10 ms·

Living in a city heavily impacted by it, I couldn't agree more. People love it, because they feel entitled as tourists to live like locals, at the expense of th

Living in a city heavily impacted by it, I couldn't agree more. People love it, because they feel entitled as tourists to live like locals, at the expense of the actual locals. It's literally all about entitlement, while forcing the negative externalities on the community you came to visit! Outta sight, outta mind.

SwiftyBug 3y ago
And on top of that there's nothing in renting an AirBnB that provides a "local" experience. It's an ego-based illusion of experiencing the local life at best.
- joshlemer 3y ago
  If not AirBnB to have a local experience, then what?
  - badpun 3y ago
    Move there and live for a couple of months, or, better yet, a couple of years. You can't have a "local experience" without being a local.
    - joshlemer 3y ago
      Sounds a bit elitist to me to be honest. Only a tiny percent of people can afford to do this, considering career, financial, and family obligations.
      - badpun 3y ago
        I guess. But, having an "authentic local experience" is a pinnacle of first world needs, so not getting it ever is not really a big deal for anyone.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  Many small cities we visit have apartments (Airbnb's) near the city center where it's walkable whereas hotels/motels are often in less walkable parts of the city. For me that makes for a more "local" experience.
FredPret 3y ago
And I guess you yourself are the exception in that you are entitled to living in a tourist-free city, and all the tourist-dependent businesses in your area and all the tourists that want to visit can go to hell? Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.
- dorchadas 3y ago
  It has nothing to do with tourists visiting. It's tourists taking up the local housing. Tourists are planned into any good urban planning -- but they're not expected to stay in the residential areas, especially while the local residents are getting hurt because of it. The issue isn't tourists, it's where they're staying. Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel. > Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone. Except that won't ever be enough because more and more will just come. And there's already even a glut on AirBnB for tourists, so none of that housing will go the locals. Building isn't the only solution.
  - FredPret 3y ago
    That's fair. From a tourist's point of view, hotels suck, and houses are much better. Home owners also have the right to rent out their houses, as limited by the zoning. I maintain that the issue can be fixed with more development - build a new tourist zone with hotels that appeal, or AirBnB friendly zoning, or something like that. And for locals, more housing = more options. The local housing can be built outside tourist zones if it has to. The fact is we have a growing population, a growing global economy, tons of people exiting poverty and entering the global middle class and travelling. This will all accelerate for hundreds of years to come.
    - soco 3y ago
      Hotels suck only to those buying into the relatively recent religion "live like locals" and they are not that many percentage-wise. Most of the AirBnB customers go there hoping for lower prices and that's all there is. Tax the hosts like the hotels are taxed, make them offer the same services the hotels are offering, and I'm sure the main problem will be solved. I say only the main problem because Venice will be Venice and the increase in tourists numbers will be felt either way, so at some point the bigger issue will need to be discussed: should we limit the number of tourists? Sell them time schedule tickets or something? Venice has this discussion already.
aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> because they feel entitled as tourists to live like locals Rather: they feel entitled as tourists to live in a Disneyland version what they imagine to be the locals' lifes.
carlosjobim 3y ago
Tourists don't "feel entitled", they rent apartments because hotels and guesthouses are full, or the price is cheaper, or they think the price is cheaper. Tourists have no blame in this - they book what is on offer.

SwiftyBug 3y ago

And on top of that there's nothing in renting an AirBnB that provides a "local" experience. It's an ego-based illusion of experiencing the local life at best.

joshlemer 3y ago
If not AirBnB to have a local experience, then what?
- badpun 3y ago
  Move there and live for a couple of months, or, better yet, a couple of years. You can't have a "local experience" without being a local.
  - joshlemer 3y ago
    Sounds a bit elitist to me to be honest. Only a tiny percent of people can afford to do this, considering career, financial, and family obligations.
    - badpun 3y ago
      I guess. But, having an "authentic local experience" is a pinnacle of first world needs, so not getting it ever is not really a big deal for anyone.
barbazoo 3y ago
Many small cities we visit have apartments (Airbnb's) near the city center where it's walkable whereas hotels/motels are often in less walkable parts of the city. For me that makes for a more "local" experience.

FredPret 3y ago

And I guess you yourself are the exception in that you are entitled to living in a tourist-free city, and all the tourist-dependent businesses in your area and all the tourists that want to visit can go to hell? Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.

dorchadas 3y ago
It has nothing to do with tourists visiting. It's tourists taking up the local housing. Tourists are planned into any good urban planning -- but they're not expected to stay in the residential areas, especially while the local residents are getting hurt because of it. The issue isn't tourists, it's where they're staying. Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel. > Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone. Except that won't ever be enough because more and more will just come. And there's already even a glut on AirBnB for tourists, so none of that housing will go the locals. Building isn't the only solution.
- FredPret 3y ago
  That's fair. From a tourist's point of view, hotels suck, and houses are much better. Home owners also have the right to rent out their houses, as limited by the zoning. I maintain that the issue can be fixed with more development - build a new tourist zone with hotels that appeal, or AirBnB friendly zoning, or something like that. And for locals, more housing = more options. The local housing can be built outside tourist zones if it has to. The fact is we have a growing population, a growing global economy, tons of people exiting poverty and entering the global middle class and travelling. This will all accelerate for hundreds of years to come.
  - soco 3y ago
    Hotels suck only to those buying into the relatively recent religion "live like locals" and they are not that many percentage-wise. Most of the AirBnB customers go there hoping for lower prices and that's all there is. Tax the hosts like the hotels are taxed, make them offer the same services the hotels are offering, and I'm sure the main problem will be solved. I say only the main problem because Venice will be Venice and the increase in tourists numbers will be felt either way, so at some point the bigger issue will need to be discussed: should we limit the number of tourists? Sell them time schedule tickets or something? Venice has this discussion already.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> because they feel entitled as tourists to live like locals Rather: they feel entitled as tourists to live in a Disneyland version what they imagine to be the locals' lifes.

carlosjobim 3y ago

Tourists don't "feel entitled", they rent apartments because hotels and guesthouses are full, or the price is cheaper, or they think the price is cheaper. Tourists have no blame in this - they book what is on offer.