TheNiche Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 True. Even radical leftist ideas like anti-sprawl policies can result in beauty and profit, it just changes how it looks. Portland is a good example of that (I've heard and read, never been there though).Portland is an anomaly. They have an Urban Growth Boundary that is enforced at a regional level by the state (and it'll never happen in Texas). Houston, on the other hand, must compete in the immediate present with its suburban cities and unincorporated lands. If Houston tried to force a Portland-like vision, developers would just flee to the lower-cost suburbs.Is it profitable? Of course. Costs just get passed on to the consumer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 If Houston tried to force a Portland-like vision, developers would just flee to the lower-cost suburbs.You have nothing to base that on. Just your typical B.S. Why are we not surprised?Stay on the topic. This is about the destruction of the ROT-not some mythical fantasy that you seem hell-bent on propagating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 There are shacks in this town that have been around just as long as The River Oaks, where do you draw that line at "Historical Significance"? Just because it looks good to you, doesn't mean it looks good to the owner. Do these owners just keep throwing good money after bad so that the minority can be happy, or should the minority get their own damn money together and purchase these "landmarks" from the owners, then they can do what they damn well please with the property? If the owner of said property wants to risk losing a few perspective customers and is willing to run the "Gambit of Boos" thrown onto them, then so be it.Don't try to tell me that I don't know about historical significance either. I have saved two classic cars from eminent destruction. I spent my own money to do it. It comes down to how much is it really worth to you to save it. Don't throw it on the owner to keep it, if he thinks he can make better use of it. That is like someone telling you to go wash your car because it is an eyesore to the rest of the people who keep clean cars in the driveways down the block, or that you can't paint your house a certain color because turquoise and plum crazy purple, just wouldn't look good for the neighborhood. It is private property in the public eye, but it is yours to do as you please. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Portland is an anomaly. They have an Urban Growth BoundaryThat would cause the land values to skyrocket within the boundary.It would be a blessing for those that already own land and a disaster for those trying to buy affordable housing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 You have nothing to base that on. Just your typical B.S. Why are we not surprised?Stay on the topic. This is about the destruction of the ROT-not some mythical fantasy that you seem hell-bent on propagating.Uh huh. If you'd like to actually back up your counterargument with...I don't know...maybe an ARGUMENT, feel free to create another thread.That would cause the land values to skyrocket within the boundary.It would be a blessing for those that already own land and a disaster for those trying to buy affordable housing.You got that right. Renters' housing prices would also go up.Just another policy that disproportionately hurts the poor and lower-middle class... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Don't throw it on the owner to keep it, if he thinks he can make better use of it. That is like someone telling you to go wash your car because it is an eyesore to the rest of the people who keep clean cars in the driveways down the block, or that you can't paint your house a certain color because turquoise and plum crazy purple, just wouldn't look good for the neighborhood. It is private property in the public eye, but it is yours to do as you please.Every master planned community has these very same rules. Interestingly, deed restrictions that force one to mow their grass, only use certain paint, and park cars off the street are lauded as desirable attributes of the neighborhood. But, regardless of whether you think they help property values, they are there, and you may NOT do as you please with your private property.There are some posters here who attempt to say that saving this one building, and a few others like it, will run developers out of town. Aside from the fact that we WANT those developers to leave, the poster misses the point. Land closer to town is already much more expensive than land in the suburbs. Additionally, Houston is not an old city. There are very few iconic or historical buildings here. In spite of protestations to the contrary, a historical protection ordinance, carefully crafted, will not hurt values or developers. The city may even add financial incentives for restoring the old buildings ina consistent manner.Niche can't stand this thought, but in a civil society, there ARE restrictions. And, it IS proper to put restrictions on development. Just because the landowner thinks he can make a lot of money putting a 30 story tower at the end of a one-way street, for example, doesn't mean it should be allowed. While it would be preferable that developers be civic-minded, and not merely profit at the expense of the community, Niche's own remarks suggest why that is a pipe dream. The fabric of the community does not enter into his calculations. I for one, think that reasonable restrictions are preferable.Restrictions, by nature, cause prices to rise. Sometimes, they rise because the area becomes more desirable, sometimes because it reduces the number of uses for the property. But, rising prices do not run developers off. River Oaks has no shortage of home builders. And, the restrictions will not cause prices to rise uniformly. A historic designation on the River Oaks shopping center will have no effect on property more than a few blocks away. And, that property was already unaffordable to low income residents. That argument is a red herring.So, this argument really comes down to this. Are reasonable restrictions on the destruction of historic buildings a good thing? The answer is yes, for everyone. Developers who can design and build within the context of the neighborhood are assured that their investment will not deteriorate when the selfish