Whole Foods files its zoning request

Just got off the phone with Jonathan Vinson at Jackson Walker, who is representing Whole Foods. The company wants to tear down the Minyard's at Abrams and Gaston and build a one-story, 44,000 square foot store, about 2,000 square feet bigger than the current building.

The front will point toward Abrams and the bottom of the parking lot, while the back will be at the corner of Richmond and Gaston. There will be patio seating at the back. The loading dock will be toward the middle of Gaston, and will be screened off.

In this, the new store will be similar in shape, appearance, and design to the flagship Whole Foods in Austin. I should have pictures sometime tomorrow.

In addition:

• Vinson, one of Dallas' most savvy zoning attorneys, says the planning process may take as long as five months. "We don't want to rush any of this," he says. "Whole Foods recognizes they have to do it the right way." That almost certainly pushes the completion date to spring 2009.

• Even though the store will be bigger, there shouldn't be any parking-related zoning problems. Vinson says the lot is big enough, if it's used efficiently, to pick up the extra 10 or 20 spaces that the larger store will require.

• The new store won't be as big as the refurbished Whole Foods at Preston and Forest, but closer in size to the Lomo Alto/Lemmon Avenue location.

Comments

[Norman Alston]

The reputation and public image of Whole Foods is that they are environmentally responsible; organic foods, non-polluting cleaning products, recycling incentive programs, all kinds of things. Checking on their web site, I find that environmental concerns are at the very root of their corporate philosophy, which can be found at http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/company/sustainablefuture.html

In this philosophy, they tout their Green Building recognition from the City of Austin for the renovations to their corporate headquarters.

I bring this up because I have to wonder about the thinking behind tearing down the existing building to replace it with a new one that only gains 2000 square feet. Around the office here, we have taken to calling building preservation "the ultimate recycle" because keeping and reusing an existing structure effectively "conserves" the considerable amount of energy used to create it and keeps hundreds of tons of otherwise serviceable building materials out of the landfill. Under the provisions of Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) http://alstonarchitects.typepad.com/norman_alston_architects/green_building/index.html
preserving instead of replacing existing serviceable structures is a recognized sustainable technique and earns points towards a project obtaining certification as a Green Building under their guidelines. The demolition of Minyards is an odd move, to my way of thinking.

Besides, I think I like the current brick front better than the "flagship" store picture you seen when you follow the link in Jeff's posting.

[Robert]

If Lakewood has a 5th and Main intersection, the Abrams/Gaston corner is it. It is the identity of Lakewood. Here's hoping that WF understands this context. Preserving the old Minyards builidng, like the recently built Wachovia (preserving part of the old gas station), would be a monumental mistake. A lost opportunity to revitalize this corner which has never been pedestrian friendly.

A WF store that mimics the box-and-parking architecture found across America would not be a contribution to our neighborhood, unfortunately it sounds that the WF people are not thinking "outside the box" on this project.

[East Sider]

I think urban-style street frontage with parking in the rear (or "side"; it's kind of a triangular-feeling lot) would be best. Of course that would make the rear the de facto front, ingress'n'egress-wise. But the architectural presence could still primarily address the actual intersection -- with modest "streetscape improvements" thrown into the bargain, as well as a "formal" entrance for pedestrians.

The Austin flagship is inexplicably hideous, but in person, its dimensions represent a decent attempt to preserve a medium-density urban feel while still providing adequate parking. The Minyard's building was/is suburban-looking all the way.

I know you guys are architects, so forgive my clunky layman-speak.

[Norman Alston]

I don't disagree with either of you, but the Austin Whole Foods has underground parking. That almost certainly isn't going to happen here and without it, you can only mitigate the suburban box-on-a-slab effect, not eliminate it. I'm not sure that's worth starting from scratch. I also would like to see the corner developed better, but I can envision other ways to help that. I'm anxious to see their ideas. They've certainly had plenty of time to come up with some really good ones.

[Bill Kennedy]

I distinctly remember reading, shortly after the first delay was announced, the WF had people heading to Toronto to get design ideas from redeveloped uber-urban stores there. They have a lot of that there. I wonder what happened?

And, I'm all for 'cradle to cradle' preserving, but preserving a box like Minyards would be a mistake, IMHO.

[Eric Link (Lakewood Resident)]

Yeah, I agree, the Minyards is a hideous building and definitely a tear down.

If they can succeed at making it pedestrian friendly, that would be good for the area long term. Combine that with lofts on a second / third story w/ downtown views and you'd have something.

Architects out there, what is possible? Send your sketches to whole foods!

[lakewoodgirl]

Oh, I love the underground parking idea. If they did that they probably could have a bigger store than the 44,000 sq'. That would be GREAT for lakewood.