Airbnb can’t go on unregulated – it does too much damage to cities

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/24/airbnb-unregulated-damage-cities-barcelona-law-locals

by Ibethewalrus • 8 years ago

61 91 8 years ago

theguardian.com

rocketpastsix• 8 years ago

Seeing what Airbnb has done to Nashville, its only going to get worse.

grogenaut• 8 years ago

Care to elaborate?

remote_phone2• 8 years ago

I was in Toronto this summer, and it seemed like the entire condo was inhabited by Airbnb-ers. We were told in the instructions not to talk to the concierge or neighbors and when asked just say we are friends of the airbnber.

The funny thing is that everyone we saw was doing Airbnb. A bunch of people were entering the condo with luggage every time we were in the lobby, and when we left there were 8 other people were leaving at the same time.

It might or might not be legal in Toronto but it’s a poorly kept secret. I’m curious what an economic downturn would do because you can’t walk away from mortgage debt in Canada the same way you can in most states of the US.

killjoywashere2• 8 years ago

Wow, how can I walk away from mortgage debt? Did I miss something?

asdfasgasdgasdg• 8 years ago

Stop paying your mortgage, and the bank will eventually take your house. But they can't take anything else, no matter how much you owe. In many other countries, this is not the case.

nikanj• 8 years ago

Mortgages are non-recourse in 11 states. The expression "jingle mail" might also be worth googling.

In Canada, and the rest of the US, if your mortgage is underwater it's a problem for you. In those 11 states, it's a problem for the bank.

peacetreefrog2• 8 years ago

I have some sympathy for people being kept up late at night be noise, although it seems like there are other, more direct ways to deal with that (i.e. cracking down on the people being too loud).

The rest of it seems like another form of NIMBYism though.

city412• 8 years ago

But you can't crack down on the people being too loud. In two days they'll be gone, replaced by brand new loud people.

I don't think this is NIMBYism at all. People have a reasonable expectation that the residential area they live in will be treated as a residential area and not a business.

Theodores3• 8 years ago

Another aspect of Airbnb is that it makes everywhere the same as far as interior decor goes. Traditional rent seeking landlords spend $0.00 on things like paint, carpets and fixtures, preserving places in some rotten state of decay as long term tenants are not going to be spending their money on such things even if they are living there for many years. There is no reason for them to do so and with landlords extorting as much from their properties as possible the tenants do not have surplus income to improve their dwellings even if they should want to do so.

Airbnb transformed that, the rent seeking class can now get income on their properties without having to put up with long term tenants. However they do have to spend money on the property fixtures, which can be paid for with debt, debt that is 'secured' by the property.

As a consequence there is a particular Airbnb style, it is a global style influenced by upmarket hotels and the faceless luxury decor you get with them. This might work out nicely for the rent seeker and the guest, however it means character is lost. The property becomes bland Airbnb which can't be transformed back to vernacular.

When the rent seeker eventually sells up and a new buyer is sought then the house does go on the market. It has its price and sells fine with its identikit Airbnb fixtures. However some people don't want to live in one of these ex-Airbnb places, they might have wanted mid-century modern or Victorian or whatever else the property should have, i.e. actual character befitting the area and not the internet.

modwilliam• 8 years ago

Could you show some examples of the particular Airbnb style?

badwolf• 8 years ago

from my anecdotal experience, Every AirBnB is like an Ikea vomited all over everything.

focom• 8 years ago

Could you show some examples of the particular Airbnb style?

There is a great long form written in 2016 by the verge about it :

https://www.theverge.com/2016/8/3/12325104/airbnb-aesthetic-...

peacetreefrog2• 8 years ago

Luckily, you can decorate your own house/apartment however you want.

Theodores3• 8 years ago

In previous times you didn't just rip everything out to a bare shell to then do what an Airbnb person does and put some modern IKEA junk in.

You can't restore doors, tiles, fireplaces and other items of character if some rent seeking airbnb clown has sent it all to the landfill to replace it all with items of fake or non-existent character.

