Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The backlash against overtourism

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 311 posts

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#261

Post by bobthepanda »

pmiller2 wrote: post #256
bobthepanda wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That solves one market problem (AirBnB has no level playing field with existing hotels.) That does not solve the other large problem; most residents do not want to live in a hotel district with other tourists, and especially not as hallway or floor mates. And residents do not want new hotel builds or conversions competing with apartments. With traditional hotels this is solved with permits and zoning, but AirBnB is u…

You just said the answer to the other problem: require a permit or business license to be an AirBnB host. Alternatively, "the market" offers annoyed neighbors another option: move.

The government responds to the will of residents, not short-term visitors. A ban is just the residents' preference to set the number of permits or business licenses for AirBnBs to zero. A government has no obligation to accommodate AirBnB.

Saying moving is an option trivializes how difficult moving can be, and is about as helpful as saying, "If you don't like the current president, why don't you just move to another country?"

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#262

Post by grkvlt »

Chathamization wrote: post #171
esotericn wrote: post #4

Mass tourism is being treated as unique when really, we're discovering that everyone cannot have a "good" standard of living. We can't all go travelling, we won't fit in the same place and we'll boil the earth doing so. We can't all have a car because we'll boil the earth. If we develop EV's and don't boil the earth, they won't all fit downtown. We can't all live in the country, that's not sustainable either. We can'…

One mistake people make is pretending that every choice we make is a hard one with no good answers. Sometimes there are good decisions and bad ones, and we end up making bad ones even when the good ones are obvious. We often see this happen with individuals, it shouldn't be too surprising that this happens with societies as well. A few years back when I looked at solutions to "cooking this planet" that didn't involve…

Just out of interest, what solutions did you discover that fit those criteria - no large disruption to most peoples lives, but suppressed by industries that stand to lose money? I think the problem is usually more that solutions require both large and disruptive changes to lifestyle and large investment and costs from industry and government...

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#263

Post by grkvlt »

Chathamization wrote: post #246
graeme wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate? Not cooking the planet requires moving to zero emissions AND taking them negative by a large margin beyond what simply planting forests would do. How csn we do this easily?

Here's a decent breakdown: https://thinkprogress.org/the-full-global-warming-solution-h...

> voluntarily switch to a low-carbon, low-oil, low-net water use, low-net-material use economy

What about this is not hugely disruptive to lifestyles and standards of living? Its hardly an 'easy' solution to tell people to give up many modern conveniences or radically change behavior...

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#265

Post by stale2002 »

bobthepanda wrote: post #253
stale2002 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like we don't have enough hotels then. Let's build more. It'd make a lot of money for the government.

Governments don't answer to short-term visitors, they answer to residents. Quite frankly, it's a good thing that Venice or Amsterdam or Barcelona are not pursuing a Benidorm-style frantic race to the bottom for tourism.

Indeed. And those residents would be greatly benefited by all the extra tax revenue and business that they recieve from tourists.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#266

Post by WillPostForFood »

shakestheclown wrote: post #184
wild_preference wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad how travel, to most people, is just seeing things. No wonder so many HN comments are grandstanding about how they dislike or don't need travel: they aren't talking about meeting other people or experiencing other cultures. They're just talking about weekend travel packages where they're shuttled around to take some pictures. How incredibly boring. Your VR idea like saying you've been to Prague because you sp…

Don't worry the AI will be very realistic; it will be better than interacting with locals. /s

Why /s? Could be even better, no language barrier, taxis programmed not to rip you off, every girl at the bar will want to go hime with you, and you get to cut all the lines.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#267

Post by User23 »

BadassFractal wrote: post #248
robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

I wonder how much of tourism is social prestige signaling. As in: "I've been to place X, have you been to place x?". It's sort of like going to TED conferences, it makes middle class people feel good about themselves and show prestige with their peers.

You're selling yourself short. No need to wonder at observing the self-evident.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#268

Post by megablast »

csomar wrote: post #120

Couldn't this be a failure from the European cities in question? While European countries are on the top of the list, the cities? Not that much. The first one is Bangkok. With around 22 million tourists. Paris is third with 18 million. Interestingly, Paris has more things to see, a more extensive metro system (actually waaa..y more extensive). Yet, I seem to be more bothered by tourists in Paris than in Bangkok. In B…

> Other cities that adapted better to tourists: Dubai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur.

You must be joking. Each of those cities is either one of the most boring major cities on earth, devoid of culture or tourist attractions beyond shopping, or a cesspool.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#269

Post by domador »

ChristianBundy wrote: post #133
chasingthewind wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally hate travel and can identify with some of what he expressed here, but at a deeper level this throbs with a kind of elitism that really bothers me. I imagine replacing the words "mass tourist" with "immigrant" and the sentence almost reads like one of today's despicable screeds against the "alien" invader. Is there even any possible solution to the "problem" of some people living in or near a place that o…

> I imagine replacing the words "mass tourist" with "immigrant" and the sentence almost reads like one of today's despicable screeds against the "alien" invader. FYI, it shouldn't be surprising that replacing critical words can change the meaning of a sentence.

A question would be whether the replacement forms a valid analogous statement, one which reveals unrecognized hypocrisy.

In this case, it's a partially successful analogy. Both mass tourist and immigrants travel to foreign lands, but one of them does so optionally while the other typically does so out of real or perceived necessity.

Re: The backlash against overtourism

#270

Post by CryptoPunk »

hh3k0 wrote: post #247
robben1234 wrote: post #42

I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. Ignorance kills natural sights, over advertisement kills human created sights. Nearby Venice there's so much interesting stuff and small cities, a bit further are big cities. None of them really struggles with tourists as much as Venice. Maybe you'll see a huge line for Firenze Duomo but that's it, streets and other sights are…

> I won't argue about off topic issues, but I don't think mass tourism is killing any sights. One could argue that, by accounting for eight per cent of the world’s carbon emissions, tourism is killing the sights along with the planet.

You could say that about any economic activity. A greenhousing effect would also not be harmful to all or even most tourist sites. Your criticism just seems like a blanket criticism of human existence.
Post reply on HN