Hacker News Reader

Comment by dorchadas | Hacker News Reader

No, but it'll force them to go to places that are actually planned to accommodate them. Tourists are included in city planning, believe it or not, but they're not expected to be taking up the actual residential places of the city. That's why areas are zoned for hotels and there's regulation around them.

View on HN

> Tourists are included in city planning

The reason AirBnB exists is that tourists are not properly accounted for in city planning and not properly serviced by hotels. There's a huge demand for what AirBnB provides (Serviced and short term accommodation). Hotels are inadequate for longer stays or where you just want the comforts of home, a good middle ground is the "serviced apartment" concept found in some places (entire apartment blocks reserved for short term rentals) however there are times when you want an entire house, not an apartment.

> a good middle ground is the "serviced apartment" concept found in some places (entire apartment blocks reserved for short term rentals)

You mean a hotel? Hotels are not inadequate for longer stays. If someone desires the comforts of a home, they can move there and actually rent/buy a home.

> The reason AirBnB exists is that tourists are not properly accounted for in city planning and not properly serviced by hotels.

This is a werid entitlement. Tourists aren't entitled to overrun and impose a serious negative impact upon a town/city's housing supply because they feel like they 'deserve' to vacation there.

>You mean a hotel? Hotels are not inadequate for longer stays. If someone desires the comforts of a home, they can move there and actually rent/buy a home.

What about a middle ground. If I go somewhere for 2-4 weeks? For that length of time I kind of want a proper kitchen, which I won't get in a hotel, but obviously it is not long enough to actually rent/buy a home.

>What about a middle ground. If I go somewhere for 2-4 weeks? For that length of time I kind of want a proper kitchen, which I won't get in a hotel, but obviously it is not long enough to actually rent/buy a home.

Not everywhere but at least in the US suite hotels with small kitchens are pretty common. Most of the big chains have one or more suite hotel brands. (Though honestly I not infrequently travel for 2-3 weeks and, while I definitely appreciate a refrigerator I pretty much never find I need a full kitchen. And being able to stretch out on a sofa is nice.)

Yeah, for exorbitant amounts of money.

Compared to what? I'm staying in a Residence Inn in a week for basically the same price as the nearby standard Marriott and Sheraton are. And Residence Inn is probably on the higher end of the big chain suite brands. They're not budget but they're squarely in the same range as midrange business hotels in general. They're generally what I book if they're a good option.

I’ve routinely found that Airbnbs are about 1/2 the price of hotels, with more amenities and classier design to boot, no matter where I visit (assuming Airbnbs are legal there).

$300 or more a day is beyond the pale IMO.

> I not infrequently travel for 2-3 weeks and, while I definitely appreciate a refrigerator I pretty much never find I need a full kitchen.

I'm guessing you're a high income individual with no kids then?

This is exactly the entitlement I am speaking of. You want to go somewhere for an extended period. You want a proper kitchen. Your expectation is that the residents of a town or TheMarket should just... accomodate your desires? Regardless of their housing market, QoL, infrastructure, etc.?

Sheesh, jamie. I typically eschew using this term, but someone taking a 2-4 week vacation is already highly privileged to be able to do so. Tourism is a privilege. Not a right.

So much judgement in one post.

1. I am not saying the market/residents have to accommodate anything, I am simply stating my preference that if I have to travel for 5+ days I would rather have a full kitchen. If the residents don’t want to provide it, fine. If many other people feel as I do, then that’s kind of what markets are for.

2. I don’t typically take 2-4 week vacations, but I sometimes do travel for work for extended periods.

I recognise being able to travel at all is a privilege but having a personal preference for a full kitchen I don’t really think warrants such a judgemental response.

Well, he wants and he is willing to pay, it's not like he's demanding it for free. The residents and the town should price it accordingly so that both sides benefit from the deal.

Following your logic, going to the bakery to buy bread instead of making it myself is "entitled" and disregards the baker's quality of life since he'd be much more comfortable sleeping than waking up at 5am to start preparing the bread.

No, that was not my logic. You substituted your own. My argument is that under no circumstances is any entity 'required' to accomodate your desired market conditions. There are existing markets (i.e hotels) that towns/cities/whatevers provide. The mere desire from a consumer (or even massive group of them) does not oblige others to service that desire. And, the expectation that those desires are always met is the entitlement.

Many markets have demand, but society prevents their legal existence. For example, organ trades. I'm sure a lot of alcoholics would love just being able to go get a new liver whenever they want or when theirs fails. However, the... issues that creates have been deemed unacceptable and therefore, it's not allowed (obviously, it still happens illegally).

Some people want AirBnBs so they can have all the accoutrements of a home wherever they travel. Other people do not want such a market to exist, for a variety of reasons. I don't think that simply because an economic opportunity exists, it should be serviced or be allowed to be serviced. Obviously, advertisers want to increased the amount and effectiveness of their ads. FaceBook and Google would block out the sky and plaster it with ads if they could. Should they be allowed to?

Most hotel rooms don't have kitchens. It's not unreasonable to want a kitchen if you're staying somewhere for a week or two. But expecting those people to buy or lease a home is unreasonable. Short-term rental of homes is the solution to this.

It's called a residential hotel, and they're all over the place where business travelers stay by the day, week, or month.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartment_hotel

It might be the solution to that, but it creates a lot more problems for the actual residents of the city. Drives up their rent, lowers their supply, makes them have to deal with neighbours coming in at all hours of the night, often without a care for the fact they even have neighbours who have to wake up and go to work in the morning. Ruins any community in a place. All the negative externalities get hoisted onto the actual residents of a town.

Now, should there maybe be an area of the city explicitly for short-term rentals, included in city planning? That's a different question; but it shouldn't be mixed in normal residential area, as all it does is make life worse for the actual residents.

They make hotels for extended stays with kitchens - Homewood Suites, Embassy Suites, and Candlewood Suites are the big chains.

I lived in a Homewood Suites for three months. It was fine.

AirBnB homes are so much nicer than those sterile corporate chains. It is not the same experience.

So, again, it comes down to the entitlement felt by travellers.

Not sure what you think my point was or how that remark relates to it.

I prefer my linens to be sterile.

> tourists are not properly accounted for in city planning

Alternatively, tourists are unhappy that people in some areas don't want unlimited numbers of them and account for them properly with zoning restrictions.

No, they are accounted for. The issue is entitlement on the side of tourists -- thinking they should have access to all the local amenities and stuff they do at home, while on vacation. This was a problem, but it was never a huge problem, from how I understand it, before AirBnB. Basically AirBnB changed the expectations for tourists, at the harm of the local communities.

> however there are times when you want an entire house, not an apartment.

It's not your home, why should you deserve a house over someone who lives there?

If a local wants to open their home to me, even if it’s a second home, why should that make me feel “entitled” to enjoy a taste of local life? (Ignoring Airbnb slumlords, which should probably be fought with regulation and/or Airbnb policy changes.)

There's rules and regulations against it, for one. Should locals be allowed to do whatever they want on their property with no regards to how it will impact neighbours and local economy? There's a reason we have zoning laws, etc, in place. There's lots of things we stop locals from doing because it's for the better of the community as a whole, and renting out short-term to tourists should be one (and, again, it sometimes already is but AirBnB allows them to skirt the regulations).

Locals should absolutely have the right and power to change their local laws to prohibit Airbnb. However, I'm not going to feel guilty for using Airbnb in places where it's legal, because it's simply a better product than hotels by a long shot (when it works).

I'd be willing to bet that in most places they're not legal, there's just nobody enforcing it. They're willfully in violation of a lot of rules and regulations that are already in place. And harming the locals so entitled tourists can think they're at home.

What about what the neighbors of the local’s home want? Do you want new neighbors every few days moving in to your neighbor’s house? Wouldn’t you be worried about your family‘s safety given the velocity of people going in and out of your neighbor’s house?

Technically, the reason AirBnB exists is that if you aren't paying for most of the "serviced" part, including obeying the city planning and safety regulations, you can rent a property for less than an actual hotel and still make a lot of money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com