Would you vote for Carl Paladino if he ran for Governor of New York?
Advertisement
December 1, 2009 10:30 AM
Comments: 64
Move over Steve Christie, there will be a new banner flying on the former AM&A's Department Store if developer Rocco Termini and The Hamister Group have their way. The development team has announced that the 117 room hotel in the AM&A's complex is expected to carry the Hilton Garden Inn flag. Downtown has been Hilton-less since Adam's Mark purchased and renamed the Buffalo Hilton in 1998. The recently-opened Embassy Suites in the Avant and the Hampton Inn are members of the Hilton family of hotels.
Hilton Garden Inn is an award-winning, mid-priced brand with 450 hotels in the United States, Canada and Latin America.
In the J.D. Power and Associates 2009 North America Hotel Guest Satisfaction Index Study, Hilton Garden Inn achieved the highest ranking in the "Mid-Scale Hotel Chains with Full Service" category for the seventh time (2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009) in eight years. The study is based on responses from more than 65,000 business and leisure hotel guests who evaluated 65 different hotel brands in the United States and Canada between May 2008 and June 2009. The brand was 57 points higher than the segment average and led in five out of the seven guest satisfaction index measures that were evaluated.
The Hamister Hospitality Group, Inc. will manage the new hotel and move its front office staff into the building from Williamsville. The company currently manages ten select-service hotels in Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Kentucky. The firm was ranked as one of the top 100 hotel management companies in the United States by Hotel & Motel Management magazine, and earned a spot on the Inc. 5000 list as one of the fastest-growing private companies in the country.
Leave a comment
Related Blog Entries
Buffalo: We're not alone
Earlier this morning I happened upon an Associated Press article mapping out a former steel town's recipe for rebirth. The...
Termini Finalizes Warehouse Purchase
It is official. Rocco Termini and Signature Development have taken possession of the former AM&A's warehouses at the corner of...
Sponsor
Sponsor
- REGISTERED NURSE
- Birch Maple Bedroom Vanity
- Music Lessons with a Signed Recording Artist
- COED TOUCH FOOTBALL, SOFTBALL & VOLLEYBAL
- Awakening , Spring Group Show
- Niagara Falls Blues Show / Evening Star 3/6/1
- No Boundaries Informational Meeting
- Antique Wooden Butter Churns
- ESTATE SALE 3/5&3/6 7556 LOWER EAST HILL
- Media Art & Computer Workshops at Squeaky
December 1, 2009 10:51 AM
Great news!
.
This is interesting. Last night on Facebook I responded to someone else regarding the Statler and stated it would be a plus if the Hilton Corp (who purchased the Statler properties) took over the Statler here as a hotel with retail and a Hospitality university as is done at Cornell. Afterall, the Statler provided an in-house booklet each month (I have one from the days of the Central Terminal opening) that prompted best service practices. Could this be an idea worth pursuing, as well?
December 1, 2009 1:27 PM
"it would be a plus if the Hilton Corp ... took over the Statler here as a hotel with retail and a Hospitality university as is done at Cornell... Could this be an idea worth pursuing, as well?"
Since you asked...
All 3 parts of that idea sound very far fetched - Hilton putting a hotel in the Statler (in addition to this one on Main if that happens), retail in the Statler (any retail downtown has very limited potential), and the idea of convincing Hilton to start a new hospitality university in Buffalo.
December 1, 2009 1:41 PM
The best option for the Statler is to do a 100% condo conversion in my opinion.
Something similar was done in San Diego with the historic El Cortez hotel. Essentially, the upper floors are 100% condo units but the retail and banquet facilities are managed by the HOA I think. The revenue for these go into a fund to help subsidize the complex.
December 1, 2009 8:13 PM
Condos, apartments, and a mix of office and retail on the first two floors would be ideal. If a hotel developer saw much hope in this white elephant, it would have been renovated years ago. As is, the rooms and bathrooms are too small and ill-suted to a hotel in the 21st Century. Rebuilding them could cost $200 million with little hope of ever making a profit. Downtown needs a major convention hotel and a new convention center that meets the expectations of business travellers and the Statler should return as a residential anchor for Downtown.
