Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2007 10:43:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <kfl at KeithLynch.net>
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Gaylaxicon gets a hotel
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Mike Bartman wrote:

> 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).

I don't think cons have a high enough attendance that they can afford
to write off all non-motorist attendees.  That's pretty much what
killed Evecon and Castlecon.  They moved out of town, and found they
got fewer people, and *way* fewer volunteers.  They then moved back
into town, but it was too late to save the con, especially with their
having boasted that "they didn't miss" the non-motorists at all.
*That* sure made them eager to volunteer.  Not.

Note that the Hunt Valley Inn is convenient to Baltimore Light Rail.

> 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.

If people can't afford to stay in the hotel, ensuring that they can't
attend the con if they don't will simply reduce the number of people
at the con.  Especially young people new to fandom, who seldom have
massive amounts of disposable income that they're willing to spend
trying something they've never done before.

In addition to being convenient to transportation, restaurants, and
shopping, and being centrally located, urban cons are highly visible
to more passers-by, some of whom will be interested and join.

If cons become accessible only to wealthy motorists, and are hidden
away where passers-by won't see them, cons will soon cease to exist.