The controversy is nothing new to Seattle's convention center. Seattle City Council Member Peter Steinbrueck, an architect, voted against the expansion. He says the original center should have been built to the north or south of its current location. Steinbrueck says the American Institute of Architects, of which he is a member, is one of many associations too large to meet in Seattle. As for the benefits of placing a facility within walking distance of downtown, critics say a larger center on the outskirts of town would have drawn even more visitors.
Many cities shuttle people between downtown and convention centers.
And Steinbrueck predicts the current expansion, from 102,000 to 205,000 square feet, will prove inadequate. You can't turn back history here, of course, but I see the day when there will be the need for a new convention center. Where that will be, I don't know. Expansion proponents concede the roomier facility won't make Seattle a contender for the largest conventions. There are always going to be space issues if you're competing with the Orlandos and Dallases and Vegases that have a million square feet.