Comments on: Replacing Richmont Square: The Low Cost, Bohemian Option

By: Jay Vos

Jay Vos — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 02:08:29 +0000

Interesting comments. I lived at Richmont Sq from 1986 to 2000. During those years there were students as well as professionals (I worked in the Med Center). The site was well kept, rents were reasonable, and the location was ideal for public transportation. But even in the mid-90s, the area was changing into a yuppieville with the middle class being squeezed out.

By: Matt Mystery

Matt Mystery — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:21:26 +0000

Well it is possible they will replace at least a large part of the complex, which is much larger than people realize, with another apartment complex for income. There have been problems with the city apparently with regard to code violations. Which may or may not be behind this.

As for the elitism of it all the reality is Dominique de Menil was an elitist. But not a pretentious one. When the de Menils moved here, fled the Nazis is really what they did, they didn’t really have a lot of money and the future of Schlumberger was not a guaranteed future. Had it not survived, John de Menil probably would have gone to work for an oil company and might have done just as well but even if he hadn’t, she would have probably ended up with an art gallery somewhere and probably would have ended up with the collection somehow and we would still have the Menil. It was in her blood as they say. A passion. The Schlumberger fortune just made it easier to pursue the passion. She was unique to say the least. And definitely elitist. People with passion usually are. It allows them to look beyond themselves. Which she did.

She was also terribly fun. A little eccentric as well.

By: miss_msry

miss_msry — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:55:24 +0000

I’ll be glad to see that monstrous heap known as Richmont Square gone.

By: Matt Mystery

Matt Mystery — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 18:27:38 +0000

I think some need to learn how to read. Richmont Square was bought as an investment. Not as a means to offer additional “subsidized” housing for the “artistes.”

Artists and others who were “welcome in Doville” were given deals on the little gray houses on Sul Ross and Branard.

By: TheNiche

TheNiche — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:56:01 +0000

A lot of you seem to be working off of the underlying assumption that Montrose is the only appropriate place for artists to live, and that if they can’t live there–RIGHT THERE–Houston will lose out on their purported magnificence. I beg to differ. Cheap rent and dumpy four-plexes gave rise to Montrose. Now, the very same process is occuring in the East End…which is closer to our two largest universities and has a surprisingly large concentration of studios…without any subsidy whatsoever.
.
Let Montrose go down its path to yuppieville. It’s already pretty much arrived. There is a superior alternative available at a lower-price.

By: marmer

marmer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 17:53:52 +0000

Yes, Richmont Square is full of college students. I can’t speak for UH or St. Thomas but Rice can’t even come close to accomodating all its undergrads on campus. It’s fairly common for a Rice student to live off campus at least one of their four years. I would be real surprised if they are losing money on Richmont Square. Sure, it’s theirs to do with as they want. But I think there would be a public-relations backlash if they tore it down and didn’t replace it with something similar. I just have trouble with the idea of displacing a large number of rent-paying residents. Even with Wilshire Village, there weren’t nearly as many, and there was at least a plausible safety/maintenance issue for that.

By: John

John — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:57:37 +0000

The de Menil’s supported artists most by buying their art, not by subsidizing, en mass, their rents. I doubt that the percentage of “starving artists” living at the complex has ever topped 1% - like any other grouping of residents. My experience knowing people who’ve lived there over the last 25 yrs is that it’s mostly college students who can afford not to live in dorms. I could not afford to live there in college, I lived in a dumpy Montrose 4-plex like most of my friends. If you really want to support living artists, BUY Art with YOUR money, and stop wasting energy trying to tell other people what do with their own hard earned assets.

By: jgriff

jgriff — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:26:04 +0000

Quote Matt Mystery:Dominique was very conscious of the term “starving artist” and priced everything accordingly.

I’m sure Dominique was a nice person and was trying to do the right thing. The words “starving artist” and “cheap rent” really set me off though because I don’t understand why people think that artists deserve some kind of break on rent when there are so many poor people out there who need it more. These apartments are in a part of town where many people would like to live but can’t afford it. Why should people who have some kind of connection with the “right people” get a benefit that the rest of us can’t have?

By: jgriff

jgriff — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:14:50 +0000

I guess discrimination in housing is OK as long as it’s for people that you like or if it’s for people that you deem are a benefit to society. Maids, constrcution workers, janitors, etc… need not apply, only artists.

By: Matt Mystery

Matt Mystery — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:09:41 +0000

Starving artist apartments for cheap reek of elitism.
__________________

Richmont Square has never been subsidized housing for “starving artists” but merely an investment for “cash flow” for the Menil Foundation. More than likely the cost of maintenance and taxes has killed the “cash cow” but the land itself was always intended for use for expansion.

It has, however, been a godsend for students at the University of St. Thomas and Rice and U of H. So there will be a shortage of “student housing” as a result.

By: Scott Bodenheimer

Scott Bodenheimer — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:06:46 +0000

God save us from Libertarians that think because they were born on third base and trudged to homeplate all by their lonesome tortured selves that nobody else could use a leg up sometimes.

Cities and yahoo Libertarians benefit greatly by by having bohemians and creative people live in their midst. They transform neighborhoods, and make it safe for developers and free marketeers to gamble with other people’s money on building soulless mega apartment blocks and ruin inner city grids with 4 story townhouses with garages plopped in front.

By: Raj

Raj — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 15:59:55 +0000

Market forces are what has kept the Richmont Square there so long. I’m under the impression that it provides a substantial income to the Menil Collection. I’m not a real estate expert, but I imagine the Menil can create a world-class residential development there that opens up space for expanding the arts programming and at the same time rent to people in the same range as the current apartments. I thought the whole lesson from this recession was that high-end glitz for the ultra-wealthy doesn’t always mean more profitable. If it’s designed well, they should be able to advance their non-profit mission through art and the residential development.