The whole pandemic reminded me I miss staying in hotels.
Not having to worry about groceries, lunch, cleaning ... A great hotel experience turns your holiday into a holiday experience. The older I get the whole bnb experience feels like a premium stressful hostel.
Why not? Isn't the hotel taking up space that could otherwise be housing?
Also, I wonder if maybe lots of people don't like existing hotels for some reason?
It seems the locals get forced out wherever demand vastly exceeds supply, like in the beach town where I used to live, where so many people want to visit and there just isn't enough housing/hotels for them. The locals are opposed to more housing, so inevitably prices goes up and they eventually turn into weekly rentals.
But there often is enough supply to meet the demand. The issue is tourists feeling entitled to living in a house, not the fact that all hotels are 100% booked all weekend.
> Also, I wonder if maybe lots of people don't like existing hotels for some reason?
I'm sure that's it, honestly. But when you're traveling away from home, well, don't expect to have a home waiting for you. That's the entitlement.
> It seems the locals get forced out wherever demand vastly exceeds supply, like in the beach town where I used to live, where so many people want to visit and there just isn't enough housing/hotels for them.
Or, just stop short-term rentals. Then the demand wouldn't exceed the supply (at least by the same margin). Or have specific areas designated for them (which most do, and which AirBnB conveniently ignores)
> The locals are opposed to more housing, so inevitably prices goes up and they eventually turn into weekly rentals.
I mean, I can understand why the locals would be opposed to more when there's enough for their demand, it's just the entitled tourists coming in and taking over things that makes it an issue.
That said, there are some fundamental differences with beach condos and mountain cabins (usually built to be rent out, not for locals) as opposed to what goes on in most AirBnB situations (built for residential, then moved away). The former two are generally considered in city planning, whereas people taking over residential neighborhoods is not.
The issue is that locals feel entitled to corral scary outsiders into certain zones, which is a high level of entitlement that exacerbates the problem.
When you realize your argument just boils down to xenophobia and "outsiders bad" it mostly falls apart. Locals don't get special rights because they're locals.
I mean, if you don't believe that the people who actually reside, work and live their lives permanently in an area are more deserving of the housing in that area than people who come maybe once a year for a week, then we'll never agree.
> The issue is that locals feel entitled to corral scary outsiders into certain zones, which is a high level of entitlement that exacerbates the problem.
> When you realize your argument just boils down to xenophobia and "outsiders bad" it mostly falls apart. Locals don't get special rights because they're locals.
Nobody said anything about 'scary outsiders', or xenophobia. I'm not advocating for the abolition of tourism. I'm saying tourism shouldn't come at the expense of the people who literally live and work and provide the amenities those tourists so desire when they visit. And AirBnB facilitates all of this. Locals absolutely should get special rights, especially in terms of housing, when they're the ones who will still be there after the tourists have left. The fact that you try to make this an argument about me being xenophobic or saying 'outsiders bad' shows you're not arguing in good faith.
An area like the beach is an interesting. Do the limited set of people who happened to move there first get to exclude everyone else from a limited desirable natural resource?
Or what about a city that incentivizes job creation but doesn't allow more housing to be built?
No one is forcing locals to provide those amenities - they're taking them in exchange for the dollars they so desire from the tourists who visit. Locals are free to deny all tourist dollars and turn down money for Airbnbs in exchange for renting it cheaper to other locals.
But they feel entitled to tourist dollars for some reason, without having to put up with tourists. Can't have it both ways, no matter how "special" you feel.
- AirBNB is better for extended stays, where being able to cook / heat food, or make breakfast is a necessity (for budgetary or dietary reasons… or the fact that having to constantly leave the place to eat can become stressful).
- I work while traveling. Working from a hotel room is usually not nice (if possible at all), unless it’s an expensive room.
My last one was a Chaos Communication Congress where I knew I'd be in my room exactly 6h-8h per night for like 4 days. All I really need is a bed and a shower. In the end I chose a hostel for that but if I don't use 90% of the amenities of the hotel (not even storing my luggage there), why would I pay that high amount?
Maybe it's too situational, maybe what I would have wanted was a capsule hotel with a tiny room with a bed (or something to put my sleeping bag on), and it wouldn't have to be the same one every night if I had a locker there.
Disclaimer: Have never used AirBnb or alternatives before, but I think it has its uses. For example sharing a flat with 6 people is sometimes half the cost of 3-4 hotel rooms (depending on how you can split)
And, again, this is the whole problem. Because that's a flat that could have gone to someone who actually lives and works in the local area, not a tourist. It's cheaper because it externalizes that cost.
I'm fine with hostels too, I see no problem with people choosing them. I'm not fine with converting residential homes into unlicensed hotels . It destroys the local community, and drives up prices for all the other people who are left trying to live there, and further feeds housing crises.