5 ms·

I don't especially mind tourists in moderate numbers - after all, from time to time, I play the tourist myself. However, I live and work in Cambridge, and if we

I don't especially mind tourists in moderate numbers - after all, from time to time, I play the tourist myself. However, I live and work in Cambridge, and if we were to put what you suggest into practice the city would become an absolutely intolerable place to be for everyone. AirBnb may or may not be a big problem here but, if it is, it's a subset of a bigger problem: buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices for buyers.

Ekaros 5y ago
I really see no issues with buy to let if supply is sufficiently high. Sad reality is that building new units is too expensive. Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment. Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.
- zhdc1 5y ago
  > Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment. Real estate isn't a particularly attractive investment, even in the best of times. Single family homes net around 8%, which is 2-4% less per year than what you would expect to get with an index fund. This is with leverage. It only becomes lucrative when you have a change in interest rates (lower mortgage payments leads to higher cash returns), demand (which is why AirBnB rentals are so popular), or regulations. Of course, the occasional property will sell for well under market, but so will any other type of asset. > Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero. I think you're suggesting that real estate should have a lower annual return than other forms of investing, which I agree with and - in general - is what actually happens.
  - mrep 5y ago
    There is actually less than a 1% difference and residential real estate is far far less volatile and that is for post 1950. Before 1950, real estate did better than equities [0]. [0] Table on page 15 from the pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584
saddlerustle 5y ago
Buy to let has no effect on housing prices as long as rental yields are low. If the problem is tourism: ban tourists from the city. It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam
- dorchadas 5y ago
  > It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam Why doesn't it? Why should tourists get to say in the same type of places as locals, often at the expense of locals? To me, it makes perfect sense to ban short-term rentals but still let tourists stay in hotels and places meant for them, without taking up real estate that can be used for residences.
  - saddlerustle 5y ago
    Hotels are also real estate that could be used for residences.
    - dorchadas 5y ago
      The difference is that there are areas specifically zoned for hotels, for tourists, and they're included in city planning. What is happening with AirBnB, and short-term rentals like it, is that areas that weren't included for tourists in city planning are now being turned for that purpose, at the expense of the locals who they are planed/zoned for. It's two very different dynamics, and even comes into play with city planning, and AirBnB is completely ruining it, and thus ruining it for the locals. Hotels are already included in planning, and are not taking away places where the locals could live.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices. I'm familiar with the argument that AirBnB reduces rental stock by devoting it to tourism. But I rarely encounter someone who is mad that more rental stock is being added. Wouldn't you want rental prices to fall by increasing the availability of rental stock? Is a big gap between the cost of renting and the cost of owning a good thing?
- throaway46546 5y ago
  Sounds like a NIMBY
  - bartread 5y ago
    Sounds like somebody who doesn't know what NIMBY means. Seriously, go and look it up before you throw your cheap and uninformed shots around. They aren't welcome here (and, yes, I note that you're hiding behind a throwaway account to do it, so you're gutless as well as ignorant).
    - throaway46546 5y ago
      Perhaps I misjudged you then. Why do you think building more housing would make the city "an absolutely intolerable place to be for everyone"?
- bencollier49 5y ago
  In the UK housing market, the availability of cheap credit in the buy-to-let market has driven the cost of a home up to levels of unaffordability for the average person. It's made worse by the treatment of housing as an asset class, which means that the traditional solution (build more) has been shown to be ineffective. There is a whole class of people who buy house after house, and make a lot of money out of it, and it drives division in society, as buying is cheaper then renting. The government has made some moves towards making BTL less profitable, but realistically this has only had the effect of discouraging new entrants, and driving the sector to a corporate model, which is even worse.
thrwyoilarticle 5y ago
I also live in (UK's) Cambridge. For now. Extensions to the transport network to reduce the car traffic are blocked by NIMBYs. Relocation of a sewage plant gets fought by NIMBYs. And every day, the university enjoys subtracting rent from companies with their iron hold over land they've owned for the centuries since their law mandated monopoly on higher education. It's a small city with a low verticality. Cambridge is not willing to accommodate growth.
- bartread 5y ago
  It's certainly a frustratingly contradictory place. On the one hand the city wants to encourage growth and innovation. On the other they do this by promoting the most tedious urban sprawl around the edges because of some arcane rule about buildings not being allowed that are taller than, is it Great St Mary's or Kings College Chapel? I forget, but it's too irritatingly stupid to think about. Oh, and the rent and business rates are an absolute outrage. How's anybody supposed to make any money[0]? At the same time the infrastructure and public transport situation is awful. Infrastructure is rarely upgraded to keep pace with new developments and increases in population. The addition of Cambridge North station is welcome but it took far too long to get it done. Likewise the busway. And there are huge swathes of the city and county that aren't adequately served by any public transport which, of course, forces everybody into their cars and clogs the also inadequate road network. From where I live, within certain restricted hours of the day (e.g., not after about 6.30pm), and not on Sundays, it's pretty easy to get a bus into the city centre and back again. It's not frequent enough, and it takes too damn long, but it can be done. The trouble comes if you want to go somewhere that isn't the city centre or somewhere in a direct line from here to there. Then you have to go into the city centre and wait however long for another bus. The last time I did this it took me about 2.5 hours to get from my place to a business located in Shelford - a total distance of something like 13 miles. Never again. I literally could have run it quicker. I don't know what's gone on with the sewage plant, but I remember that moving it was being discussed at least as far back as 2002 and yet, 19 years later, here we still are. Not to labour the point but that's a quarter of a human lifetime. It clearly takes FAR TOO LONG to get things done that will improve the lives of people who are alive here, now, and today. [0] On this point it annoys me intensely when I hear handwringing about vacant shops and business premises in the city centre where nobody addresses the obvious point: it's unreasonably expensive for businesses to be there.

