kevin_standlee | Site Selection Misconceptions

Current Mood: thoughtful

Site Selection Misconceptions

My Google Alerts turned up this blog post that included this misconception about where Worldcons are held:

Every other year, WorldCon alternates between a U.S. and an international location.

That's not true, of course, but as I reviewed in my head the locations of recent Worldcons, I realized that if you've only come to the field after 2001, you might think so. Look at where the Worldcons 2002-onward have been or will be:

2002: San Jose
2003: Toronto
2004: Boston
2005: Glasgow
2006: Anaheim
2007: Yokohama
2008: Denver

Now if you believe in patterns predicting the future, this means good things for the Montreal in 2009 Worldcon bid. OTOH, what about the Australia in 2010 bid? They don't have any opposition, and are unlikely to do so.

If Montreal wins for 2009 and (as seems almost 100% certain) Australia wins for 2010, it will be only the second time in the history of the Worldcon that there have been two consecutive non-US sites. (The only time to date was 1994 Winnipeg and 1995 Glasgow.) And it will be the first time ever that there will be no seated Worldcons in the USA, since in the 1994-96 period we selected Worldcons three years in advance, not two.

I guess this shows that the convention is indeed more global than it once was, although I suppose we'll be able to find detractors who say that it's bad that it's still held in the USA so often. When we were running up to the 2002 Worldcon in San Jose, I and Tom Whitmore did an interview with a reporter for the San Jose Mercury News who had done his research and knew something about fandom -- he was wearing a Green Lantern signet ring! -- but said, approximately, "How can you call it a 'world' convention when most of them have been held in the USA."

I replied that while he'd obviously looked at the Long List of Worldcons, it wasn't really fair to look at the entire (at that time) sixty-year history of the convention, but that he should look at the past twenty years instead to see how things were trending.

Since I started attending Worldcons in 1984, there have been or will be (through 2008) Worldcons in these countries:

USA: 16
UK: 3
Canada: 2
Australia: 2
Netherlands: 1
Japan: 1

On the average, two-thirds of Worldcons held after 1983 have been in the USA; however, as I noted above, the percentage has been 50% since 2002.

Will this trend (generally, for more non-US Worldcons) continue? I don't think so. I think it more likely to level out at roughly 3/5 US Worldcons; however, don't try holding me to that prediction for any given five consecutive Worldcons.

Oh, I did go and post a comment to that blog correcting the misconception, as well as clarifying that NASFiC can be held outside the USA (although it never has been).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I think we are heading towards a 50/50 split for Worldcons for International vs. Domestic. The Eastern Coast of the county has become unaffordable for conventions. One of the reasons why I chose Columbus Number 2 on the 2008 ballot and am seriously considering voting for Montreal only for 2009. Montreal would probably be the most affordable convention city on the Eastern side of the country. You can't have a con in the south because of Dragon con. When you exclude a dozen very doable cities for various reasons from Worldcon, this is what happens.

I would not be so quick to write off the US East Coast. After all, the 2004 Worldcon was in Boston, and there continue to be discussions of a DC-area Worldcon bid (hamstrung by lack of facilities for now). And I have not heard of facility costs being markedly different in the east than in the rest of the country.

What I do think is that the old zone system allowed people to be a little bit lazy. Two-thirds of North America were disqualified every year, which made it easier for the one-third that was eligible. Now, with most sites eligible every year, you have to work harder on your bid because you're more likely to see competition from somewhere, not less as many people were predicting when we adopted "no-zone."

The difference is in convention hotels. You can't get the $119 or less deals for hotels that you can from a hotel in Anaheim or Denver. The cost for a hotel for Otakon in Baltimore, MD for two nights can be about the same as four nights in a hotel in San Diego. That is why I don't think we are going to see a DC bid. A DC hotel attached to a convention center would cost probably $179 a night (same as what Anime Boston gets). I wish someone would compete against Australia for 2010. Australian airfares are worst than Yokohama airfares.

