Airbnb and the Problem of Data(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Airbnb and the Problem of Data
http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/11/airbnb-and-the-problem-of-data
3 comments
Quotation #2, from the conclusion:
"Lastly, it’s important to remember that technological change breeds changes in the way that we travel. … it’s [not] accurate to call what is happening “tourism.” It’s an entirely new market that isn’t really competitive to traditional hotels. … an emergent and more globalized and mobile population."
"Lastly, it’s important to remember that technological change breeds changes in the way that we travel. … it’s [not] accurate to call what is happening “tourism.” It’s an entirely new market that isn’t really competitive to traditional hotels. … an emergent and more globalized and mobile population."
I agree don't agree with that part. Hotels don't just cater to "tourism", and AirBnb is absolutely replacing them. I don't doubt that some AirBnb experiences live up to those seen in the ads (OMG I'm living like a local!) but for me and everyone I know, it's a cheaper, more convenient alternative to a hotel.
It's a hotel replacement, but it's also more than that.
Airbnb works really well for the awkward space between short-term and long-term. For example, if you're spending three months in Bangkok -- you'll want to have the features of an apartment (full kitchen, laundry, etc.).
The other niche is rooms for rent. This is primary used by young and cash-constrained folks -- but it's a surprisingly large number of bookings on Airbnb.
Personally, I think having more travel options for young people and the less wealthy is a hugely positive development.
Airbnb works really well for the awkward space between short-term and long-term. For example, if you're spending three months in Bangkok -- you'll want to have the features of an apartment (full kitchen, laundry, etc.).
The other niche is rooms for rent. This is primary used by young and cash-constrained folks -- but it's a surprisingly large number of bookings on Airbnb.
Personally, I think having more travel options for young people and the less wealthy is a hugely positive development.
It's both good because it creates opportunity and provides opportunity to a new class of traveler but it's bad because it expands the number of people who can travel and thus negatively impact the environment.
Not much different from wanting to eliminate poverty from the world, however, we know full well a middle class person had greater impact on the environment. They consume more goods and waste more.
It's neither good or bad but something we must keep in mind as we can't wish the consequences away.
Not much different from wanting to eliminate poverty from the world, however, we know full well a middle class person had greater impact on the environment. They consume more goods and waste more.
It's neither good or bad but something we must keep in mind as we can't wish the consequences away.
Mobility and consumption don't need to be correlated. If the middle class family is away on vacation, they can relinquish their home for the duration and obviate the need to build big hotels. That's a lot of saved embodied environmental costs! While a bit extreme: That means you could bulldoze all hotels to make open green spaces since their vacant rooms are unnecessary.
It's similar for automobiles. Take a look the overall carbon footprint for automobiles. Last time I looked it up, at least 1/3 of the car's lifetime carbon footprint was due to initial manufacturing -- for an asset that (as a personal automobile) has sub-1% utilization. Share the car, and we have fewer cars and tolerate >30% more individual travel for the same net carbon footprint.
It's similar for automobiles. Take a look the overall carbon footprint for automobiles. Last time I looked it up, at least 1/3 of the car's lifetime carbon footprint was due to initial manufacturing -- for an asset that (as a personal automobile) has sub-1% utilization. Share the car, and we have fewer cars and tolerate >30% more individual travel for the same net carbon footprint.
Travel and the increase in travel does add environmental pressures. One must get somewhere one way or another (and increased travel means more train or plane passengers). You're also buying things to adapt to the destination's weather, etc. It all adds up.
Also, at the destination, more people puts pressure on the ecology there. Imagine everyone being able to afford going to Antarctica, or let's say, the Grand Canyon or Mt Fuji. It's be environmentally disastrous. We'd eventually have to regulate access as is currently done for places like Antelope canyon.
Also, at the destination, more people puts pressure on the ecology there. Imagine everyone being able to afford going to Antarctica, or let's say, the Grand Canyon or Mt Fuji. It's be environmentally disastrous. We'd eventually have to regulate access as is currently done for places like Antelope canyon.
That is exactly why one can almost always laugh when reading about a company's mission to make the world a better place. Better to whom?
The author makes an error here: "But it’s problematic to price breakeven rates off of market-rate rents, because only 10 percent of the city’s housing stock is market-rate."
At the time the landlord has the decision of whether to rent out their unit or put it on Airbnb they will get market rate for it. Rent control limits future increases in rent. Illegally evicting a tenant has a similar financial pressure for market rate.
