Fenway Center (One Kenmore) | Turnpike Parcel 7, Beacon Street | Fenway

393b40 said:
Nobody's building hotels on a 1-2 year horizon... they're building them for 20-50 year+ lifetimes. This pandemic will be forgotten by end of next year.
Click to expand...
The bankers have a lot to say about what does or does not get built. And their financing preference tends to have a strong lag versus current events, so they are definitely still looking in the rear view mirror at the pandemic's destruction of hospitality businesses. And although the investment might be for 7 to 10 years (commercial properties do not think 20 to 50 years out!), the investment choice is heavily influenced by the recent past. Right now the big money is investing in labs, labs, labs.
 
I'm
JeffDowntown said:
The bankers have a lot to say about what does or does not get built. And their financing preference tends to have a strong lag versus current events, so they are definitely still looking in the rear view mirror at the pandemic's destruction of hospitality businesses. And although the investment might be for 7 to 10 years (commercial properties do not think 20 to 50 years out!), the investment choice is heavily influenced by the recent past. Right now the big money is investing in labs, labs, labs.
Click to expand...


The financial titans are not so short-term tunnel visioned myopic to be going "labs,labs,labs..." just because of the last 15 months. They are going labs, labs, labs because of much larger and long-term economic forces. The lab financing craze was building long before February 2020.

That is also the reason why the hotel industry is not going to be having a complete stop on getting financing. The big banks don't read People magazine and react on the headlines. They are smart enough to understand demographic trends and know that the over 65+ retiree with discretionary tourism money market segment is EXPLODING all over the world - - - yes, Thai, Vietnam, India, Morocco, Brazil, etc. are seeing tens of millions of people each year leaving subsistence existences for the middle class. Those millions will want to travel - - the concept of "Experiences". Boston is blessed to have a unique international history "brand".

The banks aren't shutting off spigots for short-term panics heard on The View. In the very short near-term this summer/fall, the real issue facing hotels will be staffing to meet demand.
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
That is also the reason why the hotel industry is not going to be having a complete stop on getting financing. The big banks don't read People magazine and react on the headlines. They are smart enough to understand demographic trends and know that the over 65+ retiree with discretionary tourism money market segment is EXPLODING all over the world - - - yes, Thai, Vietnam, India, Morocco, Brazil, etc. are seeing tens of millions of people each year leaving subsistence existences for the middle class. Those millions will want to travel - - the concept of "Experiences". Boston is blessed to have a unique international history "brand".
Click to expand...

Our viewpoints couldn't be more different on whether the explosion in global tourism is a "Good Thing".

Have you given any thought to possible negative consequences? Just wondering...
 
xec said:
Our viewpoints couldn't be more different on whether the explosion in global tourism is a "Good Thing".

Have you given any thought to possible negative consequences? Just wondering...
Click to expand...

where in shmessy's statement did he betray an ideological bias? I've read it a few times and don't see him having written anywhere that it's a "good thing." The one thing he said that's subjective is Boston being "blessed," as far as I can tell. (Yes his tone is passionate with the boldfacing and underlining--but that's not the same as making a special pleading, in my mind).

Meanwhile--the explosion in global tourism, with all of its uniquely impactful environmental, economic, and ethnocultural effects--began in the 1870s at minimum, when international steamship travel became quite luxurious post-Civil War with key tech advances. Another big leap in the 1900s with the era of Titanic-style luxury cruisers (interrupted by WWI, of course, but then the Roaring Twenties resurgence...). And of course, post-WWII, with jet travel becoming accessible to the masses... point being, conscientious critics have been railing against the myriad harms of tourism and Ugly Americanism for 100+ years, I'm sure... and you bring this up now?

:unsure:
 
xec said:
Our viewpoints couldn't be more different on whether the explosion in global tourism is a "Good Thing".

Have you given any thought to possible negative consequences? Just wondering...
Click to expand...



“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”
– Mark Twain

But, I'd be fascinated to hear you opposing view.
 
Last edited:
I suppose there are some serious environmental consequences to travel. I personally think the cultural benefits far outweigh the environmental costs.
 
@xec never said that travel is bad.

Global tourism is not new, but in many places, it has exploded with the cheaper and cheaper airfares (see Japan's tourism growth in the past decade in table 1.2).

Some places are capable of absorbing huge numbers of tourists. I live in NYC, the most touristed city in the US, and it's never bothered me here. Elsewhere, places like Venice are on the verge of collapse from tourism.

In my opinion, there is a point at which a place no longer feels like it primarily exists for the benefit of its own inhabitants, and instead exists as a destination for well-heeled travelers. A lot of the authenticity is usually gone at that point; you're visiting the museum exhibit version of the place. (Tourism of natural areas, as opposed to urban ones, brings about a whole different set of challenges).

For the most part, I think such is the reality of a globalized world. Tourism dollars are hard to say no to, especially for localities that don't have strong economies outside of their services industry. I don't know what is the right balance to strike.
 
theSil said:
@xec never said that travel is bad.

Global tourism is not new, but in many places, it has exploded with the cheaper and cheaper airfares (see Japan's tourism growth in the past decade in table 1.2).

Some places are capable of absorbing huge numbers of tourists. I live in NYC, the most touristed city in the US, and it's never bothered me here. Elsewhere, places like Venice are on the verge of collapse from tourism.

