Weingarten is asking for a variance, retroactively, to build a outdoor wine bar into the setback. Neighbors are rightfully opposed to the encroachment. It violates the setback, and the setback is a public asset that belongs to all of us.

Whether you yourself value the space we have in Houston between our roads and the buildings that line the roads is your own opinion, but many, many people do. Why do we have setback requirements? For sunlight, for fresh air, for a tiny bit of nature and space - one reason Houston does not look like Manhattan (at least not yet) is because we have setback requirements. We don’t have zoning in Houston - but we do have setback ordinances and building codes. This encroachment violates those laws.

What Weingarten has done by building a balcony into the setback, is to take a public asset, and sell it to their own tenant. It is not theirs to sell.

Several hundred people have signed paper and online petitions on this subject in the four days that have elapsed since Weingarten applied for this rushed variance hearing (which is at City Hall next Thursday December 18 at 2:30 pm). Those people, and tens of thousands of others like them, believe that city ordinances should be obeyed and not violated.

These folks also remember that last year, Weingarten spent considerable time and effort building trust and support from neighbors and other community groups after a huge public outcry. In meetings with the neighbors, the preservation alliance, and city’s historical commission, they distributed drawings showing what the redeveloped center would look like. That drawing can be viewed at StopShepherdNoise.org.

Many of us attended the meetings in which Weingarten distributed those drawings, and heard them say that they wanted to assure us all that they were going to respect the community desire to maintain the look and feel of the main shopping center, and specifically assured us all that the new building would “maintain the original footprint and curve of the building, but would merely be two stories tall instead of one.” But just look at what they actually built, compared to what they promised to build. It is nothing like what they promised in their “trust us” world tour. This part of the problem is not a violation of any law. But it is a serious violation of trust.

Will Weingarten get away with violating the law in the process of simultaneously violating public trust? Will they get away with taking a public asset and selling it to their own tenant, while simultaneously violating the “quiet enjoyment” of our residential neighborhoods? Will Weingarten respond to the valid concerns of its community by changing its plans to address the issues it has created? We will see – it depends on all of us.

We really have been humbled by the huge response to this four day old movement. It’s a shame Weingarten is trying to force this through the system with virtually no time for the interested public to find out about the issue and do something about it. We can only hope that those reading this post will make their voices heard as well. Thanks for your patience with this long post.

The unspoken assumption behind this line of argument is that the value of a piece of real estate is determined entirely by the property itself and not what surrounds it. Which we all know is not true. If the houses on either side of mine were torn down and replaced by light industrial properties, my home’s value would drop. This is also why suburban HOAs vigorously enforce rules about appearance of homes (though the rules are often misguided, in my opinion).

Part of the value of any property is its context - s group of historic bungalows organized into a human-scale, walkable neighborhood each are individually more valuable than identical bungalows plopped in the middle of field, or surrounded by freeways.

If it’s legitimate for a suburban development to limit what people can do with their properties, why is it not legitimate for an urban neighborhood to restrict what property owners can do to their properties that would affect the overall quality of the neighborhood?

Now, one can certainly argue about whether particular attempts to do this are the right approach or misguided and whether they will achieve that aim in a sensible way, but the idea that the concept itself is somehow tyrannical is just a lot of dogmatic rubbish.

The only place would be on the deed to the property if a restriction was in place, but it isn’t.

Many neighborhoods have these restrictions written into their deeds. This means when you buy the property you agree with any restriction. As for as I know, the theater doesn’t have this restriction. On top of that, when Weingarten bought this place, I’m sure it wasn’t considered a historic landmark. Weingarten owns another art deco theater on Shepherd that’s a retail commercial space. Where were the cries to save it then? Was it not historic that many years ago? When was the magic line that made this theater and shopping center historic and therefor untouchable?

Just because a small group of people don’t like what you are doing doesn’t mean you have to stop. If historic preservation was a true concern to the majority of the neighborhood or the city’s citizens, real action could be taken. We are not a place that places our value in the past. Houston has always been a place to look to the future. That culture isn’t going to change anytime soon. It’s what makes this city what it is.

If you don’t want limits and meddling, don’t buy a historic property. It’s akin to folks that buy a home next to an airport then complain about the noise.

You must be new to reading on this blog. If you read the Ashby blog entry, you would see people have accused me of being a developer before.

Let’s not resort to name calling. I’m a civil engineer in the area of hydraulics and hydrology (drainage). My license number is 98442. Look it up on the Texas Board of Professional Engineers website. I work for private engineering firm that work for local municipalities, communities, neighborhoods, and developers.

This shopping center doesn’t just serve the immediate neighborhood. It serves a much larger area. Weingarten is wise to expand the existing property versus say bulldozing a row of older homes down the way closer to Montrose for a new shopping center. Sure it would save the theater, but the community would still have some opposition.

As for economically challenged persons trying to save a piece of property, did you read my previous post? These people worked for at least two years to save the open space and succeeded.

In the River Oaks Theatre controversy, I don’t see that kind of commitment. Just people that are complain and spouting words and not doing anything about it. If the theater truly means that much to the community, they would actually do something about versus just filling a petition or walking with some signs.

As much as I disagreed with the Stop Ashby group, they at least were organized in their movement. They read up on the rules that affect the development and challenged the project. In the end, the same argument goes for them though. They should have came together and buy the property and then do with it as they wanted.

As for Weingarten not losing much profit if they back down this time, it makes no sense. If they do it this time, wouldn’t they risk at all 300 shopping centers having neighborhoods doing the same thing?

It is obvious you are a developer of some kind and therefore do not understand the want of an economically challenged person to save a bit of history. Preservationists do not want to prevent anyone from earning a profit we just want to keep what little we have left. Profit and preservation can go hand in hand, if only the developers would take the time.

Lets also keep in mind that Weingarten owns 300 shopping centers across this country, I doubt they would have lost much profit if they had just worked with the community to create a design more compatible with the historic structure. Who did they build this for anyway? Certainly not for the local neighborhood, many of whom opposed this project. Weingarten is in danger of ruining their name…if they haven’t already!!

11th Street Park was a recent example in Houston. Neighborhood groups gathered together to purchase the land. Originally it was owned by HISD. The district was going to sell it to a developer. The community has been using it as a park and didn’t want to loose it.

Money was raised and along with a local bank and some help from a developer, a good 75% of the land was saved as a park which will be turned over to the city. The remaining 25% went to the developer to develop. The portion of the park land the community used for trails, baseball, and other recreation was saved.

None of these people were rich by any means. They were average citizens that took this upon themselves to save the property. Which I think that makes them extraordinary people.

Why can’t this be done with any other “historic” or “landmark” property?

HISD wasn’t expected to just not do anything with its own property so the neighborhood can keep its park. Weingarten should be expect to not do anything with its own property that will further their business as they see fit.

Who said only people with money?

That has nothing to do with it. What we are discussing is real property. It has a value to the owner.

The only fair way to save a historic building is to properly purchase it from the owner or to convince the owner it’s worth it to no alter the existing building. Any other method reeks of tyranny.

Parts of this shopping center or nearly 80 years old, some sections are younger. The problem is that this new building 80 years from now would be historic then…

Art Deco architecture was the popular fad at the time and wasn’t consider something to save until many years later. Maybe this style will do the same. You’re dealing in a world of opinion and emotion when you want to force someone else not to alter there own property.