memebag

Who is he?

I ain't bowling anyplace The Dude can't bowl!

So you want it downtown because that would be simpler for people to grasp? Don't fear complexity. Some animals have more than one heart, and cities aren't animals.

Brief OT answer: elf boots.

Slipperty slope my ass. Just beware of Rush. Obligatory on-topic content: I hear all the cool kids are calling this place "HoPa".

Palace Lanes has a dress code, too. You aren't allowed to actually beat your wife while wearing a wifebeater.

At Palace Lanes, you won't have to watch people bowling ironically.

Houston has some great bowling alleys already if you're itching to bowl. Palace Lanes in Bellaire is tops.

"Why isn't Lucky Strike opening as planned???"

How would you force the owners of the tunnels to keep them open different hours?

I didn't say that. I said there were less than 100 Houstonians craving what you described ("ONE entertainment/shopping district that will draw world and national renown like so many other cities currently have"), and I stand by it. I doubt there are more than 100 people who care about this issue and also believe that one entertainment and/or shopping district could possibly have that effect.

The internet just keeps getting better. This is an amazing collection of images.

Not these locations. They operate during lunch and that's it. There are restaurants that operate at street level downtown. If Ninfa's and Beck's and Schlotsky's thought they could make more money there, I'm sure they would move upstairs. They aren't the sorts of places people are willing to drive downtown as a destination. They have multiple locations, closer to where the people live, and locations downtown for lunch. Only they wouldn't be as convenient, because then you'd have to go upstairs to get lunch and back downstairs to get into the tunnels. And that's assuming that you could somehow get them to agree to move, all for the sake of making downtown look better to you. Would you also shut down the other retail currently inside buildings and force them to move outside? Dagnabbit. Where do you get this idea? Ever been to San Francisco?

I'm thinking that the only people who don't like retail in the tunnels are people who don't work downtown. I encourage everyone posting in this thread to vote in the poll I created in this same sub forum.

Let us know your opinion of the downtown tunnels.

If you don't work downtown, why do you care? The "retail" in the tunnels is almost entirely lunch places for office workers. How would it help downtown if Ninfa's, Schlotsky's, Skyline and Beck's were at street level? They still wouldn't be open at night. The tunnels are just a quick place to grab lunch and maybe get a haircut.

I worked downtown for one year and the tunnels were my favorite part of that experience. I'm not intimidated by bums, I just like the tunnels. They're a fascinating architectural and sociological feature, and it's fun to pretend you're in a generational spaceship.

Do you work downtown?

The retail in the tunnels is there just for office workers. It's lunch food and some services, none of which would make a cent after 5pm. The city can't do any of that. The tunnels are private property with many different owners. The tunnels aren't going to draw people downtown. They're just like any other business leased inside an office building for the convenience of the building's other tenants. No one is going to visit my office building to chow down on one of the burgers served at the little store in the lobby. If something else draws nighttime crowds downtown, then the owners of the tunnel properties might be motivated to open some of them, but it's a huge pain in the ass. They have to provide security and whatnot.

Eh? HP is disappointing because it's an ugly, empty mall. I've been to lots of malls, all over the world. HP is one of the ugliest, and the only one I've ever seen open with only 4 stores tenants. I'd bet there are fewer than 100 Houstonians craving those words you wrote.

Not on hand. Do you? Sure it is. Look at all of the human cultures that have ever existed. Was cannibalism part of any of them? Then it's normal. You claimed a causal relation between the invention of contraceptives (assuming you mean the pill here, since contraceptives were invented thousands of years ago) and sex becoming a "carefree pleasure device". That relationship doesn't exist. Sex has been a "carefree pleasure device" long before the pill. It means just what it says. You said "My point was that it is a bad idea to have to draw a line somewhere." I'm arguing that any definition of when life begins (including yours) involves drawing a line. I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying it's unavoidable. Philosophical? I don't understand. I would object to it on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical grounds. Again, that isn't what I said. See previous post for clarification.

And I think it's dishonest for you to keep ignoring what I type. But that's not true. Contraceptive use in those cities was very high, and the demand drove the development of the birth control pill. And don't let history change your convictions. No, we don't agree about that. Cannibalism is "natural" and withing the "normal parameters" of human culture. But that isn't what you said. You said: "If contraceptives had never been invented, then sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, not the everyday carefree pleasure device that it has become." But you acknowledge that sex has been a carefree "pleasure device" long before the invention of modern contraceptives. I never did. You're projecting some other "idea" onto what I said. Right. Respond to what point? Something I never said?

OK, so to get the world to where you would like it, we'll have to convince one parent to stay home, convince both parents to stop using birth control, devote more of our resources to child rearing, and stop having sex just for fun. And maybe stop living in cities. I see no path from here to there, or any compelling argument to sway people to your way of thinking. Any suggestions? That's not what I'm asking for. I never said everyone has to use birth control. I said that the desire to use birth control is a consequence of the move from a rural, agrarian society with high infant mortality to an urban, industrialized society with comparatively low infant mortality. I asked for examples of industrialized cities without widespread birth control. I'm not aware of any, and it sounds like you aren't either. I didn't argue that. Please read what I type. The industrial revolution drew people from farms to cities. That resulted in changes to the family, standards of living, lifestyle and health. Those changes exerted pressure on reproduction that increased demand for birth control. This isn't a radical theory; I'm sure you've encountered it before. That doesn't mean one family must have contraceptives to live in an industrialized city. It means that without contraceptives, industrialized cities would be packed with kids we can't care for. See the difference? But if even some cultures are as obsessed with sex as ours is, then it doesn't fall outside of normal parameters. Consider it let go. But take a look at this web site about some 10th and 11th century Hindu stone carvings. If you conceded it, I must have missed it. So your earlier statement ("If contraceptives had never been invented, then sex would still be a sacred, revered thing in our culture, not the everyday carefree pleasure device that it has become.") is false by your own admission. Other cultures have treated sex as a non-sacred "pleasure device" without our modern contraceptives. I'm fine with the state making laws. I said I don't want to force children to be born to mothers that want abortions. Please don't invent my thoughts. I never said that, or thought that.

There are a lot of reasons for that. Are you also advocating that one parent stay home with the kids? You've seen it? Cool. List some industrialized cities without birth control. Let's look at how they do it. So our focus on sex is unnatural because ... if we had the same focus on bread that would be unnatural? Yet our focus on sex has occurred naturally as far as I can see. What is unnatural (outside of nature) about it? But I think we can agree. You're familiar with attitudes toward sex in cultures throughout history, right? You know that other cultures have been at least as interested in sex as we are, right? I didn't say I was OK with it, you just asked who tells you when life begins.

I thought I already explained that above. Families are smaller, parents don't work in the home or on the family farm, hence the need for daycare and birth control. So how do you see this working without birth control? Who is going to take care of all of those kids? What makes it "unnatural"? I realize we disagree, but you base your argument against abortion and birth control on a common misconception about human attitudes toward sex. I'd like to reveal that misconception here. The state.