Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What Airbnb Did to New York City

citylab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 240 posts

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#191

Post by [deleted] »

ac29 wrote: post #151
matte_black wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.

A couple thousand dollars isnt going to get you anything but a couple acres of desert wasteland in the US. You might get a nicer piece of land for $20,000 but the sort of places where land is that cheap are often very rural. 45 minute drives to the nearest medical care or supermarket, and if you're lucky, maybe electric utility hookups (water, sewer, internet? good luck).

[deleted]

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#192

Post by lr4444lr »

amorphid wrote: post #88
murph-almighty wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why so? Here Grandma owns the house, but in the other situation she doesn't own the apartment, the landlord does.

Because the landlord knew exactly what they were doing when they rented the apartment to Grandma. If the landlord didn't want to enter into a contract the involving rent control, they shouldn't have been in the business of renting NYC apartments.

Not true: blanket legislation in NY brought all buildings constructed pre 1947 into rent control and rent-stabilization to pre-1974 buildings:

https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/tenants_rights.pdf

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#193

Post by kerkeslager »

exolymph wrote: post #170
kerkeslager wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I get not throwing grandma out of the $250/month 4BR she’s been living in for 50 years, but it means something like 200,000 rent-controlled/rent-stabilized units are also raising everyone else’s rent by decreasing inventory. So you're saying that affordable housing is preventing housing from being affordable? LOL. > The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable. Want cheaper rents…

>> The endless red tape in new construction makes non-luxury bulidings unprofitable. Want cheaper rents? Fast-track approval for new apt buildings. > Luxury buildings are more profitable because rooms are more spacious (literally requires less construction), you need to make fewer sales to make the same revenue (in a 10 story building you sell 40 condos instead of 80) and buyers are more financially stable (each sale…

I understand the problem, I'm saying cutting red tape doesn't solve that problem.

It's always going to be irrational to choose lower-margin projects. Let's say there's a 30% margin on luxury housing and a -10% margin on low-income housing, and you cut red tape, increasing margins by 20%. It doesn't suddenly become rational to build low-income housing. Margins are now 50% on luxury housing and 10% on low-income housing. All this has achieved is that builders make more money when they build luxury housing.

The problem is that space in NYC is limited, and income inequality is such that the wealthy can and do pay orders of magnitude more for housing than the poor can. This means that, instead of dividing up the space in NYC between the wealthy and the poor, it's more profitable to divide up the space in NYC between the wealthy and not serve the poor at all. This incentive structure will always exist as long as the demand for luxury housing is greater than the total amount of housing available.

There's no reason to believe we've hit the ceiling on what the demand for luxury housing. So even if we were to selectively cut red tape only on low-income housing, the wealthy could simply pay more for luxury housing to ensure that it remains most profitable to give them what they want. And meanwhile you're giving these incentives to the wealthy construction and real estate companies, increasing the income inequality that caused the problem in the first place.

I've said before that HN would rather incentivize nails than use a hammer, and this is another case of this. If we want affordable housing, we need to require companies to build affordable housing as a condition of being able to build anything in NYC. Giving more money to already-wealthy people isn't going to solve this problem.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#194

Post by gamblor956 »

ordinaryperson wrote: post #34
svantana wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The density of NY is the cause of the high costs of living, making it even denser is unlikely to bring costs down long term. It would make more sense just to accept that living centrally is a luxury not everyone can afford, and instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes).

From Crown Heights and Bed Stuy (two of the neighborhoods singled out in the article) it's about a 45-60 minute commute into Manhattan via the subway -- not exactly "living centrally." Are people supposed to live 2 hours out? > instead channel the revenue away from the rent-seekers and into the hands of the public (i.e. by increasing property taxes) Good luck getting that passed. And while I'm in favor of higher taxe…

People who can afford to live in NYC generally are tax-insensitive, and mostly would ignore the type of tax increase we're discussing. It would take a double-digit increase in the tax rate to even trigger a noticeable dip in the number of high-wealth individuals.

Source: Me. I used to represent high-wealth individuals.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#195

Post by matte_black »

ac29 wrote: post #151
matte_black wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bah, UK is so small it’s easy to see how it can be a problem. America has so much land available out there, some of it is incredibly cheap the farther you are from civilization, even almost free. I think I could buy several rolling acres of land for a couple thousand bucks right now.

A couple thousand dollars isnt going to get you anything but a couple acres of desert wasteland in the US. You might get a nicer piece of land for $20,000 but the sort of places where land is that cheap are often very rural. 45 minute drives to the nearest medical care or supermarket, and if you're lucky, maybe electric utility hookups (water, sewer, internet? good luck).

