Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv
I'd want to see the most recent numbers after JW and the Fairmont are completed before we even consider expanding again.
|
Sanders doesn't actually link to the 1990's projections that he's railing against in the source article, so it's hard to pinpoint a worthwhile counterargument. We don't event know what part of the 90's it was, so Johnson the consultant could've been projecting anywhere from 15-25 years out. That's a loooong time, and the things that have happened to the hospitality sector in the intervening years -- 9/11, the Great Recession, etc -- were transformative.
The thing that gets me is that Sanders' article pitches the whole thing as if the Convention Center expansion is a great tragedy, and that it's somehow this massive distressed asset in the middle of the city, sucking taxpayer resources down with it into a black hole of empty promises.
This is completely untrue, though. It's packed to the gills. Regardless of the number of shows per year (which is a meaningless metric in the end), it's occupied productively almost 70% of the time, which is considered at full capacity for convention centers. It's been a major demand driver, enough so that the convention package can support three convention hotels (800 rooms and up) plus a ton of middle sized options. Rates and occupancies are way up, and for the first time last year we beat San Antonio in city occupancy for a full month. That's nuts for a city this size.
I don't think we shouldn't look at the numbers again, but it's true, Sanders' metrics are exceptionally limited, and at best don't tell the full story. At worst they're intentionally misleading.