December 2, 2009 12:42 PM
Regarding the Statler, there are only three floors of original hotel rooms remaining. They are various sized rooms on each floor/wing. The walls between smaller rooms have already been demo'd to adjoin them into a more suitable size. It would have to be remade as a "boutique" hotel in order for it to really work. There are corner rooms that are huge even by todays standards.
The rest of the floors that are vacant have been completely demo'd and are pretty much ready for build out.
I agree mixed use is the best use. The 18th floor has already been gutted all the way to the roof and would make killer condos, better views than the Avant hands down.
December 1, 2009 3:46 PM
Good arguements, guys - just tossing ideas out there.
December 2, 2009 10:59 AM
I think this is a great idea. Sometime people don't have enough vision. I realize that we are not a growing area but we have so many architectural gems. The Statler is one of them even though we like to call it a "white elephant" and people want to tear it down. It does need the right owner with the proper funding to bring it back. Who thought we would ever see the AM&A’s building come back when there was talk some years ago about tearing it down to a “shovel ready site”. This was a term we heard way too much in the past and now hopefully we gotten beyond that stage.
We forget that Millard Fillmore's house stood on this site prior to the Statler and we tore that down to build the Statler. If it was done right, this hotel would be a unique property especially with the Statler connection here and Buffalo and Elsworth Statler's mother being buried at Forest Lawn. Look at the interest the FL Wright properties have generated in recent years especially with the reclamation of the entire Martin complex to its original toot print. This property could have a "walk over" to the Convention Center and would be a great draw.
December 1, 2009 10:53 AM
This looks fantastic if the funding can be put in place!
December 1, 2009 11:39 AM
It is encouraging to hear all the updates on the progress of this project. To me that's a sign that this may happen, especially when you get big name corporations like Hilton showing support. Time will tell of course but I hope this sparks more development on Main st and opens the eyes of outside developers that something's going on here. I can imagine in the next 10 years Main street turning into a Yonge street of sorts with all kinds of retail and restaraunts, wishful thinking anyway.
December 1, 2009 11:52 AM
Dowtown has a Hyatt Regency, an Adams Mark, a Comfort Suites, a Hampton Inn, and an Embassy Suites. There are plans for a boutique hotel by Mark Croce, a Windgate Inn by Jim Pitts, and now a Hilton Garden Inn proposed by Rocco Termini. There are also plans for hotel space in the Statler Building and I believe there may be plans for hotel space in the Canalside development. Does anybody think that the market is getting a bit oversaturated? Where is all of this demand for hotel space coming from? The oversupply of rooms and the competition for business will drive prices down, making the hotel business less viable. If we had a decent convention market, the addition of all these rooms might make sense, but I don't see how it is justified at this point. Any thoughts?
December 1, 2009 12:12 PM
Many conventions pass on Buffalo because there is not enough hotel space.
The addition of hotels to downtown should help the convention market.
December 1, 2009 12:12 PM
I know the subsidies of underperforming hotels such as the Hyatt is an issue, but I don't see oversaturation as a problem. As with all real estate, let the filtering process begin. More competition should drive down the prices and force those hotels which have not updated to either lower their prices, improve the quality of their product or close. The last time I was in the Comfort Suites downtown (2006) the rooms were aged with old tvs and amenities. The more competition the better, I'd rather have new hotels put the lower quality aged hotels out of business than maintain those subpar facilities.
The same goes for commercial space, the other developers are complaining about subsidized commercial space as a protection of their turf. Hey, get your own loan and improve your product or go under, competition is good. These guys are all capitalists until their business interest faces competition.
December 1, 2009 1:34 PM
BNPlanner, That's a good list of hotels, but it leaves out the Doubletree on High St near the medical campus and the two hotels on Delaware Ave near North. You're also right there's at least 1 and maybe 2 hotels proposed at Canal Side.
