Hotel “crisis” shouldn’t have been surprise

John Morris was nice enough to come up to me during Tuesday’s city council meeting and compliment me on my blog. In return, I think it’s only fair that I point out Mr. Morris’s excellent observation that same night regarding the Civic Center hotel study.

Many people (council members, the Journal Star, and even I, myself) have expressed surprise over this hotel “crisis” that seems to have been sprung on us after the $55 million Civic Center expansion is almost completed. But Morris claims it shouldn’t have come as any surprise, at least to those on the council.

He referenced the “Peoria Civic Center Masterplan Analysis” study which was done in August 2002 (before the expansion was approved) by C. H. Johnson Consulting, Inc. I didn’t read feasibility studies on this stuff until I started blogging, which was only Spring 2005, so I’d never read this particular report. I was shocked. I’m going to quote heavily, so brace yourselves. It said (emphasis mine):

Despite the available occupancy in downtown hotels, Peoria is actually poorly positioned from an inventory standpoint to handle the needs of additional demand generators for three reasons; product quality, proximity of room inventory, and available room block. To effectively service a convention center and add value to the convention sales effort a hotel property must typically must be located within ten blocks (or reasonable walking distance) of a center, the property must be willing to commit approximately 60 percent of its room inventory to the convention center room block, and the hotel must offer a quality room product.

For the Peoria Civic Center, there are four hotel properties that have the potential to meet these criteria – the 288-room Hotel Pere Marquette, the 327-room Holiday Inn City Center, the 110-room Mark Twain, and the 108-room Staybridge Suites. At this time, however, the Staybridge chooses not to participate in the convention center room block, which removes it from consideration in the convention center package. The remaining three properties have a total inventory of 725 rooms, but none is located proximate the convention center. At two blocks, the Pere Marquette is the closest property, however, the property needs improvements in its quality. Given that Peoria is a cold-weather market, any distance beyond two blocks adds infinitely to the challenge of selling the center during winter months.

Under the assumption that 60 percent of the 725-room inventory in the three hotels is available, downtown Peoria can only offer a room block of 435 rooms. Even if the room block commitment is increased to 70 percent, only 507 rooms are available in the nearby properties. The lack of available rooms and their distance of many of the rooms from the PCC, means that many meeting planners and tradeshow promoters bypass Peoria as potential destination for their events, which translates directly into lost economic activity in the market.

Later in the report, they added (again, emphasis mine):

The Peoria Area Convention and Visitor’s Bureau tracks “lost” convention and meeting business. These are groups that that looked at the city, but ultimately decided to stage their events in another market because the PCC was either too small, the hotel room inventory in downtown Peoria was insufficient or not of the quality preferred by meeting planners, or other factors.

And, just to drive the point home, the Johnson report lists the responses from a survey of Illinois meeting planners on how they perceive Peoria as a place to hold events. One of the findings (emphasis mine):

When asked for suggestions with regard to improvements that could be introduced into downtown Peoria that would make the city a more attractive market, a common response was the need of a hotel to be connected to the convention center large enough to hold a group our size.

I keep quoting this stuff to point out that it wasn’t some isolated statement buried in the report. It came up over and over and over again. Under “Implications for Peoria,” toward the end of the report, they mention again, “as the city improves its downtown offerings and induces additional demand into the market, it must also improve its hotel offerings.”

But was it “critical” back in 2002? Yes — it even uses that exact word: “Critical the success of convention centers is the availability of proximate hotel rooms.” And look at this specific recommendation and see if it doesn’t sound familiar (emphasis mine):

…comparable facilities have a proximate hotel inventory (within three blocks) ranging from 700 to 1,000 hotel rooms, while the Peoria Civic Center has only the Pere Marquette’s 288 rooms nearby. With the recommended expanded and renovated facilities, Peoria will need a larger, higher-quality hotel package. In order to not only be competitive, but to accommodate more and larger groups, Peoria should consider:

  • Connecting the Hotel Pere Marquette to the Peoria Civic Center via walkway, as is the case in many cities in the US….
  • Inducing the development of an additional three-star hotel, such as the under-construction Hilton Garden Inn adjacent to the Kentucky Fair and Exposition Center in Louisville, Kentucky. …The City can help induce this development by providing a site, rebating property taxes, or any number of incentives.
  • Promoting the upgrade of the existing hotel room stock in the city….

So, what’s my point? The Civic Center Authority and the City Council knew that this hotel deal was an integral part of the Civic Center expansion and that it was likely to need public funding. It shouldn’t have been a surprise to anyone who read the report. Nevertheless, the Civic Center tried to make the city believe that it could overcome that hurdle without adding to the $55 million price tag (see my previous post). That was wishful thinking at best, calculated deception at worst. Considering what was already known about how much comparable cities were spending to lure hotels to their areas, the city and Civic Center were naive if they thought Peoria could lure a hotel without any incentives.

So what do we do now? I recommend the city wait. Don’t react to this as if you have to build a new hotel tomorrow or the sky will fall. The Civic Center Authority told the council back in 2004, “We believe [the Civic Center expansion] can be successful without an attached hotel,” and did not request any public funding for a new hotel. I say, hold them to their word. What’s changed in the last two years? Nothing. They should be required to make a go of it without a penny more of public funding, just like they requested before this project started. It would be interesting to see what happens. It’s not like we can’t induce a hotel to locate here in the future if necessary.