And we're not going to get that $119 from Denver, either. The rates will be more like what you're seeing with Anime Boston. The rates in Anaheim were amazingly low -- I doubt we'll ever see the like of them ever again.

The reason nobody will bid against Australia is that they don't want to lose, and most of SMOFdom wants Australia to win. It's traditional, you know: Australia gets a free pass.

There was a Sydney in '91 bid that was on the ballot. (See George Flynn's article.) But there wasn't much of a campaign and they didn't get a "free pass."

BTW, if you feel like writing another Appendix with votes since that article, we'll post in on the NESFA website (if the data is still available.)

I didn't take the Sydney in '91 bid seriously, and I don't think anyone else did, either. The point is that any serious bid -- and just filing papers is clearly not enough to be serious -- for Australia seems to be given a lot of slack from SMOFdom.

Of course, if the existing Australia 2010 bid hadn't done at least a minimal amount of effort to keep their name before the electorate, then someone would have stepped up with a rival bid lest we end up with no Worldcon; however, as long as Australia 2010 remains on their current course, I expect them to remain uncontested.

198 people voted for Sydney, so it is probable that some people took it seriously.

But my point is that no bid/city/country should be considered to be given a "free pass." If a group wants a Worldcon, they need to prove it to the voters.

Heck, almost that many voted for Roswell!

I don't mean to say I disagree with you. I'm saying what I perceive the political landscape to be.

Anybody who complains about the Worldcon being held too often in the U.S. should be told to go fix the name of the World Series before they come complaining to us; we're much better than they are.

Actually, my understanding is that the name "World Science Fiction Convention" was originally chosen (by Sam Moskowitz) more because the first one was held in conjunction with the 1939 World's Fair than for any other reason. I recall nothing to the effect that it even had any attendees from further away than L.A.

I'm very encouraged to see those two entries in non-English speaking countries (not counting Quebec). I'll miss Japan (waaaah) for financial reasons, but would go in a heartbeat if I could.

I just started reading Thomas Disch's "Dreams Our Stuff is Made Of" and he starts out by saying SF is uniquely an American phenomenon. These figures bolster my belief that he's no longer correct.

While technically a foreign country Canada is right next door and Montreal closer to the Midwest and East than Los Angeles or Seattle.

Being French speaking however it would give the con an international flavour.

I was deputy chairman of ConAdian, the 1994 Worldcon in Winnipeg, and also on the committee of the Calgary Westercon, so I understand how close Canada is. I also know a lot of Canadians who would bristle at being described as only "technically" a foreign country.

In any event, despite being so close, not being the USA clearly has an affect on Americans. Toronto and Boston, for instance, have similar "catchments" (number of people living within a one-day driving distance); however, Torcon 3 (2003) had a lot fewer people attending than Noreascon 4 (2004). And you can't put that down to "difficulty of getting there" the way you somewhat plausibly could about ConAdian. (ConAdian had the smallest attendance of any North American Worldcon in the past 25 years.)

Even in SF fandom, Americans can be incredibly insular. The idea of traveling to any foreign country -- even one that (at that time) didn't require a passport to visit, spoke (approximately) the same language, and to which you could drive -- proved to be Much Too Scary for around 1000 Worldcon "regulars" who turn out to only be "American regulars."

As a Canadian resident in Toronto's catchment area, I would say that Boston actually has a much bigger travelling SF fan catchment area. Boston itself has Boskone, Arisia and Readercon. Nycon and Philcon are close by.

Toronto only has Ad Astra and the closest US cities Buffalo and Detroit do not have nearly the same size travelling SF communties as New York and Philadelphia and DC.

You've defined "catchment area" as a much smaller area than I would. For example, it appears that you don't consider Boston to be within range of Toronto.

WSFS actually has a specific definition for this: 500 miles/800 km. Draw that circle around your city. If anything, Toronto has more possibilities than Boston because more than half of Boston's catchment area is in the Atlantic Ocean.

