ToryGattis
-
Posts
646 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ToryGattis
-
-
Worst set of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) arguments I have ever seen. A lot of smokescreen and hand waving. Expect a complete blog post response from me soon at Houston Strategies.
In the meantime, I'll keep hammering the same simple argument: JetBlue and Spirit dramatically grew discount intl competition at Ft. Lauderdale, lowering fares and increasing demand, which forced American to nearly double the size of its Miami hub. Everybody is winning except for American's profits.
-
1
-
-
Tory, is the study available for us to see?
Yep. They link to it from the online petition (please sign!)
http://www.freehobbyairport.com/
It's here:
http://c3430896.r96.cf0.rackcdn.com/economic-impact-study.pdf
-
1
-
-
Issue goes to vote on May 16th.
http://www.chron.com...-as-3486551.php
But it sounds like City Council has been bought off by lobbyists for United
But if the mayor was whom set the quick vote date upcoming, doesn't that possibly mean she is in favor of SWA/Hobby International?
Could set up an interesting clash at City Hall.
I agree it's depressing to see what's going on in council. Evidently United has supported every one of their campaigns, but not SWA. I heard the Mayor speak at another event, and she sounded in favor of Hobby/SWA.
-
1
-
-
So where do we go if we want tasty fish tacos?
Berryhill beats all. Any of their locations. Closest to downtown is Montrose, I think.
-
1
-
-
Denver got him... Heck even less then 100% he's better then most quarterbacks.
Reminded me of a hilarious quote from a recent Wall Street Journal article:
"
If Tim Tebow were to be sprinkled with magic Lombardi dust and simultaneously possessed by the spirits of Johnny Unitas, Otto Graham and Popeye the Sailor-Man, he would be lucky to be one-quarter as good as Peyton Manning at his best. Even at 35 and recovering from an injury—actually, even if he drank a 12-pack of Meister Bräu and wore a Big Bird costume—Manning is surely a better passer and game manager than Tebow is after his second year of pro quarterbacking."
-
ESPN analysis of where Manning might go says "very low" for Texans.
"They don't have the money and Manning doesn't move the way the Texans need a quarterback to move in their bootleg-heavy system."
-
I am sure you're right. The ones that have the internet have not replaced I guess are the ones that people still want and need to see and touch physically, like a gun, quilt or bridal show.
Yes! Exactly. And note that 2 of those 3 examples you gave are generally aimed at locals - not out of town travelers - so they don't actually generate the economic development (hotel nights and restaurant meals) that justify the subsidy of convention centers (and their hotels) in the first place.
Conventions are more paid business boondoggles now than real, productive activities, meaning that people often only go if they want to enjoy a company paid vacation in that city. This disadvantages Houston - it's not about the facility anymore, but the fun that's available nearby - because we just don't measure up against places like NYC, SF, Orlando, Vegas, Miami, New Orleans, or even San Antonio. And as the WSJ article pointed out, it's an arms-race that most cities should probably not be competing in - and unfortunately and realistically, we may fall into that camp. Note all the hedging in the GRB plan. They came up with the right dream plan if we really want to try to compete, but it all could end up being one giant black hole or white elephant, depending on the analogy you prefer...
-
In response to the wsj article, I'm curious why convention goers has nose dived; they don't tell us.
Most recently, the economy, but longer term: the Internet. Conventions are an exchange of information and networking, but now all of that information is easily available on the web - why travel and peruse a bunch of booths with marketing hype? Speakers are replaced with videos, webinars, blogs, and online reports or slide presentations. And LinkedIn and other social networks are even reducing the need for the networking. Their whole purpose hasn't been replaced by the Internet, but a lot of it has - enough to substantially reduce demand and attendance.
-
I hate to say this, but living close to downtown (from the suburbs), has a bit of a shortfall when it comes to this. Dont get me wrong I love trying new places, the ones you cant find in the suburbs, but there is the once in a while I miss having crappy chains on every corner. I have to go completely out of the the way for most chain anything. Is that a complaint? I guess so..
