
What Airbnb really does to a neighbourhood - loriverkutya
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45083954
======
burlesona
How have we gotten this far into the comments without anyone mentioning the
root cause here is a general shortage of housing in places people want to live
/ work / visit?

It seems to me that AirBNB isn't to blame for the overall lack of housing (and
temporary housing aka hostel/hotel) options, rather it's just the most visible
brand name competing for the limited supply.

Cities can ban it if they want, but I'd rather they focused on allowing more
housing to be built.

~~~
ritchiea
It's not just a lack of housing. Airbnb is changing neighborhoods by creating
increased demand for vacation friendly activities and turning some areas into
an effective full time weekend. It's taking popular neighborhoods like the
Mission in SF or Williamsburg in Brooklyn or the Gothic quarter in Barcelona
and turning them into 365 day a year tourist parties. Any neighborhood with a
reputation for being hip, having art, music, bars etc. is now half populated
by Airbnb guests at all times.

~~~
nix0n
> Any neighborhood with a reputation for being hip, having art, music, bars
> etc. is now half populated by Airbnb guests at all times

Why are there so few of these places?

~~~
forgottenpass
They're generally unsustainable. Having a reputation means a deviation from
the norm. Once their reputation is big enough, the number of newcomers to the
culture will outstrips the ability for the culture to assimilate them.

Sustainability in the face of that requires whatever the culture is centered
around to be the kind of thing that can both put up a facade that serve
casuals and angry neighbors, while simultaneously maintaining an environment
for the core that built it to retain momentum. And circumstance might just
make that impossible.

~~~
jdmichal
There's a piece that covers this pretty well:

[https://meaningness.com/geeks-mops-sociopaths](https://meaningness.com/geeks-
mops-sociopaths)

Last posted on HN 2 months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17433487](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17433487)

------
mcjiggerlog
I live next door to an AirBnB, in a building where maybe 1/5 of the flats have
been converted to tourist flats. When I moved in 3 years ago there were zero.

I'm woken up by screaming drunk tourists as they come home at 3am on a Tuesday
night. There are constantly people clattering suitcases up the stairs at all
hours. People smoke inside the common areas instead of on the street. Of
course, just generally feeling like you live in an illegal hotel is horrible.
We're looking to move.

Then again, I have reservations for two AirBnBs next week on holiday in
another part of the country. The difference is we have booked entire houses in
the countryside, not city-centre flats. AirBnB is not inherently evil, but
strict and enforced controls are definitely necessary in cities.

I love AirBnB as a customer, but hate it as a resident.

~~~
eerwrq
I, too, love externalities when other's bear the cost, and hate them when I
bear the cost.

~~~
mcjiggerlog
Heh. I am aware of the contradiction.

My point is not all AirBnB usage is equal.

~~~
pc86
So it should be okay for your use case but not others?

------
danharaj
To put it bluntly, I don't like competing with the entire rest of the world
for housing in my city, and I'm pretty sure most other people don't either.

~~~
matwood
> my city

 _Your_ city? Interesting way to frame it. Maybe you were born where you
currently live or maybe you moved there last year. Either way it doesn't
really matter. Why do you feel the need to keep other people out of the city
you currently live? The reasons that you live where you live are the same
reasons other people want to live and visit. Why deny someone that ability to
move or visit only because you got there somewhat earlier?

~~~
busterarm
Residents get preferential price treatment to visitors because they provide
societal stability. It's the same reason why state residents get preferential
tuition pricing to out of state residents.

You give discounted state tuition because you don't want a state full of low-
skilled dummies. You give residents an edge over tourists so you don't have a
shortage of people to put out fires, cook food and remove garbage.

It's not hard.

~~~
thedirt0115
I think it absolutely is hard. Almost everything in life is more complex than
most people think. Even in-state vs out-of-state tuition. Kids don't have
control over where their parents choose to raise them. Why should Kid A have
to pay twice as much to get the same education as Kid B just because Kid A
happened to live 3 miles on the other side of the state border? That can make
you feel trapped, like you're stuck in whatever little hellhole you were born
in (especially if you have non-supportive parents). I can understand why a
resident discount makes sense, but at the same time, sometimes I feel like it
should be backwards -- give out-of-state residents the discount -- just to
encourage new young adults to get out of what they've known their whole life
as "normal", and see that things don't have to be like they are. Move the
example just a little bit to kids from Brownsville, TX vs kids from Matamoros,
Mexico (also < 3 miles away), and tell me that the issue isn't hard.