Character is important, imagine if you are in Glasgow and you have a property that really does have Charles Rennie Mackintosh beauty to it, beauty that has served generations with an occasional lick of paint. Now imagine some rent seeker with no values rips out the interior so they can make two airbnb apartments. They don't care for Charles Rennie Mackintosh but they have destroyed a little bit of what makes Glasgow special.

Imagine they also own another Airbnb in the Cotswolds where the property has character that goes back to the cottage industry that started the industrial revolution. They do an Airbnb IKEA job on it the same as they did in Glasgow, a little bit of the Cotswolds dies too.

Eventually when some locals get to buy the property which could happen if they win the lottery then they can't just 'paint in' what was ripped out. Maybe you live in somewhere like America where you don't have houses that have been lived in for hundreds of years and character is anathema to you. Perhaps you already live in Airbnb theme-park world and have no appreciation for heritage.

PhasmaFelis• 8 years ago

It must be great to have enough money that you can afford to care about whether your home fixtures have local character.

Theodores3• 8 years ago

It is about elbow grease and not money. It is about recycling and not land-filling.

If you move into a place that has been airbnb'd then it is clear that things our forefathers built to last have been trashed by philistines rather than lovingly restored. If you are paying for the property then you are also paying for the IKEA junk that the estate agent has bumped up the price for. This is a con if you wanted vernacular rather than to be stiffed over.

Heritage matters but if you have none then you cannot appreciate this. Don't be a cynic, jealous of those that want a home rather than a dwelling unit.

keerthiko2• 8 years ago

The way cities go about targeting airbnb only exacerbates the problem -- they make it harder for tenants to host guests to offset their rental cost -- and thus incentivize property owners to take rental units off the market in favor of the more lucrative option of making them short-term airbnb units instead.

Cities should be allowing people to host in their primary residences, whether owned property or as rental tenants, if anyone is allowed to host short term paying guests at all.

If airbnb made it harder for property owners to list units on airbnb that weren't their primary residence, while on the other hand allowing renters to offset high rental costs by hosting guests at their primary residence on occasion, i see it as a win-win.

The protections major cities give landlords who wish to prevent their rental tenants from hosting on airbnb seem unreasonable until you realize that hoteliers and landlords have more impact on city policies on these things.

hn_throwaway_99• 8 years ago

Just want to point out that in high-demand urban areas, this proposal would still be expected to cause rents to increase. The amount you can charge for rent is fundamentally limited by the income of your potential renters, but now it becomes income of potential renters plus the amount they could expect to earn by sharing the property out on Airbnb.

It's similar to what happened with low interest rates before the housing boom and bust. You'd expect low interest rates would make housing cheaper for buyers, but it also had the effect of causing house prices to rise because now there were more people who could afford to bid on the same housing stock.

keerthiko2• 8 years ago

Completely agree. My pet idea is a tax for every bedroom in a residence over the headcount of primary residents. This becomes hairy when deciding what qualifies as a bedroom etc, but it will disincentivize renting properties with spare bedrooms dedicated to Airbnb hosting. This way Airbnb units will primarily be rooms left empty by primary residents traveling.

The idea of the sharing economy was supposed to be sharing what you normally use, when you happen to not be using it, with financial incentives to offset your property "rent". Not setting aside resources exclusively for "sharing" in order to profit. That's just subcontracting.

AnthonyMouse• 8 years ago

The amount you can charge for rent is fundamentally limited by the income of your potential renters, but now it becomes income of potential renters plus the amount they could expect to earn by sharing the property out on Airbnb.

If someone who would have paid $250 for a hotel instead pays $50 for a room in someone's house, there is $200 less holding up rents. It's theoretically possible to make the difference up on volume, since more people are willing to pay $50 than $250, but is it really more than five times as many people?