Whether it makes economic sense or not, it's clear the politicians around here will keep funding more hotels. I've never heard even one elected official here opposing it, even though there's so many other needs here. I doubt they'll ever stop the funding as long as there's politically-connected owners and developers who want to keep opening them.
December 1, 2009 8:17 PM
Aside from obvious cases of abuse (Hyatt, Garden Place I & II etc), hotel incentives are part of the business and is not unique to WNY. Just google "hotel subsidy" and you will get a boat load of links to similar stories all across the country. Even the govenment hating south engages in this practice.
December 1, 2009 9:06 PM
pitbull>"and is not unique to WNY"
I doubt any political decisions are unique to WNY. I'm sure everything that ever happens here politically also happens sometimes in any region, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're smart ideas that should be immune from criticism.
December 2, 2009 8:33 AM
Okay, but the second paragragh in that post seemed to imply that this was a product of WNY leadership. If I misunderstod what you were saying, my bad.
Since other communities accross the globe give tax breaks and grants to new hotels, WNY pretty much has to follow suit in order to stay competitive. In the case of AM&As, the Curtis building, and one day the Statler, much of that subsidy should be considered an investment towards putting a derilict property back on the tax rolls and savings the city a large demolition bill. Not a bad return on whatever the opportunity cost would have been collecting the exempted taxes.
Keep in mind that this segment of the service industry generates wealth for the local economy. For the most part, a hotels payroll, vendors and taxes are paid for by travelers from elsewhere. When they are clustered together they generate spin-off that is also paid for with mostly out of town cash. Considering Buffalo's proximity to the falls, encouraging this type of investment with modest subsidy can only help the local economy.
December 2, 2009 6:05 PM
pitbull>"service industry generates wealth for the local economy"
That doesn't necessarily mean giving the public $ generates more wealth. I doubt the public $ (not always just tax breaks) handed over to some hotel owners and developers makes the total number of hotel jobs (usually pretty low-paying anyhow) any bigger around here than it would be otherwise.
The total number of hotel jobs in an area results from the number of hotel customers. I don't see any good reason to think hotel owners wouldn't meet the real level of demand.
The tax money could be much better spent on other needs here. It's a moot point since our politicians all seem to want to fund hotels, restaurants, etc. - but I doubt it creates many jobs here for the $ spent. Maybe not even any.
Regarding other cities and states, each has to decide for itself what's the smartest way to spend. Probably there's some places where politicians give tons of public $ to hotel owners, and some others where they give none, and everything in between.
December 3, 2009 8:46 AM
Whatever>"I doubt the public $ (not always just tax breaks) handed over to some hotel owners and developers makes the total number of hotel jobs (usually pretty low-paying anyhow) any bigger around here than it would be otherwise"
The fact that Buffalo is above ntnl average in occupancy and loses out on conventions because of lack of rooms tells me we could use more hotel space. Dont forget, in the case of the past few downtown developments, the subsidy provided a return of a formerly deralict building back to use and on the tax rolls. In the case of AM&As, the investment will save the city a 10 million dollar demo and provide revenue for years down the road.
As far as the rate of pay, I would think many of these hotels pay pretty well for some of their positions especially ones with multiple layers of management. (you need a degree to manage a hotel) Besides, a job created is a job created. People working the lower paying positions still will need a place to live, eat, shop etc.
Whatever>"The total number of hotel jobs in an area results from the number of hotel customers. I don't see any good reason to think hotel owners wouldn't meet the real level of demand."
Dont forget our proximity to southern ontario. By promoting development of a variety of hotels, we can draw tourists and business travelers who would have stayed accross the river otherwise. More hotels + continued high occupancy = job creation. Ask anybody who works or has worked @ the the BN Airport and they will tell you much of the activity there is business and leisure travelers bound for the falls or Toronto. If our airport can succeed at attracting Canadian travelers, shouldnt we do whatever we can to keep them here instead of Clifton Hill?
Whatever>"The tax money could be much better spent on other needs here. It's a moot point since our politicians all seem to want to fund hotels, restaurants, etc"
Again, it isnt just our politicians that do this. Based on what I have read, this type of thing is standard in the industry as it is in other sectors. Our politicains and economic development professionals are just being competitive with the rest of the market.