A desert wasteland is still land nonetheless. Great for land collectors. Best part about very rural areas, you can drive really fucking fast.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#196

Post by ng12 »

bradleyjg wrote: post #159
somberi wrote: post #132

As an apartment owner in Manhattan, I find one part of the study surprising. Most Co-ops and Condos (two types of apartment financial structuring that is common in NYC), explicitly ban AirBnB rental. The apartment I own, in a fancy part of the city (Upper East Side), penalises the owner $350 for first infraction, and the fines escalate for each subsequent infraction. Most Co-ops even prohibit non-owners living in the…

Why would you think people willing to violate state law would have any scruples about violating a propriety lease or condo agreement?

You do not want to mess with a co-op board in NYC. You'll have neighbors who will rat you out whenever they can, the doormen/supers will be on the lookout for sketchy behavior, and the board will be draconian in it's enforcement. It sounds silly but people take co-op rules very seriously.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#197

Post by lmm »

teh_klev wrote: post #154
lmm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodati…

> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if…

> Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if not more, than as a few fleeting transient warm bodies with suitcases could?

There's got to be diminishing returns on beautiful surroundings, surely - seeing a mountain for the hundredth or thousandth time can't compete with seeing it for the first time. So better to give dozens of people a chance to see it once than have a few people see it over and over again. (Or if someone really does want to see it over and over again, they can pay what it costs).

> Also, and ultimately, it's the local permanent residents that sustain, year round, the two pub/restaurants, the village shop and the assortment of plumber, electrician, carpenters (all of which also provide substantial local employment), not infrequent visitors occupying holiday homes that lie empty for 50% or more of the year.

Well if tourists are able to pay more for housing than permanent residents then they're probably also going to be spending more on meals out, more likely to want upgraded plumbing or electrics (or damage those in an unfamiliar house).... But assuming you're right, employment is a means to an end, not a goal in itself. If someone has their heart set on a career as a chef or shopkeeper or plumber or electrician or carpenter, good for them, but that doesn't mean they're entitled to do that job in a particularly picturesque place.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#198

Post by andrewjl »

teh_klev wrote: post #154
lmm wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the price has gone up so much, there's a financial incentive to build more until supply matches demand and prices drop to previous levels. > These properties are barely fully booked during the summer months or holiday/peak seasons, and are empty for weeks at a time in the winter and off-seasons. > This is such a waste and hugely frustrating for folks who live and work in these communities trying to find accomodati…

> Is it really so implausible that for a house in a scenic rural area, a succession of people renting it for a week or two each over the summer might end up getting more out of it (between them) than someone wanting to live and work in it for a whole year? Are you really suggesting that just because you live and work in your local (scenic) rural community you couldn't possibly enjoy the surroundings just as much, if…

Assuming we're still talking about free markets, there are two solutions:

1) Build enough housing for everyone, tourists and locals alike. 2) Ban short-term rentals entirely.

Option 1 might alter the surroundings or vibes, but option 2 will destroy the tourist-dependent component of the local economy, which for many places IS the economy.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#199

Post by throwaway_80bf3 »

camgunz wrote: post #187

My take, after living in NYC Airbnbs for around a year, is the effects are most dramatic in non-white areas. And it's not lower income people who are renting their place out on Airbnb; it's typically commercial renters and hipsters/professionals looking to supplement their income. So it certainly feels like the main effect is to accelerate gentrification.

After living there for 10 years I moved on from NYC at the end of last year. My last apartment was in a neighborhood in Brooklyn that is still heavily African American but will probably look significantly different in 5 year. The number of European tourists that just show up and come and go on the subway platform there was wild. I have lived in post-gentrification neighborhoods mostly and had not seen anything like this. The only reasonable explanation was AirBnB.

Re: What Airbnb Did to New York City

#200

Post by throwaway_80bf3 »

stevenking86l wrote: post #31
ironjunkie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kind of agree with you. Don't even think living in Manhattan if you don't pull at least 150k$. (Or be ready for some of those roomshare situations). I'm also amazed by the average night price at Manhattan hotels. Even during normal weeks, the cheapest is well above 300$/night.

Lived in Manhattan for 6 years 2011-2017 in The East Village. Made about half that. 1 roommate. 2 bedroom. Occasionally worked a side job (tutoring) but was for extra cash more than necessity. I was working in the live music industry so I had free access to a lot of live shows around town which allowed me to save money but still do the things that make living in NYC Great. It’s very possible. Was kind to my landlord,…

Good for you for locking in a 2011 rent, but that was 7 years ago.
Post reply on HN