Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 19:19:24 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,<WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
From: "Mike B." <omni at omniphile.com>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Gaylaxicon gets a hotel
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

At 10/5/2007 03:48 PM, Michael Walsh wrote:

>I think Capclave has been doing a decent job of juggling the various
>buzzing chainsaws: location, cost, date.  Perhaps it's sort of like:
>"better, faster, cheapr: pick two".

I wasn't criticizing Capclave's choices...they've been fine by
me.  I'm just wondering at the general con urge to be in cities, when
it's usually cheaper to be outside of them...even a little bit...and
the apparent need to be near subway stations, when most attendees
aren't going to be using them and things like free parking are a
bigger drawing point (see: Hunt Valley Inn...where the only problem
is distance from the airport).

Making it too easy to get too and from the hotel might also eat into
room-night numbers, either by encouraging commuting from home for
locals, or letting out-of-towners stay at other hotels.

No studies or hard data...just wondering out loud here...

-- Mike B.
--
My opinions are my own--but I'm willing to share!