To not be purely depressing, I'll present an example of something I think is a
step in the right direction: At least some universities are good about giving
out scholarships to low-income students that offset the difference between
in/out-of-state tuition.

~~~
busterarm
not hard as in to grasp the concept of why it should be that way.

------
the_mitsuhiko
I still use airbnb when travelling because it's convenient but when I'm not
travelling I can't stand it at all. (I do realize that I'm contributing to the
issue by being a customer myself.)

Airbnb is probably one of the worst things that has happened to many places
that were already tourism heavy. The bit of regulation that made stuff work
somewhat was completely subverted by it and because of how quickly it became
popular it's now almost impossible to put the genie back into the bottle as
there are too many vested interests now.

Overall I can't get rid of the feeling that Airbnb is here to stay and it
permanently made the world a worse place.

~~~
Rotdhizon
The legal side of AirBnB is bad enough, but you couple that with their shady
practices and the outright illegal stuff that goes on and AirBnB as a whole is
a plague. I've heard there are smaller alternatives that work fantastic, I
don't know them by heart though.

------
glup
It seems like there is a perfectly reasonable middle ground here — where
households have the flexibility to rent out part of their primary residence,
on a limited basis (either temporal or just part of the house), subject to
clear and evenly enforced regulations. This is a pre-internet idea (e.g.,
casas particulares in Cuba in the 1990s) that becomes way easier/safer/better
with a web-based platform. Personally, I find it massively more fun to stay in
a typical home in a region that I'm visiting, and I can often find these on
AirBnB.

Of course AirBnB is going to try to grow as much as possible to try to eat
hotel revenues and develop new markets. But shouldn't communities have the
right to combat the externalities that such growth entails?

~~~
ck425
I suspect that partial apartment rentals are far less disruptive. It's full
apartment rents that are causing issues.

I think this also comes back to over tourism. Travel is the new materialism.
It used to be you kept up with the Jones by buying new cars, new jewellery,
new houses. Now it's by going away, frequently and to the most exotic places,
to prove how open minded and wordly you are. And it's killing the planet and
many local communities. There will be a backlash eventually.

~~~
wwweston
"Travel is the new materialism."

I wanna argue with this -- I think some portion of the population has a deep-
seated psychological _personal_ need to travel for their own internal well-
being rather than to _perform_ travel for an audience as a status symbol. But
I think there's a pretty strong case that especially with the rise of social
media, travel's become much more tightly linked with attention and status.

~~~
ck425
But travel is relatively new idea to much of the population. We don't realise
how little folk used to travel because those who did travel are
disproportionately famous.

------
mc32
Here is where the rubber of “corporate responsibility” meets the road. So far
AB&B has looked askance to the issues they bring to the table and have only
taken token steps to mitigate what they have wrought on communities. They talk
the talk all day long about inclusivity, implicit bias and any other terms du
jour to shirk from confronting the gigantic mastodon in the room —the one
sided effects their services have on lower and middle income shoppers of
housing. Yet, where it matters, they fail to walk the walk.

Their inaction and continued ignorance of these issues does magnitudes more
harm than their progressive efforts in their corp HQ which benefits very few
people in comparison.

~~~
ralusek
Is Facebook responsible for people using it to browse their highschool
sweetheart's page, and using messenger to try to cheat on their spouse? Is
Tinder responsible for an increase in STDs, infidelity, or date-rapes that
occur? Is Zillow responsible for someone finding a house that was foreclosed
on because somebody got sick and couldn't afford to make their mortgage
payments?

AirBnB lets you find available short-term housing on their platform, that's
all it does. Any complexity that arises around that, as far as I'm concerned,
has nothing to do with AirBnB, and everything to do with local governance (if
you have a problem with it).

Housing markets are based off of supply and demand, like most things. If
AirBnB suddenly alters the nature of what is supplied, why does that matter?
The demand in a given location is based off of so many factors to begin with,
should we become upset with everything that changes the nature of the housing
market? What happens if there is a neighborhood that is completely crime-
ridden, and new police station is added right outside. Suddenly the crime goes
down, and the housing prices in that neighborhood increase substantially as it
becomes safer to live in. Whose fault is it that the people who were living
there when it was highly unsafe can no longer afford to pay rent? Is it the
police station's fault? Is it the new tenants'? The landlords'?