The Holiday Inn will be under new management soon and is going to be undergoing renovations. Once the Civic Center expansion is done, presumably there will be some increase in the number of events, which will translate into more demand for hotel rooms. Let’s see what the free market does for a while. We might be surprised.

5 thoughts on “Hotel “crisis” shouldn’t have been surprise”

  1. Ok.. the needing the hotel-next-door thing isn’t entirely illusory. We know this. Certainly there are conferances that very much want such accomodations. Certainly having the accomodations can be a boon to those visiting. My wife went to a professional conferance last spring which had an adjacent hotel. She was quite pleased to have the accomodations as she was 6 or so months pregnant at the time. Being able to grab a quick nap was a big plus. But….

    How many conferances is Peoria losing by not having an adjacent hotel. 1? 2? How many? If having the hotel would only bring in one or two more, does it make sense to spend the money? We have 52 weeks a year. So, 52 plus or minus some conferances possible? Big ones that is. How successful is our civic center with or without it? The running joke is that gosh the civic center is losing money so gosh lets make it bigger so we can lose even more money. Is the problem really the hotel or is it simply that Peoria is small city that not many would want to visit. Hmm Miami or Peoria? Hmm Las Vegas or Peoria? Which is more fun? I don’t see a hotel fixing that.

  2. I was a tradeshow coordinator for a company back in the late ’90s in the Chicago suburbs. It was in our bylaws that the organinzer and the sales engineers had to stay at the hotel that was attached to the expo hall. So we never bought floor space in Peoria even though it was one of our biggest sales areas since we made tools for Cat.

  3. I’ve attended many trade shows throughout the country, and the attached hotel is a huge plus. I’m on the exhibitor side, not the planning and hosting side. The thing that maybe some people don’t understand is that businessmen and conventioneers like a vibrant nightlife (which we have) and don’t want to drive. Try standing on your fancy-shoed feet for 8 hours or more being Mr.Happy Salesman. When it’s over, you want nothing more than to walk a short distance and kick back.

    I don’t see too many of them staying at the Embassy Suites in E.Peoria; and if they did, they’d probably stay somewhere else the next year that requires no driving… and parking fees.

    Those that attend conventions don’t care about the price of a hotel- why would they? The company is paying for it. What they want is to stay close to the convention center with an attached bar and restaurant. There’s enough bars and restaurants downtown to satisfy that request…

    Another misnomer is that if the Pere were connected to the Civic Center that it would satisfy the conventioneers. Not true. I love the old hotels, but there’s *alot* of people who prefer and insist on a new and modern hotel. Think about it- many of these people that we’re trying to attract do alot of traveling. They don’t want to come here and downgrade to a small room when they’re used to a Suite; no matter what the history.

    If we’re talking about bringing in larger conventions, the Pere is not enough, the Holiday Inn is too far away, and the Embassy requires driving.

    A new upscale attached hotel would be great. If we weren’t so big on subsidising everything around here, maybe a hotel chain would actually want to invest on their own!

  4. In for a penny in for a pound. I think the council at the time knew when they borrowed the money for that albatross expansion, they were going to have to fund more for the hotels to accompany it. Although we certainly don’t have the money to be in the hotel business (again–remember the Pere), they will do it, like they will build parking decks etc. Meanwhile neighborhoods crumble, firestations remain hampered, institutions bulldoze older neighborhoods (oops when you run for state offices that’s now called responsible development), and packs of children with guns hunt each other down in the streets, but by golly we’ll have that shiny new hotel.

  5. As I read over some of this information, well, lets say some of it is comical.
    First, let me state that I too have attended many national conventions all over the country. When you travel to these events, yes, you’re feet are tired, yes, it’s VERY convenient to have a walkway to your hotel in poor weather. Many areas around the county have the same set up as the Pere “would” if they would just connect it and be done, big bonus for the Peoria Area overall.
    The biggest problem…TRANSPORTATION too the destination. Now, how about the city council begin working to figure out how you are going to get these people to Peoria. Have you looked at the airport lately? You can talk hotel adjacent to the Civic Center until you’re blue in the face but until we have a decent airport, larger airport with direct flights to more than just a few major cities, you can build it and they still won’t come. Did you know in truth that the largest problem is Transportation to Peoria, for the groups that are being persued. Not the “hotel adjacent to the Peoria Civic Center” . We are a drive to desitination, very important to remember that. In addition, a third teir city. Cities of our size have the tendency to “build” oversized civic centers. Some even “overcharge” in the market. In addition, these civic centers ask for hotel rebates (money back to the civic center to further pay for their costs) on top of taxes already paid to the civic centers. It goes on consistantly in Peoria. Are we sure this is all based on the need for hotel? Are the comments accurate “they will come here with a hotel adjacent to the Peoria Civic Center.” I beg to differ, I bet if the Peoria City Council dug deeper they just might find that the loss of business was not due to “lack of an adjacent hotel to the Peoria Civic Center”. I would further bet if they were to contact these folks they might just find a few other reasons, the biggest going back to transportation. How about City Council use money to assist the CVB to market the City as an actual “City” and not a cattail in a cornfield or a dog chasing a bone. Develop a Marketing Strategy before taking a blind leap. Though the first study told us to “NOT to do the expansion” it’s here, and since the city only had 3 citywide events this year, wondering what all the “need” was about.

Comments are closed.