TheNiche

Anyhow, it really doesn't matter much for the House if Texas gains four versus three seats and Massachusetts or New York loses one. The strongest gains in population were in the RGV and urban areas, all predominantly Democrat zones.

That only makes sense if the people moving into the RGV vote according to the regional tradition. That's unlikely.

Also, "urban areas" probably don't mean what you think that they mean. Pearland will most definitely count as an "urban area" per the Census definition.

I don't know. Geographically speaking, Texas is pretty well apportioned now, plus our state politicians tend to rise above the partisanship-for-the-sake-of-partisanship that seems to characterize national politics (excepting the fracas from a few years ago of course). Besides that, the governor has nothing to do with congressional districting. That's a legislative duty, and both houses of the state legislature are pretty evenly split right now. I think Texas will be redistricted fairly with either three or four new seats.

Take a closer look at that map. It was created by Republicans for Republicans. And while it is certainly true that some of the districts are effectively conceded to Democrats, you can rest assured that such concessions were made only in the strategic interests of the GOP. I suspect that one or possibly up to two additional concessions will be made following the 2010 Census and the 2010 midterm election, however that those will strengthen recently-weakened stronghold districts. On the whole--for better or worse--Republicans win out from our population growth.

Does Houston have plans to run rails to the airports any time soon?

Nope. Not soon.

Who would want to rent the other apartments that are not subsidized? I don't see this as a workable solution. Either make all of the units subsidized or not. Why does the use of federal dollars dictate that part of the units be subsidized housing?

You can't force cats and dogs to lie down together.

Combining subsidized and market-rate units happens all the time in Tax Credit projects and sometimes with Section 8 housing. The operating theory is that having a more diverse tenant base prevents social stratification to the extent that poor populations become insular communities that are incapable of successfully interacting beyond a very limited set of subcultures.

Yeah! No pretentiousness, an activity that isn't all that difficult or competitive, food, drinks, and a place to sit and talk. Oh, and a jukebox to see what she likes to listen to

It works out alright if you're on a double date or a similar arrangement, but it's disruptive to the conversation in a two-person game because each person is constantly getting up to take their turn. For that reason, bowling may not be suitable for a one-on-one first date.

I have a feeling you look a bit like this guy:

Do me a favor. Draw on an Al Qaeda beard, Buddy Holly glasses, and dark brown He-Man hair.

The word for "transition between two subjects, musical themes, or other discrete units" is "segue."

That certainly explains why my spell check was throwing a fit, yet was unable to produce a viable suggestion.

The use of the word stands. If it's a defining behavior characteristic of an individual, and the future would bring no willingness to compromise on that individual's attendance, regardless of the objections raised by a significant other, I see no better word for it than addiction. A preference by nature is something that can be compromised on or eliminated altogether as it isn't mandatory. We're pretty far out in absurdist territory now though, so I guess it really doesn't make too much difference which words we use. Hell, we can make words up to describe it. I like blaffington. It's no strip club addiction or preference. It's a strip club blaffington.

For the record, I wasn't setting it up as a strawman. I was clarifying this condition from a previous post:

The fact we continued to talk about strip clubs on first dates led me to assume this ^ wasn't the case.

You mischaracterized the scenario that I set up and then picked apart that mischaracterized scenario. You're still trying to do it. And that's a straw man.

And yes, we are in absurd territory even though we are in general agreement, but that's mostly because you made absolute statements, and I needed to undermine them with clear-cut examples of how they didn't make sense. And the process of forcing people in your situation to flesh out what they mean under duress causes most of them to poorly articulate something else, from which I can further demonstrate my intellectual superiority while continuing to undermine their credibility. It's what I do. I'm a dick like that. What can I say but that you fell into the trap.

I guess, maybe. Perhaps I was particularly successful at being single. I don't know. Although, I suppose if a woman did indeed have strong preferences, and if I was incapable of er... measuring up, I'd like to know that before showtime. Unnecessary time mismanagement and potential embarassments could be totally avoided with a little bit of honesty. Most people are too concerned with adhering to some sort of undefined social contract that limits the realm of acceptable behavior upon first encounters. I'm not one of those people. I'm polite, but not to the point of being dishonest. If who I am is offensive, then so be it. I won't change for a stranger, and I've never been desperate enough to pretend to be someone else just to get laid.

