Friday, March 30, 2007
The reality is that a Third Street entertainment area already exists.
It’s unofficial—and ungoverned—but it’s here, and it’s here to stay.
It has no name, no organization, no control and no resources. Yet restaurants, bars and new businesses continue to open and thrive there.
Do we do nothing to manage it? Shall we sit on our hands and watch disorganization flourish?
Or do we make an effort to establish a defined, controlled and
conceptualized Third Street enter-tainment district, one that has a name, has boundaries, imposes control and generates income in order to help police, not to mention cleans up problems that will come with the ever-increasing population—an increase that will continue regardless of whether we create an official entertainment district.
The answer is truly a no-brainer. We have an opportunity—even an obligation—to at least try.
Two key elements of a successful entertainment district include limited street closures and a carefully regulated open container provision (a recent, non-scientific Business Report online poll found more than 80% of 1,550 responders favored open containers, and more than 60% favored street closures).
They’d promote safety, not to mention revenue. Everyone wants a safe, orderly, freely moving and diversely composed social corridor along Third Street, preferably with an urban, European, pedestrian feel. Curbside dining, art venues, street vendors and the unrestricted flow of people are all facilitated (and made safer) by limited, block-long street closures of Third Street.
An open container provision, highlighted by a distinctive “sig-nature cup,” sold exclusively within the entertainment district to par-ticipating businesses, would create a sense of privilege and belonging to those using them. Sales of these cups, with the opportunity for sales of promotions on the cups themselves, would pay for supplemental police and clean-up crews, as well as hiring a much needed “ambassador” to oversee the smooth, safe and clean operation of the district.
What have we got to lose? If it doesn’t work, there was no harm in trying, and any part that doesn’t work can be discontinued. If it does work, what will we have gained? A truly unique, inviting and functional entertainment district, one that other cities will travel to Baton Rouge—not Austin—to see and copy.
Danny McGlynn, an attorney with McGlynn, Glisson and Koch, invests in and renovates old buildings, including some downtown.
Comments
Posted by jpriola on April 5, 2007 at 10:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You believe that a state-created and -backed entertainment district would be a great thing, since it would eliminate the current "disorganization" and bring state-induced order to "chaos". Did it ever occur to you that the current "disorganized" state of affairs is perhaps just what the city needs? Did it ever occur to you that the power of the free market is far superior to any state-imposed planning, and that regulation is the killer of business? I predict that this "entertainment district", if created, will end up driving more businesses away than it creates. You say there is no harm in trying, but in fact the potential for great harm is apparent - crippling regulation that will stunt and kill the very thing that you wish to promote.
Bourbon Street seems to get along fine without any state organizing and support. As far as I can see, the Third Street entertainment zone is doing just fine for now. Give it time to let it grow and thrive on its own, in the freedom of the free market.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)