102IAHexpress

Also, I could see how you would think the tunnels are only for the work crowd, but as someone who has lived and worked in downtown I can also sympathize with my former neighbors who think the street level restaurants near the entertainment venues are only for the tourist crowd and not for downtown locals.

I think the new places opening up have to be examined more closely because they really cater to visitors/tourists (non-downtowners) who are visiting or as you say "gravitating" to downtown. I believe the current social trends will continue; the restaurants that will do well are the ones that can adapt to the food delivery trends and the ones that can also sell lots of beer/wine/alcohol (can't order alcohol via an app). Therefore bars around entertainment venues (which downtown has lots of; Minute Maid Park, Dynamo, Theatre District, Bowling, etc.) will continue to be popular in downtown as people gravitate to drinking before/after games and performances. Bigio's new sports bar near Minute Maid is an example. The restaurants that cater to the theatre district is another. And unfortunately very popular lunch time places for downtown regulars (like Chipolte) that do not also serve alcohol will have a hard time in downtown in the evenings and weekends. What we are seeing is that most street level restaurants (see my partial list above) will remain closed on the weekends because they are not near an entertainment venue or because they don't sell alcohol or don't sell enough alcohol and therefore will not be popular with downtown visitors. The restaurants that are open on the weekends are really bars that also sell food for the non locals that are just visiting downtown. There are very few true downtown neighborhood restaurants for locals of downtown (one of my favorites is Hearsay in market square).

Well, the tunnels account for dozens if not hundreds of restaurants not being open in the evening and weekends. But okay, you just want to count the street level restaurants? I can't remember them all but just places I have been to on weekdays not open on weekends: Closed on the weekends: Cafe Express La Palapa Corner Bakery Jason's Deli (both downtown street level locations) Eats Mesquite Grill Lone Start Taco Co Closed on Sundays Pperbacco Pad Thai Azuma I'm sure there are others I have missed.

I would say most places in downtown are M-F lunch only. In more bad news for traditional retail as a whole, a new analysis by Credit Suisse predicts that between 20% and 25% of malls in the US will close in the next 5 years. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-malls-closing-20170531-story.html More reason for the CoH to stay out of tax-payer funded retail districts in downtown. If these consumer buying habits continue, how much longer can Forever 21 last at GreenStreet?

Getting closer to on topic. How concerned should Downtown be not just about retail but about lunch time restaurants? National consumer habits are not just shaking up traditional retail but also traditional restaurants. https://www.wsj.com/articles/going-out-for-lunch-is-a-dying-tradition-1496155377 If this trend continues can we expect to see restaurant closures in Downtown?

Not sure what ANY of that has to do with my post. I NEVER said downtown Houstonian's were leaving downtown for the Heights in 1891 or 1896. If i did please point it out. However i did state that downtown Houston at one point in its history did have lots of people living there, but in time there was a downward spiral of population loss that started in the 1st quarter of the 20th century. Also, I can also state mass produced automobile facts. Fact: Between 1913 and 1927, Ford factories produced more than 15 million Model Ts. Also, like always people on this forum submit reply and read posts later. I never said Houston's early streetcars deserved no credit. If I did please point it out. I only stated that Samagon's post incorrectly gave ALL the credit to Houston's streetcars. If instead Samagon would like to edit his post to say "moving to the Heights and Montrose was made possible in part by extension of the same electric trolley... " then I would have no problem with that statement. But i doubt he will edit it. And I doubt you will provide evidence that automobiles played no role in downtown Houstonians moving to the Heights and Montrose. Also, you will concede I'm sure, that roads existed out in the Heights at the same time if not before street car lines were built to the Heights, correct?

You're giving way too much credit to Houston's original street cars. Do you have any evidence that early Houstonian's moving to the Heights and Montrose was possible only because the electric trolley? Or have you forgotten about the invention of mass produced automobiles?