Then again, I don't enjoy strip clubs, and I don't have any major skeletons hanging in my closets. I suppose it's easiest to be forthright when there's not much to hide. (That ties back in to my unwillingness to compromise on my ethics or my morals.)

Adherence to the unwritten social contract is cumbersome at times, but I've found that it's just as important as the basic demonstration of etiquette. It's evidence that one person isn't going to make the other look like an ass by association or vice versa. It's easy to forget how important that is until a disaster occurs...such as that your date shovels goodies from the salad bar into a huge ziplock bag in her purse in plain view...or that decides to act like like she's lost her mind during the exit from the restaurant, screeching at high volume about the slaughter of the cows, subsequently cackling while walking to the car in the parking lot because it was just an experiment to gauge peoples' reactions...or that decides that it'd be a turn-on to follow you home on her pocket-rocket, circling your car on the freeway at high speed and doing wheelies. These non-first-dates of mine would've qualified as the types of people who doesn't feel constrained by social rules, and their fancy free behavior on the first date that really attracted me to them turned out to be a signal of impending doom.

Mind you, I'm not saying that anybody should change who they are as part of a first date, just that its helpful if part of who they are is a person that at least can demonstrate that they know the rules and demonstrate politeness when they know they're breaking them, for instance by using a segway such as, "I hope I'm not being to forward, but..."

That said, had a girl ever asked me to a first date at a strip club or shown up looking like Chewbacca's second cousin, I would have been able to end the charade considerably quicker than I would have otherwise.

I guess that's where we differ, and it gets me into trouble. Because if a girl asks if I'd like to go to a strip club, that's a no-brainer. The answer is yes because it'd be an interesting experience. And I don't even like strip clubs. Granted, though, I wouldn't have a long-term relationship in mind (anymore, because I know better).

Sure I've compromised, but not on my moral or ethical values. Nor has she, nor would I expect her to. A strip club addiction isn't the same as choosing between Chilis and TGIFridays. There's more than a food preference with that example. If someone were to have such an addiction (or worse), I'd sure like to know about it prior to investing any substantial amount of time in getting to know the other facets of that person's personality, as intriguing as they may be.

Hey, watch it there with the straw men. Nobody's talking about an addiction. We were talking about preferences. And the thing about preferences is that individuals frequently have preferences that are exclusive to others or even mutually exclusive. We make choices all the time between those preferences, often painfully, without being untrue to ourselves.

It's my opinion that a solid relationship is founded on honesty, not subterfuge. And, my point with the sentence you highlighted is if you're unwilling to give up your favorite eating spot in the future (if and when the relationship progresses and assuming she has a problem with it), then you should be honest with her about it from the very beginning. It's the I'm-George-I'm-unemployed-and-live-with-my-parents approach. It saves a lot of time in dealing with incompatible people. Let me give a more benign example. If a woman refused to ever shave her legs, but wore jeans to hide that on the first several dates, then no matter how close we could possibly get, it would be a relationship doomed to failure. Before you ask, yes I am that shallow, and yes that would be a deal breaker. Both our time would have been wasted on something we were both unwilling to compromise on. And for what? On the improbable hope that maybe, just maybe, her personality was so overwhelmingly awesome I'd give up my conceits?

Then again, I suck at poker. Bluffing isn't my strong suit.

This just doesn't make any sense. Have you ever described the characteristics of your own body hair (or other covered physical features) to a girl on a first date in the interests of openness and honesty? Some women have a strong preference along those lines, after all, and they may not want to have to wait until they've gotten serious with you to find out one way or the other whether you meet their minimum standards for continuing to date you.

^That would seem impractical.

And if your counterpoint to this observation is that each person should be asking things about the other that reveal characteristics about their date that they consider to be important...well that's true. But have you ever asked a woman wearing jeans whether she has hairy legs? If that'd be a deal breaker and you really believe what you've told me, then you must've seen quite a few reactions to that question. And I'd be interested in hearing about them.

We're talking about first dates, here, where basic trust is being established. To that end, discretion is the better part of valor.

Harris County will wait at least a month before committing to joining five neighboring counties in studying a multibillion-dollar "Ike dike" and other storm protection measures.

The Commissioner's Court was scheduled today to adopt articles of incorporation and bylaws forming the Gulf Coast Community and Recovery District. The organization would research ways to protect the Houston Ship Channel and upper Texas coast against hurricanes and other storms.

...

