Timeline for Are inexpensive ryokans inauthentic?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 21, 2013 at 4:47 | history | edited | uncovery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 187 characters in body
|
| Jun 21, 2013 at 4:39 | comment | added | uncovery | @MichaelBorgwardt Please do not take my text as a 100% absolute statement. There are exceptions of course. What I described is rather a general issue that contributed to the fact that there are hardly any Roykans anymore in Tokyo. Also, Tourist attraction is not mean derogatory, but rather in the sense of "popular with tourists due to the fact that there are so few in a reasonable price range, and therefore can survive". | |
| Jun 21, 2013 at 4:36 | comment | added | uncovery | @AndrewGrimm that does not matter, and rather makes the problem worse. If the building is private, you need a VERY rich family to hand it to the next generation due to the inheritance tax. If it's run by a company, other uses will be more profitable. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 23:29 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | @MichaelBorgwardt perhaps the real estate for the ryokans were bought before it became expensive. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 19:31 | comment | added | Michael Borgwardt | I don't think this is right. I've stayed in several inner-city ryokan. They were all cheap and not at all tourist attractions. The rooms were small (futon==no extra space for a bed) and had shared bathrooms - quite space-efficient. Of course they were not in top locations (i.e. a 5 or 10 minute walk away from the subway station instead of next to it) and the buildings rather old. | |
| Jun 20, 2013 at 16:27 | history | answered | uncovery | CC BY-SA 3.0 |