The big Airbnb debate

[WarrenC12]

The tone of this conversation is essentially that AirBNB can provide a great experience as a user, but you don't want your neighbours running them. All very understandable IMO.

I'm writing this from an AirBNB in Mexico right now and it's a great experience that's much more immersive than the typical sanitized "all-inclusive" resorts.

Hotels nickel and dimed their way into this problem. Remember when they all added daily unavoidable "resort fees"? Now AirBNB is getting into the same games.

I do think they need more regulation, and most importantly, taxation. Governments love to fleece tourists in the form of special taxes, and AirBNB needs the same levels of taxes that hotels have to charge.

[bridgeoftea]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The tone of this conversation is essentially that AirBNB can provide a great experience as a user, but you don't want your neighbours running them. All very understandable IMO.

I'm writing this from an AirBNB in Mexico right now and it's a great experience that's much more immersive than the typical sanitized "all-inclusive" resorts.

Hotels nickel and dimed their way into this problem. Remember when they all added daily unavoidable "resort fees"? Now AirBNB is getting into the same games.

I do think they need more regulation, and most importantly, taxation. Governments love to fleece tourists in the form of special taxes, and AirBNB needs the same levels of taxes that hotels have to charge.

Was in Cuba over the winter and found after 3 days of being locked on the resort I could have been anywhere. Barely got any real authentic Cuban immersion and when I did, it was rushed. Felt very North Korea at times lol.

[lio45]

Airbnb is in the news daily here. Also, apparently 92.5% of Airbnbs are illegal, and there's little that's done.

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...ions-illegales

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...tes-sans-effet

https://www.journaldemontreal.com/20...-type-airbnb-1

https://journalmetro.com/local/ville...re-poursuivis/

[rousseau]

Echoing what most other posters have said, at first AirBnB seemed like a unique opportunity to stay in apartments owned by locals in interesting neighbourhoods, but eventually it felt like most of the places we stayed at were run by corporations, and whatever personal touches we'd previously experienced were gone.

We also started to get annoyed by the ridiculous extra fees. "Cleaning fee of $125"? That's a cash grab for something you're supposed to do anyway and should be included in the initial cost. Structuring the fees this way is an obvious ploy to make it look cheaper at first glance (the large print giveth etc.).

[LightingGuy]

If it makes you feel any better, just imagine how much more hotels would cost if they didn't have to compete with AirBNBs.

Cleaning fees are annoying, but it's not as if they don't tell you the cost before you commit to the purchase...

I'm all for better safety/sanitary regulations, but complaining that you're renting from a "business" and not a "person" is a stupid reason to be against something. How do you think the alternative option aka hotels are run?

Anyways.. first world problems...

[chowhou]

IMO just like the debate around replacing industrial/commercial with residential, the debate around rental vs owner occupied housing, the debate around rent control, the debate around housing prices, the debate around rental prices; the core issue for AirBnB is caused by poor land use policy and not allowing enough housing to be built. If you think that housing is being replaced by AirBnB, why is the discussion being framed as "there are too many AirBnBs" instead of "there aren't enough houses"? It seems to me like most of the arguments against AirBnB can be solved by "build more housing".

I like staying in AirBnBs, everyone I know who travels prefers to stay in AirBnBs. I know for a fact that I've stayed in at least one illegal AirBnBs (not by choice, I only found out because the owner left out a binder explaining the things not to do to alert the neighbours).

If the market demands it, and the harms can be mitigated by obvious policy decisions, why should it be illegal? It's kind of like marijuana in that way.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

I'm all for better safety/sanitary regulations, but complaining that you're renting from a "business" and not a "person" is a stupid reason to be against something. How do you think the alternative option aka hotels are run?

The point is that that was a big part of the appeal of Airbnbs - that it was a more personalised, authentic experience than renting a room in a generic corporate hotel.

But if AirBnBs are just going to offer the same soulless hotel experience (but with less regulatory oversight & sketchy safety standards), then they've lost their competitive advantage.

Originally Posted by chowhou

IMO just like the debate around replacing industrial/commercial with residential, the debate around rental vs owner occupied housing, the debate around rent control, the debate around housing prices, the debate around rental prices; the core issue for AirBnB is caused by poor land use policy and not allowing enough housing to be built. If you think that housing is being replaced by AirBnB, why is the discussion being framed as "there are too many AirBnBs" instead of "there aren't enough houses"? It seems to me like most of the arguments against AirBnB can be solved by "build more housing".

I like staying in AirBnBs, everyone I know who travels prefers to stay in AirBnBs. I know for a fact that I've stayed in at least one illegal AirBnBs (not by choice, I only found out because the owner left out a binder explaining the things not to do to alert the neighbours).

If the market demands it, and the harms can be mitigated by obvious policy decisions, why should it be illegal? It's kind of like marijuana in that way.

Housing isn't an easily scalable product where supply can just be infinitely increased to meet demand though. Land use policy isn't the only thing holding back more housing from being - it's a labour intensive & resource intensive endeavour, and land (especially in the most desirable places) is finite.

And the problem is, is that if x% of new hosuing units being built are being used for AirBnBs or investors instead of housing, that that much more housing needs to be built to meet actual housing demands. It's an inefficient allocation of resources if say, only 60% of new homes being built (as is the case in cities like Toronto) are actually ending up in the hands of end users.

Anyway, I haven't seen anyone here argue that AirBnBs should be illegal, just that they should be better regulated to A. prevent more tragedies like the recent one in Montreal from happening, and B. ensure that there is sufficient housing stock available for residents.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by LightingGuy

...complaining that you're renting from a "business" and not a "person" is a stupid reason to be against something. How do you think the alternative option aka hotels are run?

The entire premise of AirBnB was that it was supposed to be like a more affordable BnB, i.e. an alternative to hotels. The clue is in the name.

There used to be a wide range of prices. When the extra fees started appearing and the prices in decent locations went up, and the experience became like a corporate conveyor belt, it wasn't worth it anymore. At least to my wife and me.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Housing isn't an easily scalable product where supply can just be infinitely increased to meet demand though. Land use policy isn't the only thing holding back more housing from being - it's a labour intensive & resource intensive endeavour, and land (especially in the most desirable places) is finite.

And the problem is, is that if x% of new hosuing units being built are being used for AirBnBs or investors instead of housing, that that much more housing needs to be built to meet actual housing demands. It's an inefficient allocation of resources if say, only 60% of new homes being built (as is the case in cities like Toronto) are actually ending up in the hands of end users.

Minor disagreement there; If New York and Hong Kong can continue to build taller and taller buildings in Manhattan and Central, then I think every Canadian city has a long long way to go before there's any restriction on the amount of space.

Also, AirBnBs, just like investor-owned rentals, are not an inefficient allocation of resources. They're productive in the economy in their own way since if they're lucrative for those investing in them then they're clearly economically viable, so I wouldn't just casually throw them away as an inefficient allocation of resources. Is building a hotel instead of a condo building inefficient? I think it's probably better for the economy if housing units had more usage flexibility so instead of only allowing a building to be a hotel or a condo building let it potentially be both!

I tend to agree with some safety requirements, but you can only regulate what is already being done legally. AirBnBs are illegal (but operating) in tons of places and you can't really regulate the black market. (See marijuana)

[whatnext]

I always find it amusing that Gen Z and younger Millennials bill themselves as more environmentally aware yet think it is a god-given right to have a cheap AirBnB anywhere in the world a cheap (polluting) airfare to get there.

[JHikka]

Yeah, no generation prior to Gen Z ever demanded cheap accommodations or airfare anywhere in the world at any given time. Can't think of anyone asides from them that do that. Nevermind people who for decades have had second winter homes in the southern USA, or go on annual retreats to wealthy inclusive-resorts in otherwise destitute Caribbean countries, or yearly trips on cruise ships. How dare Gen Z want to do something without being chastised.

[niwell]

To echo monkeyronin’s points it’s a bit pointless to point at housing policy when this isn’t just a Canadian thing relegated to a few big cities. New Orleans for instance has a massive amount of vacant land that could be easily built upon yet the Airbnb market is in fact distorting rental rates in the city to the detriment of people who actually live there. Why would you bother building new housing to rent out at lower rates than more desirable places can be rented to non-residents a fraction of the year for? Nothing about this is productive to the economy except for the people who own them.

Also not sure we really want to be looking at Manhattan or Central in HK as examples of rational housing policy in general…

On the plus side I think more than a few Toronto property investors who thought Airbnb would be a big cash cow are now struggling to fill their places. It’s not really worth the hassle if you’re depending on the income and a lot of higher end travellers are going back to hotels. I know most of my friends and acquaintances are at least looking at all the options now before just checking out Airbnb.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I always find it amusing that Gen Z and younger Millennials bill themselves as more environmentally aware yet think it is a god-given right to have a cheap AirBnB anywhere in the world a cheap (polluting) airfare to get there.

When did I even ever say I was talking about Gen Z/Millennials? The ones I know can't afford to travel all the time, it's the baby boomers I know that are travelling the world and finding AirBnBs all over the place!

Originally Posted by niwell

To echo monkeyronin’s points it’s a bit pointless to point at housing policy when this isn’t just a Canadian thing relegated to a few big cities. New Orleans for instance has a massive amount of vacant land that could be easily built upon yet the Airbnb market is in fact distorting rental rates in the city to the detriment of people who actually live there. Why would you bother building new housing to rent out at lower rates than more desirable places can be rented to non-residents a fraction of the year for? Nothing about this is productive to the economy except for the people who own them.

I've never heard of AirBnB increasing rents in greater New Orleans. Care to source that claim? If AirBnB was increasing rents, then it should increase the viability of building new housing to rent at higher rates... (And unlike in Canadian cities, you're actually allowed to build new housing in New Orleans)

Also not sure we really want to be looking at Manhattan or Central in HK as examples of rational housing policy in general.

I wasn't talking about housing policy in Manhattan or Central, just the fact that even in those places they apparently still have space to build more housing, is all. Nowhere in Canada even comes close to the density of those areas, so we shouldn't be worried about running out of space anywhere (yet!).

[Changing City]

The City of Vancouver has some pretty stringent requirements to get a Short-term Rental Licence ($109 a year) . They have an MoU with AirBnB to require that the Licence number is included in the listing. You can see the basis on which someone can get a licence here.

You can only rent your own home, not anything else you own (those can be leased for 30 days or more, but not short-term). There are requirements for smoke alarms, a fire alarm, and either 45 minute fire seperation or a sprinkler system.

While there were initial problems with non-compliance after the new regualtions were introduced 5 years ago, in the first year 1,600 addresses had enforcement action, and in some cases court proceedings. My mid-2019 73% of short-term rentals were in compliance with the regulations, and 78% by 2020. Here's the report on the 2020 program (when covid started impacting demand for short term rentals). The 2021 report (the most recent currently available) showed 1,090 25% fewer short-term rentals, and 510 short-term rentals switched to long term rentals. Obviously covid will have had an impact, as well as the City's licencing system.

The existance of permanent AirBnB units reduces the potential rental market, which is already significantly stretched in many cities. Suggesting 'we should just build more units' is simplistic bs. We already have a rental shortage, and developers are building pretty much to their capacity - they certainly are in Greater Vancouver, and they appear to be in Canada. In the 2000s and the 2010s annual housing starts were 201,000 in each decade. In the past three years of the 2020s, it's been 250,000.

In Greater Vancouver the 2000s saw 15,360 average annual housing starts, the 2010s saw that increase to 21,655 and in the 2020s so far it's been 24,789.

There are tens of thousands approved units across the region that aren't (yet) being built, for a variety of reasons to do with financing, costs, labour shortages, inadequate sales, etc etc, but it's a myth to suggest it's because they're not being approved fast enough - it's because they can't be built faster.

Putting more rental units back into the market for longer term renters can only help the situation - even if it's only a few hundred, or a few thousand. And all of a sudden, there are five new hotels proposed across the city too.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The existance of permanent AirBnB units reduces the potential rental market, which is already significantly stretched in many cities. Suggesting 'we should just build more units' is simplistic bs. We already have a rental shortage, and developers are building pretty much to their capacity - they certainly are in Greater Vancouver, and they appear to be in Canada. In the 2000s and the 2010s annual housing starts were 201,000 in each decade. In the past three years of the 2020s, it's been 250,000.

Putting more rental units back into the market for longer term renters can only help the situation - even if it's only a few hundred, or a few thousand. And all of a sudden, there are five new hotels proposed across the city too.

It doesn't make sense to me to say "they physically cannot build more units" and in the same breath say "five new hotels will be built if we restrict AirBnBs".

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

It doesn't make sense to me to say "they physically cannot build more units" and in the same breath say "five new hotels will be built if we restrict AirBnBs".

One of the two hotels actually under construction is part of the podium of a residential tower. The other is located in the CBD where residential development isn't generally allowed.

The others are only proposed at this point, but it seems likely that there will be a pause in office construction for a while, as the significant recent new construction gets absorbed. (There's also additional office space coming back to the market as businesses restructure after covid). Commercial developments have avoided hotel construction while occupancy rates were down. There should be some construction capacity to switch from office to hotel.

Residential developers could build more residential units, except demand is still uncertain for condos as interest rates remain higher than they have been, and prices haven't fallen dramatically, so some projects haven't managed to sell enough to reach the number needed to commence construction. Federal changes to rules about foreign buyers are also slowing sales of some condo buildings. And of course, some investor purchasers will be less keen to buy if they know they can only lease as long-term rental, rather that short-term. Some residential projects are switching to market rental, but only some developers are willing to make that switch.

The slowdown in new hotel construction was happening pre-covid so presumably partly related to AirBnB, (there were 6,000 on offer just in the City of Vancouver, many of them investor owned and never lived in). There's now greater demand as the pandemic is no longer affecting many people's travel plans, and the business case for new hotels is stronger.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

It's chewing up the nicest, formerly long-term rental units in the nicer areas of town - which is bad enough - but also making those areas more transient and a bit rowdier. Tourism here is still more fanny pack than meth pipe, but there is enough of the latter to notice.

Air BnB is definitely responsible for tightening the rental market and like SHH points out some of the best rentals in any given city are no longer available. Great for tourists, awful for residents that can't afford for sale homes/condos.

As others have stated, the Air BnB owners having strict rules where they expect the guest to do the cleaning is absurd

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Air BnB is definitely responsible for tightening the rental market and like SHH points out some of the best rentals in any given city are no longer available. Great for tourists, awful for residents that can't afford for sale homes/condos.

As others have stated, the Air BnB owners having strict rules where they expect the guest to do the cleaning is absurd

Although I stated I'm pro-AirBNB, I do have some complaints about some of the ones I've stayed in:

- No check-in process. The second time I used AirBNB - ironically in Old Montreal just a few blocks from last week's fire - I got to the property and there was no way to get in. The doorbell didn't work and nobody answered the phone at the number in the listing. It took 3-4 hours to reach someone to get let in - and this was at the tail end of a snowstorm.

- Falsely advertising that the listing had two rooms when it was in fact one. I had specifically booked that place as I was bringing a friend and we wanted separate rooms for each of us. The host seemed unaware that her own listing stated this when I brought it up to her.

- Falsely advertising that the listing was a room in a family's home. The family did not live in the home, it was in fact a house with 6 AirBNB rooms. That one was also extremely hot all the time, with the temperature often in the high 80s and the window in the bedroom being non-openable (a fire hazard, in retrospect)

- Security cameras in the kitchen which the host could watch at any time. I don't like the idea of being watched while I'm in the unit. I have no problem with a security camera at the entrance, but in the unit is too much. As that was not disclosed in the listing, I made sure to point out the existence of the cameras in my review.

Aside from those four experiences, I've had excellent experiences with AirBNBs - there have been many more positive experiences than negative ones. The best one I stayed in had a cat, and the cat was very fond of me for some reason.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The best one I stayed in had a cat, and the cat was very fond of me for some reason.

So cute That would be a big plus for my gf and I while traveling (we love cats, but don't bring them with us obviously).

Those cleaning charges are total bullshit. I had no idea some people did this. My Airbnbs are actually fully runs like real hotels, my buddy who runs them has his employees who change the bed sheets, make the beds, clean the dishes and mugs, clean the bathrooms, refill toilet paper and soap/shampoo, etc. It's built in the price of the stay and there's no other charge for anything (AFAIK).

Contrary to most here, I've actually never been a user of Airbnb, only a supplier of them. So I realize I don't actually know how most of them are run -- just mine.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Yeah, no generation prior to Gen Z ever demanded cheap accommodations or airfare anywhere in the world at any given time. Can't think of anyone asides from them that do that. Nevermind people who for decades have had second winter homes in the southern USA, or go on annual retreats to wealthy inclusive-resorts in otherwise destitute Caribbean countries, or yearly trips on cruise ships. How dare Gen Z want to do something without being chastised.

You conveniently forgot my point that Ma & Pa Kettle taking the RV down from Lethbridge to Arizona every year never claimed to be trying to save the world from climate change.