4 ms·
This isn't true in NYC, we're at 98-99% utilization. If anything AirBNB makes this worse, it's encouraging people to rent an apartment to visitors instead of re
by gav 13y ago
This isn't true in NYC, we're at 98-99% utilization. If anything AirBNB makes this worse, it's encouraging people to rent an apartment to visitors instead of releasing it into the rental market.
If you look at a $169/night AirBNB rate, that translates into about $5000/month if it's fully rented. Even at a 90% you are making more money than a 12-month lease. This will encourage landlords to not lease vacant apartments, thus decreasing supply and raising prices. I know of building owners that have been experimenting with AirBNB as it's more profitable for them.
- jvm 13y agoI've said elsewhere, but this is only true if short-term and long-term housing aren't fungible, which could only result from a messed up regulatory structure in need of some serious overhaul.
- fnl 13y agoI think your estimate might possibly be to high: According to what I've been explained by friends who let rooms via AirBnB, you don't fill your rooms or apartment with "average" city rates. You will have to be on the lower end to do that and have a "clean" rating, too. That seems to be about $ 50 for rooms and about double for flats in NYC, therefore I would assume the actual income is more likely to be about half your estimate. On top of that, there is an administrative overhead to normal renting of a flat. And, to be top-ranked, you have to be extra-nice to maintain an excellent rating on the site, too. Not so sure that beats the comforts renting with well-defined contracts... I think AirBnB is for you or your family & friends if you want to use that apartment yourself at times, too, or if you are sharing a room in your flat to pay the mortgage, and similar such cases. It probably does not beat renting, otherwise I assume this service would have gone even more "viral" long ago...