urbanSTL

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:04 AM - 1 day ago

Dev7 wrote:I don' t think that assessment is completely fair. Most cities are below expectations. Even the two largest cities in the country are 60+% below expectations. So if those kind of percentages are being seen for larger and more prominent cities, it makes since that KC is seing the numbers that they're seeing. If you think these numbers show that KC shouldn't have been selected, then most of the cities shouldn't have been chosen, because they are all seeing weak numbers. 

Edit: This is the largest sporting event in the world, so these cities, especially the major ones,  should not be even 40% below expectation for bookings. 

There's lots of obvious reasons KC shouldn't have been selected lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I think Kansas City hasn't even had many issues like some of the other cities. Boston has had major conflicts in their preparations, and they held a soccer match last month that caused chaos in the municipality that their stadium is in. Neighbors were witnessing people that had been in their cars for hours use the bathroom in their back yards. People were leaving their rideshare vehicles to walk. I haven't even mentioned the funding problems that they have had for basic things like security. KC has made a sufficiently planned transportation plan that is fairly priced (especially compared to other hosts), the stadium is a lot closer to DTKC than many of the other stadiums. I know people like to talk about cleanliness and other things, but LA smells like straight pee and is far from clean, even in its most popular areas and has very bad traffic which makes it harder to get around (even in Uber, Lyft, etc).  Each city has its problems, I'm just not understanding why everyone here is jumping on KC as the big failure of the tournament, when all of the host cities are sounding the alarm on this being a "non-event" for hotels and has local issues of their own. 

Dev7 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:04 AM - 1 day ago

Dev7 wrote:I don' t think that assessment is completely fair. Most cities are below expectations. Even the two largest cities in the country are 60+% below expectations. So if those kind of percentages are being seen for larger and more prominent cities, it makes since that KC is seing the numbers that they're seeing. If you think these numbers show that KC shouldn't have been selected, then most of the cities shouldn't have been chosen, because they are all seeing weak numbers. 

Edit: This is the largest sporting event in the world, so these cities, especially the major ones,  should not be even 40% below expectation for bookings. 

There's lots of obvious reasons KC shouldn't have been selected lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I think Kansas City hasn't even had many issues like some of the other cities. Boston has had major conflicts in their preparations, and they held a soccer match last month that caused chaos in the municipality that their stadium is in. Neighbors were witnessing people that had been in their cars for hours use the bathroom in their back yards. People were leaving their rideshare vehicles to walk. I haven't even mentioned the funding problems that they have had for basic things like security. KC has made a sufficiently planned transportation plan that is fairly priced (especially compared to other hosts), the stadium is a lot closer to DTKC than many of the other stadiums. I know people like to talk about cleanliness and other things, but LA smells like straight pee and is far from clean, even in its most popular areas and has very bad traffic which makes it harder to get around (even in Uber, Lyft, etc).  Each city has its problems, I'm just not understanding why everyone here is jumping on KC as the big failure of the tournament, when all of the host cities are sounding the alarm on this being a "non-event" for hotels and has local issues of their own. 

Host cities population:

-Toronto: 7.1 million
-Vancouver: 3.1 million
-Guadalajara: 5.3 million
-Mexico City: 23 million
-Monterrey: 5.3 million
-Atlanta: 6.5 million
-Boston: 5 million
-Dallas: 8.5 million
-Houston: 7.9 million
-Los Angeles: 12.8 million
-Miami: 6.4 million
-New York: 20.1 million
-Philadelphia: 6.3 million
-San Francisco: 4.6 million
-Seattle: 4.2 million

-Kansas City: 2.3 million

This is a pretty big factor as to why people will be harsher in KC than others, KC is clearly out of its league.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

StlAlex wrote: ↑

7:12 PM - 1 day ago

Dev7 wrote:

StlAlex wrote: ↑

5:04 AM - 1 day ago

There's lots of obvious reasons KC shouldn't have been selected lol.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

I think Kansas City hasn't even had many issues like some of the other cities. Boston has had major conflicts in their preparations, and they held a soccer match last month that caused chaos in the municipality that their stadium is in. Neighbors were witnessing people that had been in their cars for hours use the bathroom in their back yards. People were leaving their rideshare vehicles to walk. I haven't even mentioned the funding problems that they have had for basic things like security. KC has made a sufficiently planned transportation plan that is fairly priced (especially compared to other hosts), the stadium is a lot closer to DTKC than many of the other stadiums. I know people like to talk about cleanliness and other things, but LA smells like straight pee and is far from clean, even in its most popular areas and has very bad traffic which makes it harder to get around (even in Uber, Lyft, etc).  Each city has its problems, I'm just not understanding why everyone here is jumping on KC as the big failure of the tournament, when all of the host cities are sounding the alarm on this being a "non-event" for hotels and has local issues of their own. 

Host cities population:

-Toronto: 7.1 million
-Vancouver: 3.1 million
-Guadalajara: 5.3 million
-Mexico City: 23 million
-Monterrey: 5.3 million
-Atlanta: 6.5 million
-Boston: 5 million
-Dallas: 8.5 million
-Houston: 7.9 million
-Los Angeles: 12.8 million
-Miami: 6.4 million
-New York: 20.1 million
-Philadelphia: 6.3 million
-San Francisco: 4.6 million
-Seattle: 4.2 million

-Kansas City: 2.3 million

This is a pretty big factor as to why people will be harsher in KC than others, KC is clearly out of its league.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

Kansas City pushing above its weight doesn’t mean that it doesn’t deserve to be a host. All of the US cities are seeing well below satisfactory numbers in terms of bookings. I do think it’s okay to be harsher on KC, because it is pushing above its weight. However, to say only one city doesn’t deserve to host for a problem that every US host city is facing is unfair.