Funny, I've thought something similar a few times. Like BJ's Brewery. Great restaurant chain - only in the suburbs. Perry's Steakhouse, Texas Land and Cattle - same thing. Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of the independent restaurants inside the Loop. They're my mainstay. But there are a couple places like those where I'd like to see locations inside the Loop.
-
The comment thread at the Chronicle has evolved into a mildly interesting discussion of downtown's issues...
http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2012/01/downtown-restaurants-shutter/
and mine
http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2012/01/downtown-restaurants-shutter/#comment-6999
-
Not the best timing as this op-ed just came out in the Wall Street Journal...
http://www.emailthis...lToID=916016990
-
CROSS COUNTRY
- DECEMBER 31, 2011
Have We Got a Convention Center to Sell You!
From Boston to Austin, politicians spend money on fancy white elephants.
For two decades, America's convention center business has been declining, resulting in a nationwide surplus of empty meeting facilities, struggling convention halls and vacant hotel rooms. How have governments responded to this glut? By building more convention centers, of course, financed by debt backed by new taxes and fees on already struggling taxpayers.
Back in 2007, before the recession began, a report from Destination Marketing Association International described America's convention industry as a "buyer's market" suffering excess capacity. It's only gotten worse, attracting just 86 million attendees in 2010, compared to 126 million in 2000. Meanwhile, the amount of convention space angling for business has increased to 70 million square feet, up from 53 million in 2000 and 40 million two decades ago.
That's largely because governments refuse to stop making convention centers bigger and hotels even more dazzling, arguing that whatever business remains will flow to the places with the fanciest amenities. To finance these risky projects—which the private sector won't build by itself—cities float debt backed by new taxes and fees on already struggling taxpayers. As Charles Chieppo, a former board member of Massachusetts Convention Center Authority, lamented last year, "Logic rarely has a place in the convention business."
Take Illinois, an industry leader,where officials have invested heavily to keep Chicago's McCormick Place, long one of the three most-used centers in the nation, on top. They spent $1 billion in the early 1990s to build a 840,000-square foot expansion financed by fees on auto rentals, a hotel tax and a surcharge on restaurant meals in downtown Chicago. In 2007 they opened a new building, McCormick West, at a cost of an additional $900 million. The result? According to the Chicago Tribune, the center operates at 55% capacity.
Then there's Boston, perhaps the quintessential example of a city that interprets failure in the convention business as a license to spend more on it. Massachusetts officials shelled out $230 million to renovate Hynes Convention Center in the late 1980s. When the makeover produced virtually no economic bounce, officials decided that the city needed a new, $800 million center financed by a hotel occupancy excise tax, a rental-car surcharge, and the sale of taxi medallions. Opened in 2004, that new Boston Convention and Exhibition Center was projected (by consultants hired by the state) to have Boston renting some 670,000 additional hotel rooms annually within five years. Instead, Beantown saw just 310,000 additional hotel room rentals in 2009.
Associated PressChicago political and labor leaders, including Mayor Rahm Emanuel (arms crossed), appear at the expanded McCormick Place convention center in October.
Now Massachusetts officials want to spend $2 billion to double the size of the Boston Convention Center and add a hotel. Of course, they predict that the expanded facilities would bring an additional $222 million into the local economy each year, including 140,000 hotel room rentals. Even with these bullish projections, officials claim that the hotel would need $200 million in public subsidies.
"The whole thing is a racket," Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby recently observed. "Once again the politicos will expand their empire. Once again crony capitalism will enrich a handful of wired business operators. And once again Joe and Jane Taxpayer will pay through the nose. How many times must we see this movie before we finally shut it off?"
Many times, if officials in Baltimore have their way. Several years ago they built a $300 million city-owned hotel, (the Hilton Baltimore Convention Center Hotel) to boost the fortunes of the city's struggling convention center. Having opened in 2008, the hotel lost $11 million last year. Now the city is considering a public-private expansion plan that would add a downtown arena, an additional convention hotel, and 400,000 feet of new convention space at the cost of $400 million in public money.