And if it was, haven't we just created an enormous economic surplus by giving all those people a place to stay at a price they can afford when they otherwise couldn't have? Meanwhile the upward pressure on rents even in that case would be small, because six times $50 is more than one times $250, but it's not that much more.

It's similar to what happened with low interest rates before the housing boom and bust. You'd expect low interest rates would make housing cheaper for buyers, but it also had the effect of causing house prices to rise because now there were more people who could afford to bid on the same housing stock.

Notice that this is only true when supply expansion is constrained. If it costs $50,000 to create an additional housing unit and prices rise from $40,000 to $60,000 because more people can afford a loan, new units would be created until the price stabilizes at the cost of creating new housing. Unless regulations are repeatedly imposed to keep that cost above the existing housing prices and prevent that from happening.

killjoywashere2• 8 years ago

In Barcelona, it used to cost €250 (£221) for a short-term rental permit. Now that such permits are no longer being issued, they change hands for up to €80,000.

So, this is the same thing as the taxi market: with an inelastic supply, the price of a medallion in some cities was worth more than a house. And if you're familiar with taxis pre-Uber, you can bet the permit holders will start neglecting the properties to the point that noone wants to use the service anymore.

sonnyblarney9• 8 years ago

The problem with AirBnB is not AirBnB. It's hotel regulation.

What ABnB has demonstrated is that there is a vastly underserved market for regular travellers, who have no interest in 'having their sheets changed every day' - rather, they just want a decent and convenient space - and they can't afford the $250/night for a boring room 'corporate' rate.

If hotels and their regulations were efficient - then AirBnB would only be used what is was kind of meant for: either sharing/hosting - or - renting out fairly 'special' places that just don't fit regular criteria.

Most AirBnB stays are a matter of price and convenience.

The fact that I can stay in cities, in a decent place for less than 1/2 the cost of a hotel is what makes me hate AirBnB less than hotels and city regulators.

Something is deeply wrong with the hotel and regulatory areas there or else AirBnB wouldn't be a huge-huge thing.

A commenter below about a building that seemed to be AirBnBers ... think for a moment how even more efficient it would be if the whole dam thing were just a hotel, with a maid staff that only cleaned and changed the sheets between stays and could provide keys/keycodes. As it stands, even AirBnB is not near real 'cost efficiency' because there's so much 'little overhead' with each rental.

Not only should that building be a hotel but it should be cheaper than AirBnB! In fact, if markets were reasonably competitive AirBnB should generally be more expensive.

I understand that individual patrons don't have nearly the safety and regulatory expenses ... but it doesn't add up.

City regulators and hotel operators need to figure out a slightly different model.

lovich• 8 years ago

Preface: I dont actually have a set opinion yet on whether Airbnb is net good/bad.

How much of this is regulation thats around to protect the society that the hotel is operating in? Changing those sheets everyday isn't just for having clean smelling sheets, but to prevent pests such as bed bugs in some localities. For instance there's probably tons of people whod jump on doctors/dentists who lower the price by not cleaning all their tools properly, but we have regulations requiring it because it can create an epidemic that causes negative externalities to the wider community.

I think I'd have less of a problem with Airbnb if there was any sort of enforcement of health laws or putting effort into not supporting people who sign leases saying they won't do Airbnb but do it anyway.

Having a lower price just shows that is the most efficient use of scarce resources in that specific situation, it does not show that it's good for society.

sonnyblarney9• 8 years ago

"Having a lower price just shows that is the most efficient use of scarce resources in that specific situation"

No, it's not 'specific'. The 'rent' marketing clearing price for a locale is a function of a vast array of economic inputs. That's the whole point of free markets, and why it's difficult to dictate terms around it.

The fact that there is a vast influx of AirBnBers in so many areas is not a small things, it's really quite apparent that the artificial controls set by zoning are far more constrictive than we ever thought - and they should be loosened. There are all sorts of external surpluses lost when markets are not efficient.

