4 ms·

When I lived in Berlin, there were 5 apartments in my building on AirBnB, owned by a single landlord. Within 2 minutes of my place there were 3 hotels and 2 ser

When I lived in Berlin, there were 5 apartments in my building on AirBnB, owned by a single landlord. Within 2 minutes of my place there were 3 hotels and 2 serviced apartments complexes. Maybe some cities lack hotel rooms, but in most cases it's just taking advantage of tourists trying to save a couple bucks.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
But that's what you want -- if the tourists save a couple bucks on lodging then you get more tourists, who buy more food and merchandise etc. If they have to stay in an expensive hotel where you are but can get a cheap room in a competing country, many will go there instead. And if you're worried about losing housing to rentals, now you've got some disused hotels you can turn into apartments or condos.
- mxfh 7y ago
  That's just not true, most importantly it's not sustainable. Hotels are regulated for a reason and are in taxation, need insurances and permits for whatever makes sense to the host city, although they constantly lobby against it. In thebest case the city can plan their infrustructure accordingly, with unregulated and unregistered hotels that's near impossible. Too much tourism is not what most people who live in those cities want to begin with, they want to live there. People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not just frugal in that dimension.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    How is it not sustainable? Tourism is profitable. It's regulated because of suffrage arbitrage -- most of the local population doesn't care what the government does to tourists and the tourists can't vote in local elections. But that's just taxation without representation. It tends to be inefficient, because it suppresses the natural amount of tourism by over-taxing it to the detriment of the local economy. It also hurts everyone when everyone does it because then you're the victim of it on the day when you're the tourist and it's you who has no vote in unreasonable lodging restrictions or taxes. And cities don't need to regulate the amount of housing in order to build infrastructure for it, all they have to do is observe it. If you build more buildings they need more sewers, but you shouldn't need their permission to build more buildings, they should just build more sewers with the property tax you'll be paying on the new buildings. > People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not just frugal in that dimension. That sounds dangerously close to an argument that poor people are undesirable and should be excluded. And it isn't even accurate -- poor people have to eat too, and better that you get their business than somebody else. Plus, rich people will take a good deal on a room (see also: how they got rich), doesn't mean they don't have money to spend when they get there.
    - mxfh 7y ago
      Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris, Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor is it of hyper-essential economic importance. Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations (Coastal Towns, Ski Resorts). If uncontrolled, tourism takes over those places, eventually, there is little left for tourists to come to, what made the place interesting to begin with. Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it. Tourism for a few bucks cheaper in not human right, right to housing is, disproportionally more relevant to the economically most vulnerable people of each neighborhood. My family travelled France on a budget in the early 90s just coming out of GDR. Doing Housesitting, Camping or Hotels in the outskirts, it was perfectly fine travelling into Paris for 45 Minutes to do sightseeings and Museums. Doing this on a daily basis, because you were pushed out of your old neighborhood, because of indirectly rising rents or direct airbnb-repurposing, where your job and friends are still, is a whole nother story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        > Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris, Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor is it of hyper-essential economic importance. Then why would you expect it to have any major effect on housing availability there? > Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations Disagree. Look at New York City. It's full of tourists who come there for the city itself. And it has hardly destroyed the city. > Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it. This is only true if building new housing is prohibited, because otherwise conversion isn't necessary. If tourists want to come, converting existing housing only makes sense if it's unoccupied, otherwise it's more profitable to carry on collecting rents from existing housing and build new housing for tourists so you can get their money too. (There may be cases where it makes more sense to build new housing for long-term residents while converting existing stock for tourists depending on the nature of the existing stock, but that still isn't a reduction of housing stock for existing residents.) What deprives people of housing and makes it cost more is refusing to build more in respond to higher demand.
  - DeonPenny 7y ago
    Yeh but you assumption is those taxes which the government get is the best use of the money. Most places with airbnb with be great arguments against that. Cause yes you may get more frugal people but the pie is bigger in general. Tourism world wide is up and while those people probably on average have less money as a total more tourist dollars are made.
- tedunangst 7y ago
  As if it were that easy for a Marriott or Hyatt to just turn random rooms into standalone apartments.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Seems like an obvious flaw in the zoning rules. A hotel room is basically a studio apartment, why shouldn't it be easy to rent it out as one?
    - vinay427 7y ago
      Most hotel rooms I've stayed in don't even have a kitchenette. I wouldn't choose to rent a hotel room for longer than a week if I couldn't feasibly cook food. I'm sure there are people that would compromise on this, but I doubt it would be as easy to rent as a studio.
      - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
        Hotel rooms commonly have a fridge and a microwave. It's not the lifestyle for everybody, but why does it have to be? Different people can have different priorities. Some people choose a small apartment specifically because they're never home, which means they're never home to eat. Some people don't have time to cook. Some people work in a restaurant and eat there. Other people can live across the street.
        vinay427 7y ago
        Yes, that's what I said. That's why I disagree with the claim that it would be as easy to rent while I'm not claiming it would be completely unrentable.
DeonPenny 7y ago
Thats not taking advantage of those people because they probably would not have come if not for those deals. That mutually beneficial relation

