I'm sure you don't mean to say that NO won't take good care of its visitors, but that's what it's sounding like.

How is saying we can have as much fun for much less money saying that?

I'm not saying it's TOO expensive, I'm saying we can do better financially.

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').

That was me, I think, but I meant it as a good thing -- NOLA is full of activities, but there's no checklist of Things I Must See Whilst In This City. (Unlike DC, with all the museums and monuments.) Architecture, history, food and shopping all fall under "atmosphere" to me.

Okay, it feels like people are trying to argue from their gut (in the pro-NOLA contingent, literally). Which is fine and good, and people should be lobbying for their favorite cities, but it seems like emotions are starting to run high, and we haven't even narrowed down the cities yet.

Am I right in that what it will come down to is (in no particular order): affordability, accessibility, and fun? (Note the Oxford comma.) So, if we don't have current medium-hard figures for the affordability, we're just arguing the fun? So maybe the prices shouldn't be a factor right now? Or, if we do want prices to come into the discussion, can we get estimates for each proposed city?

Honestly, I'm not trying to quash discussion, but I don't want us to get this stressed or snappish this early on.

I feel like you've already decided it's too expensive and in my experience that's just not the case.

Heather, for me, it's not the city per se that is too expensive, it is what I would want to do there that jacks up the price. I would want to go to Commander's palace and eat a good meal upstairs, I would want to go drink Pimms cups, I would want to go listen to jazz, and I would want to buy stuff.

Also, and I realize this may not be as much of a problem for other people, but if I am going to go to New Orleans, I am going to want to spend extra time there, seeing the city, which means at least a few extra days. That is where I run into problems with both the amount of vacation time I have to spend, and the chance that I will be able to actually go without running into work constraints. I don't see that being an issue with most of the other cities mentioned.

What Lee said.

What juliana said. In a vanilla bean syrup, served with coconut sorbet in half a shell.

edit: in re the prices, isn't most of the hotel pricing we're able to get this far ahead an actual booking usable only for comparison purposes, in any case? After all, there's no way of knowing what the economy will be doing at this time next year; hell, last year at this time, I could afford a F2F without grief, and this year I was totally dependent on the kindness of friends.

¹: Bread pudding, with bourbon sauce, natch

Huh. You should just come to the Bronzers Do NOLA party in May.

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.

This is what twigged me- that another city would bend over backward and NO wouldn't. I don't know what the city itself would do, but as far as hotels and expenses, it's not as bad as you think.

I haven't been able to attend any because of expenses (which is fine, that's just the way it is), and I find NO very reasonable pricewise in a way that Minneapolis, and St. Louis aren't (I think Cleveland might be a little less expensive for me).

It may be partly a gut response, but there it is.

Many tourist places do bend over backwards -- tourists are their lifeblood. NOLA was the cheapest place I ever lived. First choice of cities to be broke in.

What. Ita. Said.