This news broke late yesterday in the US so it is all over teh intrawebs by now, but not all of you will be tuned in to fannish blogs so it probably bears repeating.
As per this announcement on their web site, the Seattle in 2011 Worldcon Bid has been forced to withdraw from the race. The official reason is inability to conclude a firm deal with their convention center. Reading between the lines, it sounds like they were gazzumped – another group with a lot more money wanted the facilities for the same date and muscled them out of the way.
I’d like to express my deepest sympathy to the members of the Seattle bid. Having been involved in Worldcon bids before, I know how much time and effort is required. This must be heartbreaking for them. It isn’t just that they have spend all that effort for nothing, you also have to factor in that some of them will have been involved in the 2002 bid that folded in similar circumstances. And then there’s the fact that one of the bid committee died in a car crash on the way to a convention to promote the bid. Things like that can’t just be shrugged off.
Inevitably, however, the fannish blogosphere wants to know “what this means”. The immediate knee jerk reaction has been for a whole bunch of people to say that Worldcon should have stuck to three year lead times rather than go to two years. I think that’s silly. Obviously I don’t have inside information, but I think there is a very good chance that this could have happened with a three-year lead time, or indeed with a five-year lead time. The basic problem is that Worldcon is not a big-money event, so at any time we are vulnerable to being pushed out of the way by other groups.
A more sensible reaction would be to point out the dangers of trying to hold Worldcon in a top-class venue like Seattle. It is, after all, exactly the sort of place we are likely to pushed out of. The same would have happened to us (SFSFC) in 2002 had we not been able to switch from San Francisco to San Jose. So people will be arguing for Worldcon to be held at smaller, out of the way venues such as Reno.
I can see the point, but to me it seems like giving up. I don’t want to move to a situation where the World Science Fiction Convention is an expensive week-long relaxacon held for the benefit of a few hundred old, rich and predominantly white fans who can afford to attend. I want Worldcon to bring science fiction to the people. And that means holding it in places where there is a large local population that doesn’t have to spend a fortune on air fares and hotel bills in order to attend. If we want Worldcon to continue to be relevant we have to keep trying to do that.
Anyway, the reason this news broke yesterday is that yesterday was the filing deadline for 2011 bids. The Seattle folks were obviously trying right up until the last minute to find a deal that would rescue their bid. But they didn’t get one, and now it is too late. I believe I am correct in saying that Reno is the only bid to have officially filed, so they have won by default. Congratulations to them. Knowing many of the people behind the Reno bid, I’m sure they will do an absolutely wonderful job.
And now, because the 2011 race has suddenly become rather boring, we need a good hoax bid. Where are those Xerps people when you need them?
I think you’re right, that a longer lead time wouldn’t have helped.
Reno has its own charms, but I preferred the Seattle bid.
SEALAND IN 2011!!!
“I want Worldcon to bring science fiction to the people.”
Mad applause over here. 1000 times, yes! 🙂
The San Francisco bid is a perfect example. SF even had the letter of intent from the facilities, and then after the bid was won someone with money muscled their way in and took away the facilities.
And that happened not once but TWICE. I remember the first SF Worldcon, lost its main hotel to a High Roller group. The con stayed in SF that time, but with an inferior Main Hotel. Then the high roller group backed out a few months before the con, and the original Main Hotel had nothing that weekend, except overflow. What goes around…
There is nothing predictable about the convention business.
Still bummed that Seattle had the rug pulled out from under them though. They’ve been through so much.
The saving grace about the Reno bid, is although it is in a smaller city, it is a major resort city for the SF Bay Area, and we have lots of fans who know the way there. Even by train (Hi Kevin!)!
Well stated Cheryl.
Sigh.
Sure! Denver in 2011! 🙂
Hi, Cheryl.
As the Site Selection Administrator for Anticipation, I would like to try and provide a little more detail, if not clarify, one of the points.
At this point in time, after the filing deadline, Raleigh is the only NASFiC bid to have filed and Reno is the only Worldcon bid to have filed. This means that each bid will be the only one printed on their respective ballots.
This does not mean that either bid has locked in the win. Pursuant to 4.6.4 of the WSFS Constitution: “To be eligible as a write-in, the bidding committee must file the documents specified above by the close of the voting.”. Thus, it is conceivable that another bid could file before the end of voting at Anticipation and win over the bid printed on the ballot. It is also possible for None of the Above to win.
Please note that this is a technical, rules lawyer, geeky analysis of what could happen. It is not meant in any way to speak of what is probable or that I have some secret knowledge of a filing yet to come (I don’t).
Best,
Glenn
Thank you, Glen. That was very helpful.