But I am from the West Coast, where people don't seem to think it's a big deal to drive from the Bay Area to the Los Angeles area for a weekend convention. (The equivalent centered on Toronto would be driving to Chicago, Boston, Washington, Montreal, or Quebec City.)

You would be correct. I have been to Chicago cons and you see a few Toronto fans there. In Toronto most of the fans are from Ontario at Ad Astra. In Detroit its primarily Michigan with some from Chicago and Ohio.

Also I have met Ontario people at worldcon who said they never went to local cons.

I believe on the Bos Wash corridor you are more likely to run into out of state fans.

Much of Toronto's 500 miles is cut up by Great Lakes.

The East Coast has been really active in worldcons where as the Midwest has been much quieter and more spread out.

As a parting thought how many worldcon fans attend their local, regional and out of region SF conventions?

Much of Toronto's 500 miles is cut up by Great Lakes.

Not nearly as much as Boston's is by an ocean.

I believe on the Bos Wash corridor you are more likely to run into out of state fans.

That's not difficult when the states are the size of counties in which I've lived.

The East Coast has been really active in worldcons where as the Midwest has been much quieter and more spread out.

I don't know your definition of "midwest" or whether it includes the entire Central zone. In any event, I point to: Chicago, Columbus, Kansas City, and the just-announced somewhere-in-Texas bid, not to mention the 1994 Worldcon in Winnipeg. And Minicon was approaching Worldcon size before it deliberately downsized.

how many worldcon fans attend their local, regional and out of region SF conventions?

I don't have hard data. I have anecdotal data, such as encountering Sacramento fans (when I lived in the Sacramento area) at Sacramento airport on the way back from Chicon V who attended Worldcons but didn't attend any local cons, even right in their city. (Sacramento hosted Eclecticon at that time.)

Well I believe the Mid West Zone ran from the Rockies to the Appalachians.

So the area is not as densely populated as the East or even the West zones.

If you look at repeat cities the East has New York 4, Philadelphia 3, Boston 4, DC 2, and Baltimore 2 most in easy driving distance of each other. Of course its hard to say where this is going but with Arisia, Boskone, Philcon, Lunacon, Readercon, I-Con and Balticon there is a good core of cons within easy driving distance.

The Midwest has Chicago 6, Toronto 3, New Orleans 2 and Cleveland 2. Toronto is not that big a con city and Cleveland and New Orleans appear dead as far as cons go.

The big regionals Marcon and Minicon have not translated into worldcons the way Philcon, Boskone and Disclave/Balticon did for the East Coast. Windycon on the other hand has.
MidWest Worldcons tend to be more one shots than East Coast ones, the exception being Chicago of course. With LA it is the leading location for Worldcons.

Now I forget how this started.

If you look at repeat cities the East has New York 4, Philadelphia 3, Boston 4, DC 2, and Baltimore 2 most in easy driving distance of each other.

One note, however, about repeat cities. Many of them haven't really been repeaters in the "modern" era of Worldcons (which I'll arbitrarily claim are those large enough to require a convention center, so 2,000+ participants). For instance, in the East: New York has not had a Worldcon in the modern era (the last was 40 years ago); and Philly has had only one in the modern era (the first two were in 1947 and 1953).

(From my point of view, though, it's really sad that there isn't much of a fannish presence in Cleveland anymore. I was 9 in 1966, when the last Cleveland Worldcon was held. And I never heard of fandom until I moved to Boston in 1984.)

True its really hard to make connections like that.

In Detroit for instance the main common thread between the current bunch of conrunners and Detention was Howard Devore.

However if a city continues to hold conventions decade after decade the cadre is there to hold a worldcon.

What

debgeisler said. Worldcons changed significantly in nature sometime in the 1970s, and certainly by the early 1980s when (with the exception of that one set of facilities in Chicago) you had to use a convention center.