Besides one of the "other needs" of this region is preserving and securing vacant properties which these subsidies have done in the recent downtown hotel developments. Where would the Dulski building, and Delaware + Chippewa be without the Embassy suites and the Hampton Inn?
December 3, 2009 6:23 PM
pitbull, Just because pols in some other cities might waste their citizens' tax $ in gifts to wealthy hotel owners doesn't mean it's a smart idea here instead of other needs. No doubt all kinds of dumb or corrupt ideas happen in some other cities too.
Many cities like Buffalo are fooled into naively hoping a lot of big conventions will choose them and spend tons of money in them to justify wasting public $ on convention centers and hotels. Good report on why it often doesn't succeed is:
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2005/01cities_sanders/20050117_conventioncenters.pdf
Regarding Dulski and the Hampton Inn bldg, if there's enough market for them from hotel guests (including from S. Ontario as you mention) and other demand (condos, office, etc.) - as there seems to be - then probably somebody would have bought them for those purposes using their own $ and make a profit serving those demands.
Anyhow, you should be very pleased with the status quo and our incumbent pols at all levels. They're doing what you want for govt subsidies to hotels, lofts, Broadway Market, Canal Side, G.M. and Chrysler, etc., etc. Your policies are happening - be happy!
December 3, 2009 8:33 PM
I am. :)
December 1, 2009 2:10 PM
There is a nationwide hotel construction boom that has been going on for a few years. A rule of thumb is that hotels make money when they go over 50% occupancy. These hotels will make money.
December 1, 2009 4:18 PM
Funny how no one worries about over saturation of the market with the plethora new suburban hotels that come on line.
Fact is, these proposed projects are all tiny hotels compared to the typical new hotel these days. All together they barely add up to one new medium sized hotel.
Perhaps the question should be why did it take developers so long to fill a demand for new rooms in downtown Buffalo. These companies do study market demand before opening a facility
There are more than 30 hotels between the airport and UB north.
UB south has one hotel nearby, Buffalo state college has no hotels nearby. Downtown had 8 hotels! I think there is room for more hotels in Buffalo
December 1, 2009 6:48 PM
Buffalo State, Canisius, Medaille and the Culturals desperately need a hotel and conference center. My guess is that a replanning and potential reskinning of Millard Fillmore Gate Circle will be redeveloped for exactly that purpose. A hotel and some sort of residential tower.
The Richardson cannot do conferences and it cannot be anymore than a small boutique hotel because each of the interior walls are structural like the graystone....which is why much of the space is going to be opened up temporarily as offices and classrooms for Buffalo State.
Still, I see major possibilities ahead for the Richardson BUT I SEE EVEN BIGGER POSSIBILITIES AHEAD FOR MILLARD FILLMORE GATES!
December 1, 2009 8:03 PM
No one should worry about the new hotels around the airport, they represent growth in the economy caused by an airport that has doubled the number of passengers since 1997 going from 2.55 million to 5,4 million passengers.
Similarly no one should question the need for more downtown hotels. Erie County has a hotel occupancy rat some 15-20% above the national average ( roughly 70% vs 60% nationally ) Add in over a million square feet of commercial/res/retail space in Canaside plus the eventual completion of the Casino and downtown can easily absorb the prposed additional 700 hotel rooms.
It's called growth people - get used to it... finally.
December 1, 2009 8:55 PM
Unusual math. Roughly 70% minus 60% is a gap of 15 to 20%?
Growing demand for rooms here (due to airport or anything) should be an argument against taxpayer grants to hotels. Let the owners who will profit from growing customer demand spend the $ to build, operate, and upgrade them.
