
So, instead of arguing with the true-believer above(I've tried too many times with too many of them), I will say simply:
Matt, fuck you.
Matt, it isn't germaine if the Empire State Building would sell for much. The point is--New Yorkers would take up arms, if someone threatened it.
The tenants of the River Oaks Shopping Center, by your definition, ARE fulfilling the center's raison d'etre. They're selling their wares.
I have zero problem with expanding the city's authority here.
I can see where the petition forwarded to the Mayor, et al, might be perceived as a subtle threat. I'm sorry. I didn't intend the subtlety. Our elected officials should be concerned about what WE are concerned with. We gave them their jobs.
This city blithely tore down numerous magnificent movie houses on Main Street, in the 70's & 80's (http://cinematreasures.org/theater/1702/), which could have been re-utilized, as the Alabama Theatre has been. San Antonio has a beautiful old theatre on Main Street---converted into a performance hall. We're constantly building performance space downtown--when, had we not destroyed them, we could have those grand venues turning PROFITS (I threw that in for you, Matt).
Our City Council needs to draft stronger preservation laws, more in line with other major cities. Our elected officials constantly talk about us not being perceived as a 'world-class' city. Maybe if we didn't destroy our history, we would be.
Thank you for reading.