Among the projects the district intends to study is a Texas A&M University oceanographer's idea to extend Galveston's seawall 15 miles to the island's West End, build a similar structure along the Bolivar Peninsula and construct massive floodgates at the entrance to Galveston Bay.

Ike Dike Temporarily Spiked, Chron Blogs

Sadly but not unexpectedly, most of the comments are uninteresting, unimaginative, or uninformed.

It strikes me that the Global Warming fatalist might've been able to figure out that the floodgate at Bolivar Roads could actually be reconstructed as a lock at some point in the future, if rising sea levels actually do start threatening to displace people and destroy marshes.

Good for them. They know a crappy deal when they see one. A mere $100 billion to developing countries is a joke.

A little common sense is necessary of course.

However, so is a little honesty. If your favorite place to eat is a strip club, then perhaps to save your date's time it would be best to be upfront and forthright with her. It's not just your time on the line here. It's hers too. Why should she be compelled to remain with someone whose habits she may hate and who she may potentially hate being with for any longer than necessary? In my opinion, you should only be willing to compromise on the intial meeting if you'll be willing to compromise later. Otherwise, you've duped an innocent victim into a relationship under false pretenses.

So tell us, have you ever compromised on anything with/for your wife? Say, on items such as whose family gets visited for the holidays, the timing or duration of visits by in-laws, travel destinations and activities, housing selection, car selection, food preparation, avoidance of food allergies, or other matters? Surely you've had to settle on something at some point in time. You're not Mormon are you?

Now, recall this instant in time that you've compromised your preference for the sake of the relationship. Why'd you do it? Is it perhaps because you respect your wife, maybe even love her such that her happiness enters into your list of priorities and, itself, becomes a selfish pursuit?

Let's assume that on your first encounter, you had felt it important to inform her of something such as that your favorite place to eat is a strip club. How much further do you think that that relationship would have gone? I'm willing to bet, not very. I'd wager that there are probably a decent number of women that could accept that from a boyfriend/husband, but only once trust has been established; there are probably far more men that'd realize that this was a point that they needed to compromise on if they valued the relationship, but they'll only know whether they value it sufficiently as it progresses beyond the first date.

However, there is almost no crime in there. I spoke with a hotel the other day and they told me the statistic, which I forgot, but it was very very low.

What's your point of comparison to claim that it was low?

All these rules...

All you've got to do is take her someplace you like. If she doesn't like it, then to hell with her. Move on. Valuable time is saved.

Nope. If that rule held without exception, many first dates would be held at strip clubs. It wouldn't go over well.

Most healthy couples have strong commonalities that bind them together but need not be precisely alike in their likes and dislikes. If you can't respect your date by trying to find something that you can both enjoy in common on even the very first date, then you risk passing over too many false negatives.

Ha! Now I never said skip out on the drinks...beer, coffee, that's all fine!

There's just something about food/dining in my head (unless it is the super casual snacky-type) that can be awkward for a first ever date...

edit - I guess it's a chance to measure table manners and food-smacking decibels!

JUST SAY NO to wings, ribs, soup/pho, spaghetti, fettuccine, and monstrously-large burgers and po-boys. And cut up your salad's leafy greens into finer bits for easy scooping.

Sushi, steak, seafood, sandwiches, etc. are good first-date foods. They aren't messy or loud, can be easily converted to bite-sized morsels, and don't have to get in the way of productive conversation.

Also, it's OK for the invitee to be subjected to a new culinary experience (i.e. ethnic foods or sushi/sashimi/roe) at the behest of the invitor, but not as a first date, and the invitor needs to have tried the food before and be capable of reassuring their date that the food isn't going to be terrible. If that food may be an acquired taste, like sea urchin roe as an example, then you might ask if they'd be interested in trying it, but don't order it if the interest level is low; that's third or fourth date territory and then only if the invitee's willingness to 'try new things' needs to be tested.

Still, I'd have to say that 20% of the first date with a long-term orientation is good planning, 10% is going out of your way to practice good manners and hygiene (and then only because those aspects can be mitigated by good planning), and 70% is being yourself. If you're play-acting as a nice guy with good manners and hygiene, the truth will come out eventually and you're just wasting your time.