In my opinion, there is a point at which a place no longer feels like it primarily exists for the benefit of its own inhabitants, and instead exists as a destination for well-heeled travelers. A lot of the authenticity is usually gone at that point; you're visiting the museum exhibit version of the place. (Tourism of natural areas, as opposed to urban ones, brings about a whole different set of challenges).

For the most part, I think such is the reality of a globalized world. Tourism dollars are hard to say no to, especially for localities that don't have strong economies outside of their services industry. I don't know what is the right balance to strike.
Click to expand...

Good points and thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think Boston has benefitted greatly from foreign tourism and stands to far into the future. I grew up in an era when very few foreigners had Boston as a "go to" destination. I like today's Boston better. Much, much better.

Like anything great (food, sex, vacations, entertainment, etc.) too much of a good thing becomes a detriment.
 
DBM said:
where in shmessy's statement did he betray an ideological bias? I've read it a few times and don't see him having written anywhere that it's a "good thing." The one thing he said that's subjective is Boston being "blessed," as far as I can tell. (Yes his tone is passionate with the boldfacing and underlining--but that's not the same as making a special pleading, in my mind).
Click to expand...

Where in my statement did I accuse shmessy of having an ideological bias? As for him not having written anywhere that it's a "good thing", I suggest you acquaint yourself with the meaning of the expression "read between the lines".

DBM said:
Meanwhile--the explosion in global tourism, with all of its uniquely impactful environmental, economic, and ethnocultural effects--began in the 1870s at minimum, when international steamship travel became quite luxurious post-Civil War with key tech advances. Another big leap in the 1900s with the era of Titanic-style luxury cruisers (interrupted by WWI, of course, but then the Roaring Twenties resurgence...). And of course, post-WWII, with jet travel becoming accessible to the masses... point being, conscientious critics have been railing against the myriad harms of tourism and Ugly Americanism for 100+ years, I'm sure... and you bring this up now?
Click to expand...

When do you think I should have brought it up? In 1870? I hadn't been born yet. Ditto for 1900, the Roaring Twenties, or the immediate post-WWII years.

Do you even understand what shmessy's words "EXPLODING all over the world" mean? Let me spell it out for you. It means we're at the inflection point of one of those hockey stick curves made famous by climate science. If now isn't the time to think about the consequences of that explosion, when do you suggest we start thinking about them? When local economies — and even the global economy — have restructured themselves around those tourist dollars to the point that trying to scale back tourism is socially, politically and economically impossible?

You're also failing to grasp the difference in the orders of magnitude involved. Look up what the total population of the US and all the countries shmessy mentioned was in 1870, 1900, the Roaring Twenties, or the post-WWII years, and compare them to the present-day populations. Also try to find what percent of those populations was wealthy enough to engage in international tourism at each of those points in time. Comparing the explosion of global tourism in the 1870's to the explosion of global tourism shmessy is talking about is like comparing the explosion of a firecracker to the explosion of a volcano.

Also, you're not considering the amount of resources used and the amount of waste generated per tourist back in 1870 vs. today. I have no idea what that is, but I'm pretty sure it's significant due to the differences in technologies like transportation and air conditioning. To which you have to add the resources required and wastes generated by tourism infrastructure like airports, which didn't exist back then.
 
shmessy said:
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.”
– Mark Twain

But, I'd be fascinated to hear you opposing view.
Click to expand...

I don't have an opposing view. My post is along the lines of "Travel is fatal to the environment". It has nothing whatsoever to do with human nature.

By the way, you should be more circumspect with postings that imply the people of Thailand, Vietnam, India, Morocco, Brazil, etc. are prejudiced, bigoted, and narrow-minded. As any SJW can tell you, people of non-European descent are practically perfect in every way, and the social justice mob will come down on you like a school of hungry piranhas for daring to suggest otherwise.
 
xec said:
Sorry, BeeLine. You're the last person on aB I'd ever want to upset, but I didn't expect that asking shmessy a simple question would trigger a rant from some random poster that I felt I had to reply to.
Click to expand...


Yikes, all I said was "I'd be fascinated to hear your opposing view."

I guess I did.😲

Thanks, Beeline for the link to the relevant thread (y)
 
Last edited:
shmessy said:
Yikes, all I said was "I'd be fascinated to hear your opposing view."

I guess I did.😲
Click to expand...

The rant I was referring to is the post by DBM, not your question. If you didn't see it I guess you either have him blocked or you need to see your optometrist.

As for my opposing view, my response was that I have no opposing view, i.e. I neither agree nor disagree with the Twain quote. In my experience things can go either way. I know of people whose lifelong dream was to visit some place/people/culture they found completely fascinating. Then they finally go, and return totally disillusioned with, if not downright hateful of, the place/people/culture they had admired for so long.

Sorry again, BeeLine (and everybody else). This is absolutely my last post on this subject. Promise.
 
shmessy said:
The banks aren't shutting off spigots for short-term panics heard on The View. In the very short near-term this summer/fall, the real issue facing hotels will be staffing to meet demand.
Click to expand...

The damage to business travel is not short term. Because of the weather, Boston probably gets zero tourists in Winter and Spring. Business has got to be a very large chunk of the stays here.
 
jklo said:
The damage to business travel is not short term. Because of the weather, Boston probably gets zero tourists in Winter and Spring. Business has got to be a very large chunk of the stays here.
Click to expand...

No tourists show up for the Marathon (generally run in the Spring)? St. Patrick's Day? Patriots Day? New Years Eve?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top