Not sure if you are referencing me? But I never said Downtown Houston was great or not great back then. If I did please point it out. I do think it was definitely booming economically which is great but I wouldn't call living in a packed tenement "great" either. On the totally of that era I have not made a judgement. I only even mentioned it because Bobruss made a claim without evidence that Houston has never had a culture of downtown living. I simply corrected him on that. Houston did have a culture of downtown living. Whether it was great, I don't know. However, you omitted the point I made about downtown Houston's downward spiral of population loss and Downtown Houstonian's exit for the Heights and Montrose.

I am aware of the population stats: http://www.houstontx.gov/planning/Demographics/docs_pdfs/Cy/hist_pop_1900_2017.pdf And I agree that high rise living was not wide spread, however very dense low rise tenements were common place in Galveston and Houston. People probably wanted to just spread out and live more comfortably; downtown houstonians found that comfort north of buffalo bayou.

Your analysis and conclusions are wrong again. Don't conflate Mid and late 20th century flight from the inner loop to Houston's suburbs with downtown Houston's downward spiral of population loss that started in the early 20th century. People were leaving downtown for the Hieghts and Montrose long before they left to car centered suburbs in the 1960s.

It's almost as if you know nothing about downtown Houston. Have you ever seen photos of Downtown Houston from a 100 years ago? Search them on chron.com they are very informative. Houstonians were living, working, eating, shopping, walking in Downtown over a hundred years ago. How can you claim that type of living has never been successful in Houston? Houston has its beginnings in downtown living. However, with time the needs and wants of Houstonians changed and they moved out from downtown. The citizenry spoke with their feet and moved out. But If today, citizens want to move back in to downtown they are free to do so (i did), however I'm not sure the city should use taxpayer dollars to encourage that behavior at the expense of other priorities.

You are right about changing habits though. Outside of downtown i was used to running a lot of errands above ground, however in Downtown I adjusted my habits to account for the lack of alternatives above ground. I got my haircut in the tunnels, went to the dentist, dropped off my dry cleaning, ate, etc. It was comfortable, clean, free of homeless people. Was it Galleria quality shopping, no? However the only place in the city where Galleria level shopping exists is the Galleria. Everything else that i needed, could be ordered via Amazon and delivered to my doorstep. Seems like those in favor of a taxpayer funded retail district in downtown are people who have never lived and payed taxes in downtown.

Houston's tunnel system is more vast than Chicago's, for sure. But perhaps, Illinois was inspired by Houston's tunnels when they built the Thompson Center in Downtown Chicago. It's just a government building but on what we would consider the tunnel level of the building their is an expansive court of shops, restaurants and government services. Much like our humid summers are unbearable for ground level retail in Downtown Houston, Chicago's streets are worse for shopping in the winter. When I working on LaSalle street this January it was nice to be able to run to the Thompson center go downstairs and find a place to eat in warmth. https://www.illinois.gov/cms/About/JRTC/Pages/default.aspx The google and yelp reviews for the building might be the highest rated government building reviews I have ever read. People want to shop and eat in comfort, go figure?

Since the light rail and other tax payer proposals have not furthered retail in downtown, what are some possible solutions? If ground retail is failing, perhaps downtown should just expand on what works, the tunnels. What if the city helped develop public tunnels and public access points from the street? Or should the city stay out and instead let the free market decide what's best for Downtown?

Gotcha. Wouldn't surprise me if Mayor Parker was flat out lying. She's quoted here saying Macy's essentially lost their lease and that they were working with Macy's on relocating Downtown. http://blog.chron.com/primeproperty/2013/01/downtown-macys-to-close/

What's up on Dallas? Well, over the last several years, retail has struggled. The news about Macy's landlord wanting to demolish and build office space instead of leasing retail is only part of the story, the complete story was that Macy's chose not to lease at another suitable location in Downtown. They left the Downtown market because it was not profitable for them. They could have signed a lease with Houston Pavilions on a smaller footprint store but chose not to. Other retail news for you...lets see, currently there are still ground floor vacancies available at GreenStreet, but there are no takers. Does that news help you?

