Hacker News Reader

"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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> > 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.

Indeed - the city of SF found evidence of the same problem from this article, but with Uber/Lyft: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18228243

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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

Because media outlets cater to a fittingly ignorant audience.

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.

Ya, I think the benefits of encouraging economic literacy would be pretty extreme.

It is? I took an Econ class in high school in California

We didn't have anything of the sort here in Australia. But hey, at least we learnt how to calculate the inverse of a matrix...

Yeah, economics and finance should definitely be taught. Ideally, statistics would also make the cut.

To make room, I'd be okay with history being a bit less comprehensive because people don't remember the specifics anyway. School should focus on concepts, not trivia.

However, we're obsessed with test scores, and these tests often largely test trivia.

It was mandatory in high school for me (one semester of Economics/Finance, one semester of Government, both in my senior year). This was in a (somewhat-above-average, admittedly) public high school in California.