Also - I fundamentally doubt that people are just 'getting sick' because of AirBnB and 'not having their sheets changed every day'. I just don't believe it's an issue. FYI hotels have stopped changing sheets every day as well, they usually say 'to preserve water' which is BS - it's cost - but they generally do make the bed and clean every day which is unnecessary.

I would probably ban AirBnB for anything but special kinds of places, and maybe not allow it in residential buildings, at least allow building owners/coops to enforce it.

And then also be far more lax with hotel zoning and regulations as well.

Every city wants more 'tourism' until they get tourists and they get pissed off. Well, those tourists bring in tons of cash.

Every city wants business to invest and 'high tech' jobs until the locals complain about 'Google values' and 'home prices'.

The market for both hotels and taxis is just too vastly distorted - and we all lose - especially consumers who would only be able to afford 1/2 as much travel otherwise.

There should be a lot more hotels and taxis.

briandear• 8 years ago

To be fair, hotels are often infested with bedbugs despite “regulation.” I have yet to see many stories of people dying because an AirBnB is less than sanitary. Besides, if you have bedbugs in your place, you get hammered on the reviews and your place gets delisted.

AirBnB is aggressively strict about reviews. Too many 4 star reviews and you get “punished.” One of my listings in France got suspended for a week because it had an average review of 4.4 stars! Yet a French hotel that gets a slew of 2 star reviews on TripAdvisor or similar doesn’t get touched. AirBnB reviews are far more effective than regulation in weeding out “bad” places. I have stayed in plenty of shithole hotels across Europe despite “regulation.” Some hostels are downright poisonous. I have stayed in a few rat-hotels in the Bowery in New York and those places are still around. I have gotten sick more times at US restaurants than in years of eating street food in East Asia. AirBnB isn’t a health risk of any significance; I would invite data to the contrary. Besides, even if it were a health risk, nobody forces you to stay in one. In this era of nonsense warnings such as “don’t use a hairdryer in the shower” or coffee cups warning that coffee is hot, I have become quite sick of well-meaning people who seek to infantilize grown adults and protect them from various boogeymen that could be avoided with simple common sense: rats in the dining room? Don’t eat there. Dirty sheets or fire hazards? Don’t sleep there. A place selling for $10 per night when everywhere else is $100? Use your brain, do your homework, be a responsible grown up and stop expecting government to protect you from bedbugs.

BurningFrog3• 8 years ago

Changing those sheets everyday isn't just for having clean smelling sheets, but to prevent pests such as bed bugs in some localities.

If this actually was true, wouldn't there be regulations for changing sheets daily in every home as well?

emdubs2• 8 years ago

Yep. The issue is most markets is due to regulation. If hotels can't meet the price and availability needs in a market then the issue is the regulation. For temporary events that is understandable, but continued restraint on hotels makes no sense.

behringer5• 8 years ago

Which burdensome hotel regulations would you like to see removed?

RobPfeifer• 8 years ago

I think this is way oversimplifying things. Hotels and apartments are zoned differently and regulated and managed differently. There are negative externalities in apartment buildings for AirBNB hosts that are paid for by their neighbors. Zoning is designed (often poorly!) to do this on a neighborhood level, but not at all to do so on a building by building or apartment by apartment level.

This is regulatory arbitrage for sure by AirBNB and hosts. The answer (theoretically) would be to more granularly undersrand the costs and benefits to all parties and redistribute appropriately. Unfortunately, neither the public or private sector is incentivized to solve this fairly - “competition” won’t solve it. Seems like a case where regulation would be the answer - it’s just unlikely any single city will solve it well, much less all of them.

sonnyblarney9• 8 years ago

I really doubt the significance of the 'cost to the neighbour'. Really is this noise? Because I don't think that's a cost issue so much, nor do I feel hotels are particularly more quiet, or that AirBnB guests are particularly more noisy or rough on property.

I think it's 80% an issue of artificial market distortion due to limitation.

Cities need to rethink this. There is zero negative burden to my neighbourhood if the building I live in happened to be a hotel.

