It's interesting hotels that feel like an AirBnB don't really exist. Even though the professional AirBnB hosts are doing all the functions that hotels do. Why not the reverse.
They recognize it exists. I'm even hearing podcast ads from Marriot or similar touting how much more reliable they are.
AirBnBs I've stayed in the past few years have all been janky, weird, and not really any cheaper than hotels. I don't have to do chores at hotels, and I can always get (and return) the key promptly. I've also been told on several occasions not to let anyone else in the building know I was an AirBnB guest. AirBnB used to be better, but the advent of "professional hosts" with many properties really degraded things. They often have the typical landlord mentality of expecting a lot of reward with little work or risk.
How else would you make or reaffirm a first-hand impression?
Also, while I'm not OP, I gave up on Airbnbs a long time ago for the same reasons, and that impression is occasionally refreshed when I stay in an Airbnb that _someone else_ arranged. I will go out of my way to avoid them if it's all up to me.
If you have a family of 5 or more, hotel rooms suck - either someone sleeps on the floor or you have to find a "suite" that accommodates that. Or multiple rooms.
The major travel sites all push you to multiple rooms - but lots of hotels now don't have "adjoining room" access (compared to say 30 years ago), and in one case, our 2 rooms were on different floors because of check-in time.
The travel sites are picking up on this and competing with airbnb as well. Typically my experience with those rented homes is a) cheaper than airbnb and b) better service. However, I'm sure they are the same type of superhost company that would be banned in Barcelona.
Not anymore. They were cheaper, and then the prices crept up, and the quality got worse. Classic enshittification. I loved AirBnB 10 years ago, but I'm back to hotels now.
They do exist and are increasingly common for new hotel builds, at least where I live. Here is an example of one in Montréal that I stayed in last autumn:
These still look [1] like artificial sanitized places. People like AirBnB because most of them have a home like feeling. Random decorations, casual atmosphere, etc.
I've stayed in many Airbnbs all over the world, and the majority of the city ones for the last few years are clearly just fulltime Airbnb, with basically zero personality. As soulless as a hotel room, sometimes more if they're trying to seem personal but clearly aren't.
Weird that. Almost as if it should be a home for someone. Not for you to play at being a Barcelona/Montréal/where ever resident for 2 weeks for Insta likes.
Hotels with similar amenities are usually priced at absurdly high rates for corporate clients.
The place you linked to has the equivalent of a studio apartment with no laundry machine going for over 9000 CAD for a month. AirBnB has plenty of one bedrooms going for a third of that.
What do you mean by a hotel that feels like an Airbnb?
If you want to stay at a place that has a kitchen, and multiple bedrooms, there are suite hotels (eg. Homewood suites) and extended stay hotels. If you want someone to host you, then a bed and breakfast is another type of accommodation.
- Wanting something that looks and feels like a home rather than a hotel room. This isn't available everywhere.
- Wanting something that isn't shared with a bunch of other hotel guests. (Aside: I have no problems with apartment buildings banning AirBnB/VRBO, because that's much more "cheap hotel substitute that might bother neighbors" than "unique offering that isn't likely to bother anyone".)
- In general, wanting something unique that doesn't tend to exist as a hotel.
It's difficult to quantify. Perhaps it's something as intangible as a space optimized for _living_ (like an apartment) as opposed to a space optimized for _profit_ (like a hotel).
Whatever the case, despite the existence of the options you list, Airbnb's are still popular. There's clearly some significant differentiator between them and an Airbnb.
It's definitely the vibe. A lot of it is how the space is decorated. The random assortment of furniture and other stuff in an AirBnB contributes quite a lot to the atmosphere people are looking for.
But there is a psychology to it that is, as you say, hard to pin dow. A hotel that has a random assortment of plates and cutlery in the kitchen (like my last AirBnB did) would feel cheap and tacky. The AirBnB didn't.
Or, holiday homes. These are furnished short term rental apartments with kitchens, often washing machines and dishwashers, etc. Common in parts of Europe. But at least in Germany they are well regulated and you actually sign a rental contract for your stay. I suspect that makes them a lot less accessible for tourists from abroad.
As far as I can tell, these do not exist in any meaningful number in Barcelona. They also rarely exist in city centers, at least everywhere I've seen in Europe. That's why entire buildings were turned into AirBNB.
I don't know if you meant specifically in Barcelona, but I'm in just such a unit in Montreal as I type this. Physically it's a 2BR apartment, with its own washer/dryer and full (though small) kitchen, but it's booked and run as a hotel. There's hotel-like housekeeping, not a note hidden somewhere that says I have to clean up myself before leaving or incur a hefty extra cleaning fee (on top of the one that's already buried elsewhere in the fine print). There's not much of a lobby, no concierge, no room-service menu, so it's not a four star hotel, but I'd still say it's a hotel that feels like an AirBnB and I think places like this are rapidly taking over that part of the market.
The move that Barcelona just made might actually be kind of like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Good political theater, I guess, but not really moving things in a direction they weren't already going.
It's a little unclear to me why this category wouldn't escape regulation, since it's clearly just an entire apartment building where they converted each apartment to an Airbnb for economies of scale around cleaning, maintenance, etc. They're displacing just as many residents as the same number of equivalent Airbnbs spread around a neighborhood. Whereas most traditional hotels feel purpose built for that and couldn't easily be apartments.
When talking about a matter of law or regulation, phrases like "feel purpose built" don't carry a lot of weight. Looking at legal definitions of "hotel" across many jurisdictions, it looks like a lot of of them center on the concept of temporary or transient usage. Intent to operate on that basis also shows up fairly often too. Here's a handy compilation (NB not the only source I consulted).
Note that style of construction does not seem to be a factor. Many hotels offer freestanding villas or cabins, practically small (sometimes even not so small) houses, and have for a long time. Chains like Residence Inn, Homewood Suites, or Extended Stay America have likewise offered hotel accommodation in the physical form of an apartment for almost as long. Personally, I think the inclusion of housekeeping services during a stay is a big differentiator, perhaps because it demonstrates intent to serve a transient clientele. By contrast, a "dual use" house or apartment that is owner occupied part of the time and rented out part of the time does not show such intent. Neither do the illegal sublets that are behind many Airbnb rentals.
In other words, the physical similarity between a suite hotel (like the one I'm in) and apartments doesn't seem determinative. Rather, what seems to matter is the financial difference between a nightly (or perhaps weekly) guest vs. a longer term lessee. I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but it does explain why different types of levels of regulation are applicable to each.
P.S. The ones "escaping regulation" are the Airbnbs, not the hotels. Hotels are subject to much more stringent standards wrt safety, sanitation, privacy, billing, etc.
>Personally, I think the inclusion of housekeeping services during a stay is a big differentiator, perhaps because it demonstrates intent to serve a transient clientele.
Yes, although a lot of hotels moved away from daily service during the pandemic and stayed there. Which is just fine by me.
If I were to stay longer than a week I'd probably cast my lodging net a bit wider. But hotels (or regular B&Bs, especially outside of cities) meet my needs pretty well for the most part. I have used AirBnB but I'm guessing the standard deviation is higher though I haven't had a bad (small sample) experience.
Even laundry which a number of people mention isn't really a big deal for the most part. I tend to optimize things that can be given a quick wash in the sink. I have stayed in ApartHotels with a laundry room and at B&Bs that will run a cheap load for you for longer trips involving more mud etc. And I've used a wash and fold place on a few occasions. Even as a very light packer, I've never felt the need to do laundry every few days.
There are aparthotels that offer larger living area and amenities such as a kitchen, a normal fridge, and laundry facilities, similar to an Airbnb. Additionally, they provide 24/7 reception, a breakfast room, optional maid service, much like a hotel. This has become a popular option in Europe recently.
Because we're adults that realize garbage dumps shouldn't be next to schools. And sometimes as society we make decisions that are good for the majority of people. I'm sure you'd love it if someone poisoned your ground water, but they did it by burying toxic materials on their property.
When Airbnb landlords won't rent to locals at all because it's not convenient enough for them do so what will you do for the good of the majority of the people? Forcefully seize their apartment because people need it?
That's very hyperbolized. It's still convenient to them, just less profitable. If they have mortgages less profit is better than no profit in all scenarios.
I knew an Airbnb host in Italy, he shared with me that by renting to tourist compared to the normal market prices to locals he would make 3 times more. It's a no brainer, but he would gladly accept 1/3 of that if the alternative is 0 (and he did during the pandemic when tourism stopped).
Those property rights exist because the locals consent to them. If the landlords' behavior undermines that consent then it only makes sense that the locals would revoke the property rights.
How else, besides continued maintenance of that consent, would property rights get their legitimacy?
Under that logic your breathing is a matter of their continued consent and lynch mobs are an expression of a democratic society. Protection of minority rights is an important function in government.
No need to forcibly sieze it. Simply outlaw dedicated short term rentals of apartments and houses and let the owners decide what to do with their apartment after that.
No. You just tax the living daylights out of the empty houses so that they will have to utilize or rent them. That is ALREADY the law in Spain, by the way.
> Forcefully seize their apartment because people need it?
The needs of the many come before the needs of the few. Someone said it somewhere across the ocean. But the country where it was said does not heed it at all. The rest of the world does.
That’s not how it works. There are already some laws that don’t allow owners to do certain things in/with their property (for example, you cannot just convert your flat into a disco for obvious reasons).
Your property is still subject to local and national laws and regulations, it's not some lawless piece of property where you can do whatever you want just because your name is on the property document.
I might own my own apartment, but I can't turn it into a pub, I can't turn it into a disco, I can't turn it into an auto service garage, I can't grow weed in it, I can't turn it into a shop, all these I can't do because it will negatively affect the life of my neighbors.
What if we hold people accountable to the zoning rules in an area they CHOSE to purchase within? You don't want zoning rules, you are free to purchase in a local that doesn't have and/or forbids zoning laws.
That is a good point and I totally agree with that, if you bought a house there for short-term rents then (in this case) you most likely made a risky investment.
Would you be okay with your neighbor using the same argument and running an industrial scale chemical manufacturing plant from their apartment? It is their own property after all.
Lol. They foreigners are buying homes like mad because there's no protection.
This is a distraction for an easy target. It won't help and it will make the quality of hotels worse.
It will also have a lot of under the table deals.
But hey, instead of fixing the real problems, it's easy to attack things some people don't use. They do the same to electric bikes and scooters. Ban ban ban! Things will surely improve!
> This is a distraction for an easy target. It won't help and it will make the quality of hotels worse.
Its not a distraction - its just a start. And hotel quality is still what it was before Airbnb and it will stay like that after airbnb goes away. The standards that national and international tourism institutions apply to the hotels has not changed one iota because of airbnb.
If people would just rent out their flats when they are not living there that would be fine. But people and corporations buy up housing and put them on Airbnb for above market prices. Suddenly you have no more place to live for the locals who have to work in the city. And a very high priced hotel room for the tourists.
Overpriced relative to a long-term rental in the same area.
Airbnb is a nightly rate that competes with hotel pries. Long-term rentals are a monthly rate that is usually much less than the nightly rate of a hotel or Airbnb.
Example: A hotel near my house is about ~$400/night. Or ~$12,000/month. Rent for a 1-bed apartment across the street is about $3000/month.
how is this functionally any different from a hotel? Do you complain that new hotel builds take housing away from locals, because presumably that hotel could have been residential housing instead?
Nice kitchens, laundry machines in the apartment, comfortable living rooms, access to attached outdoor space, and accommodations for larger parties traveling together are very difficult for hotels to compete with.
A suite hotel like a Residence Inn has a lot of that. Doesn't replace a whole house rental at the beach and probably doesn't have as many bedrooms. But it's pretty reasonable for a lot of purposes.
And for me, I value predictability and the availability of staff if I need them. I've certainly stayed at many B&Bs that didn't have a 24-hour desk but, by and large, I'm looking to stay at places where I can count on things going smoothly.
Great. Pick hotels. Why do you need to ban airbnbs? As a user of both the presence of airbnbs gives people a choice and sometimes one is clearly better than the other.
Problem is those who don't use certain services love banning them and pretend they're fixing some unrelated problem.
I don't think I wrote anything about banning AirBnBs one way or the other. By and large, my feeling is communities/municipalities/etc. should have pretty wide latitude about regulations they enact. And if voters en masse don't like it they'll presumably elect someone to do what they want--though of course that takes time.
For me, 2 nights or less then I look for a hotel. The reliability is important. But more nights, I prefer an AirBnB. I can cook meals, wash clothes, and it just feels more comfortable.
You can't stop the free market. Once it's out of the bag, given a long enough time-frame without volatility (technological innovation/political turbulence/labor/etc.) it always returns to feudalism. Sand aggregates into the form of a pyramid in the absence of winds. So do societies.
For the love of god, please learn what feudalism actually is. It isn't someone renting out land it is a government structured via a system of sworn allegiances.
> Don't have kids if you don't own at least one home
That isn't how human beings work, though, and it never has been. I tend to suspect that a person saying something like this has few if any deep relationships with people who cannot afford to own homes, because the statement shows no compassion for their experience.
The end result will be mass, society-wide indentured servitude. I say give it one century without any major paradigm shift (e.g. Industrial Revolution/geopolitical unrest).
Go to Kuwait, everyone, even commoners host their maids and cooks in their main residences. Maybe we'll see a mainstream return to these arrangements in the States.
It's not even poor people, in some "advanced economies" we're getting to a point where income means very little, and inheriting means a lot. I've only seen such a lack of empathy in teenagers or silver spoons.
Platforms like AirBnB only put oil in the fire when it comes to housing crises.