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

But that's what you want -- if the tourists save a couple bucks on lodging then you get more tourists, who buy more food and merchandise etc. If they have to stay in an expensive hotel where you are but can get a cheap room in a competing country, many will go there instead. And if you're worried about losing housing to rentals, now you've got some disused hotels you can turn into apartments or condos.

mxfh 7y ago
That's just not true, most importantly it's not sustainable. Hotels are regulated for a reason and are in taxation, need insurances and permits for whatever makes sense to the host city, although they constantly lobby against it. In thebest case the city can plan their infrustructure accordingly, with unregulated and unregistered hotels that's near impossible. Too much tourism is not what most people who live in those cities want to begin with, they want to live there. People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not just frugal in that dimension.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  How is it not sustainable? Tourism is profitable. It's regulated because of suffrage arbitrage -- most of the local population doesn't care what the government does to tourists and the tourists can't vote in local elections. But that's just taxation without representation. It tends to be inefficient, because it suppresses the natural amount of tourism by over-taxing it to the detriment of the local economy. It also hurts everyone when everyone does it because then you're the victim of it on the day when you're the tourist and it's you who has no vote in unreasonable lodging restrictions or taxes. And cities don't need to regulate the amount of housing in order to build infrastructure for it, all they have to do is observe it. If you build more buildings they need more sewers, but you shouldn't need their permission to build more buildings, they should just build more sewers with the property tax you'll be paying on the new buildings. > People who save bucks on usually one one thing are usually not just frugal in that dimension. That sounds dangerously close to an argument that poor people are undesirable and should be excluded. And it isn't even accurate -- poor people have to eat too, and better that you get their business than somebody else. Plus, rich people will take a good deal on a room (see also: how they got rich), doesn't mean they don't have money to spend when they get there.
  - mxfh 7y ago
    Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris, Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor is it of hyper-essential economic importance. Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations (Coastal Towns, Ski Resorts). If uncontrolled, tourism takes over those places, eventually, there is little left for tourists to come to, what made the place interesting to begin with. Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it. Tourism for a few bucks cheaper in not human right, right to housing is, disproportionally more relevant to the economically most vulnerable people of each neighborhood. My family travelled France on a budget in the early 90s just coming out of GDR. Doing Housesitting, Camping or Hotels in the outskirts, it was perfectly fine travelling into Paris for 45 Minutes to do sightseeings and Museums. Doing this on a daily basis, because you were pushed out of your old neighborhood, because of indirectly rising rents or direct airbnb-repurposing, where your job and friends are still, is a whole nother story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_housing
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      > Have you ever talked to any citizens from Tourist Metros (Berlin, Paris, Porto, Milan) in Europe, Tourism is not what defined any of those cities nor is it of hyper-essential economic importance. Then why would you expect it to have any major effect on housing availability there? > Tourism for itself only works for purpose built resorts and specialized, not so urban destinations Disagree. Look at New York City. It's full of tourists who come there for the city itself. And it has hardly destroyed the city. > Unregulated conversion from housing capacity to other uses destroys the social core of neighborhoods, if there are no hard enforced laws against it. This is only true if building new housing is prohibited, because otherwise conversion isn't necessary. If tourists want to come, converting existing housing only makes sense if it's unoccupied, otherwise it's more profitable to carry on collecting rents from existing housing and build new housing for tourists so you can get their money too. (There may be cases where it makes more sense to build new housing for long-term residents while converting existing stock for tourists depending on the nature of the existing stock, but that still isn't a reduction of housing stock for existing residents.) What deprives people of housing and makes it cost more is refusing to build more in respond to higher demand.
- DeonPenny 7y ago
  Yeh but you assumption is those taxes which the government get is the best use of the money. Most places with airbnb with be great arguments against that. Cause yes you may get more frugal people but the pie is bigger in general. Tourism world wide is up and while those people probably on average have less money as a total more tourist dollars are made.
tedunangst 7y ago
As if it were that easy for a Marriott or Hyatt to just turn random rooms into standalone apartments.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Seems like an obvious flaw in the zoning rules. A hotel room is basically a studio apartment, why shouldn't it be easy to rent it out as one?
  - vinay427 7y ago
    Most hotel rooms I've stayed in don't even have a kitchenette. I wouldn't choose to rent a hotel room for longer than a week if I couldn't feasibly cook food. I'm sure there are people that would compromise on this, but I doubt it would be as easy to rent as a studio.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Hotel rooms commonly have a fridge and a microwave. It's not the lifestyle for everybody, but why does it have to be? Different people can have different priorities. Some people choose a small apartment specifically because they're never home, which means they're never home to eat. Some people don't have time to cook. Some people work in a restaurant and eat there. Other people can live across the street.
      - vinay427 7y ago
        Yes, that's what I said. That's why I disagree with the claim that it would be as easy to rent while I'm not claiming it would be completely unrentable.

DeonPenny 7y ago

Thats not taking advantage of those people because they probably would not have come if not for those deals. That mutually beneficial relation