Even so, not surprisingly hotel occupancy isn't growing this year. It's down about 8% in Buffalo & Erie Co, and down about 10% nationally. Year to date occupancy is 65% (Buffalo & Erie Co) vs 57% (national). It's 55% in the Rochester area.
http://buffalo.bizjournals.com/buffalo/stories/2009/11/30/daily6.html
December 2, 2009 9:11 AM
There is nothing at all unusual about my math if you start with 60% and increase it by 20% you will have 72%. Thus 70% is approximately 20% more than 60%. To illustrate for the math challenged .6 * 1.20 = .72.
December 2, 2009 5:51 PM
Percents of percents is an unusual way to express it.
If an interest rate or unemployment rises from 4% to 5%, people usually say that's 1% higher rather than 25% higher. I'm not saying it's never said that way, just unusual.
December 2, 2009 8:26 PM
I am sorry but you seem uninformed. The way I presented the data is the accepted way percentages are used. If you own a hotel with 60% occupamcy and you increase it to 72% you would NEVER say your business is up 12% you (and the IRS) would know that you have increased your revenues by 20%.
For example 100 rooms at $100 per night at 60% would give you revenue of $6,000 increase that to 72% and your revenue is $7,200. If the increase was 12% your revenue would be $6,720 but the revenue has instead increased to $7,200 which is a 20% increase.
I cannot help you understand if you cannot grasp basic math or business preactices.
December 1, 2009 12:03 PM
Buffalo has always been underserved by hotels. It has one of the highest occupancy rates nationally. Try getting a room downtown May - September. And the rates in Buffalo tend to be higher than in comparable cities. You're only talking about 3 small hotels added to the downtown market. The Statler, sadly, looks like its light years away at this point and Canalside will be enough of a draw to fill its own rooms. These are not 500 - 1000 room hotels that cities see developed regularly. Amherst and Cheektowaga are regularly seeing sizable hotels constructed - how come no one questions how that impacts the market?
These hotels will be absorbed into the market with zero issue.
December 1, 2009 12:26 PM
Right on townline. The center city of downtown Buffalo is indeed severly underserved. Metro Buffalo does exceed the national average in hotel occupancy, and getting a hotel downtown during the summer is downright difficult.
With 5 medium sized hotels downtown, there are less than 1,200 rooms. The Hilton in downtown Pittsburgh has 713 just by itself. Adding another 500-600 rooms will allow more visitors to stay downtown. Since people equal business, we need people in our center city. HSBC, M&T, Delaware North, Key Bank and many others have clients, vendors, and colleagues in town every day. Throw in the convention business that we have, and 1,200 rooms just isn't enough.
Ever wonder why the NHL All Star game never came to Buffalo, even when we had a new arena?
December 1, 2009 12:46 PM
Memorial Auditorium hosted the 1978 NHL All-Star Game on January 24, 1978.
December 1, 2009 12:55 PM
Good Call rb09. After 30 years (Wales beat the Campbell in OT), I forgot.
December 1, 2009 1:27 PM
OT goal scored by Gilbert Perreault!
December 1, 2009 12:08 PM
If we had a decent convention market, the addition of all these rooms might make sense, but I don't see how it is justified at this point. Any thoughts?
Many conventions pass on Buffalo because there is not enough hotel space.
The addition of hotels to downtown should help the convention market.
December 1, 2009 1:14 PM
Something has to come first.
Buffalo has done well with the NCAA tournaments but I feel as if the city has been unable to get higher rounds based on hotel rooms.
December 1, 2009 1:34 PM
Not really. The lower rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament is the golden goose for cities, except perhaps the final 4. The opening rounds have a lot more games taking place over several days. They draw a lot more visitors in than the later rounds. I believe the host cities get 6 games in the opening 2 rounds, compared to 3 games that cities get hosting any of the later rounds.
December 1, 2009 2:31 PM
Not sure I am buying what you are selling. Here is why.
The lower rounds, while having more games, the NCAA tries to place schools that are close to the host city. In 2007, Buffalo hosted Pitt and Wright State. The 6 hour drive from Wright State and the 3 1/2 hour drive from Pittsburgh meant less hotel stays.
