2008 worldcon site selection

[netmouse]

I am torn about what site to vote for for the 2008 worldcon. I know quite a few people working on the Chicago Bid, and I'm sure they can run a terrific con, though I've never been to a Chicago worldcon. But, frankly, I'm leaning toward voting for Denver.

Here's why:

• Denver's a great city. I like the area, and I don't get out there enough
  
• I go to Chicago all the time. And frankly, I'm not all that crazy about it (though it has my favorite skyline in all the world and, yes, they do have good hot dogs.)
  
• Chicago has had a lot of worldcons (this would be their seventh) - I feel for fairness and for the impression we give non-Americans, we should vary where the con is held more than we do.
  
• I like Kent Bloom (chair of the bid). I met him at a smofcon and he seemed both nice and ept. I like people working on the Chicago (and columbus) bids too, but I see them fairly often. I haven't seen Kent in years.
  
• It seems like the bid committee has negotiated a good deal for their hotel and facilities, at least according to their reports
  
• I like the idea of having the convention earlier in August, so as to be before school starts and not conflict with dragoncon. (not that I go to dragoncon, but hey)
  

The Chicago bid web page is more slick. The group has also given themselves more time to bid, and accordingly put more time into it, and they have a theme. But I'm still leaning toward voting for Denver. Anyone want to try to talk me out of it?

Comments

[tammylc.livejournal.com]

One of the big disadvantages I see for Denver is that their location is very spread out. The main hotel is 3 1/2 blocks from the convention center - unless they're very short blocks, that's worse than San Jose. And the hotel only has 1200 rooms, so they're going to end up using a bunch of different hotels. Contrast that with Chicago where the Worldcon will be essentially under one roof. I like the Columbus location, but don't think they are capable of pulling off a Worldcon.

Note: I'm involved in the Chicago bid (although not as much as I'd have liked to be), but the opinions stated above are my own.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

So "Convention in a Box" is a factor, being weather proof except for going out to dinner.

Worse than Con Jose is not good, unless the route is lined with things like restaurants.

Dispersed can work OK, if the weather helps, which it did in San Francisco and San Antonio and did not so much in Winnipeg.
Confrancisco had a lot of hotels but this did give some cheap room options for people. I am not sure Denver can do the same.

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

Worse than Con Jose is not good...

This just shows to me how big a factor staying indoors is. The Fairmont and the San Jose McEnery Convention Center were about as far apart as the main hotel and the part of the convention center we were using at Philadelphia -- but you stayed indoors walking between them, so people thought it was shorter.

For that matter, the front door of the Fairmont and the front door of the McEnery were about the same distance apart as the distance from the Dealers Room to the Moat House at Glasgow last year.

For some reason, going outside makes the distances seem longer to most people I've talked to. Heck, at Glasgow, the walk was shorter if you went outside between the buildings, rather than taking the somewhat convoluted trail between them, but I bet there were a lot of people who stayed inside because in their minds it was a shorter distance.

[jeffreyab.livejournal.com]

Well outdoors in San Jose was not a problem because of the weather, the sidewalks were a little crowed, sometimes.

Perceived distance is a factor, if the route is lined with restaurants where fans can eat then it makes it look shorter than if its lined with closed office buildings.
Also if it is a straight line as opposed to a route with turns.