Chicago is bad statistically, but it's still better than Baltimore. Geographically the bad part of Baltimore is all of it except this one good place in the inner harbor. Geographically the good part of Chicago is all of it except the really bad South side.
I once worked at a summer camp and another counselor from Chicago told me how to tell if a neighborhood is bad. She said that white people think a neighborhood has lots of non-white people walking around on the street it's dangerous. That actually means its a safe neighborhood because people feel safe walking the street. In Chicago the bad neighborhood is where the street is as empty as a ghost town, all the windows are barred/boarded, and there are even snipers camping upstairs.
Have you been to any other area in Baltimore other than the immediate area around Otakon? Fells Point, Midtown, Federal Hill are all decent areas that I walked around at night and didn't feel unsafe or see anything that was sketchy.
I can't say much for Chicago due to only visiting their crappy airport.
She said that white people think a neighborhood has lots of non-white people walking around on the street it's dangerous. That actually means its a safe neighborhood because people feel safe walking the street. In Chicago the bad neighborhood is where the street is as empty as a ghost town, all the windows are barred/boarded, and there are even snipers camping upstairs.
Ironically, Newton is empty as a ghost town, and I feel unsafe walking through it, despite the fact that it's the city with the lowest crime rate in the country.
Toronto and Chicago aren't terribly far from Boston as-is, I mean within a fair day's drive even at a moderate pace. so I don't know if there's enough reason to bisect the north as such. You'd have to go closer to Minneapolis to be roughly in the middle... and that's not a PAX kind of city. I've driven to Chicago from my house in CT, in something like 13-14 hours if I recall correctly... it's not terrible.
Going down south towards Texas makes a neater triangle of coverage for the US, being within a reasonable drive of anywhere from Arizona to Florida... so the people who are mostly out of single-day driving range of either PAX/PAXE. If it were my call and I were looking for a place in the US to do it, I'd probably look at Texas as a prime spot.
Europe and Asia are both seriously lacking PAX as well, and I would be under no surprise to see it move out that way, but they have their own events and are probably able to take care of themselves for now.
Yeah, I really like Chicago... unlike NYC it doesn't feel terribly dirty, and the layout is spacious and ample such that I've never felt crowded or overwhelmed there. I would consider living there, where NYC would have to be under specific circumstances
Toronto and Chicago aren't terribly far from Boston as-is, I mean within a fair day's drive even at a moderate pace. so I don't know if there's enough reason to bisect the north as such.
There are enough people in the Northeast to populate seven or eight PAXes completely without ANYONE flying in from further away. A Toronto PAX would sell out just as fast if it were the same weekend as a Boston PAX.
Chicago is the most interesting for me to ponder, simply because I've been there a few times and I'm familiar with the smaller conventions around the area. The biggest factors that detract from PAX being there to me are age, demographics, industry, and culture. It's just not Seattle. It's also just not Boston. I'm not saying it's entirely wrong, but it's less of a fit.
Austin I don't have the same degree of personal experience, but my understanding top-down from the internet and gaming communities is that it's a better fit. It's also warmer.
You know what would be great about PAX Austin. The warm weather. Sometimes Prime is summer warm, but not always. Being able to PAX outside comfortably with shorts and t-shirts will be way awesome. So many cons try to avoid summer since the biggest cons own it. It would be really nice to be able to pack more fun and less clothes.
I've been to a work technical conference in Austin (National Instrument Week 2007, for those curious) and can confirm that Austin would be a pretty cool place to have a PAX.
Wait, are you saying Chicago isn't into gaming???!???!??? Austin's big advantage is it has a bunch of video game companies around it.
That's not what I said, but the culture and attitude is off. I'm from STL originally, so maybe I have some local bias. I also hate STL, and the culture there is even worse. When I think of PAX, one of the biggest things I fall back on was how incredi-awesome everyone I ran into was. It was like being among my people, who just did not seem to exist around here or Chicago. I am still amazed Boston magically manifested an energy so similar to Prime, so it could just be a PAX thing... but I'm still thinking Austin.