It's time for a rethink.

emdubs2• 8 years ago

Ultimately the question is whether the market is constrained by supply or price. If the constrait is price, then hotels should be able to adjust and stop charging ridiculous default rates in urban areas. If the market is constrained by supply eventually it will be economically viable to build new units.

That's not to say that Airbnb should not be regulated similarly to hotels. Imo if you provide a nearly identical service you should follow the same regulations

avoutthere• 8 years ago

Maybe I'm dense, but I'm failing to see any real problem here. Certainly none that would warrant government infringing on private property rights.

luckylittle• 8 years ago

Me neither. If you own a property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it. The argument, that it's bringing up prices is false - AirBnB, same as Uber, exist because the prices were already high. If the prices were normal (especially here in Australia), these types of services would not profit. Think about a scenario when young couple with kids is paying so much for mortgage/rent so if they need to go overseas for a few months, they don't really have any other choice than list it on AirBnB to cover portion of the cost.

dragonwriter• 8 years ago

If you own a property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it

The idea that law should not govern your actions provided you are using your own property in those actions is...unusual.

city412• 8 years ago

If you own a property, you should be able to do whatever you want with it

That just isn't true though. You can't even alter a property without first getting a permit in many cases. The things you do to stuff that you own can impact the greater community, so the needs of the community need to be considered.

KozmoNau73• 8 years ago

On a local scale, the problem is the constant in/out of short term renters. They don't care about the neighborhood, they don't care about the neighbors, they don't care about making too much noise. They'll be somewhere else in a week anyway.

Meanwhile, the actual residents have to put up with constantly changing "neighbors", noise and more often than not common fixtures getting trashed and mistreated.

On a larger scale, it drives up prices, because landlords would rather extract the much higher rates from short-term renters than the more reasonable rates a long-term renters would pay. This drives up rent, and forces people out of the housing market. You end up with Airbnb ghettos, in effect turning previously nice neighborhoods into de facto hotel businesses. Thus robbing residential areas of their cohesion and community.

Here, a few law changes were put in place to mitigate the problem, while still slowing people to short-term rent out their dwellings while on vacation. The provider (Airbnb) has to report taxable income, and there is a limit of 70 days/year.

dorchadas6• 8 years ago

You end up with Airbnb ghettos, in effect turning previously nice neighborhoods into de facto hotel businesses

Except without any of the regulations that protect hotel/hostel guests.

The provider (Airbnb) has to report taxable income, and there is a limit of 70 days/year.

I've experienced issues with this in Ireland, and this would help solve some of the problem. Particularly that of undergraduate students trying to find places to live during the school year, since most of those leases are 9 months anyway. The owner could then AirBnB their house over the summer.

It'd still be difficult for those who are looking for somewhere to live long-term, as owners can often make more money over just the summer than leasing out for the whole year to those people; so the properties would just stay empty the rest of the time, even if people wanted to rent them. Though who would rent knowing they'd be kicked out come summer? People want some stability; I'd hate to have to start looking for a rental again every summer, especially if I was working full time in a city, all because AirBnB.

sytelus• 8 years ago

I fail to see what exactly are the claimed problems here. The article contains unproven claims like:

Rents for residents are being driven up, in Barcelona as well as Berlin, New York and elsewhere.

Rents have been going up everywhere because of the real estate market moves, not AirBnB. It's disingenuous to throw it on AirBnB.

In Barcelona, it used to cost €250 (£221) for a short-term rental permit. Now that such permits are no longer being issued, they change hands for up to €80,000.

This is the problem Barcelona government created by artificially limiting the supply just like NYC did with taxi medallions. What do you expect?

AirBnB is the good thing and its great to see these brave startups going up against government sponsored monopoly on artificially limiting taxi and hotel ownerships only to small group of rich people. These oligarchies exploit poorest people to generate passive income for the rich. In ideal world, people would vote out government passing such laws but their lobbiests have perfected the art to sweep these laws under the rug. AirBnB allows to utilize spare capacity available in the already dense city that is doing no work at optimal pricing.

