Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9050720)

I read the investment press, not the hotel industry press, but I believe I've read exactly the opposite view on several occasions: That the discovery that ZOOM could suffice for in-person business meetings has meant that business-oriented hotels might suffer the worst; perhaps not right away but eventually because eventaully tourism and liesure travel will return to "normal" but business travel may never be the same.

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9050895)

I don't think Zoom will be a replacement for in-person meetings.

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9050895)

Additionally, I'm noticing some work from home fatigue from my white collar social networks. I think many people are going to rush back to the office, at least part time, as soon as they can do so safely.

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 9050772)

Yes, they do. These major hotels will all be reflagged with new brands. People will start traveling once there's a vaccine.

In fact, one of the hotels you just posted (the Times Square Edition) was already reflagged, days after closing. It will remain an Edition, but under revised ownership. It's opening in a few days, actually. That asset is probably one of the most valuable hotels on earth, given its location.

https://therealdeal.com/2020/07/14/t...-debt-dispute/

The other hotel you posted, the Palmer House Hilton, had like $250 million poured into it a few years ago. It's a very valuable asset, and I bet will be reflagged before end-of-year.

You really believe that people will stop traveling, essentially forever? I have about a dozen planned work trips that will occur in the first few months of normalcy, as well as leisure trips planned to Europe and Mexico. Yes, the economy will remain horrific for a few quarters, yes some will be wary to travel for a few quarters, but people ultimately won't stop needing travel and human interaction.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9051153)

Yes, I do think there’s evidence a growing proportion of business travel may be unnecessary and can be done electronically: Deals can be closed with Docusign, meetings can be held with Zoom etc.

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9050895)

I don't think Zoom will be a replacement for in-person meetings. Many people are realizing that Zoom is kind of terrible as a primary mode of communication. Business travel will recover as soon as it's safe to do so. Especially business and trade conferences. I don't think leisure travel will bounce back in the same way. Leisure travel will become extremely expensive when business travel picks up again, as corporate expense accounts will push up the cost.

Additionally, I'm noticing some work from home fatigue from my white collar social networks. I think many people are going to rush back to the office, at least part time, as soon as they can do so safely.

Originally Posted by iheartthed (Post 9051165)

This has all been possible for decades, and it didn't kill business travel then, nor will it now. Meetings could be had by phone since the invention of it. Documents could be couriered, faxed, overnighted, etc., for decades. Zoom and Docusign are just incremental improvements on technology that already existed. Nothing has fundamentally changed.

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere (Post 9051172)

I know many hotels in Toronto are being leased by the city right now to house the homeless as shelters are too densely packed.. though that's mostly helping the bottom end of the hotel market.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9051153)

The fate of specific properties aside, the essence of the article was that a significant proportion of New York hotels—the article says 20%—will not remain hotels but be converted to other uses like condos or rental apartments. That’s not my opinion but the opinion of industry experts so you are saying you know more than they do (you always say you know more than anyone on any subject so not surprising).

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9051167)

Some fraction of business travel may go; some liesure travel may go. It’s probably pointless for us here to argue how much of each but I’ll repeat that from what I read, industry analysts and insiders seem to think it’s more of the business travel that’s unnecessary and likely to be curtailed. The result is fewer hotel rooms needed than we thought a year ago.

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 9051248)

No, this is not what the article says. Re-read the article. And the issue with hotels has nothing specifically to do with NYC; it's as relevant to Muncie and Amarillo. Hotels are empty, everywhere, because no one is traveling.

You couldn't even do this. Converting hotels under union control in NYC is currently illegal. Most major NYC hotels are unionized, and it's one of the most powerful unions in NYC, controlling many land use decisions. It look like a decade for the Waldorf Astoria to be converted to partial residential use, and the union responded by basically banning such conversions.

Both the cited hotels are union, so there's a 0% chance of converting to residential. And the highest and best use is hotel, not residential. These are Times Square-adjacent properties. They'll remain hotels, even if they lose money for the next year or so.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9051319)

https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-new-...od-11592308800

I guess we'll have to let people who can read English decide for themselves.

Originally Posted by Crawford (Post 9051338)

Exactly, thank you. The bolded statements contradict your claims.

There are many, many hotels that will be reflagged.

Originally Posted by isaidso (Post 9051212)

COVID has put my plans in a holding pattern. Ontario never managed to 'get it together' with new daily infections only briefly heading below 100. We're now entering the 2nd wave and cases have spiked to the 400-500 new daily infections range. It will likely head much higher as practically no one in Toronto practices physical distancing.

Ontario's response has been pathetic so I may move to Atlantic Canada till this is over. They've handled the pandemic far better and they've been rewarded with next to no cases for weeks. I guess I've sort of given up on Ontario taking this seriously.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin (Post 9051732)

You'll be in for a rude awakening once you get there then, if you think that people are actually behaving any differently in the Atlantic provinces. I would assume the opposite if anything - given the low case count in their bubble, people are more likely to be going about life as usual. The worse things are, the more alert people are; and vice versa.

Atlantic Canada's "success" versus the rest of Canada has nothing to do with better policies or behaviour, and everything to do with being a less populated, less globally connected, more rural place - and largely just the luck of the draw that they didn't experience any super spreader events early on.

Originally Posted by Pedestrian (Post 9051618)

Gonna have to prove you're negative before getting on a plane?


https://www.reuters.com/article/heal...-idUSKCN26E0RT