I know land values downtown and in the house's neighborhood are going to be high, the discrepancies in building value seem overwhelming. Is the office building not fully occupied or on its way "out?" And is the 2008 to 2009 change because of a break of some kind? I know the house is lived in and in good condition (and even if it was a trash heap, the heap would be "worth" more than $100). I know HCAD has its own quirky valuation methods but I feel like I'm missing something here...

The valuation of a property is an estimate of its sale price. If the sale price of an older building (based on comparable sales) is nearly the same as the sale price of land, then only the difference is attributed to the value of the improvements. It does not matter whether the improvements retain significant utility as evidenced by their ability to generate rent.

Cases such as the ones that you pointed out are classified as economic misimprovements if the highest and best economic use of the underlying land is different from the improvements that actually exist on the property. It is triggered if the answer to the question "would a reasonable person rebuild the same thing on the property if it were vacant?" is negative.

For instance, a cottage in very good condition that's in Bellaire and a million-dollar mansion in Lindale Park would each qualify, although their quantitative treatment would vary according to the specific case. Examples:

The cottage (when protested, as everybody ought to be doing) would probably be valued at $100 (HCAD doesn't go any lower), reflecting that the preponderance of value is land...and if they wanted to be perfectly accurate, the costs to demolish the improvement to make the land useful (as is recommended by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) would result in negative improvement valuation, but they can't do that.

The mansion would be valued according to an estimate of its sale price, with improvement value reflecting the total valuation minus the land value, where the land value would be the same as throughout the rest of the neighborhood--so it could be built for $1,000,000 on $100,000 worth of land, but because it couldn't be resold for more than $550,000, the land value would be $100,000 and the improvement value would be $450,000.

Is the office building not fully occupied or on its way "out?"

Most historic structures are themselves physically or functionally obsolete. There are exceptions, of course, such as when they are substantially renovated; and even then there is typically a ceiling for financial performance that is quite a bit lower than a new Class A building (attributable to reasons ranging from higher insurance premiums to lower energy efficiency). No matter what was done to the Great Southwest Building, it will never rival the financial performance of Hess Tower or MainPlace.

Happy holidays,

What are ideal cafes, diners, or restaurants in Houston or the surrounding area (I live in Pearland) that are excellent first-date locations? somewhere not too casual and not too fancy.

What attractions or parks are ideal for couples on the same day, if her and I were to have a morning brunch?

There is this one girl I know who lives between the Beltway and 610, and I've thought about taking her to the Pearland Town Center for lunch and a matinee. But the distance will be too far for her and there's not a lot to do where I live.

Thanks for your advice

I'd say that the best place for a first date depends on how well you already know the girl. If you've never met before or met only in passing, then this is an exercise in trust-building. Your date has to start out in a public place, with somebody else preparing the food. Select a place that you're familiar with so that you can be decisive with the menu and make suggestions of what she might like according to her tastes. It's OK if things move along quickly and you end up going for a stroll through the park or out for drinks afterward (or further still), but you each need to determine that the other isn't a creep before that, and being initially sober in a public place is important to that end.

On the other hand, if you both belong to a social organization and see each other about once a month, then there's already some familiarity and initial trust. You can skip a step and go straight for drinking, attending a concert or festival, cooking her a dinner, picnicking, or a sporting activity. Play it by ear.

If you're both fascinated by skylines and urban character, try picnicking atop a parking garage downtown; if you both like a gritty industrial character, then picnic on the lawn that's off to the side of Brady's Landing or on the grassy banks of the Buffalo Bayou beneath the abandoned silos near the northeast corner of Jensen and Navigation; otherwise, stick to the verdant parks of your choice.

If you're both outdoorsy-type people, then forgo the picnicking or sporting activity for the second or third date and make that one an overnight hiking/canoeing/kayaking trip. I've even made the overnight camping trip a first date once (with a coworker) and had it be successful; but that'd never have been possible without pre-existing familiarity.

Whatever you do throughout the first few dates, always be respectful, always be an expert, and always come *ahem* prepared.

EDIT: On review, some of my specific suggestions seem most applicable to me and the women that I'm attracted to. Most peoples' girlfriends aren't nearly as fascinated with watching barge traffic in the Ship Channel during a picnic or with driving 400 miles in order to hike ten miles through the desert. You need to play it by ear and do what works for the women that you're attracted to.

I wonder if their legs are edible, like with frogs.