The list goes on—everywhere from Columbus, Ohio, to Dallas, Austin, Phoenix and places in between. One problem is that optimistic projections about new facilities fail to account for how other cities are expanding, too. Why did Minneapolis struggle to hit projected targets after it enlarged its convention center in 2002? "Other cities expanded right along with us,'' Minneapolis's convention center director, Jeff Johnson, said this year.
The surest sign that taxpayers should be leery of such public investments is that officials have changed their sales pitch. Convention and meeting centers shouldn't be judged, they now say, by how many hotel rooms, restaurants, and local attractions they help fill. That's "narrow-minded thinking," said James Rooney of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority this year. Instead, as Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has said, expanding a convention center can "demonstrate to the world that we have unlimited confidence in our city and what it can do, not only as a convention destination but as the center of the most important trends in hospitality, science, health and education."
This new metric—a city's amorphous brand value—is little more than a convenient way to ignore the failure of publicly sponsored facilities to live up to exaggerated projections. But as far as city officials are concerned, that failure is nothing that hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars can't fix.
Mr. Malanga is a senior editor at City Journal. A longer version of this article appears in City Journal's Winter 2012 issue.
-
1
-
CROSS COUNTRY
-
United voluntarily chose Chicago as HQ without even getting anything from the state for it.
Cleverly, I believe both the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois had incentives in place with United for both the executive HQ and the operational HQ before the merger, and United would have lost those incentives if they moved either HQ out of Chicago. Chicago simply out-played Houston by locking United in before the merger. We could have done the same for CO, but we didn't. When I heard of the merger I hoped Houston could at least hold on to the operational HQ, but Chicago was smart enough to lock that in too before the merger announcement, knowing that was the bulk of the HQ jobs (as opposed to the executives). Houston has been luckier with companies like Exxon, where they keep a tiny HQ in DFW but the bulk of employees here.
I've heard the service has gone downhill, but I don't know how much that's related to the HQ decision.
-
I think it's a cool idea, but United is in Chicago for more than just lease and tax incentive reasons. It gives them an edge being the "hometown airline" vs. American at O' Hare, where they both have major hubs. That's pretty valuable marketing, and it's why American's position keeps eroding there. United dominates IAH, so they wouldn't get much benefit as the hometown airline of Houston, which they sort of get by default anyway (and the Southwest competition is pretty much the same in both cities with Midway and Hobby).
If somehow through this bankruptcy American shuts down its Chicago hub (and I can't imagine it), then we might have more of a shot, but at that point United would expand O'Hare dramatically to take advantage of the American hub shutdown, and O'Hare would pass IAH to be their biggest hub (by far), so then you'd have to ask why they'd move their HQ from their largest hub to what would then be their 2nd largest hub?
-
I was gonna ask you, is there already a convention for alternative energy? I found these so far...
Detroit: http://ww2.esd.org/E...2-AltEnergy.htm
Aberdeen: http://www.all-energy.co.uk/
Renewable world energy conference in California: http://www.renewable....com/index.html
And a list of all kinds of energy conferences: http://www.conferenc....com/energy.htm
Should Houston be so presumptuous that just b/c we are the "energy capital of the world" that this will be a hit and take over all others? I guess our synergy doesn't hurt.
The Aberdeen model looks like the model for the one here, with our differentiation being USA and fall instead of spring. You're right - there is plenty of competition. Hopefully we'll be able to compete. It can't hurt that we can instantly get an attendance of thousands of locals - we really don't have to draw that many travelers to have a big conference. That will get it the critical mass, and build from there.
-
Will the people/companies they want to come to this come simply because they created this opportunity/venue?
Good question. I assume they have experienced people putting together the trade show to make sure. And of course they can draw on the GHP to get all of the big local energy players to participate, including their alternative energy units. Then they can use those attendance commitments to draw in companies from outside Houston. I think a lot of the small alternative energy players will want to participate in hopes of drawing investment from the big energy companies based here.
-
Is exactly the way you thought of it? What are the differences?
Pretty much. Of course I was thinking bigger - full week, mix with OTC, etc. - but they'll have to start small and grow it to that. I like the mid-Oct dates - good weather in Houston. It should reflect well on the city for the visitors. I also wish they had "technology" in the name, and maybe "global" instead of "USA", but those are minor quibbles. It should be a great long-term branding, economic development, and tourism asset for the city.