Ekaros 5y ago

I really see no issues with buy to let if supply is sufficiently high. Sad reality is that building new units is too expensive. Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment. Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero.

zhdc1 5y ago
> Realistically, real estate should not be very good investment. Real estate isn't a particularly attractive investment, even in the best of times. Single family homes net around 8%, which is 2-4% less per year than what you would expect to get with an index fund. This is with leverage. It only becomes lucrative when you have a change in interest rates (lower mortgage payments leads to higher cash returns), demand (which is why AirBnB rentals are so popular), or regulations. Of course, the occasional property will sell for well under market, but so will any other type of asset. > Maybe it should generate 1-2% a net per year and in 50-100 year timeframe depreciate to zero. I think you're suggesting that real estate should have a lower annual return than other forms of investing, which I agree with and - in general - is what actually happens.
- mrep 5y ago
  There is actually less than a 1% difference and residential real estate is far far less volatile and that is for post 1950. Before 1950, real estate did better than equities [0]. [0] Table on page 15 from the pdf: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19817584

saddlerustle 5y ago

Buy to let has no effect on housing prices as long as rental yields are low. If the problem is tourism: ban tourists from the city. It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam

dorchadas 5y ago
> It doesn't make sense to ban short-term rentals but continue to build hotels and run advertising campaigns promoting tourism to Amsterdam Why doesn't it? Why should tourists get to say in the same type of places as locals, often at the expense of locals? To me, it makes perfect sense to ban short-term rentals but still let tourists stay in hotels and places meant for them, without taking up real estate that can be used for residences.
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  Hotels are also real estate that could be used for residences.
  - dorchadas 5y ago
    The difference is that there are areas specifically zoned for hotels, for tourists, and they're included in city planning. What is happening with AirBnB, and short-term rentals like it, is that areas that weren't included for tourists in city planning are now being turned for that purpose, at the expense of the locals who they are planed/zoned for. It's two very different dynamics, and even comes into play with city planning, and AirBnB is completely ruining it, and thus ruining it for the locals. Hotels are already included in planning, and are not taking away places where the locals could live.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> buy to let. I'd like to see buy to let severely curtailed within the city, as it's certainly driving up already high prices. I'm familiar with the argument that AirBnB reduces rental stock by devoting it to tourism. But I rarely encounter someone who is mad that more rental stock is being added. Wouldn't you want rental prices to fall by increasing the availability of rental stock? Is a big gap between the cost of renting and the cost of owning a good thing?

throaway46546 5y ago
Sounds like a NIMBY
- bartread 5y ago
  Sounds like somebody who doesn't know what NIMBY means. Seriously, go and look it up before you throw your cheap and uninformed shots around. They aren't welcome here (and, yes, I note that you're hiding behind a throwaway account to do it, so you're gutless as well as ignorant).
  - throaway46546 5y ago
    Perhaps I misjudged you then. Why do you think building more housing would make the city "an absolutely intolerable place to be for everyone"?
bencollier49 5y ago
In the UK housing market, the availability of cheap credit in the buy-to-let market has driven the cost of a home up to levels of unaffordability for the average person. It's made worse by the treatment of housing as an asset class, which means that the traditional solution (build more) has been shown to be ineffective. There is a whole class of people who buy house after house, and make a lot of money out of it, and it drives division in society, as buying is cheaper then renting. The government has made some moves towards making BTL less profitable, but realistically this has only had the effect of discouraging new entrants, and driving the sector to a corporate model, which is even worse.

thrwyoilarticle 5y ago

I also live in (UK's) Cambridge. For now. Extensions to the transport network to reduce the car traffic are blocked by NIMBYs. Relocation of a sewage plant gets fought by NIMBYs. And every day, the university enjoys subtracting rent from companies with their iron hold over land they've owned for the centuries since their law mandated monopoly on higher education. It's a small city with a low verticality. Cambridge is not willing to accommodate growth.

bartread 5y ago
It's certainly a frustratingly contradictory place. On the one hand the city wants to encourage growth and innovation. On the other they do this by promoting the most tedious urban sprawl around the edges because of some arcane rule about buildings not being allowed that are taller than, is it Great St Mary's or Kings College Chapel? I forget, but it's too irritatingly stupid to think about. Oh, and the rent and business rates are an absolute outrage. How's anybody supposed to make any money[0]? At the same time the infrastructure and public transport situation is awful. Infrastructure is rarely upgraded to keep pace with new developments and increases in population. The addition of Cambridge North station is welcome but it took far too long to get it done. Likewise the busway. And there are huge swathes of the city and county that aren't adequately served by any public transport which, of course, forces everybody into their cars and clogs the also inadequate road network. From where I live, within certain restricted hours of the day (e.g., not after about 6.30pm), and not on Sundays, it's pretty easy to get a bus into the city centre and back again. It's not frequent enough, and it takes too damn long, but it can be done. The trouble comes if you want to go somewhere that isn't the city centre or somewhere in a direct line from here to there. Then you have to go into the city centre and wait however long for another bus. The last time I did this it took me about 2.5 hours to get from my place to a business located in Shelford - a total distance of something like 13 miles. Never again. I literally could have run it quicker. I don't know what's gone on with the sewage plant, but I remember that moving it was being discussed at least as far back as 2002 and yet, 19 years later, here we still are. Not to labour the point but that's a quarter of a human lifetime. It clearly takes FAR TOO LONG to get things done that will improve the lives of people who are alive here, now, and today. [0] On this point it annoys me intensely when I hear handwringing about vacant shops and business premises in the city centre where nobody addresses the obvious point: it's unreasonably expensive for businesses to be there.