Houston’s metropolitan area shares many characteristics with Southern California, so it’s always interesting to review assessments of Los Angeles’ urban boondoggles for guidance on how to avoid the same mistakes here.
In this L.A. Times op-ed, urban economics expert Joel Kotkin (previous posts here) explores the latest initiative to allow L.A.’s white elephant — the downtown convention center — to feed at the public trough. Despite the fact that the center has been a chronic money-pit despite a $500 million city expansion investment 17 years ago, the city is now proposing $300 million in loans, tax breaks and fee waivers for a $750-million, 54-story complex ó including a 876-room Marriott Marquis, a posh 124-room Ritz-Carlton and 216 luxury condos ó across from the Convention Center (sound familiar?). Despite the huge public outlay of public funds for the downtown convention center, Kotkin reports the following:
L.A. is still not on the list of the nation’s top 10 convention cities and has little prospect of competing successfully against Las Vegas, New York and Orlando, which have far more attractions. According to one trade publication, L.A. hosted fewer major conventions last year than Indianapolis and Rosemont, Ill. But there’s a bigger problem here.
The simple truth is that convention centers are rarely a good public investment. A definitive national study by the Brookings Institution, released last year, found that they frequently operate at a loss, including the recently expanded centers in Washington and St. Louis. In most cases, their much-ballyhooed effect on the local economy ó new private investment, more jobs and increased levels of tourism ó “has simply not occurred,” reported Heywood Sanders, the study’s author.