landowner next door destroys a historic building. The selfish landowner has two options...rehab the building, possibly with city assistance, or sell at a higher price, since the neighborhood is now more valuable. His third option, bulldozing the property, is the only one off the table. Niche may call it thievery. I call it good city planning. And sometimes the livability of a community takes preferance over blind greed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Red hit on exactly what I was getting at, and I set it up so someone else would point it out. PROPERTY VALUES, I know you can't just paint your house what you want. HOAs that I have had the displeasure to know are adamant about enforcing the rules. It is my belief that although the theater's destruction would be a travesty for selfish reasons, I think Weingarten has every right to make what he feels is the best use of HIS property, where there are no HOA restrictions, or restrictions on building such a highrise if it is allowed. Also, in building such a highrise, I would be willing to wager that property values would go up in an already skyrocketing market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 Red hit on exactly what I was getting at, and I set it up so someone else would point it out. PROPERTY VALUES, I know you can't just paint your house what you want. HOAs that I have had the displeasure to know are adamant about enforcing the rules. It is my belief that although the theater's destruction would be a travesty for selfish reasons, I think Weingarten has every right to make what he feels is the best use of HIS property, where there are no HOA restrictions, or restrictions on building such a highrise if it is allowed. Also, in building such a highrise, I would be willing to wager that property values would go up in an already skyrocketing market.As much as I hate to say this, but I think it's time for zoning in Houston. Personally, I want ROT to survive, but the rest of the center can go away as far as I'm concerned as long as the new development allows for the same shopping experience (or perhaps better!). Designate some commercial areas along with some high density areas and allow the existing structures to be "grandfathered" in and then once those buildings reaches the end of their useful lives, then something new can develop that can match the rest of the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) As much as I hate to say this, but I think it's time for zoning in Houston. Personally, I want ROT to survive, but the rest of the center can go away as far as I'm concerned as long as the new development allows for the same shopping experience (or perhaps better!). Designate some commercial areas along with some high density areas and allow the existing structures to be "grandfathered" in and then once those buildings reaches the end of their useful lives, then something new can develop that can match the rest of the area.I like zoning too but the developers are too against it and have the bucks to back it up. Zoning in this instance wouldn't save the building but would only designate what could be built there. For historical structures, an ordinance would have to be developed, however again, the developers would feel as if they are too restricted and would fight this on the grounds that it would make new structures cost more. They definitely would say that it hinders development. The City is basically remaining neutral because with each permit taken out, the money is just rolling in. Anything that prevents money from coming it would be a hinderance. Edited August 5, 2006 by musicman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 As much as I hate to say this, but I think it's time for zoning in Houston. Personally, I want ROT to survive, but the rest of the center can go away as far as I'm concerned as long as the new development allows for the same shopping experience (or perhaps better!). Designate some commercial areas along with some high density areas and allow the existing structures to be "grandfathered" in and then once those buildings reaches the end of their useful lives, then something new can develop that can match the rest of the area.Ricco, I have thought the same thing since the 90's and we should model it after Dallas the way it has grown with it's zoning back in the 90's is great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 5, 2006 Share Posted August 5, 2006 (edited) ugh...this is starting to sound like the tired metrorail debates as far as: If they are responsible for providing us with structures of 'significance', is it not us that owe them a debt of gratitude? Should they not receive at least an iota of respect? yes, unless they tear down the structures, which they are obviously planning to do. the "debt of gratitude" is the patronization of the tenants, filling their pockets with rent money. in the ONE statement that was released, it says: Weingarten Realty Investors has owned the River Oaks Shopping Center since 1971. We have made a significant investment in developing, managing and maintaining this valuable property to be an asset to our community. As a responsible public company with roots in, and a commitment to Houston, we will continue to manage this asset with great care, taking into account its history and its future. now it's all about the interpretation of what "managing this asset with great care" actually means to them. it is CLEAR that many houstonians take it to mean not demolishing the structures. since weingarten has a "commitment to Houston" (and i would hope Houstonians, too), they might want to consider taking heed of the great opposition. Edited August 5, 2006 by sevfiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoAtomic Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 In the spirit of preservation, I'm posting an interesting article from CNN.com explaining how South Beach, Florida (a collection of Art Deco buildings) came to be the hot property it now is. http://www.cnn.com/2006/TRAVEL/DESTINATION...e.ap/index.htmlKey to this is the fact that the whole area was put on the National Register of Historic Places early on, and subsquently couldn't be altered OR DEMOLISHED. And yet, the properties are worth a fortune now.Why can't this be done with the River Oaks Center? To me there is no reason it couldn't happen here, as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 (edited) Key to this is the fact that the whole area was put on the National Register of Historic Places early on, and subsquently couldn't be altered OR DEMOLISHED. And yet, the properties are worth a fortune now.Why can't this be done with the River Oaks Center? To me there is no reason it couldn't happen here, as well. it is definitely eligible for register status - anyone can prepare the application, and then it has to be nominated by the state historic preservation officer (maybe city, too?). i'm on it and this picture was in the bob bailey archives: link to folder Edited August 7, 2006 by sevfiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marym Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 The River Oaks/Alabama Theater fight has made The New York Times.