urbanSTL

^I'd guess because LHM feels like they're a good fit, but HRC wasn't. And as to the fish at an aquarium objection I don't really buy it. The zoo sells all manner of food, including plenty of beef and pork even though there's quite obviously similar species on display. I can see myself hankering for some good seafood after visiting an aquarium. For a local touch I'd go catfish, myself. But Landry's should do fine.

I think it's a good bet Landry's Seafood is out and Rainforest Cafe or another of their more touristy chains is in.... or maybe Landry's stays and another is added..

I thought it was rather interesting that LHM opted in the end to not choose Landry's owner to do the Aquarium... the company is behind the ones in Houston & Denver and a couple other places; they do have aquarium-themed restaurants there so perhaps they'll have their eye on that even though they won't operate the aquarium here itself

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2018

And as to the fish at an aquarium objection I don't really buy it. The zoo sells all manner of food, including plenty of beef and pork even though there's quite obviously similar species on display. I can see myself hankering for some good seafood after visiting an aquarium. For a local touch I'd go catfish, myself. But Landry's should do fine.

Oh, don't get me wrong. It wasn't an objection, more of an observation that amused me. I'm 100% fine with Landry's staying where they are.

-RBB

rbb wrote: Oh, don't get me wrong. It wasn't an objection, more of an observation that amused me. I'm 100% fine with Landry's staying where they are.

-RBB

Fair answer. And here's to tasty seafood!

Question for anyone with a legal/contracts background:

I assume since Landry's is owned by the same company as RF Cafe', their parent company, even though they signed a 5 year lease, can switch to the Rain Forest concept at any point over that 5 years, correct? Or is a typical contract of this nature going to bind the parent company to keep it a Landry's over the term of that 5 year contract?

I know there could be all kinds of clauses in a particular contract, but just curious if there is an industry practice that will keep this a Landry's over the next 5 years. I would like to see it switch to a RF concept immediately, while the 'family attraction' is under construction. That would prevent a shutdown of restaurant and the challenges of operating a construction site in the middle of a busy family attraction, while the changeover is occurring. Seems logical!

I would imagine that any potential conversion of the Landry's would have been discussed in the lease renewal process. Sometimes the bigger restaurant tenants will include language that let's them convert to one of their owned concepts, but pretty much all contracts will have some clause that protects the Landlord from the restaurant's ability to close up shop for any extended period (i.e. the Landlord can take the space back if they go dark), so they'd likely need permission if they went that route.

I'd also suspect that if they were seriously considering switching to Rainforest Cafe (much preferred over Bubba Gump in my opinion) LHM would have had to contribute a good chunk of money towards the remodeling costs, but that's just pure speculation.

Someone mentioned Legoland which I think would be an ideal addition to Union Station. Adding kid-themed stores can certainly be gimmicky, but with the more permanent family-oriented aspects (Aquarium and ferris wheel) adding some of those national players could stabilize it, as the kid's experiential retail market isn't going anywhere.