After this, you have to consider the "quality" of the fans and their spending power. Odds are that "budget" fans travel to the lower rounds and "big spending" alumni go to the higher rounds. This spending power translates to hotel stays, bar tabs and restaurant tabs. Burger and Wings for the lower rounds/steaks and wine for the higher rounds.
This is why cities like Indy bring in big guns like Jack Swarbrick to land the finals. It is like landing a SuperBowl.
December 1, 2009 2:49 PM
Several years back I interned at the Convention & Visitor's bureau during an NCAA bid. They were definitely interested in the 1st 2 rounds because of their much greater economic impact. The NCAA does not pay much attention to location when they are slotting - Syracuse has never played an early round game here...
As for the final four - Indy goes for it because there are only so many cities with facilities that can host a Final Four. You need a dome stadium, not an arena. Until the last few years when we've seen some new ones open, there just aren't that many such facilities in the US... Indy, Minnesota, Atlanta, New Orleans, Syracuse (though the final 4 wouldn't go there). Now there are a few more - Dallas, Milwaukee, Arizona, (I'm probably missing a couple)
December 1, 2009 3:51 PM
As for the location of teams...
The NCAA does slot high ranking teams in close proximity for the first round. Just look at the 2009 bracket.
#1 UNC - Raleigh
#1 Kansas - Omaha
#1 UCLA - Anaheim
#1 Memphis - Little Rock
#2 Tenn - Birmingham
#2 Georgetown - Raleigh
#2 Texas - Little Rock
#2 Duke - Washington
I could go on but that would just make you look silly. The NCAA is not dumb. They know the first two rounds need to have teams were fans can drive. It is really simple. So what they do is give the top 2-3 seeds preferential location and then slot the 14-16 seeds close as well because they are odds are one and done.
The reason why Cuse was not in Buffalo was because they went to the NIT in 2007. However, as a #4 seed in 2005, Cuse Started in Boston. As a #3 seed in 2003, Cuse started in Boston.
Also, going back to 2004, Buffalo hosted #1 Saint Joseph's which is a 6 hr drive and Liberty which is a 9 hr drive. In 2000 Buffalo hosted Hofstra which is a 6.5 hour drive and Indiana which is a 9 hour drive. IF you can not see the pattern, I just do not know what to say.
As for the Convention & Visitor's bureau selling you on the first round...well I have a bridge for sale. They sell the public on what they can get.
But hey, maybe you have some more opinions to counter my facts.
December 1, 2009 4:35 PM
high ranking teams yes. but not all teams. pepperdine played IU here several years back
December 2, 2009 1:56 PM
awesome game, Bobby Knight's last at UI... Tommy Prince killed it for pepperdine, and his hair was awesome haha
December 1, 2009 4:46 PM
Wow - boy do I ever feel silly, all those FACTS are just blowing me away........
Congrats on correlating the cities with the top team in each bracket. As I'm sure you've noticed, there are still plenty of teams coming from across the country to each host city. Kind of the effect of having to host 8 teams instead of 4.
http://www.holycross.edu/departments/economics/vmatheso/research/ncaa.pdf
This report suggests that most cities actually lose money on the Final Four, or gain minimally - because the cost of hosting a more high profile event are so substantial.
I also apologize taking the word of my supervisor at the Convention and Visitor's Bureau about why they target the 1st 2 rounds over yours and those incredible FACTS that you have provided. If only she had sat down for a few minutes and discover what you looked up, she would not have made this colossal mistake. Man o man!
December 1, 2009 5:48 PM
You stated that hosting the first round is better because there are more teams and thus more fans staying in hotels.
I pointed out that in the first round, the NCAA slots SOME teams in close proximity to their campus. This is not every team but the trends do not lie. The 1st and 2nd seed go to the first round near their campus. Lower seeded teams, with less fan support, also tend to get slotted closer to campus.
When a team plays close to campus, the need for hotel rooms decreases. Pretty simple.
In 2004, Buffalo hosted Dayton, DePaul, UCONN, Vermont, Saint Joseph's, Liberty, Texas Tech and UNC-Charlotte. Out of these 8 schools, only Texas Tech was a MUST fly situation. Charlotte is an 11 hr drive. The other 6 are all 9 1/2 hours and 3 were under 6 1/2 hour drives.