-
It's finally happening!
New energy tradeshow to launch in Houston in 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 23, 2011
HOUSTON—The nation’s energy capital will host a groundbreaking new tradeshow next year bringing together professionals from the full range of energy industry sectors to discuss the current and future landscape of this evolving field.
Total Energy USA is expected to draw approximately 7,500 attendees to Houston October 16-18, 2012 for the largest tradeshow of its kind in the country.
Unlike other industry events that have a narrower focus or may be aligned to certain interests, Total Energy USA will provide a balanced forum with an opportunity for all energy sectors—fossil, nuclear, renewables, and cross-cutting sectors like energy-efficiency—to be represented. The resulting mix will create new business opportunities for participants as they discuss how to balance locally available resources, economics, reliability and environmental impact when making important energy decisions.
“For more than a century, Houston has been the hub for petrochemical production and innovation,” said Houston Mayor Annise Parker. “The creation of Total Energy USA puts us one step closer to being the world’s energy capital—not just in traditional fuels but in the future of alternative energy.”
Total Energy USA is being produced by VP International. Partners in the initiative include the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Houston Partnership and the Houston Technology Center.
“Total Energy USA is based on the principle that addressing our nation’s energy challenges will require that we consider all energy options, conventional and non-conventional, along with energy efficiency and reducing energy use,” said Vinnie Polito, managing director for VP International, the event’s producer. By opening up the field and collaborating with associations, media and organizations across the renewable energy spectrum, Polito believes that Total Energy USA will answer the need for an industry event that “elevates the dialogue, broadens the opportunities and paints the complete energy picture.”
“This event represents a unique opportunity for Houston to capitalize on our knowledge base in the energy industry,” said Greg Ortale, president and CEO of the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau. “Energy is the backbone of our economy and Total Energy USA will offer our local companies a home-field advantage for networking and deal-making with firms from around the world.”
"To meet our energy needs we must look at all options - fossil fuels, nuclear and renewable sources of power - as well as harnessing the power of smart energy to empower consumers to make informed decisions about how they purchase and use energy," said John Ragan, NRG Energy regional president, Texas. "By bringing all of these together, Total Energy USA will help build understanding of sound, energy-related decisions."
What is Total Energy USA?
Total Energy USA will be an annual trade event that will bring together all of the energy sectors to provide a comprehensive look at the overarching, integrated industry. This business-to-business tradeshow and educational conference will be the largest of its kind in the United States.
What's unique about this event?
Total Energy USA is the only event in the U.S. that brings traditional fuels and energy efficiency together with clean and renewable energy technologies. Furthermore, unlike other events that focus on a particular segment of the industry, Total Energy will offer a balanced forum for delegates to make their own decisions and for sponsors to showcase their products on a level playing field.
When and where?
The inaugural event will take place October 16-18, 2012 at the George R. Brown Convention Center in downtown Houston.
Who's involved in creating Total Energy USA?
VP International is producing Total Energy USA. Partners in the initiative include the Greater Houston Convention and Visitors Bureau, Greater Houston Partnership, the Houston Technology Center and the Technology Transition Corporation.
Who will be the exhibitors at Total Energy USA?
The event is expected to draw approximately 400 exhibitors affiliated with the energy industry, including associations, builders/architects, component equipment suppliers, equipment manufacturers, project developers and operators and professionals in fields such as renewable energy development, solar design, wind services and more.
Who will attend?
An estimated 7,500 energy professionals, leaders, researchers, academics and others interested in our energy future including architects, builders, community leaders, developers and energy consultants, government officials, power producers, landowners, large energy users, media, oil and gas suppliers and more. Total Energy USA is designed specifically for those working in the energy industry. Attendance estimates are based on the performance of similar tradeshows previously held around the world.
Why is this happening in Houston?
Houston has a long history in the petroleum industry. But today the nation's fourth-largest city and nucleus of the energy sector is focused on the total energy landscape, from petrochemicals to wind power. No other city offers the combination of energy-related expertise, resources and technology—or the commitment to leveraging opportunities for development, commercialization and networking.
