3 ms·

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

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.

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.