Because cities with less tourism will cut you better deals.

That's not necessarily so. Hotels have to make their money- for instance I paid more at the Sheraton Peirmont in Shreveport on my honey moon than I did at the Burbon Orleans over Christmas. The Burbon was going to have paying guests, and could cut deals to entice people. The Sheraton couldn't because what guests were there had to pay full price to cover operating costs

Also as Hec said above- some of the rest/bar deals might even things out.

Lobster ravioli in butter champagne sauce, with lumps of lobster meat, topped with dollops of caviar.

Take the caviar off, and I'm there.

In fact, I think I'm going to make that.

JS, I am now mentally imprinted with the image of a utilikilted ND, doing a King Kong atop the Space Needle in Seattle.

In fact, I think I'm going to make that.

Bugger NO, F2F in Deb's kitchen!

For me, and only for me, having the F2F in a city such as Minneapolis or Kansas City, gives me an opportunity to go to city I probably wouldn't have much reason to go to otherwise. NOLA, I'll go to on my own. KS or Minn, maybe not. Not to say we wouldn't go to NOLA if that's where the vote put the F2F, but i personally I like the appeal of seeing somewhere I might not get to PLUS IMPROVED with Buffistas.

A tourist trap just isn't going to be as inexpensive as a non.

I keep saying Kansas City, because I know a bit about it, but there are other smaller cities that will have similar deals. Take a look at this:

[link]

look particularly at this:

[link]

the second link talks about $64 for a TWO NIGHT STAY. That specific promotion isn't up for 2005 yet, but I spoke to them and there will be the same or something similar. And it will be in a city with food, music, walkability, and cheap, short, direct, flights.

We will not get that in New Orleans (or LA, DC or Chicago fwiw). We may get it in Minneapolis or St. Louis or Cleveland or some other smaller cities that a) have some very nice things to do b) will bend over backwards to get our money.

A tourist trap just isn't going to be as inexpensive as a non.

Depends on how savvy you are. Isn't that the advantage of having knowledgeable people planning?

Let the bids decide what's more expensive -- people got rooms in LA cheaper than Evanston. Stuff happens.

Depends on how savvy you are. Isn't that the advantage of having knowledgeable people planning

And if the savvy sic their powers on the midwest? Deep discounts.

Deep discounts.

Only time will tell. You and I can prognosticate it all we want. Won't change a thing.

The proof of the pudding¹ is in the eating.

¹: Bread pudding, with bourbon sauce, natch

NOLA besides atmosphere;

Lots of music clubs, swamp tours, gorgeous architecture, lots o' history, amazing food (can't be said enough), no open container law (at least in the quarter), corsets and wool cloaks to drool over, great cheap shopping at the French market, walking tours out the yingyang, trolley fun, etc.

Personally, I think I'm done advocating for one city over another (the above was just in response to what's in NOLA besides 'atmosphere').

Everyone raises valid points. IMHO, whatever city we pick will probably have more than enough fun to keep anyone, even a Buffista, amused for the time we will be there. It would be nice to keep costs down, however that is possible.

My opinion; whether it's worth .02 is your opinion.