-
Attached images from an old Rice "Tunnel Naked" T-shirt, including a map on the back that was tediously built from scratch by extensive unauthorized pacing trips by some friends of mine (none of which were naked, to my knowledge)...
-
1
-
-
In Denver, only United and Frontier can connect passengers to the smaller Rocky Mountain destinations, including the ski resorts. SWA only connects to the big cities further west. So I'm guessing Frontier wants to differentiate itself from United/Continental by leaving from Hobby, which is certainly more attractive to south Houston/Ft.Bend/Brazoria/Clear Lake/Galveston.
Frontier route map: http://www.frontierairlines.com/frontier/plan-book/routes-timetables/route-map.do
SWA route map: http://www.southwest.com/travel_center/routemap_dyn.html?src=et042004
-
Netflix: $2 per movie (if you run your account right), unlimited watchers, your own cheap snacks, pause when you like, subtitles/BluRay/HD optional
Theater: $10 x # people , parking charges in some cases, outrageous concession charges, long lines, crowded theaters, hard to get good seats, pre-movie advertising, annoying talkers - or worse, screaming children or seat kickers
The choice is not hard. Only the mega-spectacle movies (like Avatar) are worth the big screen anymore.
-
2
-
-
-
OK, so zoning did not affect anything, since 'relatively loose/easy zoning' can apparently retain as many F500 HQs as no zoning does. As for the 15 downtown HQs being "all we have", could you explain how zoning and freeway expansion created the Galleria and Westchas/Energy Corridor, since both of those districts were created prior to any freeway expansion? You noted that US 59 was upgraded, yet ironically, no F500 HQs are located along 59. To be blunt, you never miss a chance to tout no zoning and more freeways as the solution to every problem. Now, you are claiming they are the reason for Houston's multitude of F500 companies. Since 23 of those companies are located in downtown, Galleria and Energy Corridor, I want to know how your two holy grails caused it. I want specifics, not generalities. And, since no F500 companies reside in any location annexed in the last 30 or 40 years, I doubt THAT theory as well.
You know, you COULD explore the possibility that our oil companies prefer traditional downtown locations, while Dallas' telecoms...having sprung up in the 80s...prefer campus style HQs. That type of insight would make sense. But, attributing everything to your two favorite charities, even when there is no evidence to back up the claim lacks credibility.
Actually, loose/easy zoning (Dallas, Atlanta) retained far fewer HQs than no zoning (Houston), but more than other cities with tighter zoning (LA, SF). Freeway expansion didn't create Galleria/Energy Corridor (although it did create Westchase, which would not exist without Beltway 8), but it did enable employees from suburbs all over to get to them easily, allowing them to grow (same with 59 feeding the core). The lack of zoning allowed them to develop how they wished - whether towers (Galleria) or campuses (Energy Corridor).
-
I am unaware of any city that has done this. Perhaps you could give us some examples. I do know that several of Houston's closest competitors as far as population have NOT done this. Dallas, Atlanta and Miami have numerous districts with midsize office buildings similar to Houston's Galleria, Greenspoint and Westchase.
A quick look at the location of the Houston HQs reveals that 15 of the 27 F500 companies are located in downtown. There is no rational argument that they would not be there if Houston had 'forced' everyone into one downtown. They choose to be downtown regardless. Of the other 12 HQs, 4 are in the Galleria and 4 in the Energy Corridor. 4 are located next to their manufacturing plants, such as on Hardy Road or NW Beltway 8. None of your arguments applies to these companies.
Frankly, it sounds like you simply chose this topic to tout more freeways and no zoning, when they have little or nothing to do with it. Even your aggressive annexation argument is weak, as no F500 companies are located in Kingwood, Clear Lake or even Greenspoint. The locations of all of Houston's HQs appear to have been Houston addresses for decades.
EDIT: The F500 HQs in Sugarland and The Woodlands moved there after the freeways were expanded. That being the case, how is this an argument that aggressive freeway expansion kept them in Houston?
