Probably, but it's fun to think about.
> In the real world it's going to be sleazy and run down in a few short years.
Sleazy is desirable to a point, but it's easy to go too far in that direction. And getting run down is a definite concern. It's entirely possible that the economics required to keep the place safe and hygienic would price out a lot of customers, and it would struggle to do enough business to stay afloat. Which is actually not so different from the current situation, but at least it's interesting.
> I'd also like to be at the city council meeting where you propose adding hooker hotel rooms in the original plans.
We're gonna have to do it in a very progressively liberal area, or get Kevin Bacon to do it.
In my experience, liberal areas are only permissive when it comes to national policy. When it comes to changing anything significant about their "historic" neighborhoods, you're going to fight tooth and nail with everyone. They'll find an endangered bird species that nests near your old mall to slow down development.
So, basically, "don't bother coming here because you can't leave"?
You'd need to make sure it was either accessible by public transit, or that there's cheap and effective semi-public transit like Lyft or taxi cabs - and it has to be cheap and effective for two trips, since you'll have to come back to pick up your car in the morning.
Then they should offer up sleeping accommodations, too.
While I know that in most places, you legally can't serve someone who's already intoxicated, in practice few people go to a bar to get slightly tipsy. If I'm going for a night out, I'm not going to be ready to drive again until morning.
In contrast, the failed Borders across from AT&T Park became a bowling space.