BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS Archives

The listserv where the buildings do the talking

BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Mary Krugman <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
BP - His DNA is this long.
Date:
Fri, 12 Jun 1998 18:25:19 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
I need information on cases in which franchise owners or parent corporations
have been convinced to modify their usual corporate requirements in design
modifications to historic building interiors (or exteriors).

A local government in northern NJ is wrestling with a tenant-franchise
(Hollywood Video - a national chain) contracting to rent space in a NR/SR
listed train station.  The station has been converted into a mall with
retail/restaurants in the train sheds.  The fabulous interior of the main
building (former waiting room) has been difficult to rent -- a restaurant and
a subsequent Pizza Hut both failed since the original tax credit project. The
PH vacated the premises 2 years ago. The site is not yet locally designated,
and there apparently is no legal leverage (MOAs, deed restrictions, design
guidelines, etc) in place to govern alterations.

The video store tenant has a number of "non-negotiable" demands for the space
that include the demolition of several walls and creation of openings that
will destroy some exquisite decorative masonry and tile work and the original
ticket windows, in addition to wholesale replacement of original
windows/mullions with single light "holes in the wall." The rep insists that
they need X-thousand sf of selling floor so that folks don't run off with
their $19.95 videos, hence the need to eliminate interior walls, put up sheet
rock over iron-spot brick, and put a mud coat and new flooring over a
mosaic/terrazzo floor.

The local government is trying to convince property owner, contract-tenant,
and their architect that this kind of irreparable harm to the historic
features is not necessary. They are appealing to the franchise rep on the
basis of unnecessary business expenditure, loss of town landmark, creative
opportunity lost, etc etc. At this point, chances of convincing the tenant to
modify the demands seem slim.

Is there experience out there of successful accommodations that have been made
by other corporations in cases using carrots where sticks are not available?
I know that McDonald's franchises have occasionally moved away from the
cookie-cutter design in historic main streets and downtowns, but any others?
Any experiences with this particular corporation?  Anyone have a
contact/relationship with someone in Hollywood Video management the local
government could talk with?  Any PR or negotiating tips?

Mary Krugman
HP Consultant
973-509-2153 (voice)
973-744-7567 (fax)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2