As someone who has attended several regionals, a LOT of people drive because they are unsure of if their team will advance. If you have to fly, that has to be planned out and it is much more costly to change.
The first/second rounds are two day events. They come and go in the blink of an eye. The Regional finals and Final Four are days before and after..which is why they are a week apart.
As for the study, I read it. I also read an interview with Victor Matheson where he was asked:
Q: But there can be an upsides, right?
A: Certainly, if you've got an existing facility, bringing in the NCAA Final Four can be good. But when you're using a big event as the carrot to build a big stadium, in hopes of attaining those supposed benefits, that's where you really need to be careful. The New York Jets are using a potential Super Bowl bid and a potential Olympic bid to get taxpayers to build a new stadium.
See, when you build a new stadium or infrastructure to get the event, those costs have to be factored in.
I am not saying that Buffalo would make or lose money on a Regional or Final Four. I was saying that they would, in typical Buffalo fashion, say what they can get is EXACTLY what they wanted.
To put it another way, do you REALLY think Buffalo would turn down the Final Four to host the first/second round?
December 2, 2009 7:52 AM
No, that was not your original point. You claimed that Buffalo could not get later rounds based upon hotel capacity. Did I say Buffalo would turn down a Final 4? Buffalo will never get a Final 4 because we don't have the facility for it. I said that before, clown.
You probably should call Drew Cerza and inform him of all the mistakes Rich Geiger has made in previous bids, trying to land 8 teams and 6 games instead of 4 teams for 3 games.
Now I feel bad that we've completely diverted the conversation about a great project because of some clown. Done talking about it. Call the CVB and ask for yourself.
December 2, 2009 10:57 AM
You are spot on Really. The first two rounds are far from the $$ makers. From my experience going to them they are mostly attended by locals and some college kids. The big timers show up for the regional final rounds and the final four. Why do you think the NCAA gives bids to small cities like Albany, Dayton, Greenville, SC for the first two rounds. Not very prestigious company.
December 1, 2009 1:37 PM
Buffalo goes for the opening rounds of the NCAA because it brings in more teams (eight teams compared to four for the later round), thus consuming more hotel rooms. It's a smart move.
December 1, 2009 4:13 PM
Hotel rooms are only needed if you plan on staying the night. Kinda throws a kink in your plans when people drive to Buffalo on the day of the game or drive home after.
The economic impact is NOT with the hotel rooms. That is a by product. Think about how you spend money on a vacation.
You need to eat or snack 3 times a day. You drink and do stuff each day. The money spent there is far more than what you normally spend on a hotel room for the night.
If you have 20 college kids coming to Buffalo, how much do you think they are going to spend on food and booze? Now compare that to someone who goes to the Elite Eight or Final Four, where the ticket prices are MUCH HIGHER. Higher ticket prices mean people who higher spending power, eating and drinking.
The reason why Buffalo goes after the first round is that is what Buffalo can get. I know people want to feel good about Buffalo but a reality check every now and then would be nice.
There is no way that Buffalo could host an event the size of the Regional's or Final Four today. Maybe with the expanded hotel rooms and some other improvements.
It is not just about the number of games. The bigger the stage, the more of a sideshow.
Consider how many press passes are issued for the first round in Buffalo. Then consider how many are issued for the Final Four. Consider how many fans go to the Final Four location without a ticket. Then consider how many go to the first round without a ticket.
It really is that simple.
December 1, 2009 4:48 PM
Listen to him, Perry.... He's got FACTS!
December 1, 2009 7:27 PM
No need to get your panties in a bunch. It is ok to be wrong...you are not hurt...it is going to be ok. :)
December 1, 2009 7:13 PM
"Hotel rooms are only needed if you plan on staying the night."
I can't imagine driving 3 hours to Buffalo, attending a game and then driving 3 hours home afterwords. I think the majority of people would spend a night, especially when the 3 hour distance is the short drive to a first round game.
