COMMENT OF THE DAY: CHIN UP, WEINGARTEN! “I don’t totally understand Weingarten’s defensiveness here. After all, they totally earned the wrath of people in the community who would like to see older, architecturally significant buildings preserved in some fashion when they tore down the north side of the shopping center at Shepherd and Gray. They made a calculation then that peoples’ upset feelings would not outweigh the financial benefit. Given this, why do they care what people think now? Did the negative publicity before actually hurt them in any material way? (I’ve made a point of not shopping at the new B&N even though I am a compulsive book-buyer, but I have no illusions that me and people like me have any impact on their bottom line.)” [RWB, commenting on Weingarten Exec Blames Those Alabama Theater Demolition Drawings on Staples]
Sign up for the Newsletter
Good point. I do believe that your dollar is a vote in a capitalistic society. I don’t shop their either.
I meant ‘there’ – sorry.
Me either. Not one cent of mine goes to a Weingarten owned property. They may need to change their name to something more generic to mask their crimes against Houston.
miss_msry: My point wasn’t that it is a good idea or in any way efficacious to avoid spending money at B&N (or at any other Wiengarten property)–I think it makes no difference whatsoever. I don’t feel particularly righteous for doing it; it’s not like I say to myself when I buy a book at Brazos Bookstore, “That that, Weingarten!”. It’s just that I don’t want any of my own personal dollars going into a building that was created through the deliberate destruction of a beautiful, historic, architecturally significant building.
RWB: totally agree. My bookstore is now Books-A-Million downtown when I want to shop in person. Besides, I get to go next door on Saturdays to the PupSquad adoption center and give a donation in exchange for some puppy smooches.
I am not officially boycotting the new B&N but I too haven’t been despite living just a few blocks away. Part of the reason is that it just looks like a cluster &#($ on that corner now. Just easier to get my books elsewhere.
RWB said “It’s just that I don’t want any of my own personal dollars going into a building that was created through the deliberate destruction of a beautiful, historic, architecturally significant building.”
Uh, no. The building that was torn down had little or no useful value and was an average example of 1930’s strip mall construction. The new building isn’t that bad, and is a much more economic use of the land.
I think the obvious difference in the two situations is that at the Alabama they’re trying to hook a tenant, and were worried that fessing up to anything might ruin their chances. Would being upfront about their intentions have made it less likely that Staples would have bailed? I don’t know.
I suspect with the River Oaks Shopping Center they had already signed Barnes and Noble up, and so were less sensitive to criticism.
Sorry RWB, that comment was directed to SarahC.
Andrew is probably right.
B&N kept the Bookstop going for a decade after the community stopped shopping there. If they are to blame for their landlord’s sins, why aren’t they given credit for attempting to hang on to the old flooded out cinema. Why not blame Cactus for giving up and killing the center, or Borders for building a mega-store down the road and demolishing the Ale House.
Blame all the new people that moved into new buildings and destroyed the old community. How did the original proprietors of the River Oaks Theater feel about the College Park Cemetery a few blocks over.
I was still shopping at Bookstop. But at the new B&N, I’ve decided not to. I have plenty of options for my book-buying, and it irks me that the River Oaks shopping center with its lovely deco curve and symmetry was destroyed to put up a hulking pile of crap. I was bummed when the Ale House was demolished, too–but I didn’t consider it as architecturally interesting or significant. (Ross disagrees–that’s his right, as it is my right to decide where I spend my money.) As for Cactus and all that other stuff, I’m not sure how that’s relevant.
right, @ JKpolk:
blame Whole Foods, too, for moving out and putting another nail in the coffin of the center…
@Ross – I disagree about the River Oaks Shopping Center being an ‘average’ 1930’s retail center. In fact, the multi-block urban design alone is such a rarity in Houston as to be worth saving, especially paired up as it is with the Inwood entry into River Oaks. It is a wonderful example of early auto-oriented, mixed-use planning, with some nice detailing touches.
Weingarten started the ROSC expansion process off with the desire to build a parking garage. And being the profit-motivated organization that it is, they wanted enough new leasable area to help pay for the construction of the new garage. Thus the big new building, which is frankly, a trainwreck.
“And being the profit-motivated organization that it is”
______________________________
For Shame!
The building that was torn down had little or no useful value and was an average example of 1930’s strip mall construction. The new building isn’t that bad, and is a much more economic use of the land.
Wasn’t River Oaks 1.0 pretty much fully leased, while 2.0 is mostly vacant? “Little or no useful value” seems subjective.
Letters and petitions mean nothing to developers. However, your dollars speak loud and clear. I don’t shop at the RO B&N and never will.
I am another one of the few people who shopped at the old Bookstop and who refuses to shop at the new Barnes and Noble. It’s great that Houston is able to reinvent itself, aesthetically-speaking, every 15-20 years, but at what cost? Admittedly, I am not a native Texan, but I have a hard time explaining Houston’s personality to people (aside from good restaurants, good art scene, good people, and lots of demolition, construction, and urban sprawl). If Houston kept its unique historical characteristics intact, then we would have a city on par with Chicago, San Francisco, or Philadelphia.