Barcelona will eliminate tourist apartments

Post by trifurcate » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:36 PM UTC

davidw wrote: post #101

chongli wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Elasticity of demand is the elephant in the room for build-more-housing advocates. Let's say NYC's mayor rubbed a genie's lamp and wished to double the city's housing supply overnight. Yes, rental and real estate prices would crash through the floor due to the glut of supply. But then millions of people would move to the city and buy up all that supply. This would rapidly double the population of the city which would…

The elephant in the room for people who are against building enough housing is that they're all convinced that everyone would move to their particular locale. I have heard that "everyone" would move to * San Francisco * Bend, Oregon * Boulder, Colorado * Seattle * Austin, Texas * New York City * Santa Barbara, California * Hawaii * Montana * and on and on and on You know what? No, not everyone is going to move to New…

Post by silverpepsi » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:38 PM UTC

jorvi wrote: post #165

kachapopopow wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is that the "airbnb" areas drive normal citizens out which during off-seasons drains foot traffic making local shops go out of business which further complicates the problem. Not to mention that most tourists don't even sit around the local area, but rather go to the city attractions. Airbnb and resident housing areas are just not compatible, they have different needs and require different infrastructure. H…

The problem with hotel rooms is that they’re more expensive, get much more expensive per additional person, and don’t have the amenities of an appartement. If I’m somewhere with a group for longer than three days, we want to be able to hang somewhere and cook our own food. The only other thing that offers this feature set is private rooms in hostels, and those are both rare and nearly always fully booked. I’m not say…

Post by jll29 » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:39 PM UTC

tomhoward wrote: post #30

lucasfcosta wrote: post #5

Honest question: does this work? It seems to me that this change will have unintended effects and will fail to produce the desired results. AFAIK rent in NYC hasn’t gone down since they changed their short-term rental regulations. I might be naive, but I’d assume that the solution is to build more housing to increase the supply instead of curbing the demand? Genuinely curious about others’ takes on this.

In Melbourne/Victoria, Australia, from 2025 they’re applying a government levy on vacation rentals and using it to fund new public and affordable housing projects [1]. They’ve also added a land tax on second homes to disincentivize hoarding of property (though this has had some perverse effects, notably, reducing long-term rental stock and moving into the owner-occupier segment). It’s too early to evaluate outcomes,…

Post by voisin » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:39 PM UTC

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #104

lostlogin wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what it’s worth, it’s a little closer than your numbers imply. The city averages 2.51 people per household, so now they just need 75k more houses. https://www.barcelona.cat/infobarcelona/en/tema/city-council...

It still doesn't exactly look great that they "just" need ~45 years of house production to have happened yesterday.

Post by Detrytus » Fri, Jun 21, 2024, 8:40 PM UTC

hombre_fatal wrote: post #21

othello wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barcelona has a 16,000 people per square km density - that’s already one of the highest in Europe. https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/barcelona-pop... .

It's 67th in the world and less dense than 11 French cities, though not a great comparison because most of those are small cities. But just because it's in the top 100 doesn't mean it's maxed out. It still has 5000/sqkm fewer people than Paris. Nor does it mean this trade off for a measly 10,000 flats is worth it in such a large city.