7 ms·

Airbnb and its clones, although initially introduced positive disruption, are turning entire city districts into alien tourists traps. The range of "services" a

Airbnb and its clones, although initially introduced positive disruption, are turning entire city districts into alien tourists traps. The range of "services" and prices there make long term inhabitants to stay away. Barely anyone with local salary can live there. So we end up with attractive historical districts with predominantly temporary rentals which are completely empty out of the season, and dull residential districts where people earning local salaries can afford to live. I'm talking from my observations in various EU cities (Berlin, Prague, Barcelona).

yummyfajitas 10y ago
Why is it necessarily the case that the non-touristic areas are dull?
- samastur 10y ago
  They are not necessarily at the beginning. However if they are interesting, then they will draw visitors (tourists) which will lead to opening lodgings for them because enough of them like to stay close to places they like. This will then lead to higher rent prices for reasons already mentioned in articles so eventually, if area is popular enough, previous habitants can't afford to live there anymore. This does not have to happen, but it does rely on relative draw of the area and therefore its relative "dullness" to visitors. In effect they can't be too externally interesting to survive.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It sounds like the process you are describing will result in the creation of lots of awesome areas that are worthwhile to visit, together with an increasing supply of housing in these areas. Why is this a bad thing? Are you postulating that there is an infinite demand for interesting areas to visit, and an infinite supply of tourists who will completely displace locals everywhere?
    - samastur 10y ago
      I did none of those things. It was just a description of a process as value-less as I was able to write it. However I do not think this process necessarily leads to the creation of an awesome area. Just one catered to particular type(s) of people which may or may not include people previously living there. "Awesomeness" depends on a personal point of view. I think most of us can think of an otherwise popular spot that we personally find repelling. I also doubt it leads to increased supply of housing useful to locals in the same way as building hotels generally doesn't. It may increase capacity of a city to hold more people at any time, but without some redistribution (e.g. from taxes of such properties) may not have any (positive) effect on availability of long-term housing apart from moving some of it elsewhere. I don't think there is infinite demand of areas or supply of tourists and certainly don't think locals will be displaced from everywhere. Their quality of life however may be reduced and it should be no surprise that they are not fond of this. If my daily commute becomes 15 minutes longer in each direction, than there are 2.5 hours fewer weekly or almost a week yearly over which I lost agency. And I am only scratching the surface here of the problem(s) or my position which is unhelpfully that it depends. Sometimes such developments are positive, but not always or not forever. It may be a balancing act and what I am certain of is that there is no answer that would always be correct.
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        I also doubt it leads to increased supply of housing useful to locals in the same way as building hotels generally doesn't. If that's the case, then building nice residential areas outside the touristic core which are useful to locals will not result in a horde of tourists AirBnBing those areas. I think at this point it's important to note that the core issue here is that in most areas locals pass dumb protectionist laws against new construction, making it impossible for supply to increase. I agree with you that when demand for a good increases the price of that good, the people who were previously enjoying lower prices might be unhappy. That doesn't mean the original purchasers of that good have some right to prevent new people from purchasing it.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
jstanley 10y ago
You say that like it's a bad thing, but if that is the most productive use of property (i.e. the use that people are willing to pay most for), then I think that is what should happen, and I don't see any issue with AirBnB facilitating this.
- taway_1212 10y ago
  Agreed. If a location is attracting tourists (and their money) from across the globe, it would be wasteful to turn all that money away because locals want to live there and not 4 subway stops further. Or, to put in other terms: your historic city centre is a gem, a rarity and such things are understandingly more valuable (in monetary terms) than ordinary locations. Want to live there? Make enough money to afford it.
  - mjn 10y ago
    Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Some cities (like Copenhagen) structure their housing mainly as owner-occupied cooperatives for a reason. A functioning city that works for its residents is valuable, and it'd be wasteful to throw one away in hopes of speculating on some kind of Disneyland attraction.
    - jstanley 10y ago
      > Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Because investors' profits don't come from nowhere. You're prioritising the residents' wishes over the tourists' wishes, despite the fact that the tourists are willing to pay more to use the property. That's not fair.
    - gotchange 10y ago
      > Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Fair enough but are you willing to compensate the investors/landlords for the lost income from foregoing these opportunities or asking the govt to have the tax payers foot the bill to help tenants stay in their properties at artificially lower than market rates? I say let supply and demand sort this out and just focus our efforts on exposing anti-competitive violations like price collusion among landlords etc etc. Usually landlords/investors who are attracted to this "trade" are lured by the prospects of short-term profits and if that doesn't materialize for any reason, they'd seek more stable income by entering into long-term arrangements at more economic rates with permanent tenants.
timthelion 10y ago
While your sentiment is partially right, it is important to note that in Prague, after the fall of the iron curtain, local currency was very very cheep compaired to foreign currency. And normal Czechs just didn't have any money anyways. So the problem in Prague is not caused by Airbnb. It has existed for about 10-15 years.
peterjmag 10y ago
What do you think about the recent Airbnb ban here in Berlin? Do you think it's done anything to improve that situation or at least "stem the tide"? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-berlin-germany-tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rental... Of course, it's a pretty controversial and complex topic, but I feel like the ban was a step in the right direction. I use Airbnb myself as a guest in other cities and I like that it exists, but I also don't believe that historical city centers should simply be sold to the highest bidder. ...though it's also entirely possible I'm just a hypocrite.
gumaflux 10y ago
The observation in Berlin is incorrect. What area is being gentrified by AirBnB or similar services? . Bhandal
stymaar 10y ago
> Berlin What ? You would have said Paris I would totally agree but Berlin, really ? It's definetly not expensive to live here compared to other european capitals (buying a flat costs 3,036€[1] per square metter, compared to the 8000 you need in Paris) and even compared to other german big cities (München, Hamburg). [1] http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Germany/Price-History http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Germany/Price-Hist...
- expertentipp 10y ago
  > buying a flat costs 3,036€ Maybe in an old not renovated building, or concrete communist blocks. Anything refurbished or newly constructed starts at 4-5k euro/m^2.
  - stymaar 10y ago
    Which is still pretty affordable for the capital of a rich european country: it's half the price you get in London, Paris, Bruxelles or Roma.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Why is it necessarily the case that the non-touristic areas are dull?