December 1, 2009 7:27 PM
Apparently you do not know many college kids or people on a tight budget. There is a reason they call them regionals...
Do a LOT of people stay the night...absolutely. But to say more people = more money is simple math. There are multiple variables in play.
December 1, 2009 8:41 PM
oh apparently.
December 1, 2009 1:38 PM
I would love to see the Best Western and Holiday Inn on Delaware taken off the market and turned into college housing.
December 1, 2009 1:57 PM
Why?
December 1, 2009 2:21 PM
Don't forget we have the World Junior Championships in 2011... 1,200 rooms wouldn't even hold the teams and their staff let alone the thousands of fans and family that will travel here for the event. Personally I can't wait, I think it's going to be an awesome time to be in Buffalo and hopefully some of these rooms will be up and running by then. Buffalo has recently hosted an AC/DC concert, possibly the last Bruce & the E street band concert ever, etc. We will be hosting the NCAA's and the World Juniors in the next 1-2 yrs, not to mention the countless sabres/bills games that draw from out of town (specifically Canada, try getting a room downtown during a Leafs or Canadiens game)and the many festivals during the summers that draw people to Buffalo (wingfest, tast of buffalo, italian festival, etc.)... It's easy to be down on Buffalo, and often for good reason, but to say that these hotel rooms aren't necessary is wrong in my humble opinion. We want people downtown, we want more business, we want this city to grow and become dense... if you don't believe these hotels are practical, then you don't believe Buffalo can grow. I think these projects shows people willing to take a chance on a city with a beautiful and tragic past and an undecided future... hopefully more will follow.
December 1, 2009 2:21 PM
As far as conventions, I agree, a newer and bigger Convention Center is needed. BUT, it's not just conventions that fill up downtown hotels as it seems many are under the impression. Many people stay over night or longer downtown for family reunions, weddings, business meetings, traveling, to see an event at HSBC Arena, Shea's, an opening at one of our many museums and art galleries, and so on. Many weekdays and weekends you may find zero availability in some of our current downtown hotels. So over all, I do support the need for more hotel rooms. For more info, conact the Buffalo Convention & Visitor's Bureau for the same info if you don't believe a word I just told you all. 1-800-BUFFALO
December 1, 2009 5:00 PM
Any news about the planned hotel at Elmwood & Forest ?
December 1, 2009 5:12 PM
Wow, an HGI, whooppee. I always thought a W Hotels logo would look great atop the AM&A's but since they get their funding from Dubai, the Hilton deal is probably for the best.
December 1, 2009 6:56 PM
I would also step forward and remind everyone including Hilton, Hamister and Termini that top floor with the fence and terrace facing Main Street has the capability of adding 3 more floors. For any developer and hotel manager...that would mean...3 more floors of high margin...high priced penthouse terrace suits that cannot be matched by any other building downtown.
Just a thought worth exploring since everything is there structurally and the buildout for each of the penthouse suits would be dirt cheap (as the investment was already made long ago).
December 1, 2009 7:11 PM
Sort of off but close to this story. I believe Paladino should reconsider his old idea for the Court Street tower to include some hotel space on it's upper floors. OR Condos. Imagine being the views and the only living address on Court Street? Could cost more than the ones in the Avant on views and location alone?
December 1, 2009 7:45 PM
He's waayyyy too old school to think outside of that box.
December 1, 2009 11:23 PM
Great news, hope it happens... downtown Buffalo seems to be getting top notch hotel brands lately, first Embassy Suites, now Hilton, it's all good.
December 2, 2009 10:47 AM
Hilton Garden Inn is a top notch hotel name? You can see these all over rural stretches of the US Interstates. It is a step up from a Hampton Inn-that's all. W, Westin, Omni, Ritz, etc are top notch hotels.
December 2, 2009 1:02 PM
i've stayed at 2 Garden Inn locations. first one was "m'eh", and this summer i stayed at one in Portland, Maine. Very nice, very clean, good amenities nearby- i'd put my family up in one.