Anyway, there is absolutely no other claims or proof or data I see in this article. I wouldn't be surprised at all if these articles are sponsored by the hotel lobby.

darawk2• 8 years ago

The level of economic illiteracy in the media these days is just incredible.

sigfubar• 8 years ago

Because media outlets cater to a fittingly ignorant audience.

BurningFrog3• 8 years ago

Or everywhere. Which brings me to a pet peeve:

Why is Economics not taught in regular schools?

All sorts of arcane trivia is taught to kids, but how a modern society actually works is never explored.

jonp888• 8 years ago

"AirBnB allows to utilize spare capacity available in the already dense city that is doing no work at optimal pricing."

That statement is, to me, awful and terrifying.

I live in Berlin, where AirBNB is not popular at all. There's no problem with people renting out spare rooms, or their own flat whilst on holiday, but that's not what happens a lot of the time. Instead, apartments are taken permanently off the rental market, despite the fact it would be perfectly possible to find tenants for them at normal market levels of rent, in order that they can be rented out on AirBNB at a much higher price. They are not "spare capacity doing no work", they are flats deliberately being made unavailable to the local population that actually live in the city for the benefit of tourists and the landlords profit margin. Is that what you want? A city centre made up of tourists staying in "optimally priced" AirBNB flats, whilst the actual residents are forced to live elsewhere?

Unsurprisingly, despite AirBNB launching a massive advertising campaign in Berlin, aimed not at potential users, but at local residents, promoting the fairness of so-called "home-sharing"(nonsense, it's a holiday apartment rental business), public opinion is against them and in favour of the permit system now introduced in Berlin, which is free to rent a room, but requires a fee to rent a whole flat.

true_religion• 8 years ago

Is that what you want? A city centre made up of tourists staying in "optimally priced" AirBNB flats, whilst the actual residents are forced to live elsewhere?

Maybe.

Some cities cater fairly exclusively to tourists, giving them the best locales, whilst locals live in less scenic areas further away from commercial districts.

I lived in a tourist city, and it didn't feel terrible.

If Berlin becomes like that in the future, residents will adapt---its only during the transition that the most hardship is felt, since people feel their status quo changing.

That said... I don't actually believe in unrestrained capitalism, so if Berlin residents want to vote to restrict zoning, it's their right.

bitreality• 8 years ago

There is a major difference between Airbnb and Uber/Taxi. One has a relatively fixed supply (real estate), the other has a virtually unlimited supply (cars). Airbnb introduces a new layer of demand to apartments and houses, which traditionally were only demanded by long-term residents, it has completely shaken up the market. This is especially true in cities with a busy tourism industry.

So while the supply is mostly the same, the demand has measurably increased, the price will clearly be impacted. To argue otherwise is akin to denying the fundamentals of economics.

I understand the view where you say, let people use their property the way they want. However, at the same time, if we acknowledge that rents are increasing due to a new market for short term rentals, then we must also acknowledge that this increase in pricing pushes a certain percentage of locals out of real estate that they would otherwise be able to afford.

In a city like Des Moines, Iowa, the effect of the short term rental market is going to be minimal. Plenty of space, very little tourism, rents already quite low. But when you go somewhere like NYC, SF, Paris, Barcelona, etc. then the impact of short term tourism rentals has a major impact. Millions of people visit these cities every year, and suddenly they are in direct competition with locals for real estate.

Now why is it a problem if locals are priced out? That's much more a matter of opinion. But the clear reasons are that locals create deeper bonds with the area and people around them. Locals have more reason to respect the area. Locals are interested in building a community around them. Tourists are basically just ticking off a bucket list of typical activities and are on their way.

bdhess• 8 years ago

One has a relatively fixed supply (real estate), the other has a virtually unlimited supply (cars).

The supply of space on the road in densely constructed cities is even more fixed than the housing supply.

BoorishBears• 8 years ago

Just like with NYCs medallions, people fail to see why they were limited in the first place.

