zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. pyrale+(OP)[view] [source] 2016-05-03 04:57:41
> If we generalise the "live where you work" to "stay where you spend most of your time, then it makes a lot of sense for the visitors to be housed in the centre.

The thing is, it completely reverses the meaning of my point, which was based on concern priority, not transportation efficiency. To me, it seems important that people whose home, job and lifestyle/culture is at stake are treated preferably to people for whom the city is just a tmporary leisure.

By making sure that visitors don't effect too much locals, we also promote a kind of tourism which promotes hospitality, and which ensures that the object of visits is not destroyed by tourism consumption.

replies(1): >>mafrib+NQ
2. mafrib+NQ[view] [source] 2016-05-03 15:07:21
>>pyrale+(OP)
International captial cities like Berlin are major destinations for travellers of all stripe, and will be for the forseeable future.

Indeed, the boundary between tourists and residents is porous. Capital cities attract a transient population from week end visitors to interns or workers who stay a few weeks, to summer visitors who stay a season, to students who stay for a few years, to proper residents who stay a decade or more. All of them are a source of ideas as well as a source of income for Berlin's industry. "Das ist auch gut so." Hence Berlin needs to cater for all. That includes providing substantial, centrally located living space (whether hotels or apartments) for short-term visitors.

[go to top]