samastur 10y ago
They are not necessarily at the beginning. However if they are interesting, then they will draw visitors (tourists) which will lead to opening lodgings for them because enough of them like to stay close to places they like. This will then lead to higher rent prices for reasons already mentioned in articles so eventually, if area is popular enough, previous habitants can't afford to live there anymore. This does not have to happen, but it does rely on relative draw of the area and therefore its relative "dullness" to visitors. In effect they can't be too externally interesting to survive.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It sounds like the process you are describing will result in the creation of lots of awesome areas that are worthwhile to visit, together with an increasing supply of housing in these areas. Why is this a bad thing? Are you postulating that there is an infinite demand for interesting areas to visit, and an infinite supply of tourists who will completely displace locals everywhere?
  - samastur 10y ago
    I did none of those things. It was just a description of a process as value-less as I was able to write it. However I do not think this process necessarily leads to the creation of an awesome area. Just one catered to particular type(s) of people which may or may not include people previously living there. "Awesomeness" depends on a personal point of view. I think most of us can think of an otherwise popular spot that we personally find repelling. I also doubt it leads to increased supply of housing useful to locals in the same way as building hotels generally doesn't. It may increase capacity of a city to hold more people at any time, but without some redistribution (e.g. from taxes of such properties) may not have any (positive) effect on availability of long-term housing apart from moving some of it elsewhere. I don't think there is infinite demand of areas or supply of tourists and certainly don't think locals will be displaced from everywhere. Their quality of life however may be reduced and it should be no surprise that they are not fond of this. If my daily commute becomes 15 minutes longer in each direction, than there are 2.5 hours fewer weekly or almost a week yearly over which I lost agency. And I am only scratching the surface here of the problem(s) or my position which is unhelpfully that it depends. Sometimes such developments are positive, but not always or not forever. It may be a balancing act and what I am certain of is that there is no answer that would always be correct.
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      I also doubt it leads to increased supply of housing useful to locals in the same way as building hotels generally doesn't. If that's the case, then building nice residential areas outside the touristic core which are useful to locals will not result in a horde of tourists AirBnBing those areas. I think at this point it's important to note that the core issue here is that in most areas locals pass dumb protectionist laws against new construction, making it impossible for supply to increase. I agree with you that when demand for a good increases the price of that good, the people who were previously enjoying lower prices might be unhappy. That doesn't mean the original purchasers of that good have some right to prevent new people from purchasing it.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

