[fsargent]

Articles like this are supremely annoying. The devastating effect is caused by the fact that they aren’t building enough housing. The problem is not the demand for housing, it’s the supply.

Don’t blame Airbnb when you refuse to build enough housing, the markets going to figure out how to market.

[onlyrealcuzzo]

The problem is when your government is in the business of guaranteeing house prices go up a ton - and everyone is leveraged housing - that turns housing into a speculative meme stock and not something for people to live in - which turns out to supremely suck for anyone that doesn't own a house and doesn't want to rent progressively shittier apartments for the rest of their lives.

Canada is building plenty of housing. It's the entire economy besides oil and gas.

Sure, you might be under-building slightly in B.C. and Toronto (mostly due to your gov's immigration policy specifically to prop up your housing bubble) - but that doesn't explain why prices have been going ape-shit literally everywhere in Canada for 30 years...

[mattmaroon]

If Canada is building plenty of housing, why the multi-decade crisis? Governments that wish to keep housing prices rising do so almost exclusively by limiting building housing.

I've read a lot by economists on this over the years and they all agree lack of new housing is the problem in the Canadian home market so if you've got an alternative take I'd love to hear it.

[pcthrowaway]

> Canada is building plenty of housing.

Canada is adding less housing stock than new residents (births plus immigrants minus deaths) every year, and the housing stock was already inadequate for the population 5 years ago.

I love that Canada is known as a welcoming country to people from diverse backgrounds, but the fact that the government treats housing and immigration policies separately is absolutely unhinged.

[wubrr]

Canada is not building enough housing, but you're 100% right about the government propping up the housing prices any way it can.

[snapplebobapple]

We are not building plenty of housing. We started the most houses we have since 1973 in 2021, but we aren't setting any records (Canada's population in 1973 was ~23 million vs ~40 million today). (for reference: https://www.statista.com/statistics/198040/total-number-of-c...) We probably need to double or triple our output for a decade to bring housing per capita back into line with a balanced market.

What we are doing is massively overpaying for land and massively overpaying for government ineptitude on each of those units, which is why housing is such a large part of the GDP when it is embarrassing on an actual production basis.

[J_Shelby_J]

> when your government is in the business of guaranteeing house prices go up

This is why people blame airbnb and PE. It makes them uncomfortable to blame the government, and by extension their parents, for creating this situation. It's much easier to blame a faceless other.

[derefr]

Canada is building plenty of homes; but homes are not housing, per se. "Housing" is usually used in these policy conversations as an abbreviation for "affordable housing" — and Canada is very much not building that. At least not in the large numbers needed.

The majority of Canadian property developers — at least, the majority of the ones who can afford to buy up lots for redevelopment in this market — seem to have an overt, almost monomaniacal focus on developing only top-of-market properties. Municipalities have to essentially force them at gunpoint to take any consideration for creating any housing stock to sell to the rest of the market.

• When you look at any new condo development in a Canadian city (without government affordable-housing involvement), there end up being no bachelor, 1bd, or even 2bd units in the development; it's all 3bd+. Picture a condo tower where every floor is the penthouse. Many Canadian property developers only build this type of condo building.

• Likewise, when you look at any new SFH development in a Canadian city (without government affordable-housing involvement), there end up being no small-lot developments; instead, contiguous previously reasonably-sized lots are almost always bought up and merged, to create space to plop down a McMansion. Again, many Canadian property developers only build McMansions.

Letting these kinds of developers loose on a city, results in a sort of "second-wave gentrification", where neighbourhoods previously affordable to the middle class, get rebuilt to be only affordable by the upper class (for whom this is mostly not their primary residence, but rather a rental property/airbnb, investment property, vacation home, property to lend to friends/family visiting them, etc.)

Classical "first wave" gentrification pushes the working class out of the city — creating a situation where the service economy of the city becomes driven by those commuting from outside the city, and low-margin service-economy businesses struggle to retain talent. (Which in turn forces the city to look into the creation/expansion of high-speed regional transit — because suddenly all the service-worker commuters are clogging the highways to get to work from the cheap exurbs.)