I just can't understand why people are so averse to letting situations play
themselves out. SV, for example, is refusing to allow new construction due to
zoning laws, and all of the jobs that drew people here are no longer enough to
counterbalance the monumental cost in living...so people are leaving. Natural
equilibriums exist. What happens when an area becomes so oversaturated with
tourists that it no longer retains what made it desirable? Japanese tourism in
Paris has dropped 42% in the last few years. What happens when the lack of
supply for regular housing makes it so difficult to find local housing, people
working normal service jobs have to travel increasingly far to work in the
area? The rates to do those jobs begin to increase, as they become less
desirable, and the area becomes less desirable to visit as everything gets
more expensive. Those people become more capable of moving back to the area as
their rates have gone up, etc.

This need for platforms to take responsibility for everything that happens as
a result of the transactions they allow individuals to make with each other is
so unbelievably misguided. There isn't always a boogeyman.

~~~
lancesells
> AirBnB lets you find available short-term housing on their platform, that's
> all it does. Any complexity that arises around that, as far as I'm
> concerned, has nothing to do with AirBnB, and everything to do with local
> governance (if you have a problem with it).

As far as I know AirBnB is allowing people in NYC to rent apartments for less
than 30 days. Not only are they allowing this to happen they are the ones
completing the transaction and profiting from it. This is against NYC law and
has been around since AirBnB was founded. To make matter worse when residents
are fined for breaking the law they are the ones paying the fine without
AirBnB losing money. We all know AirBnb could follow local laws everywhere and
not allow any of the activity to happen on their platform. If they can change
local governance then good for them but they are clearly involved.

------
mazatta
Airbnb is a zero sum game - what tourists win, locals lose.

Two of my coworkers are currently being forced to look for a new place to live
in a tight housing market because their current landlord can make more money
renting on Airbnb.

I've stayed in Airbnbs in the past (and appreciated the convenience), but I no
longer will.

~~~
jseliger
_Airbnb is a zero sum game - what tourists win, locals lose._

I think you mean that "zoning is a zero-sum game." Since the 1970s, when
zoning became more severe and restrictive, housing costs have increased
substantially: [https://jakeseliger.com/2015/12/27/why-did-cities-freeze-
in-...](https://jakeseliger.com/2015/12/27/why-did-cities-freeze-in-
the-1970s). We know how to create a positive-sum game:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/californi...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-14/california-
affordable-housing-is-no-mystery-just-build-more), but we've made doing so
illegal.

~~~
parthdesai
You do know that Airbnb exists outside of California as well right?

I live here in downtown TO, and while we have a shortage of condo's, our condo
has quiet a lot of Airbnb units. 1) This reduces number of units available for
rent in the market, thus driving the price of available units up. 2) Creates a
fucking terrible living conditions for people who actually live in the
building. There was a long weekend where Airbnb guests literally broke
elevator button because they couldn't get to their floor without their fobs.
They throw garbage in the lobby, are loud af till 3-4am.

------
11thEarlOfMar
One impact of AirBnb is that it lowers the threshold for traveler
affordability. Couple it with discount air carriers such as RyanAir or
Southwest and the number of humans who can afford to travel increases
dramatically.

For example, a quick survey of Chicago shows:

On TripAdvisor: 8 hotels with rooms under $100/night. Lowest room $79.

On AirBnb: 100+ listings, entire place, under $100/night. Many under $50.

In this way, AirBnb is an enabler for travel.

Moreover, you don't even need to look at discount airlines. British Air had a
round trip from San Francisco to Milan for $650. AirBnb in Milan, entire
apartment, start at around $30/night. Suddenly, 10 days in Milan can be had
for under $1,500.

Economists might see the future for this situation: More air travel leads to
cheaper fares. Cheaper fares leads to still more travelers. More travelers on
cheap fares means more demand for AirBnb style housing. AirBnb prices get some
upward pressure from added demand, bringing more units into the market. More
landlords convert from long to short-term rental. Fewer long term rental means
lower supply of long term and higher rents. Higher rents mean more people
choose to buy, increasing demand for owned homes.

What it all adds up to: Without increasing the number of humans on the planet,
you've increased housing prices by making travel more affordable.

/s Maybe we make the following rule: In order to rent an AirBnb, you have to
AirBnb your home while you're gone. s/

------
weeksie
AirBNB restrictions should be based on housing vacancy rates. In areas where
either through poor zoning or historical preservation there is a restricted
supply of housing AirBNB should be strictly limited.

However, if vacancy rates are high enough AirBNB acts as a nice pressure valve
distributing residential and vacation occupancy without the expense of having
to overbuild hotels.

