The real complication is South and East being a mere 45 days apart. East being the first week of March makes me want to do South more because fuck that cold! Then the timing means if I do South I most definitely could not also do East. Would I really give up the one in my backyard to join in on the fun of New PAX and warmer weather, at greater expense? At this point I think the only way I'd wind up doing that is if I was actually asked to go in order to assist Tabletop getting stood up right.
I'm a little disappointed that PAX South is in San Antonio instead of Austin, but I can't complain too much (since it's nearby anyway). San Antonio is just...so bland in comparison. Not as many good bars, and the food isn't quite as good.
Oh well. At least it's just a quick hour-long drive away!
It may even wind up working out to a comparable cost when I compare East vs. South. Flights can be had for $280 right now (versus my usual expense of gas and parking), and rooms in the connected hotel can be had for as low at $180, and that is without any sort of PAX discount.
Well it would be good to know what majority is going where. Since MAGfest isn't around New Year's, the original a plans for Jeremy and myself need to be adjusted.
Hmm, come to think of it. Proximity of hotel doesn't really matter too much to me, since I'll be having a car there. To be honest...do I even need a hotel? I can easily do an hour-long drive to/from San Antonio each day.
Hmm, come to think of it. Proximity of hotel doesn't really matter too much to me, since I'll be having a car there. To be honest...do I even need a hotel? I can easily do an hour-long drive to/from San Antonio each day.
I live 30 minutes south of Seattle. I could easily take transit to Seattle, however I've always stayed in a hotel because it always ended up with late night gaming. Plus driving so late and so early in and out of town sucks, not to mention traffic.
Austin has shit for convention center space. Also doesn't have ENOUGH hotels. PAX South could have lasted 1-2 years there tops, and then would have been forced to move anyway in order to grow.
San Antonio was, for a lot of reasons, the only rational choice assuming Texas was the state. They did a lot of research.
Austin has shit for convention center space. Also doesn't have ENOUGH hotels. PAX South could have lasted 1-2 years there tops, and then would have been forced to move anyway in order to grow.
Yeah, I definitely agree that San Antonio is a good choice, though I was still hoping that they'd have been able to make it work with the Austin Convention Center (which is admittedly a somewhat bit lacking). Hotels aren't an issue, though. There are shit-ton of hotels in Downtown Austin, most of which are a very walkable distance from convention centers, local bars, live music venues, etc. Considering how many events/festivals Austin hosts, I don't think hotel numbers are a problem.
San Antonio is the next best thing, though. I'd have been VERY sad if it was held in Houston...or (barf) Dallas.
No, there are not enough hotels in Downtown Austin. I know for a fact that this was investigated in detail, and that the actual rooms/spaces available were lacking.
I'm hoping they considered more than just the hotels within Downtown Austin, since there are so many hotels within a 1-3 mile radius of the location. Unlike most large cities (like Boston or Seattle), pretty much every location in Austin is a mere 5-15 minute drive to/from the downtown convention center.
I'm not disagreeing with you that San Antonio is a better host city overall, and I'm sure that hotel availability was taken into consideration, but I suspect that the lacking venue was the biggest deciding factor.
Haha, that article is actually pretty well known down here in Austin! I live in the northern-most point of Austin and I work Downtown (next to the Convention Center, in fact). It usually takes me about 20 minutes to get to work in the traffic. That type of congestion only really occurs on Weekday mornings/afternoons; Fridays and Weekends are a breeze.
Plus, the hotels I referred to are located across from the highways, instead of down through it. A simple shuttle system wouldn't really be affected by that type of traffic.
Either way, it aint happening, and I'm just grateful that we're getting a PAX in Texas!
I'm hoping they considered more than just the hotels within Downtown Austin, since there are so many hotels within a 1-3 mile radius of the location. Unlike most large cities (like Boston or Seattle), pretty much every location in Austin is a mere 5-15 minute drive to/from the downtown convention center.
And most of the hotels for PAX Prime/Otakon/other large cons are a 5-10 minute WALK. 5-10 minute drive is a dealbreaker for a con like Pax for a lot of reasons.
You also don't consider the attendee profile. Lots of hotel-and-back traffic. Lots of up-and-down on the elevators. Lots of churn. Most people there for the whole weekend. Pax East already has a HORRIBLE time considering how few hotels are near the convention center: Austin would have been far worse.
Hotel availability was the dealbreaker before any other considerations. The venues would likely have been a dealbreaker if it'd gotten to that.
A good majority of hotels outside of Downtown Austin are a 5-10 minute walk to the venue, with a number of convenient bike/car rental services that can be utilized as well. They just aren't directly IN downtown Austin. I'm wondering if a shuttle system (similar to what PAX East has), wouldn't be that infeasible for the venue.
Either way, there really is no point to discussing this particular point further, since it the decision has already been made. It may be likely that I'm wrong; I just find it surprising that our hotel infrastructure can support SXSW, but not PAX.
It's also very surreal to hear people who don't live in the region speak with such authority about the way the city works. I'm sure San Antonio will be great, and is probably the logistically superior city for PAX South. Just a tad disappointed.