"Second wave" gentrification, in the places it happens, pushes the professional class outside the city as well. Now, even people like doctors, corporate managers, etc. struggle to afford to live near their place of work.

Unlike the service workers being pushed out — which is mostly a "silent" problem observable only to the service workers themselves, those trying to hire them, and city infrastructure planners — the professional class being pushed out is a problem observable by the public. The professional class often includes small-business owners, who previously operated some retail/office/clinic/etc in the city, out of street-fronted commercial rental space close to where they live. Having had their living space pushed out of the city, rather than commuting, these business owners will often choose to simply move their business, so that they can continue to live close to work. This "empties out" the city of amenities, as anything run by this class relocates to the cheaper exurbs.

Big corporate offices do remain in the city, as big corporate executives — the ones who decide where to put their office — are exactly the kind of upper-class who can still afford to live in the city. So you now get "suits" commuting into the city. And big chain businesses still manage to exist in the city to cater to these workers' needs (though even some of these do start to shutter their unaffordable urban-core locations.) But all the independent restaurants and other nice after-work things that made these bigcorp workers want to take a job in that city, are gone. So these workers start heading straight home after work. And that causes the revenue of even chain businesses within the city begins to crumble. The city becomes "sleepy." Things start closing at 10PM or earlier, because the revenue past that hour isn't worth staffing a graveyard shift. The city stops being known for its "vibrant nightlife."

(See also: Manhattan, one of the earliest victims of property-development-driven second-wave gentrification ~40 years ago. All the amenities shifted to the other boroughs of NYC, and now there's nothing for locals "in" Manhattan any more — save for a few family businesses that have fully owned their properties for decades, and who could be overnight millionaires by selling, but keep holding off.)

---

Mind you, I do understand why the housing developers have this focus. As profit-driven companies, property developers aim to increase margins; and if you're in a market where there is high demand from the every "level" of the market, then you're going to gravitate toward building for the top-of-market bidders, as the accepted cost-plus-percentage pricing model of for real estate translates into higher absolute profits when building more expensive properties. As well, there's less bureaucratic overhead (both in terms of labor dealing with bureaucracy, and in terms of government fees) involved in building + selling fewer, larger lots, vs. more, smaller lots. And there's the fact that the most in-demand lots, if you luck into developing one, can be fought over by buyers, resulting in bids skyrocketing, and you the developer pocketing most of that first-sale surplus.

But these factors are exactly why governments in Canada, at all levels, must step in (and lately, increasingly are stepping in) to regulate property development. Developers aren't gonna just stop obeying market forces on their own. Governments either have to tweak the market forces themselves (e.g. by blocking foreign purchase of investment properties for speculation, as has been done in BC), or require the building of at least some lots/units designed to be affordable as part of larger developments.

Of course, a property developer that wasn't driven by a profit motive, would be able to just build entirely affordable housing. No level of Canadian government has gone so far as to propose setting one of these up as a Crown corporation... just yet. But that might be where things end up. Because, as you say, the only other lever the government has — decreasing the value of existing housing — isn't one any government is ever going to pull.

[Sebguer]

Airbnb doesn't service 'demand for housing', it artificially decreases supply for the benefit of tourists.

[bredren]

And the landlords. If the financial and risk incentives to do short term housing did not outweigh standard rentals landlords would not Airbnb.

If Airbnb was not allowed, or severely restricted in residential neighborhoods it would reduce options for holding onto a house that could be sold for single family housing.

Landlords take advantage of loose enforcement of Airbnb permitting. I have seen a landlord create a fake living space to get a permit they should not have had first hand. There is a site that uses data to indicate these bad actors working on a much greater scale than this.

[j45]

More of a reallocation

If a small inventory can break supply even worse that’s an under supply issue not just demand or Airbnb.

Markets will prioritize around profitable transactions.

[asdff]

It depends. I have used it for short term lease between long term lease in the same area before. No other landlord lets you rent for a month they all want you locked in for a year. Its more expensive for sure but its a lot cheaper than breaking a year lease to rent someplace for a month.