Just for more clarity on the subject, the vision is small incremental developments, following a regulated master plan. The great developer no longer exists but the available land does. Growth over the next few decades needs to be managed and the idea of a "woodlands" for lack of a better term, is feasible and likely if it can be managed. It is true that small estates do tend to keep a few trees but those I have visited had few trees and kept the majority of the land for swimming pools, horse areas, barns, etc etc. The main point of the idea is that it will be attractive, just like The Woodlands in that it would be another forested area with a large percentage of green space. One can;t really compare The Woodlands with a modern development except for its values and amenities. Conroe's new initiative will hopefully achieve a similar but smaller goal and within the city for a shorter term vision. Contrasted with the Conroe project, this one is for a much longer period of time. The issue is more in long term investments than if the people and businesses would come to it. There are some interesting ideas that would require legislation to enable such new thinking for forest preservation effort.

If you want to promote rapid growth in southwest Montgomery County with forested regular lots, then you'd need to change flood control regulations to require fewer detention ponds. Otherwise, the costs of removing the fill will be prohibitive, developers will spread it around on the ground, increasing the elevation enough that it would kill the trees (if the trees were kept) and you'll witness the same kind of sparsely-forested development as is typical of newer sections of The Woodlands. Never mind the additional burdens on infrastructure and the extra footprint on the forest that that entails.

If your interests are forest preservation, then simply charge a fee for every tree removed, with the fee schedule varying based on the kind of tree, its level of maturity, and its visibility from the road. Then you guys can realize the benefits to the County of estate-sized lots, keep trees, and generate revenue through impact fees. Counties already have the power to do this. Try suggesting it to Judge Sadler the next time you meet him. He's a reasonable man. Give him a reasonable suggestion and see how it goes over.

I don't think evaluating developments 1 year old in the midst of a massive recession is the best time to declare victory or defeat. Abd, while Niche's numbers may be correct, his assessment of what the City "wanted" may or may not be correct. There are many ways to decide if the City got its money's worth. If I remember correctly, the City gave the developer about $7 million for infrastructure upgrades. The property is currently on the tax rolls at $130 million, drawing $850,000 in property tax revenue PLUS the sales and liquor tax revenue that the retailers draw. The subsidy works out to roughly an 8 year tax abatement. Compare this to the hundreds of millions of dollars that the City of Dallas is giving to developers to renovate several downtown structures. While it is unlikely that Dallas will ever recoup the money paid to reinvigorate its CBD, Houston's investment will be paid relatively quickly.

Nope, it is not the same thing as a tax abatement. The City of Houston paid the subsidy in an up-front lump sum, and nearly two years before the project was actually completed and fully on the tax rolls. Also, ad valorem tax collections (i.e. sales & liquor) should not be considered in a fiscal analysis (and wasn't by the City for evaluating HP or other proposed projects) because new retail merely cannibalizes sales from existing retail. To his credit, Mayor Bill White does understand these concepts and was personally involved in reviewing these kinds of deals.

The City of Dallas has a knack for voting fools into office; I'd agree with you there. They're so easily "influenced", it's just pitiful. What Dallas does is not germane to this conversation, however, and it does not reflect on the efficacy of our own downtown revitalization investments.

Clearly the subsidy to HP is not an unmitigated disaster, however my point from before (as it pertained to the City) was that the City's strategy in this case was suboptimal. And I stand by that assessment.

Am I the only one that doesn't think the goal of Houston Pavilions was to be another mall?

Depends on whose goal you're talking about.

The City's goal was to have a thriving downtown entertainment-oriented mecca, serving the populations that you identified. The City specifically denied funding for any uses that were not considered sufficiently "public", including residential, hotel, or office space. The subsidies were provided to the developer on the basis that the developer build shell space and were in no way dependent upon the developer hitting an occupancy threshold or successfully attracting the tenants that were initially targeted, nor were there any incentives put forward to benefit prospective tenants.

The developer, working from 2006 rental rates and 2006 cap rates, didn't much have to care if occupancy problems persisted as had been the case in so many similarly-themed projects because they were able to make the project appear sexy enough to arrange for a huge lump sum subsidy. Their assumptions were wrong.