Barcelona apparently feels that the price of the permits reflects the value of having one short term rental out of the few they want to allow.

Otherwise they’d print more of them to relieve the demand (and signal they want more of them).

You’re claiming this is an attempt to support an oligarchy, but it seems like a very conscious effort to make converting a space into a short term rental a very deliberate choice, and to optimize for the spaces that will pull in the most tax dollars (high end ones) over the ones that can become a burden (low end, rent-my-closet type places)

And they’re constrained for a reason:

https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/06/barcelona-finds-a-way-t...

Vacation apartments have spread across central neighborhoods, many of them from hosts who list more than one apartment. Meanwhile, the number of affordable long-term rentals available to locals has shrunk.

And especially this:

Parts of the old city have become tourist ghettos, where residents that remain are kept awake by badly behaved visitors, and increasingly find their local shops and bars taken over by souvenir emporia and coffee chains.

I whole heartedly respect a community’s right to not become a tourist dumping ground.

Staying in a short term rental or hotel is a luxury if you’re talking about some of the most attractive places on earth.

There's nothing wrong with the price of a rental reflecting that.

etiennemarcel• 8 years ago

I don't even see the point of these articles being debated on HN, eventually it boils up to Americans defending an unregulated free market and Europeans trying to be advocates for our model. It feels like we're speaking different languages at the end.

dba7dba• 8 years ago

I live in a city near Silicon Beach of Southern California. My family lives in a 10 unit apartment complex, all 3 bedrooms. It's extremely hard to find apartment complex with all 3 bedrooms in the city.

Anyhow, when we moved in 5 years ago, 3 were occupied by families. One was occupied by a childless couple. Others were occupied by non-families, aka roommates who were splitting the rent.

Many of the roommate based households come and go more frequently, as a roommate moves out due to new job/school.

Families on the other hand don't move as often due to schooling for kids.

Now when the other 2 families and the couple with no children moved out, all were taken over by roommates based household. This was expected as the rent in the area for 3 bed apartment went from around low $2000 (what we paid when we moved) 5+ years ago to mid $3000 now. You can't expect a family with 2 wage earners plus 2 or 3 kids to pay rent of $3000 or above. But with roommates, $1000 per roommate a month seems reasonable, especially if you will be moving out in 2 - 3 years. With Airbnb, it actually makes financial sense for 2 roommate (or even a single guy) to rent a 3 bed apartment and rent extra rooms via Airbnb.

When the new 'roommate' based house holds moved in, I started noticing people with wheeled luggage show up. Guess what? Two roommate household rents a 3 bed apartment, and then they rent out the 3rd bed on Airbnb or something like it. Single guys would have no issue renting out a room via Airbnb. A family with kids renting out a room in a 3bed apartment via Airbnb? Forget about it.

And by renting out the 3rd bed for just $100/night for 10 days, they already break even. If they rent out the 3rd bedroom at $100 a night for 30 days, it's $3000/month. You are actually making money, not losing money. And since this is in California with less than 30 min drive to the beach, the demand is there. It's a great 'business move'.

And the property owner doesn't care as he can rent out a place for $3000+ a month, instead of $2500 a month.

And the end result is, less rental available for families who can afford it.

Interestingly enough, this past year, an elementary school in the neighborhood closed down a kindergarten class because there are less young families with little kids moving it. Not sure it's a chance event, but I'm sure there isn't an endless supply of young couple who can pay $3000/month rent or take on a mortgage of a million or two.

Airbnb definitely does damage to the diversity of big cities, as in makeup of family versus roommate based households.

adamzk• 8 years ago

Anybody who has hunted for an apartment semi regularly over the last few years can verify. The first obvious trend is that Airbnb prices have skyrocketed since 2016 due to a positive feedback loop of "well if she can charge _that_ much for _that_ place, I could charge more for mine". Perhaps less obvious is the disappearance of monthly rentals from the market as landlords switch to airbnb. Two years ago on sites like padmapper most listings were for monthly and yearly rentals with the odd airbnb listing. Now it's the reverse.

johnchristopher• 8 years ago

AirBnB is the good thing and its great to see these brave startups going up against government sponsored monopoly on artificially limiting taxi and hotel ownerships only to small group of rich people.