[rottencupcakes]

Why do you call that artificial? Isn’t the market clearing amount of housing when both long and short term needs are met?

Are you against all tourism or travel?

[1123581321]

This suggests appeal to visitors as one of the root problems alongside housing supply. Building apartments in place of a demolished popular monument or paved-over natural wonder would solve both problems.

[wubrr]

The problem is that most new housing in Canada is being bought up by investors, and the government refuses to do anything to disincentivize this, and continues to prop up the bubble any way it can. That might be because the majority of the federal government MPs are real estate investors themselves...

[zamfi]

Isn't Vancouver famous for instituting a vacant-housing tax?

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/taxes/speculation-vacancy...

[Tiktaalik]

That's only the problem if you're almost wealthy enough to be able to buy a home and you see investors as competition that prevents you from doing that.

If you're a working class renter that never really expects to be able to have the wealth to buy a home, the "investor" boogieman that is "buying up housing" is creating more places for you to live.

[RandomWorker]

Not most, historically 15% of supply has been bought up by investors. Most recent figures I’ve seen from 2022 it was 19%. That might be still too high but certainly not the majority.

[wolpoli]

Where do housing in the rental market come from if they aren't purchased and rented out by investors? No level of the government in Canada is building anything more than a token number of housing, and those that are built aren't added to the general rental pool.

[andy99]

Airbnb is a convenient scapegoat especially for interests that don't want to change the bigger levers - housing development and immigration (and as mentioned elsewhere, housing prices can't go down for political reasons). So Airbnb gets pushed as a problem. This is basically propaganda.

[listenallyall]

It's not the only factor, but Airbnb certainly has provided an easy alternative to putting a home up for sale. Supply shortage, i.e., fewer units for sale, is a real contributor to rapidly increasing housing prices.

[Tiktaalik]

I agree that Airbnb is used as a scapegoat, and that it is not the problem, but it still is a thing causing real issues for cities.

There's no real reason to not to bring in reasonable regulations that limit the worst sort of Airbnb uses.

[bredren]

Does Airbnb take a public stance lobbying for change on these big levers? The company is powerful enough to transparently fund and back political action on these other areas.

[dimask]

Tourism is a plague for local populations. The same exact thing was happening long before Airbnb in more touristic locations. Airbnb has acted as an accelerator of the same phenomenon to bigger cities.

It is not just about "supply and demand". We are talking about different markets. When you profit more from real estate by renting it to tourists vs renting it to long terms residents you are gonna throw residents out and get into the tourist business. In this, supply is largely irrelevant due to the huge difference in margins. Unless the tourist business becomes oversaturated you always profit more from tourists. And outsupplying the tourist demand is extremely hard.

[j2bax]

Tourism is the ONLY industry for many regions... I recently lived in one. Without it, the areas would likely not exist as places to live at all.

[bobthepanda]

One way to reduce demand is to ban Airbnb, which has happened in some markets.

Unlike residents, tourists do not vote, and are not really entitled to cheap accomodations wherever they go.

[j45]

Airbnb isn’t really that cheap anymore especially for full places

[Chris2048]

> tourists do not vote

Airbnb landlords do though. As do business owners catering to tourism.

> are not really entitled to cheap accommodations

Are locals "entitled" to this either? If accommodation is too expensive, it'll simply reduce tourism, and tourism money..

[rufus_foreman]

>> tourists do not vote

Almost everyone is a tourist at some point.

[doctorpangloss]

> Unlike residents, tourists do not vote...

Do landlords vote? Are they residents? Many normal people are landlords. You will never be a billionaire. Some people will never be guilded professionals or make it to the Ivy League. Many of the normal people who "make it" in life will be landlords.

Everyone's income is someone else's expense.

In San Francisco, where I live, the idea to drive out the "techies" couldn't be more boneheaded. Where are those agitators now? Careful what you wish for.