This is a variation of what I told that reporter for the Mercury News -- you can't make meaningful comparisons between pre-1970s Worldcons and modern ones.

So these days you need a local cadre that can run a convention and a convention centre?

So it sounds like that even though the North East has many active fans it would be hard for them to host another worldcon due to convention centre problems?

How many off site worldcons have there been? Where the bid/con committee did not mostly live in the host city?

I was thinking that Orlando, Miami, and Brighton were examples.

So these days you need a local cadre that can run a convention and a convention centre?

Actually, the reverse is true, really.

We tend to judge the "modern era" of Worldcons based on several factors:

Worldcons got too large to fit (except Chicago) in a hotel space and had to add a convention center -- with all of the complications that includes

Conventions became more complex. Multiple tracks of program, exhibit, more events, films, etc. got added -- requiring more people to run things.

So many people were needed for the convention to run successfully that it became increasingly impossible to run Worldcon with nothing but local talent.

So it sounds like that even though the North East has many active fans it would be hard for them to host another worldcon due to convention centre problems?

Not at all. The problems are much more likely to be ones of affordability and interest than anything else. Although we have a lot of fans in Massachusetts, nobody's muttering about another Worldcon right now...and properties are pretty pricey, too.

But we still have a great convention center combination in the Hynes/Sheraton/Marriott, and it's likely the new convention center (BCEC) may eventually have enough hotel rooms nearby to actively consider for a Worldcon.

Chicago or Atlanta, though I'm not seeing a Worldcon in Atlanta on Labor Day weekend...

Although we have a lot of fans in Massachusetts, nobody's muttering about another Worldcon right now

Well, not within earshot of you, anyway.

Boston is one of a very small number of cities which could hold a Worldcon exclusively using local talent. That's not to say that that's how it's done when the Worldcon is in one of those cities, but it could be. Minneapolis might be another. Toronto certainly is not.

Boston is one of a very small number of cities which could hold a Worldcon exclusively using local talent.

We have a lot of fans in this area, but the needs for a Worldcon are not just for the willing -- they're also needs for specific skills, management experience, knowledge of previous Worldcons, etc.

Being foolish enough to believe that all of the talent you need to run a Worldcon is located in your city is a really, really bad idea.

The statement was in no way meant as a critique of who was in charge of N4. You had the great luxury of having your pick of local and imported talent, and of course making use of those options is what made N4 so great. But I still disagree with your statement that running Worldcon with only local talent is "impossible", at least here.

There's a difference between "technically feasible" and "a good idea."

Larger metropolitan areas like Boston, greater LA, the SF Bay Area, and Chicago possibly could somehow manage to cobble together a Worldcon committee out of only people who live within easy driving distance of each other and who can gather to meet in person often. Trying to run a Worldcon with that committee is a Really Bad Idea. Oh, you might appear to have, on paper, the skills. What you're unlikely to have is the cultural knowledge of Worldcon as an ongoing entity.

You may have a lot of local conrunners who have great technical skills at various bits and pieces of convention running. But most of them have never attended a Worldcon before, let alone worked on one. Therefore, almost none of them have any idea of the convention's overall culture, and are likely to evaluate everything in terms of how it would work at their local convention.

You might have, for instance, a Masquerade director who runs 200-entry events at your local 10K-member anime con. He doesn't have any connections with Worldcon costuming fandom, and manages to antagonize at least half the entries in your Worldcon masquerade out of sheer ignorance of cultural norms, and when called on it, says, "I run bigger masquerades than any of you, so sit down and shut up; I know what I'm doing. Besides, this is [Big City] and we do things our way here."

Another possibility: Because your talented local conrunners don't travel much outside of their local area, they don't really "get" that a really substantial portion of the members will be coming from a country that isn't the USA. They may well end up doing something that completely antagonizes all of your non-US members on account of not having any non-American members on your committee telling you, that "What you propose doing will really tick off non-American members."

These are not really that hypothetical. The serial numbers have been scratched slightly, but the situations are, alas, all too real.

