From: "Robert MacIntosh" <macbuccfo at msn.com>
To: WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Gaylaxicon gets a hotel
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:09:09 -0400
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

Truth is that it is a matter of space availability offset by accessibility.
Put bluntly, the hotels with the greater space that convention need tend to
be placed in urban area. Not an absolute, since there are any number of
facilities located in rural areas that are large enough to house a
convention of 2,000 comfortably. Both those latters tend to consider
themselves "resports" and feel the need to charge accordingly. Someday, the
"Tucker" Hotel will rise.

Bob MacIntosh

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