3 ms·

New York has 3.4 million housing units and Airbnb only has 13,415 highly available, entire unit listings. Is Airbnb really to blame for rising rents, or are pe

New York has 3.4 million housing units and Airbnb only has 13,415 highly available, entire unit listings. Is Airbnb really to blame for rising rents, or are people just looking for a scapegoat? http://www.nyc.gov/html/housing/assets/downloads/pdf/housing_plan.pdf http://www.nyc.gov/html/housing/assets/downloads/pdf/housing... It seems to me that if New York wants to reduce rents, they should build more housing.

varunjuice 12y ago
I think its important to compare the AirBnB stock with the available stock of units, not entire stock. I would posit that rent is driven by marginal availability instead of total size of unit stock.
- vonklaus 12y ago
  Yet marginal availability is driven by total unit stock.
  - varunjuice 12y ago
    Is it? Driven is a strong word. It suggests significant causality.
    - vonklaus 12y ago
      You don't think availability is driven by supply?
simon_ 12y ago
I guess all hotels are also guilty of "displacing New Yorkers" by re-purposing perfectly good real-estate for the benefit of "tourists"?
- varunjuice 12y ago
  Non sequitur. The discussion here is about how AirBnB's unregulated supply of rental property is impacting long term rents in NYC. FWIW NYC has added 30,000 new hotel rooms since 2007. It would seem that AirBnB is adding nearly the same # of rooms. Zillow lists 25,000 rental units in NYC. This is the same order as the # of rooms being rented on AirBnB. Why can't we accept that AirBnB is contributing to increasing rental prices in NYC? What's the point of pointing to hotels every time someone mentions AirBnB? I would expect that the founders of AirBnB genuinely care about communities where they operate, and would be motivated to advance the community's interest.
  - jrochkind1 12y ago
    > I would expect that the founders of AirBnB genuinely care about communities where they operate, and would be motivated to advance the community's interest. What leads you to you expect that?
    - varunjuice 12y ago
      I think acceptance by the community is essential for their business. If ones decides to shame Airbnb hosts in their buildings, it will present significant risk to Airbnb's business.
  - simon_ 12y ago
    Not a non-sequitur. The point is that AirBnB landlords are being singled out as though their apartments "belong" in some sense on the market, when nobody cares much about the million other ways real estate is re-purposed away from rentals. AirBnB is an easy target under the current legal framework, but it would be nice if we thought about the broader dynamics before going for the easy target. Hotels are a great example of an alternative: most NY hotels are actually converted apartment buildings. Every new hotel could be an apartment building instead. So... why don't those spaces "belong" in the rental market too? Ultimately, if market forces make it more profitable for rooms to be used for short-term stays than as homes, it will be very hard to stop that from happening and not at all clear that we should stop it from happening. There are arguments the other way, but it is depressing to hear only the glib assumption that the free market must be stopped. For example, it's not ultra-obvious that policy should favor those who choose to live in Manhattan over those who choose to visit. Among other things, I think it's likely that the average income of the visitors is lower than that of whoever would be renting.

varunjuice 12y ago

I think its important to compare the AirBnB stock with the available stock of units, not entire stock. I would posit that rent is driven by marginal availability instead of total size of unit stock.

vonklaus 12y ago
Yet marginal availability is driven by total unit stock.
- varunjuice 12y ago
  Is it? Driven is a strong word. It suggests significant causality.
  - vonklaus 12y ago
    You don't think availability is driven by supply?

simon_ 12y ago

I guess all hotels are also guilty of "displacing New Yorkers" by re-purposing perfectly good real-estate for the benefit of "tourists"?

varunjuice 12y ago
Non sequitur. The discussion here is about how AirBnB's unregulated supply of rental property is impacting long term rents in NYC. FWIW NYC has added 30,000 new hotel rooms since 2007. It would seem that AirBnB is adding nearly the same # of rooms. Zillow lists 25,000 rental units in NYC. This is the same order as the # of rooms being rented on AirBnB. Why can't we accept that AirBnB is contributing to increasing rental prices in NYC? What's the point of pointing to hotels every time someone mentions AirBnB? I would expect that the founders of AirBnB genuinely care about communities where they operate, and would be motivated to advance the community's interest.
- jrochkind1 12y ago
  > I would expect that the founders of AirBnB genuinely care about communities where they operate, and would be motivated to advance the community's interest. What leads you to you expect that?
  - varunjuice 12y ago
    I think acceptance by the community is essential for their business. If ones decides to shame Airbnb hosts in their buildings, it will present significant risk to Airbnb's business.
- simon_ 12y ago
  Not a non-sequitur. The point is that AirBnB landlords are being singled out as though their apartments "belong" in some sense on the market, when nobody cares much about the million other ways real estate is re-purposed away from rentals. AirBnB is an easy target under the current legal framework, but it would be nice if we thought about the broader dynamics before going for the easy target. Hotels are a great example of an alternative: most NY hotels are actually converted apartment buildings. Every new hotel could be an apartment building instead. So... why don't those spaces "belong" in the rental market too? Ultimately, if market forces make it more profitable for rooms to be used for short-term stays than as homes, it will be very hard to stop that from happening and not at all clear that we should stop it from happening. There are arguments the other way, but it is depressing to hear only the glib assumption that the free market must be stopped. For example, it's not ultra-obvious that policy should favor those who choose to live in Manhattan over those who choose to visit. Among other things, I think it's likely that the average income of the visitors is lower than that of whoever would be renting.