There's a difference between "technically feasible" and "a good idea."

Completely agreed.

You might have, for instance, a Masquerade director who runs 200-entry events at your local 10K-member anime con

And we also have Richard Hill, who ran the N4 masquerade, and Susan de Guardiola and Donna Dube, who have each run Costumecon masquerades, and Jill Eastlake, who just ran a 39-entry event at our local 2K+ member Ambitious Regional and who's about as plugged in to Worldcons as it gets. And that's just counting the folks in New England; Byron Connell and Carl and Elaine Mami and a host of others who've run Worldcon or Costumecon masquerades are also nearby enough to be regulars at Boston convention.

The point I am trying to make is that Deb had way more high quality local talent to include in her mix than Toronto did. Not to knock Barb Schofield who did a wonderful job, but she's not going to do it again and there aren't three other strong local possbilities there the way there are here.

at Boston convention

... at Boston regional conventions.

Well, that's understandable. A model that has worked for some conventions is for most or all of the divisions to have one "local" and one "remote" manager, either as co-division heads or as one being the deputy of the other. In theory, you can then partner competent "locals" with "out of towners" who will give that added perspective.

But running distributed committees is really hard work. You have to keep stressing communication, and you have to get people to "buy in" to the idea. I've been on enough committees of different styles to have seen a huge range of reactions. Me, I'm much more likely to over-communicate -- although I reckon many people on the ConJose committee will probably roll their eyes and say, "by 'over-communicate' he means 'micromanage and talk too much.'" I'd rather do that than be King Log from whom no decisions ever get made.

But I digress, as usual.

You had the great luxury of having your pick of local and imported talent...

Luxury? No. We made a virtue of necessity, by recognizing well before we won that a distributed committee was inevitable and working from the outset to make it function right.

There have been groups that made exactly the same assertion about their local con-running community that you are making about Boston's. Those are Worldcons that are...shall we say, not memorable for excellence.

Perhaps you're right, and it's not "impossible" to run *a* Worldcon with nothing but local talent.

But it wouldn't be a Worldcon worth running.

That's not to say that that's how it's done

Ah, that sentence makes me sounds like the total neo who doesn't know who he's talking to. I should perhaps have said "That's not to say that's how it should be done".

Yeah, Cleveland is about dead as cons goes. Right now, there is only a rather inexperienced Anime con in June. I wish they could get their act together, and try and make the convention a little bigger, or little more organized.

I also saw a new anime/gaming convention down in Akron, OH, but they are not having their first convention until 2008.

And to make matters worse, in 2006 there was a hoax web site to host a sci-fi convention to mark the 40th anniversary of Tricon -

Cleveland does not have facilities to host a Worldcon, but I feel does have enough facilities to host other sci-fi conventions. If only the City Council can get together to finally build a new convention center.

I have an excellent knowledge of 500 miles driving distance from Toronto, and it does include Boston, Washington, Chicago, and points in between. (Driving to Boston in January is less pleasant.) Takes a day to drive. From Toronto, it is pretty straight QEW-403-401-402 to Interstate 94;

marahsk and I once made it from Toronto to Port Huron, Michigan in three hours. It's also only about an hour and a half from Toronto to Interstate 90. (Marah would occasionally come to Toronto for dinner on a weeknight when she lived in Amherst.)

It is true that it is darn cheap to fly and darn quick to drive between cities on the east coast within the US. In November, I went to Philcon after work on Friday; it's only like a two hour drive from Washington.

With the shift in exchange rates, Toronto is not a cheap city anymore, but I don't think that's a major issue. The universal feedback we got from Torcon was that it was a great destination city and people were happy to come there.

I don't see Canadian fandom as being ready for another Worldcon in the short term. I do see the community building links and skills that will be helpful in the future.

Nycon??? Do you mean Lunacon?

I actually meant Lunacon and I-Con since both are in the NYC area.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Site Selection Misconceptions

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject