At the cost of higher temporary housing costs for people that want to visit. Addressing supply by ripping supply from a different market is a bandaid.
This benefits hotels much more than low income people.
That's not such a bad thing. The market has demonstrated that hotels and similar will be built until supply mostly meets the demand.
No one will build affordable housing when they can build expensive housing instead.
Its the same problem SF has. I completely agree.
This problem is due to restrictions on supply. Consider the statement, "No one will build affordable cars when they can build expensive cars instead"
1. Limits on the height of new buildings
2. Limits on the ability to demolish or extend existing buildings
3. Limits on the minimum size of new apartments
4. Limits on the number of people who can live in an apartment
Actually I think what we're seeing is precisely that this is not happening. If that were the case, hotel rooms in NYC would not cost 2-3x what they do in the suburbs. The price is high because short term rentals are scarce.
Because it is. There is precious little new space for residential buildings in New York. How does people renting out apartments on AirBnB create a "sustainable balance of work, living, and entertainment areas"?
But that's obviously not politically feasible now, is it?
You're implying this is a bad thing. A city's first responsibility is towards its residents, everyone else comes after their needs and wants are catered to.
Anyone staying in your city is a resident while they are there.
Visitors vote with the money they spend in New York.
By what metric?
Another possible metric is comparing the benefit to some versus the benefits to others.
The need for rent control at all, as well as the surely depressingly long lines for any waiting list / lottery for rent controlled units, points to a market that has already failed to serve the needs of the community.
Compounding that, the fact that AirBnB or any similar offering is able to so successfully compete with hotels in the area signals that one or more aspects of the hotels is dramatically out of alignment with what the competition that is being eliminated can offer. It /may/ be price, but factored in to that should be the security and piece of mind that a more established name brand and reputation has; possibly the hotels (like Taxis) are doing a poor job upholding a quality brand name, or those that do charge far more than they should if competition were actually a factor for them.
Still, it'd be nice of one of the many people who downvoted my comment in the past few minutes can explain why I wasn't "allowed" to ask that question.