3 ms·

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 h

by 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.

by mxfh 7y ago

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.