Professor of Teflon: Two years later, Prof. Heywood Sanders still argues that convention centers are overbuilt. But how does his research look now?
By Sara J. Welch, Successful Meetings
Monday, September 11 2006
Monday, September 11 2006
Published on AllBusiness.com
His detractors call him "Chicken Little," "Totally loony," "The Dr. No of the industry." They accuse him of hand-picking data to suit his argument, of relying on anecdotal evidence, even of intellectual dishonesty.
"He's just irrelevant—that's about as kind as I can be," says Steven Hacker, president of the International Association for Exhibition Management in Dallas. "His theories are goofy. History has revealed that they don't hold water."
But has it? The man who inspires such harsh judgments—Heywood Sanders, author of Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy, a January 2005 Brookings Institution white paper that claims that the convention center industry is overbuilt—doesn't think so. Indeed, he's supremely confident, even arrogant, about the correctness of his argument. "I don't have much interest in providing you with an opinion about my work," are the first words out of his mouth when reached by this reporter. "We can look at the numbers. It's pretty clear how the trends have played out."
That's what Successful Meetings decided to do. We looked at the numbers, spoke to the experts, and got a sense of what Dr. Sanders' argument looks like today. Is it true, as his critics claim, that convention travel is coming back and his theories were too pessimistic? Or is Sanders correct in sticking to his views?
Dr. No
In the Brookings paper, Sanders presents a variety of data from the 1990s to 2004 on attendance and occupancy rates at convention centers across the country and finds that as the supply of space has been increasing, not only has demand been declining, but industry projections have been far more optimistic than results. In other words, he argues, these buildings are not generating anywhere near the economic impact that they were expected to, and in fact often lose money, yet cities continue to invest huge amounts of money in them.
With millions of dollars of convention center development at stake, Sanders' arguments against building or expanding facilities could potentially limit the future destination options of many meeting planners. On the other hand, if he is right, planners and show managers could find themselves with the upper hand as centers competing for their business are forced to discount space or even give it away—in fact, as he points out, this is already the case at convention centers in Dallas, Hawaii, and elsewhere.
As an outsider and an academic—he is a professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio—Sanders may have the least vested interest of anyone involved in this debate. He has brought the clubby, glad-handing world of government-funded buildings and
"He's just irrelevant—that's about as kind as I can be," says Steven Hacker, president of the International Association for Exhibition Management in Dallas. "His theories are goofy. History has revealed that they don't hold water."
But has it? The man who inspires such harsh judgments—Heywood Sanders, author of Space Available: The Realities of Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy, a January 2005 Brookings Institution white paper that claims that the convention center industry is overbuilt—doesn't think so. Indeed, he's supremely confident, even arrogant, about the correctness of his argument. "I don't have much interest in providing you with an opinion about my work," are the first words out of his mouth when reached by this reporter. "We can look at the numbers. It's pretty clear how the trends have played out."
That's what Successful Meetings decided to do. We looked at the numbers, spoke to the experts, and got a sense of what Dr. Sanders' argument looks like today. Is it true, as his critics claim, that convention travel is coming back and his theories were too pessimistic? Or is Sanders correct in sticking to his views?
Dr. No
In the Brookings paper, Sanders presents a variety of data from the 1990s to 2004 on attendance and occupancy rates at convention centers across the country and finds that as the supply of space has been increasing, not only has demand been declining, but industry projections have been far more optimistic than results. In other words, he argues, these buildings are not generating anywhere near the economic impact that they were expected to, and in fact often lose money, yet cities continue to invest huge amounts of money in them.
With millions of dollars of convention center development at stake, Sanders' arguments against building or expanding facilities could potentially limit the future destination options of many meeting planners. On the other hand, if he is right, planners and show managers could find themselves with the upper hand as centers competing for their business are forced to discount space or even give it away—in fact, as he points out, this is already the case at convention centers in Dallas, Hawaii, and elsewhere.
As an outsider and an academic—he is a professor of public administration at the University of Texas at San Antonio—Sanders may have the least vested interest of anyone involved in this debate. He has brought the clubby, glad-handing world of government-funded buildings and