~~~
whichdan
What if the vacancy rates are due to untenable rent prices? I could see
vacancy being artificially created this way.

~~~
weeksie
If vacancy rates are high enough they create downward pressure on rent.

~~~
whichdan
Yes, assuming AirBnb isn't more profitable than decreasing prices.

~~~
weeksie
That may happen in a vanishingly small subset of instances, perhaps in
developing economies where the housing stock of a desirable destination hadn't
already been augmented by dedicated hotel space—since visitors would be so
profitable. My guess it that any situation like that would be relatively short
term, but could be handled with special case moratoriums.

Maybe I'm missing something but I have a hard time thinking of a situation
where this would be anything other than a short term issue.

------
yonran
Rather than blaming the company Airbnb for a city’s ills, it may be more
helpful to examine why it has popular support in the first place, while
family-only zoning is declining in popularity. Short-term rentals in
residences were already illegal in San Francisco and New York; they were
_legalized_ to allow Airbnb because short-term rentals have popular support
from voters. Single-family zoning was designed 100 years ago to create
neighborhoods of families who were protected from the nuisances of the lower-
class apartment “parasite”s (Euclid v. Ambler) and lower-class houses that
were used to raise chickens and take on boarders
([https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/07/it-time-bring-back-
bo...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2013/07/it-time-bring-back-boarding-
house/6236/) or [https://www.amazon.com/American-Nightmare-Government-
Undermi...](https://www.amazon.com/American-Nightmare-Government-Undermines-
Ownership/dp/1937184889)). I think exclusionary zoning has been so extreme in
some cities that it is beginning to lose its support among the middle class,
for whom it is now more necessary to use their property as a business rather
than only as consumption.

Edit: Related point: In some places, it is ingrained in our culture since the
1970s that housing should be a good investment. Low property taxes
(Proposition 13) and zoning restrictions are designed to increase the private
gains to this investment ([https://www.amazon.com/Homevoter-Hypothesis-
Influence-Govern...](https://www.amazon.com/Homevoter-Hypothesis-Influence-
Government-Taxation/dp/0674015959)). A small change of use to short-term
rentals is perhaps the next incremental step for house investors. It sucks for
people who want to use housing as only a peaceful consumption good, but in my
opinion that ship sailed a long time ago in Closed-Access cities.

------
canada_dry
> My research has found as many as 90% of Airbnb guests have said they were
> "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their stays.

For a perspective on the other 10%... checkout:

[https://airbnbhell.com](https://airbnbhell.com)

------
CryptoPunk
Maybe locals would be more supportive of Airbnb if cities made deals with
other cities saying 'your residents can stay in our units on a short term
basis if ours can stay in yours'.

People from boring/small towns and cities would be left out of this though,
since their demand to visit tourist destinations would exceed the outside
demand to visit their area.

The result would be the residents of larger/more-attractive cities, who are
free to stay in other major cities, seeing their advantage over the rest of
the population grow, which in turn could lead to more people choosing to move
to these cities.

------
mrmrcoleman
I agree that AirBNB is enabling (and profiting from) this behaviour but what
is essentially happening is people using AirBNB to turn on their own
neighbours.

Have there been any government initiatives to educate AirBNB hosts about the
impact of their actions?

------
walrus01
The apartment vacancy rate in Vancouver is presently sub 1%.

People are illegally renting suites as Airbnb, taking up domestic housing
stock.

It's illegal to rent suites for less than 31 days and without a business
licence here, but they do it anyways.

~~~
jessaustin
Are any of those occupied by locals for whom it's the best housing they can
find?

~~~
walrus01
There are a great many of these that are 1BD/650 sq ft size condos and
apartments that would otherwise be occupied by locals, at market rental rate
for standard 12-month lease terms. But the owners of the condos are renting
them out on AirBNB.

Or people are renting apartments for $1700/mo from absentee owners, and then
illegally subletting them for less than 30-day terms on AirBNB and running the
sublet as a business.

------
mywittyname
Levy taxes on the rentals.

