Showing posts with label hotels. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hotels. Show all posts

Sunday, April 10, 2016

The Convention Center Cabal

The Milwaukee Business Journal had a recent cover story discussing Milwaukee's hotel growth. Other than talking about hotels, the main thrust of the article seemed to be that - to fill all these new hotel rooms Milwaukee needs to step up their convention center game. The "if you build it they will come" mantra is alive and well with the convention center interests.

But, as experience has shown, the number of conventions and convention-goers has been falling the past few decades. With faltering demand already in place, increased supply drives the value down for everyone. A classic case of a race to the bottom. Maybe it's a good thing Milwaukee hasn't wasted hundreds of millions on pointless convention center expansion.

From Governing magazine's The Great Convention Center Bailout:
“A lot of the over-building is a result of local business leaders who see the centers as a bulwark against declining property values in cities,” he [Heywood Sanders, professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio] says. Throw in consultants who often play up the impact of a convention center, says Sanders, and the result is an overbuilt market.
I wrote about this topic in 2014:
As Steven Malanga reports, in The Convention Center Shell Game, "A vast expansion of Chicago’s McCormick Place, costing $1 billion in the mid-1990s, didn’t prevent a drop in that city’s share of major conventions... Another word of warning: city-commissioned studies almost always wind up recommending convention centers—meaning that the industry of consultants who churn out such studies has a pretty lousy track record, considering the long list of underperforming centers around the country."
Chicago is the biggest convention center city in America. If a billion-dollar investment can't prevent their slide, does anyone plausibly think a different outcome will occur in Milwaukee?
And, the numbers in the Business Journal article show that, even though we haven't expanded the convention center (which is deemed so necessary), hotel occupancy rates have improved. We've built more hotels and more of those rooms are being used even though Milwaukee hasn't upgraded the convention center. This increase in hotel room occupancy (from 58% in 2010 to 62% in 2015) has occurred alongside declining convention center events (from 78 events in 2014 to 53 in 2016). So, it may be more accurate to believe that investing dollars into the convention center would be a drain on other more effective economic activities in Milwaukee.

A University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) Center For Economic Development study explained:
Whatever the original economic folly of Miller Park and the Midwest Airlines Center, what’s done is done: both facilities exist and will certainly operate for the foreseeable future. For the purposes of this study, there is no point in reopening a historical debate about whether public dollars should have been spent on these facilities. However, down the road, as part of a city strategy to build a chimerical tourist industry in Milwaukee, taxpayers once again may be called upon to provide public funding for an expanded convention center, or perhaps a new arena for a local professional sports team. Such expenditures should be scrupulously avoided: tourism has been a losing economic development strategy for Milwaukee as a whole, and for the inner city, tourism investments have represented a huge 'opportunity cost’ of funds that could have been invested in inner city economic renewal.
For Further Reading:
Beware Of The Economic Development Hucksters

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Subsidized Hotels

Construction is set to begin this coming spring on a hotel near Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport after government officials in the area spent five years struggling to get a private developer interested in the project. 
What tipped the balance? Officials in the small Milwaukee suburb of Oak Creek, Wis., came up with a $2.75 million tax break for the developer, Salita Development LLC... 
Still, these hotels don't always perform well and they often generate criticism. For example, Greg Marcus, chief executive of Milwaukee-based Marcus Corp., is concerned that the new airport hotel and other such subsidized projects around the country will drain business from his 20 hotels, including his three in Milwaukee. The city's hotel market faces a 24% increase in its room count due to projects expected to complete construction over the next three years, according to Robert W. Baird & Co. 
Mr. Marcus also points out that subsidized hotels carry less debt and thus can undercut their competitors' nightly rates. "When you build something for reasons other than supply and demand, you create imbalances in the system," he said. "That's why our government needs to be so careful with what they do" in subsidizing hotel development.

Friday, November 26, 2010

The Hotel Of Dreams

Whether or not the proposed downtown Marriott is the no-brainer the Journal Sentinel claims (they claim any development is a win-win) is debatable. Will it bring more business travelers downtown? Will it increase the City's annual tax revenue by $2.2 million? How will a new hotel enhance the regions tourism and marketing efforts? How will a new hotel boost downtown development?

The constructions jobs are obviously a good (temporary) thing. The low-wage, seasonal jobs created by the hotel are jobs, but not the best. Any development will have a construction boost and create some jobs. Whether or not this is the most optimal, is the best location, and is worth destroying historic buildings, are questions that need answers.

If they plan on razing the historic buildings - something Milwaukee still has numerous examples of, which we should be maintaining - are the developers planning to build something that echoes a bygone era? Or, are they planning on building a modern, square, glass, monstrosity which will look completely out of place downtown? (We already have enough cheap-looking and out-of-character new condos.)

Business travelers come to a place because they have business to attend to. They don't travel to different downtowns to just stay a night at the new hotel. Likewise, tourists don't visit cities just to see the latest hotels. "There's nothing to see here, but our pillows are the softest!" I have yet to see a successful marketing effort for a city focused on hotels.

Improving economic opportunities for residents, creating places of interest, and having accessible and connected transportation routes attracts business, tourists, and creates a buzz. Supply by itself does not attract other development, nor assure success. Simply building a new hotel will not attract new development. The demand has to be here, or some signs of demand on the horizon, before a savvy investor would bet millions on a location or development. And, just because one development moves forward, this does not guarantee others will follow.

I'm not completely against this project, but neither am I completely for it. More questions need to be asked and more details provided. The Journal's marching ahead of any serious discussion and declaring this project a catalyst of development is cavalier and premature. Let's see the site plan, what kind of financing is entailed, and what the impact analyses are forecasting. It's one thing to move swiftly on a well-corroborated project, but quite another to haphazardly move forward on just hopes and wishes.

For Further Reading: