Metro Vancouver Hotel & Short Term Rental Market Discussion

[whatnext]

Oh dear, not the kind of publicity you'd want if you were trying to sell a unit in Firenze.

Vancouver condo complex resembles a hotel during morning Airbnb rush
Tourists had positive reviews after their stay in a downtown Vancouver strata complex where about 150 condos — roughly a third of the total — are listed on Airbnb. One resident said living there is "hell"
Author of the article: Dan Fumano
Published Oct 18, 2023

A steady stream of people rolled their suitcases out of a downtown Vancouver condo complex and into taxis on Tuesday morning.

Wearing travel neck-pillows and backpacks, carrying shopping bags and water bottles, groups of out-of-towners swapped stories about two major concerts the night before at nearby venues: Guns N’ Roses at B.C. Place and a Rogers Arena show with Wu-Tang Clan, Nas, and De La Soul sharing a bill....

....“It is a constant rotating door of Airbnbs,” she said. “It’s ridiculous.”

“It’s just crowds of people outside of here waiting to get their taxis or Ubers, everyone’s got their suitcases,” she said. “Which is fine, tourism is great. … But it’s a housing crisis. That’s what gets me.”

This strata complex, called Firenze, was the subject of a recent letter circulating both inside and outside the buildings this month. A group of residents, concerned about the explosion of short-term rentals, wrote and delivered a letter this month by mail to every owner in their strata corporation. The letter, which has since been shared outside of the strata corporation, outlines a litany of worries around the “overwhelming” volume of guests every day.

The “daily issues,” including crowds coming and going, piles of garbage left behind in the building’s common areas, and noise disturbances, “are causing turmoil for those living in Firenze,” the letter says.

One of the concerned residents behind the letter spoke to Postmedia News, on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal from the strata council. The owner said: “We’re living in a hotel without rules that’s absolute hell.”....(bold mine)

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-...ng-airbnb-rush

[svlt]

God it's about time the rooster came home to roost on these illegal units.

[whatnext]

New study from Desjardins blames AirBnB for exacerbating housing woes;

Short-term rentals have 'significantly impacted' housing affordability: Desjardins
Ritika Dubey, The Canadian Press

A new Desjardins report suggests short-term rentals likely contributed to the housing affordability crisis in Canada and around the world.

The report released Monday shows the proliferation of short-term rentals on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo has had a significant effect on the affordability and availability of homes by reducing the number of units available for long-term rentals and resale markets.

Randall Bartlett, senior director of Canadian economics at Desjardins, said short-term rentals are often more appealing to real estate investors because they make more money from them than long-term leases.


"From the perspective of the landlord, at a time of high and rising inflation, short-term rentals may offer them an opportunity to offset some of the rising costs because they can increase the rent more quickly than they could in the long-term rental market," Bartlett said in an interview.

Citing a Conference Board of Canada study, the report suggests there was a correlation between Airbnb activity and higher long-term rental prices across 19 Canadian cities with short-term rentals.

It showed every one-percentage-point increase in the share of Airbnbs was associated with a 2.3 per cent increase in rents....

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/short-te...dins-1.2006951

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

There's ~13,000 rooms in Vancouver, with another ~10,000 elsewhere in the Metro. BC Place has a capacity of ~55,000. Assuming absolutely no one else needs a hotel room, and everyone double bunks, and is willing to go as far as Langley/Maple Ridge in some cases, we might be okay.

Thank god we banned most AirBNBs!

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Thank god we banned most AirBNBs!

Yes, the convenience of visitors for a one time event is far more important than homes for the people who actually live here.

We definitely need more hotel rooms, but converting our already extremely low vacancy housing stock to airbnb is not the answer.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Yes, the convenience of visitors for a one time event is far more important than homes for the people who actually live here.

We definitely need more hotel rooms, but converting our already extremely low vacancy housing stock to airbnb is not the answer.

Instead we convert our construction industry to building more hotels instead of more residences.

Remember that hotels are dedicated SRO short term rentals that don't have the flexibility to be used as homes!

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

IRemember that hotels are dedicated SRO short term rentals that don't have the flexibility to be used as homes!

Subject to regulation and other kinds of accountability, unlike Airbnb.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Subject to regulation and other kinds of accountability, unlike Airbnb.

Such as? As it stands today, AirBNBs clearly are subject to more regulation than hotels.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Such as? As it stands today, AirBNBs clearly are subject to more regulation than hotels.

Didn't you just say they were banned? Can't be both (which would effectively suggest that they can't survive within the constraints of the law).

[EastVanMark]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Instead we convert our construction industry to building more hotels instead of more residences.

The city needs to enforce strict zoning laws to restrict any other types of development in central key areas of the city, or heaven forbid make it enticing to dev3elop more hotel rooms, but we all know that aint happening.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Didn't you just say they were banned? Can't be both (which would effectively suggest that they can't survive within the constraints of the law).

Firstly, I said banned most, not banned.

Secondly, whether they're mostly banned or fully banned, the government has enacted severe controls on the operation of AirBNBs. That's the definition of regulation. One might even call it regulatory capture in the favour of the hospitality industry.

Originally Posted by EastVanMark

The city needs to enforce strict zoning laws to restrict any other types of development in central key areas of the city, or heaven forbid make it enticing to dev3elop more hotel rooms, but we all know that aint happening.

Conveniently after the AirBNB ban, we're starting to see a lot more hotel proposals...

https://renx.ca/vancouver-hotel-proj...t-renewal-wave
https://www.burnabynow.com/local-new...ntwood-7741609
https://www.surreynowleader.com/loca...-hotel-7298430

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Firstly, I said banned most, not banned.

Secondly, whether they're mostly banned or fully banned, the government has enacted severe controls on the operation of AirBNBs. That's the definition of regulation. One might even call it regulatory capture in the favour of the hospitality industry.

Then I don't see what the problem is; before the ban/regulation/crackdown/protectionism/etc, the short-term rental market was like the Wild Wild West. No amount of temporary tourism would make up for the squeeze on the housing market... and given Airbnb's existing reputation, it would likely have negatively impacted the tourists as well.

Might as well blame the Stewart administration for turning so many budget hotels into homeless shelters into unrecoverable teardowns.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Then I don't see what the problem is; before the ban/regulation/crackdown/protectionism/etc, the short-term rental market was like the Wild Wild West. No amount of temporary tourism would make up for the squeeze on the housing market... and given Airbnb's existing reputation, it would likely have negatively impacted the tourists as well.

Might as well blame the Stewart administration for turning so many budget hotels into homeless shelters into unrecoverable teardowns.

It doesn't feel like you provided any examples of how the corporate hotel model is/was more regulated than the small business AirBNB model. Again, they're both short term rentals. Explain to me the difference. One has a foreign US billion dollar company skimming off the top while charging crazy amounts for short term rentals which aren't even guaranteed to be clean, and the other is AirBNB.

I really think people need to look at the bigger picture arguments intead of the finer detail. You don't like AirBNB, that's fine, but the argument should never be about AirBNB vs not AirBNB. It's a little boring to hear post hoc rationalizations of why banning AirBNB was good when the argument really should be about what policies can effect the best positive change to housing supply. The AirBNB regulation attempt is definitely going to bring a few dozen extra long term rentals to the market, but at what cost? The price of a hotel in Vancouver is currently extortionary and new developments are now dedicating development space to hotels. If it's not a big deal, why aren't we forcing hotels to convert into SROs? Surely they're just as bad as AirBNB?

I'm sick of the housing bogeyman that gets pushed out on stage every couple of years.
Empty homes are why housing is expensive! -> ban empty homes, hmm that didn't help
Foreign Chinese owners are throwing money at housing that's why it's expensive! -> ban foreign owners, hmm that didn't help
House flippers are pushing up the price of housing! -> ban house flipping, hmm that didn't help
AirBNB is converting houses into hotels, that's ruining the supply and pushing up the price of housing! -> ban AirBNBs, hmm that didn't help

They're all distractions designed to avoid the truth that the only solution is allowing more houses to be built.

-----

Anyway, I hope that we get some European/South American teams for our games.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

- snip -

There's the obvious one where the extortionate billion-dollar American corp is fully, directly responsible for its facilities and staff, and therefore anything that goes wrong. Bad room or staff? One star. Misconduct? The justice system knows who to serve.

Something bad happens at an SRO? The corp points the finger at the host and they get off scot-free; can't track the host down or even stop future visitors from using them, because the less-scrupulous hosts will have multiple units across multiple dummy names and addresses (which they'll likely cycle). Licenses, registration and fixed residences can hardly make things more unfair for visitors.

Yes, new housing is the answer. Also yes, it would be nice to know that said new housing won't be instantly gobbled up by artificial demand, resetting everything to zero; the NDP removing most of the external modifiers means that now BC's market is a supply problem and only a supply problem.

---

Knowing our luck, it'll mostly be the States team.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Such as? As it stands today, AirBNBs clearly are subject to more regulation than hotels.

Until recently, airbnbs were permitted in any residential zone, even though no zone explicitly permitted them, and were something not really intended within any residential zone when they were created. Hotels have to be zoned for the use, and need permits and oversight that was never required of airbnb when it was allowed. Airbnb was completely unregulated compared to hotels. I don't think it's so much as they became more regulated, more that the existing zoning finally got enforced.

If a building owner or operator wants a hotel, then they should rezone for it. I'm not necessarily against residential properties being rezoned for hotel use if it makes sense, but it should be looked at on a per building basis, not a per unit basis. Living next to a building that ends up becoming a hotel is much different than living in a building that essentially becomes a hotel. Condo owners who live in a building likely didn't do so with the intent of all their neighbour's suddenly becoming hotel rooms.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Until recently, airbnbs were permitted in any residential zone, even though no zone explicitly permitted them, and were something not really intended within any residential zone when they were created. Hotels have to be zoned for the use, and need permits and oversight that was never required of airbnb when it was allowed. Airbnb was completely unregulated compared to hotels. I don't think it's so much as they became more regulated, more that the existing zoning finally got enforced.

If a building owner or operator wants a hotel, then they should rezone for it. I'm not necessarily against residential properties being rezoned for hotel use if it makes sense, but it should be looked at on a per building basis, not a per unit basis. Living next to a building that ends up becoming a hotel is much different than living in a building that essentially becomes a hotel. Condo owners who live in a building likely didn't do so with the intent of all their neighbour's suddenly becoming hotel rooms.

I personally don't subscribe to these arguments since they're identical to the "multiplexes/condos don't belong in single family zoned areas and fundamentally change the neighbourhood character" and "we can't allow a coffee shop to be included in this development because it would disturb the residents" NIMBY type arguments.

[seamusmcduff]

Edit: this was in response to chowhou

It's not at all the same argument. I don't understand how you think living next to a hotel is equivalent to living in a hotel. The level of separation is completely different. Sharing walls/roofs/ceilings/hallways with a hotel (airbnbs) is completely different than sharing a street with a hotel building. There are legitimate privacy and noise concerns with having individual units in a building being converted to airbnb, that simply don't apply to living next to a hotel.

If someone is renting out the unit above you as an airbnb and people are partying every night, the impacts of that are far greater than if people are partying in an entirely different building next to where you live. Hotel users use a property differently than a resident would, which is fine, but the uses need to be separated to take that into consideration.

I don't even have an issue with a building having both hotel and residential uses I'm the same building, as long as it's planned that way (eg. Having top floors residential and bottom floors hotel or vice-versa, and having adequate noise mitigation between the two uses)

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

Edit: this was in response to chowhou

It's not at all the same argument. I don't understand how you think living next to a hotel is equivalent to living in a hotel. The level of separation is completely different. Sharing walls/roofs/ceilings/hallways with a hotel (airbnbs) is completely different than sharing a street with a hotel building. There are legitimate privacy and noise concerns with having individual units in a building being converted to airbnb, that simply don't apply to living next to a hotel.

If someone is renting out the unit above you as an airbnb and people are partying every night, the impacts of that are far greater than if people are partying in an entirely different building next to where you live. Hotel users use a property differently than a resident would, which is fine, but the uses need to be separated to take that into consideration.

I don't even have an issue with a building having both hotel and residential uses I'm the same building, as long as it's planned that way (eg. Having top floors residential and bottom floors hotel or vice-versa, and having adequate noise mitigation between the two uses)

I just hope you realise that you're making the exact same case the anti-daycare, anti-supportive housing, anti-multiplex, anti-neighbourhood business NIMBYs make. I would have assumed that you would be in support of walkable, mixed use neighbourhoods.

There are legitimate privacy, noise, traffic, crime, and infrastructure concerns with having daycares, supportive housing, multiplexes, and neighbourhood businesses sharing a street with single family homes. NIMBYs will say that all of these things should be planned and placed in areas that are designed and meant for them, and not ruin the existing character of their SFH neighbourhoods. There's a huge difference between having daycares, supportive housing, etc. in your city vs on your street. In your world view, how are they wrong? It's hard for me to understand how you could argue against them if you believe so strongly in your anti-AirBNB view.

Hell, I've heard this exact line of argumentation against allowing renters in condos and even basement suites! "They're loud, they invite all their friends to party, they don't have a buy-in to the building/neighbourhood so they break and disrespect things, we ought to ban rentals!" Do you subscribe to this?

I'm very curious if this means you're A-OK with AirBNBs in any SFH? You ought to be right? Or conversely you must be extremely against anyone running a home business out of their condo/duplex/multiplex, right?

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by whatnext

The biggest complaint or negative comment I have heard from tourists to Vancouver is the street disorder, the junkies slumped over on downtown sidewalks, tents on streets etc.

A hotel in greater vancouver is north of $180 a night. If I want an AirB&B that's running as a commercial operation that's $200 or more. If I want a low-cost hotel for a weekend at less than $100/night my options are nothing, or the Downtown East Side in a hostel.

Vancouver's hotel selection is either high-end, even higher-end, off-market illegal suites and SRO's.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by MIPS

A hotel in greater vancouver is north of $180 a night. If I want an AirB&B that's running as a commercial operation that's $200 or more. If I want a low-cost hotel for a weekend at less than $100/night my options are nothing, or the Downtown East Side in a hostel.

Vancouver's hotel selection is either high-end, even higher-end, off-market illegal suites and SRO's.

Yes, that's what happens when the mania for condos for investors drives up land prices for every other use. I was shocked just now checking dates in February for Vancouver vs Vienna. Vienna had a ton of hotel options under $100 a night, including some midrange chains like Mercure.