I can't believe I didn't think of this before PAX AUS - Rym and Scott, if this PAX is somewhere in not-North America, use the fancy-pants Marantz to record people's best American accents.
Toronto and Chicago aren't terribly far from Boston as-is, I mean within a fair day's drive even at a moderate pace. so I don't know if there's enough reason to bisect the north as such.
There are enough people in the Northeast to populate seven or eight PAXes completely without ANYONE flying in from further away. A Toronto PAX would sell out just as fast if it were the same weekend as a Boston PAX.
Oh I'm sure they could. But the question I'm wondering is whether it's more important to put an event closer to untapped market, or keep throwing events in areas where the demand outpaces the supply such as the northeast.
My reasoning is that it's probably best to spread them out as far as possible to cover the most ground. Certainly some people from Texas and Arizona and Florida travel to the current PAX events regardless of location, but it would probably be fair to say that a great many people who attend an event are living within the same region as the event, and drove less than 10 hours to get to their PAX. And a great many potential attendees in North America/wherever... would never make it to either of the current US events because they're in, basically, the south.
The population densities in the new, untapped areas may be less than say, New England, but they'll probably still be sell-out events... and I would wager into the decision that a motivating factor is that it spreads the tendrils further out than before... and from an evangelizing perspective spreading out the events so their range-spheres just overlap without leaving too much exposed ground, makes the most sense.
Then again there's a reason many franchises start in one region and work to fully populate it before daring to spread outside of their domain. One could say it makes business sense to saturate one localized market that you can tailor your marketing and logistics towards, but from a user perspective... it's the reason why I don't have any Wawas or Sheetz to go to up here in CT and forces me to deal with the far inferior Henny Penny.
I could really go for a PAX where it's everyone else's first PAX. That's part of why I wanted to get to AUS last year. Gotta live off that electric vibe.
Comments
I once worked at a summer camp and another counselor from Chicago told me how to tell if a neighborhood is bad. She said that white people think a neighborhood has lots of non-white people walking around on the street it's dangerous. That actually means its a safe neighborhood because people feel safe walking the street. In Chicago the bad neighborhood is where the street is as empty as a ghost town, all the windows are barred/boarded, and there are even snipers camping upstairs.
I can't say much for Chicago due to only visiting their crappy airport.
Going down south towards Texas makes a neater triangle of coverage for the US, being within a reasonable drive of anywhere from Arizona to Florida... so the people who are mostly out of single-day driving range of either PAX/PAXE. If it were my call and I were looking for a place in the US to do it, I'd probably look at Texas as a prime spot.
Europe and Asia are both seriously lacking PAX as well, and I would be under no surprise to see it move out that way, but they have their own events and are probably able to take care of themselves for now.
Austin I don't have the same degree of personal experience, but my understanding top-down from the internet and gaming communities is that it's a better fit. It's also warmer.
It's essentially the Seattle of Texas, with sunnier weather and more queso.
Also, hopefully seeing our Houston friends.
Also, party at Steve Jackson's house.
My reasoning is that it's probably best to spread them out as far as possible to cover the most ground. Certainly some people from Texas and Arizona and Florida travel to the current PAX events regardless of location, but it would probably be fair to say that a great many people who attend an event are living within the same region as the event, and drove less than 10 hours to get to their PAX. And a great many potential attendees in North America/wherever... would never make it to either of the current US events because they're in, basically, the south.
The population densities in the new, untapped areas may be less than say, New England, but they'll probably still be sell-out events... and I would wager into the decision that a motivating factor is that it spreads the tendrils further out than before... and from an evangelizing perspective spreading out the events so their range-spheres just overlap without leaving too much exposed ground, makes the most sense.
Then again there's a reason many franchises start in one region and work to fully populate it before daring to spread outside of their domain. One could say it makes business sense to saturate one localized market that you can tailor your marketing and logistics towards, but from a user perspective... it's the reason why I don't have any Wawas or Sheetz to go to up here in CT and forces me to deal with the far inferior Henny Penny.