I think Dallas' and Atlanta's relatively loose/easy zoning - including allowing multiple business districts - is also part of why they rank so well. I'm not arguing the 15 downtown would not be there, but that might be all we'd have - about the same as Dallas, coincidentally. As far as annexation, I am including the many decades of expansion, including the "freeway arms" that have protected the ETJ. Otherwise, I think we'd have our own equivalents of Plano, Richardson, Las Colinas, etc. relatively close-in that would have attracted multiple HQs, just as they did in Dallas. Freeway expansion didn't stop all from going to Sugar Land, The Woodlands, etc. - but it kept most.
-
In most cities, zoning CREATES these business districts. Interesting that you think that Houston's lack of zoning did it. As for strong freeway construction, I fail to see how the West Loop and Katy Freeways kept any corporations in the Galleria and Westchase/Energy Corridor, considering those were our two most congested freeways until a year ago.
I think I would chalk it up to our energy capital status myself.
In most cities, they create one major biz district - downtown - and try to push all skyscrapers there. If a large employer doesn't find that convenient, they often will move outside of the city limits to find or build the building or campus size they want (as I noted in my previous post: most are in the metros, not the core cities - NYC and Houston being major exceptions). Without zoning, we ended up with multiple large job/business centers to choose from within the city limits. If we had gone with the typical 'one downtown' zoning approach, I believe a lot more of our F500 HQs would be in Sugar Land and The Woodlands.
The West Loop and the Katy Fwy have been major problems until recently, as you point out. But before them were the 59 expansions (north and south) and the Hardy and Beltway 8 toll roads (not to mention multiple 45 widenings over the years), which substantially improved accessibility to the core and the major job centers from the far suburbs.
The energy capital status gives us the F500s in the metro, but doesn't force them to be inside the city limits. Most auto companies/suppliers are not inside the Detroit city limits, nor tech companies in SF, nor entertainment or aerospace companies inside LA city limits.
William P. Hobby Airport
in Planes
Posted
This is big news! I would have expected them to be neutral with so much United power among their board and committees. The fact that this resolution still got through speaks to the powerful benefits of competition for the city and the business community.
http://blog.chron.com/houstonpolitics/2012/05/greater-houston-partnership-supports-hobby-expansion/
Greater Houston Partnership supports Hobby expansion
The Greater Houston Partnership is backing a plan to expand Hobby Airport that would allow for international flights.
The Partnership’s Business Issues Committee voted unanimously to support the plan to add five gates and a Customs facility to the airport. Southwest Airlines is pushing the plan so it can start flying to Mexico and the Caribbean. The Partnership’s board of directors is expected to adopt a resolution in support of Hobby expansion by the end of next week.
“This is a critically important issue for Houston. We want two vibrant airports and the benefits that go along with it: more jobs, more travelers and a competitive advantage for our city,” said Tony Chase, chairman of the Partnership. United Airlines, which dominates the Latin American market from its base at Bush Intercontinental Airport, has fought the proposal. Company officials and consultants have argued that dividing the city’s international air traffic will cost jobs and routes.
A city consultant’s study concluded that the Hobby plan will create 10,000 jobs and inject $1.6 billion into the local economy.
Having the most prominent voice in the Houston business community behind the Hobby plan is another blow to United, which merged with Houston hometown airline Continental in 2010. In pressing its case, United has been drawing on the good will and trust Continental generated as an active corporate citizen for decades.
The Partnership’s immediate past board chairman is Larry Kellner, who was CEO of Continental from 2004 to 2009. The Partnership’s airports task force is chaired by Michelle Baden, United’s managing director for international and state affairs and a registered lobbyist for the airline at City Hall.
But the Partnership still backed the Southwest position.
“GHP has carefully deliberated on how increased competition changes the landscape within airport systems, having reviewed and analyzed extensive data and listened intently to representatives from the Houston Airport System, city of Houston, United and Southwest,” said Jeff Moseley, president and CEO of the Partnership. “We intend to keep working with all airlines and parties to protect and grow our region’s airports.”
City Council is scheduled to vote next month on the Hobby expansion plan.