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

NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 161 posts

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#111

Post by iamcasen »

charlottetrvm wrote: post #74

The exact same true is for hotels, only worse. ANYTHING that uses up space that is not used for housing is by definition increasing rent for everyone. Hotels have a much bigger effect than Airnb because you'll find hotels in all of the most expensive and densely populated cities. If you replaced all hotels with regular rental units, think about how much rents would go down. To be more accurate, the report should say:…

Exactly. I wonder too if they are accounting for increased tax revenue due to more travelers visiting the city thanks to AirBnb. Honestly I've been able to travel a lot more because of AirBnb, and how affordable it is compared to a hotel.

At this point, prices are starting to stabilize with hotels in some of the bigger cities like NYC and SF, but still. I prefer the idea of freeing up under-utilized space for dynamic purposes as opposed to a fixed number of hotel location.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#112

Post by Androider »

free652 wrote: post #102
Androider wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's already a major building boom going on in NYC at the moment! 11+ super-talls (300m+) and 40+ talls (150m+) are under construction at the moment, and more than that has been completed in just the last few years. Massive amounts of rental units and co-ops are coming online in UWS (Riverside Center), Hudson Yards in Mid-Town etc [1]. And prices have come noticeably down as a result, you can also get more concess…

I dont think the prices have come down at all, they may have flatten out. Most of the new units are high end, 4k for 1bed?

Median rent was down ~4% in 2017 [1], some areas like UWS, Hell's Kitchen, LIC are down ~10%. Those are also incidentally the places with the most new construction. The whole Hunter's Point area in LIC has been completely transformed in just a few years from industrial to residental. 3K in Hunter's Point will now get you a new construction with all the bells and whistles and a few free months.

https://ny.curbed.com/2018/1/24/16925172/nyc-rent-2017-decre...

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#113

Post by [deleted] »

sdhgaiojfsa wrote: post #106
toomuchtodo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easy there with terms like “better real estate utilization”, which could be conflated with “more efficient rent seeking at the expense of housing consumers”. The end goal is not always maximum profit extraction. NYC is served best by balancing the needs of both long term and short term renters, while ensuring investors reasonable compensation/rates of return on capital invested for services provided.

This is not what people traditionally think of as "rent-seeking." Rent-seeking behavior is doing something to get more money without providing any corresponding value. AirBnb hosts do provide value -- just not to the people who live in the neighborhood. But it is fine to argue that, based on their willingness to pay more, out of town visitors provide better utilization of the housing resource. TL;DR: Extracting rents…

[deleted]

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#114

Post by cimmanom »

gautamnarula wrote: post #43
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that: They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts".

> They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts". IIRC, NYC passed a law against this and Airbnb has bee cracking down on those types of listings. I think SF has…

Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#115

Post by cimmanom »

gautamnarula wrote: post #43
CodeWriter23 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From that: They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts".

> They do not address the possibility that the atypical minority (which presumably is apartments used exclusively for AirBNB and not otherwise occupied by a tenant) might cause the $626M rent increase illustrated by the study. This paragraph seems to be a diversionary tactic, "No, look only at these facts". IIRC, NYC passed a law against this and Airbnb has bee cracking down on those types of listings. I think SF has…

Unfortunately, this law is only marginally enforceable without AirBnB's wholehearted collaboration, and it's not in AirBnB's interest to do much more than pay lip service to enforcement.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#116

Post by cimmanom »

travisp wrote: post #50

If a few thousand airbnb units cost renters that much money, imagine how much renters would save if more and taller buildings were allowed to be built!

Indeed, we should be increasing housing supply further.

But even at a record breaking construction pace, we're building 100K annually. And that doesn't even include the people who would move here if it were less unaffordable.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#118

Post by busterarm »

busterarm wrote: post #108
tvchurch wrote: post #101

How much extra do NYC renters pay from not building enough new supply? Or from rent control stifling the development of new supply?

Yes, the 0.7% of "rent controlled" units of NYC's available inventory that's shrinking by 2.5%/yr is totally stifling new supply. Feel free to tell us about how the rent stabilized units, which do compromise 1/3 of the inventory but in 3/4 of cases are within spitting distance (10%, and see 4% rent increases every 2 years) of market rate are keeping down supply though. Tell us about about how luxury condos in places…

Or instead, how about I tell you about my time working for a real estate tax certiorari firm in NYC and how landlords with multiple properties will deliberately underutilize their buildings for tax advantages.

Occupancy maximums of 90% and one or multiple buildings deliberately at 0% occupancy (usually the primary residence of the landlords' extended family members for undeclared income) is the norm.

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#119

Post by conanbatt »

bernawil wrote: post #104
conanbatt wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it will also increase occupants and the experience of occupants. If you put a fancy restaurant that sells gourmet popcorn, you raise the price of popcorn in general, and you can also increase the amount of people that eat popcorn.

I don't think it's relevant to compare popcorn to positional goods like housing.

What would be the difference

Re: NYC Renters Paid Extra $616M Thanks to Airbnb, Study Says

#120

Post by cimmanom »

icebraining wrote: post #58
travisp wrote: post #50

If a few thousand airbnb units cost renters that much money, imagine how much renters would save if more and taller buildings were allowed to be built!

Does NYC impose heavy restrictions on the height of buildings? I've never been there, but they seem tall to me.

Not heavy restrictions.

There are a few historic districts (read: well-off NIMBYs) such as Park Slope where height is strictly capped.

In Manhattan the caps are generally designed to ensure that at least some light and air still reaches the street (before they were imposed, buildings were build to their full height to the edges of lots, and contributed to the city being very dark.

Much of Manhattan is actually somewhat low-rise (3-5 stories). In those areas, developers can buy "air rights" from neighboring low-rise buildings if they want to build taller on a nearby lot.

Post reply on HN