I love the potential here for destination charging. For only $2,200 of wall connectors daisy-chained together (plus conduit, breakers, trenching, wires, labor, permits, etc.), destinations can incrementally install 1 through 4 charge connectors, such as a 24' HPWC in a 12 parking spot zone first in spot #2, then spot #5, then spot #8, then finally spot #11. This would allow up to 4 Tesla's to park and be charged simultaneously. Since it would take a while to give 4 Tesla's enough charge off of one circuit, it might make more sense to look at this as a way to give coverage to as many parking spots as possible without worrying too much about spots being ICE'd, and considering this just enough for "4" Tesla's to charge overnight. The more I think about it, the ideal is one Tesla per connector, not 3 (which would require switching connectors and not much charge per car). This is best from a parking-lot coverage-perspective, covering 3x the spaces as connectors (or 6x if parked two parking rows back to back with connector in middle of middle parking spots, but this is very uncommon in hotels, however it is common in shopping centers).
This is an expandable situation, which allows destinations to expand with the growing number of Tesla's that visit them. For instance, a hotel with 100 parking spaces 5 years from now who expects up to 15 Tesla's peak per night would be able to put in 15 HPWC's every 3 parking spots to be able to reach 15 Tesla's parked in any one of 45 parking spaces, almost half of their parking lot. The other 55 spots could be covered with similar charger connectors for competing brands of cars, such as Leaf, Bolt, etc. Meanwhile, ICE vehicles would still be able to park in any of the 45 Tesla parking spaces that are not occupied by Tesla's, up to a maximum Tesla utilization level of 15 Tesla's and 30 ICE's.
I would argue AGAINST making a space that is EV-only that has two or three kinds of EV charger connectors at it; that would require that 2 or 3 EV's of different types all compete for one parking space. Instead, each EV charging spot should be optimized for only ONE type of EV charge connection, as I described, maximizing the amount of EV's that can charge there. EVSE's like they installed at Cal Poly could be put in some parking slots, Tesla-specific charger connectors at other parking slots that don't compete with the generalized EVSE's, and any other proprietary EV charger connectors from particular manufacturers or standards (e.g., Chademo) could also have their own parking slot coverage. Positioning of the charger connectors should be such that they can reach up to 3 slots, so that ICE's can park in 2/3rds of the EV charge spots willy-nilly. A green traffic cone marked "EV only #x" or whatever for each charge connector pedestal (with its own "#x" number painted on it) could be left out at at least one of the parking spots of each EV cord reachable zone with a note to parking vehicles to "leave this cone here for EV of type ____, until it is the only space left, then go ahead and move the cone to the curb", so that spaces could be saved from getting uneven distribution of ICE's such that 3 ICE's block an EV connectort and two EV's park next to each other competing for one connector.
Tesla just opened up this real-world practical use for relatively inexpensive upgrades, due to the daisy-chaining capability, low cost ($550/connector), 24' cable, and 277V utilization capability. Yes, there is heavy electrical costs, conduit installation costs, circuit breaker installation costs, licensing and permitting, etc., but this is all much less expensive than it used to be before the release of this upgrade, and it allows for easier time of incremental upgrades in the future.
Then, in about 10 years, when the peak % of EV's parking gets above 33% (or whatever), they can start in-filling; they'd have to run conduit to, say, the 8th spot, and run spots #1-4 each with their own HPWC in every spot, then spots #5-8 and spots #9-12 each with their own HPWC, for a 1-to-1 ratio of HPWC to parking slot, and make those twelve 1-to-1 spots Tesla ONLY (no ICE allowed). In the 45 slot parking lot example I gave above, then there would be (45-12)/3+12=23 Tesla's that could park in that parking lot and charge, which is 23% of the parking, and if added to the other expansion for competing standards/brands would be able to match the overnight peaks above 33%. They could continue this type of infilling, until 45% of the parking lot is Tesla-chargeable, and the other 55% competing brands. This can be adjusted for the market share of each type of EV that would park at that hotel as time passes.
Yes, they'd have to eventually install solar panels covering the parking slots, batteries to store that solar energy, transformers for cloudy days connected to the grid provider, equipment, cabinets, rooms, etc., to handle all of this, but that can be done in stages. Some hotels would have more of this than others, and have their own market share outcomes as a result. A roach motel might have more ICE's than a high end hotel with Tesla's, Bolt's, and Zumbiger's.
(I made up "Zumbiger", since I have no idea what the market will look like in the future.)