In summary: 1) The City got what it paid for, shell retail space, and would've been better off directly courting retailers such as HOB with incentives to open up shop downtown, letting the retailer determine which is the best location for a new venue. 2) The developer is likely stuck with HP for a good long while, not a good position to be in if the mortgage comes due at any point over the next several years. 3) Downtown promoters have lost the opportunity to point to a successful and transformative project, which is what they were desperately hoping for. Instead they got a rehashed Bayou Place. 4) Convention-goers, out-of-town visitors, and suburbanites get to enjoy the handful of facilities that the City of Houston's subsidies made possible. Houstonians get that enjoyment, too, but overpaid for it. We shouldn't brag about it.

OMG how old are you???

I guess I'm trying to reason how the House of Blues is considered a "weak entertainment-oriented anchor". It's been very successful, and hasn't had any trouble competing with the Verizon or Warehouse Live. Pete's is doing very well every time I go there, and it seems that Andalusia and LSL are off to a good start. I agree the reatil of HP is beyond weak becuase it's not well-planned and there's not a healthy retail population in downtown yet. But if you're calling the entertainment segment of this developement "weak" then you're not familiar enough with the project to be making a comment.

HOB Houston is in the plus column... so much so that it makes Live Nations 3Q profit earnings report...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MjAwNjl8Q2hpbGRJRD0tMXxUeXBlPTM=&t=1

My mother always told me I was born 40, so that makes me 65. Which means I'm your elder. And you should respect your elders.

I apologize for not being more clear. I'm not calling HOB weak. I'm calling entertainment-oriented anchors weak as a category, which specifically means that such anchors may take up a large chunk of space (at a significant rent discount by the square foot) and draw many people at a time, but that they have a difficult time justifying complimentary retail other than food service. Compare the traditional regional mall business model to that of an entertainment-anchored mall:

A strong mall anchor focuses on apparel and general merchandise, providing enormous draw and broad appeal across all demographics. In-line retailers then have three angles of attack: 1) they can specialize on certain products and themes that appeal to various segments of the large and diverse base of shoppers, 2) they allow comparison shopping between numerous similar stores, and 3) they can exploit convenience-oriented and impulse-driven retail.

In contrast, entertainment-oriented retail anchors start off with a fairly limited demographic appeal such as limits segmentation potentials, they draw people mostly during off hours, and they do not foster an atmosphere conducive to comparison shopping. Aside from food service, there's weak synergistic potential.

And yes, totheskies, I realize that our generation is supposed to go gaga over this kind of thing, so sayeth the Gen-X marketing managers that promote products at us. I don't care. The fundamental rules of retail still apply, no matter how many voracious consumers or European sedans were depicted in the architects' renderings of HP.

Make five predictions before January 1, 2010. In 12 months we'll revisit this thread and see how everyone did.

Here are mine:

1. There will be some economic recovery, but things will continue to be bad through the end of 2010.
   
2. Yahoo! will cease to exist as it currently is
   
3. E-readers will be the subject of a lot of talk, but won't lead to a renaissance in reading.
   
4. A new social networking site (something like Twitter or Facebook) will rise to prominence.
   
5. Something very bad will happen in Pakistan
   

* Deficit spending without a corresponding increase in taxes (coupled with stabilization in inventory levels that reduce earlier offsetting deflationary pressures) will lead to further devaluation of the Dollar, increased inflation expectations, higher interest rates, and higher equities and commodities prices.

* The labor market freefall will be cease but there will be no meaningful recovery.

* The midterm elections will witness a Republican resurgence, not on the basis of merit, but because Obama isn't on the ticket.

* I will find a regular full-time job. It'll be boring and the pay will suck.

Maybe once the other rail lines come online and getting around by rail alone is more practical...?

Doubtful. If white people aren't willing to ride the bus to get to light rail (in which case they could already get to HP by bus), then you're limited to small concentric circles around rail stations as the catchment area. That's very limiting with respect to METRO's Phase II implementation once you segment out the demographics to conform to the target market.

In order to attract retailers and achieve a reasonable level of occupancy, HP must overcome the fact that it is a mere community center with weak entertainment-oriented anchors and narrow demographic appeal (similar to the plight that faces the ever-beleaguered Marq-E Center, except that that one has visibility, signage, and free parking). HP would need to generate the broad appeal of a regional mall, but that's just not realistic.

CON: Houston Pavilions has demonstrated to all would-be developers that downtown retail is a poor bet (even in the heart of downtown and along light rail), whereas office towers can be filled up even in a downturn.

Needless to say, I'm also not especially optimistic about the future of HP. If the Park Shops and Bayou Place are eternally underwhelming, it stands to reason that HP will be too.