Visit Seattle exists to fill hotel rooms and bring conventions to the city —
which means you have a direct interest in the Arch not being a liability in
the destination story. Right now, convention delegates land at the Summit and
there is no activated commons building next door. The Arch is a gap in the
streetscape between Pike Place and Capitol Hill. Visit Seattle markets around
that gap because it has to.
The restructuring argument is also yours: Visit Seattle is funded by lodging
tax, and the PFD's fiscal fragility creates a floor under which lodging tax
policy cannot go. A stable, restructured PFD is a more predictable operating
environment for the destination marketing mission. The Commons doesn't compete
with convention business — it makes the destination stronger for the 250 days
a year when there isn't a convention.
Ask Your AI
Copy this prompt into ChatGPT, Claude, or any AI assistant.
I want to analyze this proposal from the perspective of Visit Seattle.
There's a civic proposal to convert the WSCC Arch building at 7th & Pike into a year-round public commons operated by Seattle Center.
The case being made to Visit Seattle: Visit Seattle exists to fill hotel rooms and bring conventions to the city —
which means you have a direct interest in the Arch not being a liability in
the destination story. Right now, convention delegates land at the Summit and
there is no activated commons building next door. The Arch is a gap in the
streetscape between Pike Place and Capitol Hill. Visit Seattle markets around
that gap because it has to.
The full proposal: https://commons.conventioncityseattle.com
What are the strongest arguments for and against, from Visit Seattle's perspective?