I see it as the opposite. People plan on going and really want to but when the time comes they just can't afford to (particularly with New Orleans).
That was definitely what happened chez Zmayhem with NOLA. (This past year's F2F, there was so very much no possibility of going that in my brain it doesn't even count. Didn't happen. Please don't tell me otherwise or I may cry.)
Another plus for KC, as bragged about by Erin, is vintage and thrifting opportunities. Possibly slightly less fantastic the thrifting at the F2F that never existed this year, but still very very good.
eta: Another plus for KC? ERIN. And possibly Gud, and I feel like I'm memfaulting at least one other excellent localista.
Isn't quester nearby KC if not actually in?
What I'm saying, though, is that cost always seems to be more of a factor in the beginning than it is later on.
I see it as the opposite. People plan on going and really want to but when the time comes they just can't afford to (particularly with New Orleans).
Let me begin with saying that I agree with you Trudy. As for what I was trying to say, I'm sorry, I'm not explaining myself well. The way I've observed the process is that people say, "We want cheap but fabulous hotels! We want cheap flights!" and then the majority picks the (sometimes only slightly) more expensive choice. That's what I've observed. Which is why I didn't think anyone should worry about pulling Chicago just yet.
I would love for it to be in KC. Heck, I originally helped out and pulled info for KC the last time it was an option. Great hotels at great rates! Very decently priced flights! Cool localistas! Fun things to do! But the majority chose the more expensive option. So - this time around I'll hold onto a teensy bit of hope for KC, so that it's more likely, cost wise, that I can attend. But I won't count on KC being the Chosen One just because it's the least expensive option.
Well, it looks like I won't need to wait for a possible F2F to be held in Chicago as I seem to have just bought (Thank you, Discover card!) a plane ticket to Chicago for mid-October.
So, Chicagoistas, if one of the things I *know* my traveling companion and I will want to do is see Wicked - along with meet up with local buffistas and visit with her family - where's the best area to look for hotel rooms? The Loop? Magnificent Mile? Downtown? Grant Park?
Neither one of us have been to Chicago before and we're not looking for extravagant, just a hotel that's comfy and safe and centrally (ish) located.
Looking at hotel rates the other day, I think I saw a couple in Lincoln Park that were reasonably priced. And since I was just in the area, I know these things:
* Very accesible to The Loop, etc via the trains.
* Very pretty.
* Don't wear a red dress when accompanying your man to the theater unless you want him dead.
Neither one of us have been to Chicago before and we're not looking for extravagant, just a hotel that's comfy and safe and centrally (ish) located.
The Loop = Downtown for most people. Mag Mile is just north of the Loop (north of the Chicago River). Just about any hotel in the Loop or Mag Mile is comfy, safe and centrally located to shopping, Wicked, museums, the lakefront.
I'm a fan of the Chicago Hilton and Towers. It's in the south Loop and v. pretty and the staff is great.
I also quite like the Hotel Burnham. Central Loop. Charming.
The Palmer House Hilton is also nice. Central Loop.
But really, almost any hotel in those areas are good. You can go here for more hotels. There are a few in that list I'd stay away from (Essex and Congress is okay but a bit dumpy).
Here's my favorite Chicago hotel. It's on Michigan avenue near the river.
That is a good one, Laga.
