So it seems to me the sequence is: a) You have a decent city with reasonable rents b) AirBNB c) Same city with outrageous rents -- Choose either --

So it seems to me the sequence is: a) You have a decent city with reasonable rents b) AirBNB c) Same city with outrageous rents -- Choose either -- d1) Now we have to change the building codes and wait for the effect of the invisible hand to complete the massive change to the city so that there is a huge new housing stock at the same rents as before -- or Choose -- d2) Now we have to ban AirBNB and have the city return to its original reasonable state. Forget for the moment the NYMBYist case for (d2). What about the tourist case? Is a tourist just as interested in the new form of the city with four additional new stories on every residential acre plus the increased grocery stores? What about the rest of the infrastructure that has to be built to support all this density? Is the open-minded local commuter going to want to continue to live in the (d1) environment as it grows more and more dense and commutes (on foot and by subway) grow worse and worse? Is this really "flourishing" or just the shortest path to a Blade Runner set with actual people?