Facts? LOL. Not sure where you get your facts from. Let me give you some facts. 1) Houston area taxpayers (mostly democratically dominated) approved a one-cent sales tax when they created Metro. 2) Metro does serve the poor and the disabled, however wealthy area cities are also stakeholders. By law Metro serves Houston and Bellaire, Bunker Hill Village, El Lago, Hedwig Village, Hilshire Village, Humble, Hunters Creek, Katy, Missouri City, Piney Point, Southside Place, Spring Valley, Taylor Lake Village and West University Place (some of the wealthiest zip codes in the Houston area) 3) that doesn't even make sense. My goals are in Metro's Charter. 4) Higher end services need more maintenance, more compliance, regulation and more costs. If this was an actual solution then commuter trains could print money and solve system wide funding issues. They obviously do not, look at Chicago.

You're entitled to have that opinion.

And that is the main problem right there. You want to change hearts and minds. I'm not a social justice warrior, I don't want to change cultures. My wish is only to provide cheap affordable public transportation to Houstonian's who 1) can't afford an automobile and 2) are physically handicapped and can not drive themselves. In Houston buses are the best option to meet those two goals to the most amount of people. If anything, our culture should be more open minded to buses. I don't need mass transportation to spur development or cure parkinsons, it just needs move people. I don't care what may or many not work in NYC or SFO, I only care about Houston, and in Houston buses have the greatest potential for the least amount of money.

Trains and auto's are both technically old. However trains are older. That's just a fact. Further, affordable mass produced automobiles required the technology of assembly lines which did not come into play until the early 20th century. What is your point? I don't follow your argument. My position has not changed. Given the choice between public transportation and personal automobiles in Houston, Houstonian's will chose personal automobiles. Disruptions of people's ability to drive to businesses will impede those businesses ability to succeed. Light rail construction disruption is especially bad for businesses because it impedes motor traffic and sometimes foot traffic too and for what? Public transportation? Public transportation already existed. You could tear up main street with a MagLev train and people would still prefer their automobiles. Businesses would still be affected by MagLev construction but at least there, you could legitimately make the argument that, that it was technological "progress".

I'm not sure it's progress actually. Businesses are not being affected by some awesome magnetic levitation train or a hyperloop system. Instead they are being affected not by progress but by actually regressing to a 19th century technology. That's the insult to injury. Rail existed on main street more than a hundred years ago. In time we progressed from rail on main street to buses. Now we're going back to light rail. I don't view that as progress, nor "progress" that local businesses should pay dearly for.

I'm not sure I would I call a road a public transportation project, I would just call it a road. But I feel your pain about road construction and business losses. My brother has sold cars for 15 years and he has been at many dealerships affected by road construction. However, and I'm just speculating here, the reason why businesses are not typically compensated for road projects is because the government has a right and obligation to build and maintain roads. See Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. You need roads to deliver mail, provide for the common defense, etc.

I've represented hundreds of client's in business interruption loss claims. I've never had one get reimbursed every penny. We usually had to fight tooth and nail to get paid part of the losses. I doubt the light rail affected businesses fared any better with Metro. And if you pay attention you will see that some businesses weren't paid anything.

What is your evidence to state they were LUCKY? Seems like governments often compensate businesses along light rail lines. Israel: http://www.jpost.com/Business-and-Innovation/Deri-budgets-NIS-4-million-for-Tel-Aviv-businesses-affected-by-light-rail-construction-413753 Seattle: http://www.seattle.gov/economicdevelopment/business-owners/financial-support/23rd-avenue-businesses Los Angeles: https://www.metro.net/news/simple_pr/metros-pilot-business-interruption-fund-reaches-1-/

I have posted facts. You may not like the facts because it does not further your position but that fact remains that the light rail cost businesses at least $3,796,377 during a four year period. To say nothing of the lost tax revenue by the city and county. If you would like to post facts that shows that the light rail has been beneficial to businesses then please go ahead.