jstanley 10y ago

You say that like it's a bad thing, but if that is the most productive use of property (i.e. the use that people are willing to pay most for), then I think that is what should happen, and I don't see any issue with AirBnB facilitating this.

taway_1212 10y ago
Agreed. If a location is attracting tourists (and their money) from across the globe, it would be wasteful to turn all that money away because locals want to live there and not 4 subway stops further. Or, to put in other terms: your historic city centre is a gem, a rarity and such things are understandingly more valuable (in monetary terms) than ordinary locations. Want to live there? Make enough money to afford it.
- mjn 10y ago
  Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Some cities (like Copenhagen) structure their housing mainly as owner-occupied cooperatives for a reason. A functioning city that works for its residents is valuable, and it'd be wasteful to throw one away in hopes of speculating on some kind of Disneyland attraction.
  - jstanley 10y ago
    > Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Because investors' profits don't come from nowhere. You're prioritising the residents' wishes over the tourists' wishes, despite the fact that the tourists are willing to pay more to use the property. That's not fair.
  - gotchange 10y ago
    > Why would it be "wasteful" to prioritize quality of life for residents over investors' profits? Fair enough but are you willing to compensate the investors/landlords for the lost income from foregoing these opportunities or asking the govt to have the tax payers foot the bill to help tenants stay in their properties at artificially lower than market rates? I say let supply and demand sort this out and just focus our efforts on exposing anti-competitive violations like price collusion among landlords etc etc. Usually landlords/investors who are attracted to this "trade" are lured by the prospects of short-term profits and if that doesn't materialize for any reason, they'd seek more stable income by entering into long-term arrangements at more economic rates with permanent tenants.

timthelion 10y ago

While your sentiment is partially right, it is important to note that in Prague, after the fall of the iron curtain, local currency was very very cheep compaired to foreign currency. And normal Czechs just didn't have any money anyways. So the problem in Prague is not caused by Airbnb. It has existed for about 10-15 years.

peterjmag 10y ago

What do you think about the recent Airbnb ban here in Berlin? Do you think it's done anything to improve that situation or at least "stem the tide"? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rentals-berlin-germany-tourist-ban-fines-restricting-to-protect-affordable-housing-a7008891.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/airbnb-rental... Of course, it's a pretty controversial and complex topic, but I feel like the ban was a step in the right direction. I use Airbnb myself as a guest in other cities and I like that it exists, but I also don't believe that historical city centers should simply be sold to the highest bidder. ...though it's also entirely possible I'm just a hypocrite.

gumaflux 10y ago

The observation in Berlin is incorrect. What area is being gentrified by AirBnB or similar services? . Bhandal

stymaar 10y ago

> Berlin What ? You would have said Paris I would totally agree but Berlin, really ? It's definetly not expensive to live here compared to other european capitals (buying a flat costs 3,036€[1] per square metter, compared to the 8000 you need in Paris) and even compared to other german big cities (München, Hamburg). [1] http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Germany/Price-History http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Europe/Germany/Price-Hist...

expertentipp 10y ago
> buying a flat costs 3,036€ Maybe in an old not renovated building, or concrete communist blocks. Anything refurbished or newly constructed starts at 4-5k euro/m^2.
- stymaar 10y ago
  Which is still pretty affordable for the capital of a rich european country: it's half the price you get in London, Paris, Bruxelles or Roma.