But that's exactly what's happening in Barcelona. 48% of all AirBnB places are managed by 374 people (4500 places, 374 people have more than 5 places to manage). These aren't the little people getting pocket money to lend homes the week-end they are out of town.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if these articles are sponsored by the hotel lobby.

Rumour says that hotels are behind the concentration of airbnb places into fewer hands.

In Barcelona, they basically created licences to operate an airbnb place. Now they are too many so they stopped issueing licences. Now these are worth more because it's rare.

the_clarence8• 8 years ago

Airbnb is freaking amazing for travelers. I think it cometely changed the game for world exchanges. It's one of the few companies that I truly believe made the world a better place.

foepys2• 8 years ago

Not if your "neighbor" (in reality an company renting out dozens of apartment) put their apartment on Airbnb and you get a new bunch of drunk and noisy tourists every week. You can call the cops all you want, they don't really care because they are in holiday, and next week it will start again with a new bunch of tourists.

dorchadas6• 8 years ago

Nor if you're trying to find accommodation in an already lacking city, and AirBnB further exacerbates the problem because people can make more money over a summer of short term rentals than a full year of long-term tenants. Or they avoid paying taxes because AirBnB leaves it up to them, and they never report it... AirBnB has basically made some aspects of travelling better, but overall it's made the locales much worse off.

the_clarence8• 8 years ago

This is just about disrespectful people. Or even apartments that were built not to insulate noise. You would have had the same problem with bad neighbors.

fanzhang• 8 years ago

Airbnb is a parasitic monster that squats over cities and hoovers up vast sums of money through its slimy proboscis.

I wonder whether the author would still have a problem if AirBnB were a nonprofit (e.g. took 0% of the cut). That would reveal whether his real argument is against AirBnB's profits, or that having an open short-term market is harmful ipso facto (but when who play the colorful part of the monster? probably the landlord-traveller duo?).

eesmith• 8 years ago

BTW, "nonprofit" doesn't mean "no profit"/"0% of the cut". There are many ways to make money as a non-profit organization, including some which can be interpreted as 'parasitic.'

Consider a non-profit charter school which licenses teaching material from a for-profit company and pays a for-profit company for the building lease - and where the owner of the non-profit is also the owner of the other two companies. Examples at https://www.forbes.com/sites/petergreene/2018/08/13/how-to-p... .

Non-profits can also take a part of the cut, as we find out with charity organizations where, say, 85% of the donations goes to running the organization. Examples at https://www.thestreet.com/story/12878005/1/you-wont-believe-... .

ggm• 8 years ago

Had a six month rental (not Airbnb) in Amsterdam and the effect of Airbnb in rental market terms was palpable. Less properties available and higher prices. This was during a time of falling property price for purchase, and yet a shortage of proper rental homes.. that's pretty unhinged.

I rented below a worker in tenancy management who told me he dealt quite often with protected tenancy holders subletting illegally. Ultimately the Dutch tax authorities and Amsterdam City council cooperated on a response to undeclared income with Airbnb and I think have pushed back on what is abuse of community value. If you are told by your "host" to act like it's not Airbnb, isn't that a bit of a signal about its legality? Or acceptance by neighbours?

It's a pretty destructive model, even if at the individual level is proffers benefits to the home owner (many who sublet, are doing it illegally or off contract)

Many body corporates are aware of short term letting in their communal property and can do nothing about it. Apart from Airbnb you also have to contend with illegal casinos and brothels)

The effects of short stay rental are not just about iconic western cities like Barca. There is a problem in Bali I am told.

Airbnb can’t go on unregulated – it does too much damage to cities

Related Stories