4 ms·

> For each 1 percent of all residential units in a neighborhood listed on Airbnb, rents in that neighborhood went up 1.58 percent, Stringer said. The estimated

> For each 1 percent of all residential units in a neighborhood listed on Airbnb, rents in that neighborhood went up 1.58 percent, Stringer said. The estimated $616 million impact is for 2016 alone.

lend000 8y ago
I doubt these factors are statistically independent -- the most popular neighborhoods for tourists and yuppies have always seen prices grow faster relative to the overall metro, and more popular/high-growth/expensive neighborhoods will naturally attract more Airbnb hosts to take advantage of their location. In any case, assuming people travel the same amount, it is zero-sum (Airbnb saved NYC visitors 616 million dollars and also transferred some percentage of tourism income from hotels to a broader collection of residents). However, I think Airbnb enables people to travel more (I certainly travel more with the incentives of cheap, reliable Airbnb lodging), so we need more data to determine whether the lower prices actually incentivize a sufficiently high increase in tourism to be a net positive for tourist-mecca economies. Even if it comes out to a net negative to tourism-based economies and it increases costs for local residents, I'm curious what the Airbnb witch-hunt crowd is proposing. Limit tourism / make it harder and more expensive to travel? Reinstate the hotel cartels?
- alonmower 8y ago
  Don't 'limit' tourism but yes, don't allow tourists to get price breaks at the expense of residents that rent in a city. As it stands property owners and tourists are coming out on top. Property owners can now easily make more money renting short term than long term, this raises property prices (because, hey, i can buy that house and make a bunch of money renting it on AirBnB) while also reducing the rental housing stock (because houses that would have been rented to long term renters are now on AirBnB). So now, as a renter, I pay more for rent because I'm competing for fewer houses AND it's going to cost me more money to get into my first house. So I save less money per month because more goes to rent and I have to save up more money to put a down payment down on a house. Now, sure, how big this effect is is up for debate but I think it's naive to assume it doesn't exist. I expect cities with housing crises that also don't rely too heavily on tourist revenue to start regulating short term rentals aggressively to combat this effect (this has already happened in many places). Sure, if you're a tourist town and most properties are second/vacation homes then this is less of an issue but in growing cities where renters are already barely getting by this is going to continue coming to a head. Alas, homeowners are more likely to get out and vote and have more directly measurable skin in the game vs a renter who might be more transient and less aware of the effects that are conspiring to squeeze them out.
  - zip1234 8y ago
    Where would those tourists stay if they didn't use AirBnB? I can see where the residents may get priced out of a certain area because short term rental drives up the price, but the increase demand and higher prices should stimulate new construction. Now, if height restrictions are causing no new construction to be built, then perhaps the city should ease those so more housing can be built, driving the prices down. The 'character' of Manhattan isn't going to be ruined by higher building heights.
    - alonmower 8y ago
      In hotels? Further away? It'd be more expensive or more inconvenient so fewer would come, but residents wouldn't be bearing the negative externalities as much as they are today. I live in SF so while I wholeheartedly agree that more building should help solve the problem the reality (here at least) is that existing homeowners have strong incentives to oppose rezoning and new development as it might hurt their home's values. Many people have overextended to be able to buy here that anything that could cause dips in prices is vehemently opposed. I'll admit SF has a broader set of issues at play here but AirBnB just further strains an already strained situation.
  - lend000 8y ago
    There's certainly an argument to be made that such freedom benefits all but the poorest (those who neither travel nor own real estate), but is restricting this convenient, popular, voluntary service a reasonable way to approach the much broader income inequality problems? That's a stretch. Seems to me like it's a natural consequence of a more connected world, and like you mentioned in another comment, there are more significant issues such as zoning and nimbyism that should be ground-zero for real estate prices in most cities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Airbnb increases equality by democratizing travel for the lower middle class in a way that was inaccessible before, at the biggest expense to hotel owners. I'd also like to see numbers on real estate usage in NY (defined as the percentage of each unit occupied per unit time) before and after Airbnb -- I would wager that living quarters are being used more efficiently as a result. And of course how much people travel now vs. before (which I think could be considered a quality-of-life metric).