SXSW's demographics are night and day to PAX. The structure of the show is vastly different as well. People attend in very different ways between the two.
And most of the hotels for PAX Prime/Otakon/other large cons are a 5-10 minute WALK. 5-10 minute drive is a dealbreaker for a con like Pax for a lot of reasons.
This. The fact that CTcon is expanding into the Hilton this year has me terrified. That's a 20 minute walk in the blazing July sun. Or the soaking July downpours, it's always one or the other at CTcon. It's never just a nice day.
It's fascinating how culturally different the north is from the south, since we're all very much used to driving around everywhere down here. It's interesting to hear people complain about a 5-10 minute drive, which is practically nothing to us.
I take 5-10 minute drives all the time in the PA suburbs - just not at conventions where I would have to deal with huge crowds, parking, and car rental.
Good public transportation vs. crappy public transportation.
Ever since I started working in Seattle (July 2013), I primarily commute via public transportation via Express Bus. I was also in Baltimore for 5 weeks and will be going there again for 6 weeks for work. From those experiences, my outlook in regards to driving has changed so much. Before I loathed thinking that I had to catch a bus every day. Now I enjoy a good nap or reading on my commute. I am no longer really concerned with gas prices since I gas my car twice a month vs every week.
I would prefer public transportation vs driving for most part. Most urban areas have various options for PT. The need for driving a car is way more of a hassle in cities due to overpriced parking costs.
Rym has stated stuff similar to what I've said. When you live in areas that don't have access to good public transportation and/or densely populated areas, the need to drive a car > public transportation.
Haha, that makes sense, and it's interesting to think about the different mindset of each type of population. Most of the people that live down here scoff at the concept of public transportation, preferring transportation solutions that give you direct control of the vehicle.
That's why minute-based car rental services like car2go and Zipcar are so popular down here.
And none of those scoffers can complain about Austin traffic whatsoever.
Yeah, no kidding! The city has ramped up their bus system in an attempt to alleviate the problem, but then they realized that the busses are just as susceptible to the city's traffic as much as any other vehicle.
Either way, it usually takes about 20 minutes to get from the top-most part of Austin to the center on peak traffic hours, which isn't really all that bad. We just like to complain about traffic in general, even if it isn't nearly as congested as Houston's or Dallas'.
I'm wondering how the weather would be like during PAX South, though. Strangely enough, it was actually colder in Austin than it was in Boston during PAX East!
Comments
Oh well. At least it's just a quick hour-long drive away!
San Antonio was, for a lot of reasons, the only rational choice assuming Texas was the state. They did a lot of research.
"Somewhere warm."
San Antonio is the next best thing, though. I'd have been VERY sad if it was held in Houston...or (barf) Dallas.
I'm not disagreeing with you that San Antonio is a better host city overall, and I'm sure that hotel availability was taken into consideration, but I suspect that the lacking venue was the biggest deciding factor.
Plus, the hotels I referred to are located across from the highways, instead of down through it. A simple shuttle system wouldn't really be affected by that type of traffic.
Either way, it aint happening, and I'm just grateful that we're getting a PAX in Texas!
You also don't consider the attendee profile. Lots of hotel-and-back traffic. Lots of up-and-down on the elevators. Lots of churn. Most people there for the whole weekend. Pax East already has a HORRIBLE time considering how few hotels are near the convention center: Austin would have been far worse.
Hotel availability was the dealbreaker before any other considerations. The venues would likely have been a dealbreaker if it'd gotten to that.
Either way, there really is no point to discussing this particular point further, since it the decision has already been made. It may be likely that I'm wrong; I just find it surprising that our hotel infrastructure can support SXSW, but not PAX.
It's also very surreal to hear people who don't live in the region speak with such authority about the way the city works. I'm sure San Antonio will be great, and is probably the logistically superior city for PAX South. Just a tad disappointed.
Ever since I started working in Seattle (July 2013), I primarily commute via public transportation via Express Bus. I was also in Baltimore for 5 weeks and will be going there again for 6 weeks for work. From those experiences, my outlook in regards to driving has changed so much. Before I loathed thinking that I had to catch a bus every day. Now I enjoy a good nap or reading on my commute. I am no longer really concerned with gas prices since I gas my car twice a month vs every week.
I would prefer public transportation vs driving for most part. Most urban areas have various options for PT. The need for driving a car is way more of a hassle in cities due to overpriced parking costs.
Rym has stated stuff similar to what I've said. When you live in areas that don't have access to good public transportation and/or densely populated areas, the need to drive a car > public transportation.
That's why minute-based car rental services like car2go and Zipcar are so popular down here.
Either way, it usually takes about 20 minutes to get from the top-most part of Austin to the center on peak traffic hours, which isn't really all that bad. We just like to complain about traffic in general, even if it isn't nearly as congested as Houston's or Dallas'.
I'm wondering how the weather would be like during PAX South, though. Strangely enough, it was actually colder in Austin than it was in Boston during PAX East!