Second Thoughts on Convention Center Hotel?

Convention-center lust is a vicious disease that attacks--and eventually consumes--the soul and intellect of those it afflicts. At least some of them. Perhaps Dan Onorato is prepared to take a cure. Guess who isn't?

Today's Post-Gazette reports that Onorato is reconsidering the need for a convention center hotel. Why? Existing Pittsburgh hotels have had a dreary 62.2 percent occupancy rate for the past year, and private developers are already considering a slew of other hotels throughout the city. Onorato deserves credit for taking another look. Mayor Murphy, on the other hand... Well, what can we say about the mayor? Contrast his office's views with Onorato's:

Nonetheless, Onorato said the need for the convention center hotel should be reviewed in light of the possibility of a casino hotel and others being considered in the vicinity of Downtown.

"I think now is the time to evaluate what hotels we need and who's going to build them," he said. "We might have hotels being built that we didn't know about 12 months ago, and the beauty is it's going to be done with private money."

The proposed 500-room convention center hotel, which would be publicly subsidized, has been in limbo for nearly two years because of funding shortfalls.

In legalizing slot machine gambling in Pennsylvania, the Legislature earmarked $44 million from those revenues to finance the public share of the hotel, which would be built by Station Square owner Forest City Enterprises.

Revenues from the first slot machines probably won't start flowing to the state until late 2006 or early 2007.

With the passage of the slots law, the city-Allegheny County Sports & Exhibition Authority and Forest City Enterprises renewed negotiations to complete a deal last fall, but still do not have a final agreement.

Tom Cox, executive secretary to Mayor Tom Murphy, said the administration is willing to take another look at the hotel at Onorato's request.

But he added the sentiment in the industry is that it's not so much the extra rooms that make the hotel important, but the hotel's close proximity to the convention center.

"We are told that rooms alone are not what the convention center needs," he said. "What they need is a convention center hotel that can be booked by the convention interests."

Now, I have no doubt that the projects Onorato prefers will be rife with the kind of development shenanigans that have plagued Pittsburgh for the past 50 years. Still, Cox's insistence that the city needs to provide public money for a hotel while numerous developers are considering other hotels nearby is getting pretty close to self-parody.

I also like his use of "We are told..." By whom? I bet it's the people who design and build convention center hotels. Hint to the Mayor's office: Get a second opinion. And while you're at it, get a second opinion about the convention center.

Oh, and this: The Trib's Bill Steigerwald brings the hammer down on Murphy's claim that Gateway Center is a success without equal in the history of urban planning. The Trib has been excellent on these issues across the board.

Comments

[RichW]

"I also like his use of "We are told..." By whom? I bet it's the people who design and build convention center hotels. Hint to the Mayor's office: Get a second opinion. And while you're at it, get a second opinion about the convention center."

Seems you are the prototypical voice of Pittsburgh, railing against whatever, with no sense of facts nor inclination for progress.

I'm in the convention business, although in no way affiliated with the Lawrence CC or any local political apparatus. As part of my job, I'm often asked to recommend cities to clients who are looking for the right "fit" for their events.

So it's with that experience that I can tell you the "whom" of which Cox speaks are meeting planners, operations managers and CXOs at companies that might bring their events here.

You can have a legitimate arguement about whether the hotel should be publicly funded, but not the concept of having one next to the convention center. That argument has no basis.

The reasons for a connected hotel are many: exhibitors demand convenient hospitality suites and walkable offsite meeting rooms. They also prefer the ability to get back and forth to their rooms quickly. And they don't want to have to walk through a casino every single time they come or go.

Any city can tell you that. Well, except Cleveland. The downtown Cleveland convention center is an industry joke at this point because of its run-down condition, which is where our old convention center was headed. I have told clients to consider downtown Detroit over downtown Cleveland, which should give you an indication how bad it is. And Cleveland's I-X Center by Hopkins is often not under consideration because there is no attached hotel. Major exhibiting companies don't want to do business there. And attendees simply don't want to get on shuttle buses at the end of a long day if they can avoid it.

As to the hotel occupancy rates - for that I blame the CVB for booking too many SMERF (Social, Military, Educational, Religious, Fraternal) meetings at Lawrence. Yes, you need to keep the center full, but many of these SMERF groups won't pay more than $49 per night, and they'll happily stay in Cranberry at the Super8. Seems to me that rather than spend more time selling to the best mix of events, our CVB has simply taken whatever events were interested in coming here. Pittsburgh insecurity again?

As a side note, if Oronato is seriously considering the idea that a casino hotel will help the convention center, then he must be considering only the Mellon Arena site, because no other site would have any impact whatsoever to meeting planners who do the shopping for venues. At least the Mellon site is a walkable distance, albeit not a particularly pleasant one at the moment.