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/12/us/12preserve.html"Though Mayor Bill White backs their efforts, he said he had not seen the same fervor in preservation battles involving, say, Houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted August 12, 2006 Share Posted August 12, 2006 great article. thanks for the link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H-Town Man Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 "Though Mayor Bill White backs their efforts, he said he had not seen the same fervor in preservation battles involving, say, Houston Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted August 13, 2006 Share Posted August 13, 2006 should our battle cry be "REMEMBER THE BELLAIRE!!!"? guess that's too obscure for most. I know where that is - it's in West U across Bellaire Boulevard. I remember when it was a Dicovery Zone. At least the movie spire is still here Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lgg Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 it is definitely eligible for register status - anyone can prepare the application, and then it has to be nominated by the state historic preservation officer (maybe city, too?). i'm on it I'm afraid that in Houston, even being in the National Register won't save a building from demolition. Miami must have that provision in its city preservation laws. We don't. Our most stringent protection is for buildings that the owners themselves have designated "protected." But unless an owner chooses to file that city paperwork, even a landmark building can be razed. Even if you're in one of the city historic districts, even if your building is on the National Register, even if the city historic and archeological commission rejects your plans -- if you want to demolish a building, you'll face at most a 90-day waiting period. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 (edited) I'm afraid that in Houston, even being in the National Register won't save a building from demolition. Miami must have that provision in its city preservation laws. We don't.Our most stringent protection is for buildings that the owners themselves have designated "protected." But unless an owner chooses to file that city paperwork, even a landmark building can be razed. Even if you're in one of the city historic districts, even if your building is on the National Register, even if the city historic and archeological commission rejects your plans -- if you want to demolish a building, you'll face at most a 90-day waiting period. oh yes, i remember maria isabel ( ) even fully knowing that the application wouldn't go through, a few of us were thinking that the state preservation officer presenting the option to weingarten, and then weingarten saying something like "no, we don't feel it's worthy to do this" would help expose their business philosophy in a more clear and direct fashion. sure, they may not say that, but it would be interesting to see what they would put out there... the amount of work to be done for a nomination isn't too overbearing (once it gets nominated, from experience, the workload expands significantly). btw - love the elements yarn car! Edited August 14, 2006 by sevfiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 i received this today. the COH emblems and the mayor's signature stamp didn't copy and i don't feel like uploading the pictures to a hosting site this AM. CITY OF HOUSTONBill WhiteMayorP.O. Box 1562 Houston, Texas 77251-1562Telephone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 14, 2006 Share Posted August 14, 2006 (edited) same 'ol stuff - even the national register of historic places only "recognizes" the building, which apparently isn't enough for real estate folks Edited August 14, 2006 by sevfiv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 d'oh - i just posted that in it's own thread, with excerpts from the WSJokay fixed...Preservationists, REIT TussleOver Fate of Houston LandmarkBy THADDEUS HERRICKAugust 16, 2006; Page B6HOUSTON -- In a backlash to the go-go growth that has long persisted in this sprawling city, a fight to preserve three 1930s-era landmarks is gaining support.The latest battle pits preservationists against Houston-based Weingarten Realty Investors Inc., among the nation's largest real-estate-investment trusts. Tenants at Weingarten's 1937 River Oaks shopping center say company officials have revealed plans to demolish at least some of the mall and the 1939 River Oaks Theater in favor of a Barnes & Noble Inc. bookstore, among other buildings. Preservationists fear a new Barnes & Noble store also would put at risk the nearby 1939 Alabama Theater, a Weingarten property that previously was converted into a Bookstop store, Barnes & Noble's regional chain of smaller, mall-based bookstores....David Deason, vice president for development at Barnes & Noble, said the New York-based company intends to close the Bookstop in favor of a "state of the art" facility. But Mr. Deason said the fate of the landmarks is in the hands of Weingarten.can't link to the article...argh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo1976 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 BREAKING NEWS FROM GHPA: Barnes & Noble confirms plans to close Alabama Theater/Bookstop Barnes & Noble has confirmed the company intends to close Houston’s Alabama Theater/Bookstop in favor of a “state of the art” facility. Because the Alabama Bookstop was such a decrepit place to buy books anyway. Unless I missed it, I didn't see a timetable for all of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gonzo1976 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The UK's ContactMusic.com did a one-paragraph rewrite of the Alabama/RO situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
largeTEXAS Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 This is great! Could we merge this with the R0 Theater thread so we have all the links in the same thread? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sozavac Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 found this on the internet movie database today.Massive Support in Houston To Preserve Oldest Movie TheaterTwenty thousand Houston residents have signed a petition aimed at preventing their city's oldest film venue, the River Oaks Theater, from being demolished by developers, the Wall Street Journal reported today (Wednesday). The petition drive was begun after it was reported that Weingarten Realty Investors Inc. planned to tear down the 1939 theater, currently operated by Landmark Theaters, and replace it with a Barnes & Noble bookstore. The plans are part of a larger development proposal, the WSJ report indicated. "It's a developer's town," David Bush, spokesman for the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance, told the Journal. "But the opposition is out in front on this issue." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Barnes and Noble will be in a pickle - they are messing with the wrong people!If Lamar didn't have uniforms, I would encourage kids going to that school to wear T-shirts in support of the theatre and bookstore.In fact, the people who created the uniform policy should realize that this hurts community efforts (since wearing T-shirts supporting movements in a large school spreads word about the movement really, really quickly) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoAtomic Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 (edited) I just received this by way of a screenwriter friend of mine (not sure who wrote it):"Houston Film Industry AlertDistressing news! It is confirmed that the historical Alabama Theater/Bookstop will close. Ironically, the new location for the bookstore will be in the historical River Oaks Center which will have buildings demolished to make way. A double whammy for preservationists of the two "last picture shows" in Houston.What will happen to this bookstore's authentic movie theater interior that was so carefully preserved back when it was transformed into the Bookstop? The Houston film community needs a theater for our films, film festivals, dailies, workshops, visiting filmmakers/speakers, and related events. Other theaters are too expensive to rent. The old Alabama/Bookstop could be the perfect venue and gathering spot for filmmakers and film lovers. Imagine a coffee house with short films screening. Could even be the spot for my dream, a Reel Stars of Texas Museum. Won't someone out there help save this gem from the wrecking ball?Please read the following article from the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance and pass it onlBuy a SAVE THIS LANDMARK tee-shirt on the WIFT website, www.wift-houston.org. It's only $13.99 (our cost) and helps to advertise this movement.Women In Film & Television/Houston's president and vice president will be meeting with Sarah Gish (former Houston Landmark Theaters manager), City Council Member Michael Berry, the Greater Houston Preservation Alliance, and others next week, hoping to convince City Council that there are some things more important to a community than money. You know, like history?Barnes & Noble confirms plans to closeAlabama Theater/BookstopBarnes & Noble has confirmed the company intends to close Houston's Alabama Theater/Bookstop in favor of a "state of the art" facility. The confirmation came in an article by Thaddeus Herrick in today's Wall Street Journal. A spokesperson for Weingarten Realty, which owns the Alabama, told the Journal the future of the Alabama Theater (1939) is a "challenging situation."According to tenants of the River Oaks Shopping Center (1937), Weingarten Realty plans to demolish the portion of the shopping center on the northeast corner of Shepherd and West Gray to construct a three-story building for the new Barnes & Noble store. The bookseller says the fate of the architectural landmarks is up to Weingarten Realty.In recent days, the future of the River Oaks Center, River Oaks Theater and Alabama Theater has attracted national media attention. Yesterday, the National Trust for Historic Preservation's online magazine posted a feature that includes the online petition begun by Greater Houston Preservation Alliance (GHPA) volunteer Jim Parsons. The petition currently contains more than 22,000 signatures. The New York Times published an article about public reaction to the proposed projects on Saturday.GHPA members are encouraged to write Weingarten Realty and Barnes & Noble regarding the proposed projects and copy the letters to Houston's elected officials. Names and addresses are on the GHPA Web site.Your membership in GHPA allows our staff to advocate for historic preservation and influence public opinion. Please forward this e-mail to interested friends, family and colleagues, and ask them to support this effort by becoming members of GHPA.Thank you for your continuing support of Greater Houston Preservation Alliance and its efforts to preserve Houston's irreplaceable historic resources. Greater Houston Preservation Alliance712 Main Street, Suite 110 Houston, Texas 77002"Maybe the council meeting will bring about some positive developments toward saving these buildings. Edited August 17, 2006 by GoAtomic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mack Tripper Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 If Lamar didn't have uniforms, I would encourage kids going to that school to wear T-shirts in support of the theatre and bookstore.Sorry, but a bunch of high school kids wearing t-shirts isn't going to do jack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted August 25, 2006 Share Posted August 25, 2006 Sorry, but a bunch of high school kids wearing t-shirts isn't going to do jack.You don't quite understand - word of mouth can easily be passed from kid to parent... and many people who go to LHS have wealthy and influential parents! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.