Debate is currently underway over whether the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center (BCEC), the city’s centerpiece exhibition hall in the Seaport, can and should be expanded.
Proponents of expansion point out that the convention industry is a zero sum game: A particular conference or exhibition that chooses one city cannot also choose another.
We understand that, but conventions are also highly regional. To stack Boston up against cities like Miami or San Antonio and say that we’re losing business to those places loses its impact when considering the kinds of shows those locales may attract.
The (hypothetical) Southwestern United States Association of CPAs is, by nature, going to choose a location for its annual convention relative to its geography. Even if Boston has identical or even better facilities than San Antonio, San Antonio will almost definitely get the nod over Boston simply because, well, it’s in the southwest. No amount of marketing or glitzy facilities can change that.
Stripping the vast number of regional shows, which we have little hope of attracting anyway, from the equation, the industry is left with a handful of shows per year over which to compete. Is it so logical, then, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in hopes of attracting maybe one extra big show per year?
We have also heard grumblings from some in the Back Bay that the appeal of the existing BCEC has already cannibalized some business from the older, smaller Hynes Convention Center. If there’s not room for both facilities in the same city, how is there room for one to get even bigger?
Supporters of the BCEC expansion will argue that its enlargement will provide momentum for further development of the Seaport – by all accounts, Boston’s next big development frontier.
But this is a chicken and egg hypothesis. As it stands today, the Seaport is kind of a no-man’s land on the outskirts of downtown. Make it more of a destination in the city and an even stronger case for then expanding convention space – and not the other way around – could be made.
Finally, there’s the argument that attracting more and bigger conventions – in part through a nicer (and bigger) convention center – means attracting more conventioneers and their discretionary dollars. Given a half day or even a few days to themselves, it seems likely conventioneers will want to pay for the privilege of seeing the sights.
But raising the costs of certain tourism-centric city amenities – hotel rooms, rental cars, trolley tours and taxi rides – runs the risk of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Surcharges on these amenities are already helping us pay for the current convention center. Every time we need to expand or upgrade, then, are we going to further tax these “luxuries?”
At some point – if it hasn’t already – Boston will become known as a city that’s too expensive to host large conventions. And if we’ve taxed ourselves out of the game before even getting to play, then what?
If all of the above sounds like an argument against convention center expansion, well… so be it. But our only intent is to ask our leaders to fully consider the ramifications, and not get caught up in the overblown notion that Boston is in a fight for its very convention-centered life. We’re not. The numerous conventions large and small this city has hosted in recent months – from the American Bankers Association annual meeting to a massive video gaming conference – is a testament to our strength and appeal.
Soon, we may well decide we need an expanded convention presence, for better or worse. But we should decide that on our own terms, and not because we’re being told that if we don’t, we will whither on the vine and be left in the dust. We’re too smart of a town to buy into that. At least, we hope we are.