At the time the landlord has the decision of whether to rent out their unit or put it on Airbnb they will get market rate for it. Rent control limits future increases in rent. Illegally evicting a tenant has a similar financial pressure for market rate.
Data would be really useful.
Everyone has an opinion about airbnb. Here's my big worry.
San Francisco's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime (I grew up in SF in the 70s). In this time, I think it has gone from about 22% to a current rate of 14% or so.
I guess it's just important to me that SF continue to be a place people are from, rather than a place where young people move prior to having families, or (increasingly) a place where empty nesters move and enjoy the city after having families.
Here's the thing, I consider this to be a very economically vulnerable stretch of life. I have two kids, in SFUSD, and I'm starting to see just how colossal a disadvantage a family with two kids would be in a bidding war against someone who intends to put the extra bedrooms in a SFH or a 3 bedroom apartment on airbnb instead.
It's no secret that housing is in short supply in SF, and that the price of a house or apartment in SF reflects what the highest bidder is able to pay. It's also probably not surprising that kids are very expensive. A two income family (pretty tough to live in SF if you aren't) means daycare - and daycare costs, conservatively, over $2,000 a month per kid. Even if they're in SFUSD ("free"), after care at school and summer camps will run you $8,000+ if you're doing things the inexpensive way.
Now, imagine that a family with two kids now has to compete against a bidder who plans to put the "spare" bedrooms on airbnb, and who factors that into the bid. The family has two very expensive, non-revenue generating children. The airbnb buyer has a massive advantage here, and I see it as another factor that could potentially put massive new pressures on an already collapsing population of families with children. It could also reduce turnover - someone who no longer needs the extra bedrooms and might have in the past downsized (opening up a SFH for a new family) now rents the bedrooms out full time on airbnb.
Sure, these problems could have existed with permanent, long term tenants, but I do think that it was less likely. Airbnb definitely makes it far easier and more profitable to do this - this is one big reason why the company is so large and profitable itself.
Is this happening? I don't know, I don't have the data. Until then, it's just a fear, though not (in my opinion, obviously) an unfounded one. But if they company won't open up the data and recognize the possible danger, my guess is that the public will support strict regulations.
Everyone has an opinion about airbnb. Here's my big worry.
San Francisco's population of children has plummeted in my lifetime (I grew up in SF in the 70s). In this time, I think it has gone from about 22% to a current rate of 14% or so.
I guess it's just important to me that SF continue to be a place people are from, rather than a place where young people move prior to having families, or (increasingly) a place where empty nesters move and enjoy the city after having families.
Here's the thing, I consider this to be a very economically vulnerable stretch of life. I have two kids, in SFUSD, and I'm starting to see just how colossal a disadvantage a family with two kids would be in a bidding war against someone who intends to put the extra bedrooms in a SFH or a 3 bedroom apartment on airbnb instead.
It's no secret that housing is in short supply in SF, and that the price of a house or apartment in SF reflects what the highest bidder is able to pay. It's also probably not surprising that kids are very expensive. A two income family (pretty tough to live in SF if you aren't) means daycare - and daycare costs, conservatively, over $2,000 a month per kid. Even if they're in SFUSD ("free"), after care at school and summer camps will run you $8,000+ if you're doing things the inexpensive way.
Now, imagine that a family with two kids now has to compete against a bidder who plans to put the "spare" bedrooms on airbnb, and who factors that into the bid. The family has two very expensive, non-revenue generating children. The airbnb buyer has a massive advantage here, and I see it as another factor that could potentially put massive new pressures on an already collapsing population of families with children. It could also reduce turnover - someone who no longer needs the extra bedrooms and might have in the past downsized (opening up a SFH for a new family) now rents the bedrooms out full time on airbnb.
Sure, these problems could have existed with permanent, long term tenants, but I do think that it was less likely. Airbnb definitely makes it far easier and more profitable to do this - this is one big reason why the company is so large and profitable itself.
Is this happening? I don't know, I don't have the data. Until then, it's just a fear, though not (in my opinion, obviously) an unfounded one. But if they company won't open up the data and recognize the possible danger, my guess is that the public will support strict regulations.
"Cities need to understand whether short-term rental inventory is expanding faster than they can produce housing stock and whether that is impacting the availability of housing to long-term residents. Put another way: you would not A/B test changes to a software platform or interface without data, so why would you ask city policy makers to A/B test regulatory changes in the dark when it comes to the “platform” of their finite physical space?"