> For each 1 percent of all residential units in a neighborhood listed on Airbnb, rents in that neighborhood went up 1.58 percent, Stringer said. The estimated $616 million impact is for 2016 alone.

lend000 8y ago

I doubt these factors are statistically independent -- the most popular neighborhoods for tourists and yuppies have always seen prices grow faster relative to the overall metro, and more popular/high-growth/expensive neighborhoods will naturally attract more Airbnb hosts to take advantage of their location. In any case, assuming people travel the same amount, it is zero-sum (Airbnb saved NYC visitors 616 million dollars and also transferred some percentage of tourism income from hotels to a broader collection of residents). However, I think Airbnb enables people to travel more (I certainly travel more with the incentives of cheap, reliable Airbnb lodging), so we need more data to determine whether the lower prices actually incentivize a sufficiently high increase in tourism to be a net positive for tourist-mecca economies. Even if it comes out to a net negative to tourism-based economies and it increases costs for local residents, I'm curious what the Airbnb witch-hunt crowd is proposing. Limit tourism / make it harder and more expensive to travel? Reinstate the hotel cartels?

alonmower 8y ago
Don't 'limit' tourism but yes, don't allow tourists to get price breaks at the expense of residents that rent in a city. As it stands property owners and tourists are coming out on top. Property owners can now easily make more money renting short term than long term, this raises property prices (because, hey, i can buy that house and make a bunch of money renting it on AirBnB) while also reducing the rental housing stock (because houses that would have been rented to long term renters are now on AirBnB). So now, as a renter, I pay more for rent because I'm competing for fewer houses AND it's going to cost me more money to get into my first house. So I save less money per month because more goes to rent and I have to save up more money to put a down payment down on a house. Now, sure, how big this effect is is up for debate but I think it's naive to assume it doesn't exist. I expect cities with housing crises that also don't rely too heavily on tourist revenue to start regulating short term rentals aggressively to combat this effect (this has already happened in many places). Sure, if you're a tourist town and most properties are second/vacation homes then this is less of an issue but in growing cities where renters are already barely getting by this is going to continue coming to a head. Alas, homeowners are more likely to get out and vote and have more directly measurable skin in the game vs a renter who might be more transient and less aware of the effects that are conspiring to squeeze them out.
- zip1234 8y ago
  Where would those tourists stay if they didn't use AirBnB? I can see where the residents may get priced out of a certain area because short term rental drives up the price, but the increase demand and higher prices should stimulate new construction. Now, if height restrictions are causing no new construction to be built, then perhaps the city should ease those so more housing can be built, driving the prices down. The 'character' of Manhattan isn't going to be ruined by higher building heights.
  - alonmower 8y ago
    In hotels? Further away? It'd be more expensive or more inconvenient so fewer would come, but residents wouldn't be bearing the negative externalities as much as they are today. I live in SF so while I wholeheartedly agree that more building should help solve the problem the reality (here at least) is that existing homeowners have strong incentives to oppose rezoning and new development as it might hurt their home's values. Many people have overextended to be able to buy here that anything that could cause dips in prices is vehemently opposed. I'll admit SF has a broader set of issues at play here but AirBnB just further strains an already strained situation.
- lend000 8y ago
  There's certainly an argument to be made that such freedom benefits all but the poorest (those who neither travel nor own real estate), but is restricting this convenient, popular, voluntary service a reasonable way to approach the much broader income inequality problems? That's a stretch. Seems to me like it's a natural consequence of a more connected world, and like you mentioned in another comment, there are more significant issues such as zoning and nimbyism that should be ground-zero for real estate prices in most cities. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Airbnb increases equality by democratizing travel for the lower middle class in a way that was inaccessible before, at the biggest expense to hotel owners. I'd also like to see numbers on real estate usage in NY (defined as the percentage of each unit occupied per unit time) before and after Airbnb -- I would wager that living quarters are being used more efficiently as a result. And of course how much people travel now vs. before (which I think could be considered a quality-of-life metric).