I don't know how to convince people to lean less into the aesthetics of a political position. If you feel like you are saying something that boils down to, "the right people get all the things, and the wrong people got nothing," it's an easy position to take when charts are going up, when interest rates are low, and when you happen to be part of the group of "right people."

[pitaj]

There's little to no evidence that banning short-term rentals materially decreases rental or housing prices.

[kelseyfrog]

Maybe capitalizable markets aren't the best tool for products that are required for life?

I appreciate that we have a tool like capitalizable markets, but the lack of alternatives is a red flag - every problem is a nail. An underappreciated aspect this is the legal machinery that undergirds the capitalization of housing, and as such is codified. Things that are codified are subject to change.

[zamfi]

The markets for short-term housing and long-term housing have historically been different markets.

People are much more willing to pay higher amounts (per unit time) for short-term housing, and this demand is primarily driven by tourism, which is influenced by things like culture, natural beauty, renown, etc. -- those things of course have an impact on long-term housing demand too, but long-term demand is primarily driven by the availability of jobs and potential career income, long-term stability, cost of living, etc.

The factors overlap, but they are not the same.

What AirBnB does is merge the two markets: any long-term housing can become short-term housing; owners of housing can make much more by leasing short-term rather than long-term. With this merger, the cost of long-term housing begins to approach the cost of short-term housing. This is great for short-term-housing seekers (ask anyone who had to book a hotel in NYC before AirBnB!) and not so great for long-term-housing seekers.

In theory, the problem is addressable with "enough housing" -- but now, instead of building enough housing to satisfy the needs of long-term residents, you also need to build enough housing to satisfy the needs of short-term housing seekers, who are much less price-sensitive (since they're only visiting for a short amount of time), and where theoretical demand is much higher (since the market for "tourism in Vancouver", e.g., is essentially global).

That is a lot more housing.

And that is a problem. And that is why people blame AirBnB.

But it isn't strictly speaking AirBnB's fault -- these two markets have been separated largely artificially through transaction costs and legislation. Like with local news, technology is a disruptor, but the solution can't really be "ban technology" because that cat is already out of the bag. But "build more housing" is easier said than done given the amount of new housing that would be required to satisfy demand.

[Manouchehri]

> ask anyone who had to book a hotel in NYC before AirBnB!

I've stayed in multiple hotels and Airbnb units in NYC, and every single time, the Airbnb option was terrible in comparison to my hotel bookings. This is for places of comparable prices as well.

The only benefit of Airbnb, is that the units were slightly larger on average than proper hotels.. but they were usually so run-down, that I didn't want to spend any more time than the bare minimum in them anyway.

I don't think it's surprising that a huge professionally run corporation can offer a better service/product than a small real estate investor.

[throwaway5752]

Do you think that well capitalized corporations (which, as non-humans, require no housing) are playing on a level playing field with regular people?

I think it's possible to formally model this, but if there are no caps on rent and no attractive alternative investments, it is always the efficient and rational move for a firm with excess capital to buy real estate because they can simply raise the rates until they get the return they want. People will require houses and you can see that in historically high multi-job holding statistics. People will work themselves to death to have a roof over their head.

In my life, larger scale single unit residential REITs are a new phenomenon, and the concentration of wealth that has happened this century has made single unit housing and rental and investable alternative asset class.

This is a really bad situation, it has too many parallels to feudal systems, or more recently, company towns in early 20th century America. This is a tragedy of commons dynamic that requires external intervention.

I'm worried you don't have a good handle on the number of houses and the excess lumber, copper, concrete, and steel for new properties and infra supporting them. That is just ignoring geographical scarcity, and the fact that not all geographies support building up. Just "building more housing" is usually not as easy as it is to sloganeer and blame nimbys.

[theragra]

Requirements are too high, then.

For me it is a bit weird that 1. House must be fire-safe, asbestos-free, require eco heating system, etc etc. At the same time, nobody can afford to build a house (I think you need to be un top 5% in my country), and rent is really expensive

2. Same with doctors. You often not even get prescription easily, no medical advice, no own/custom medical devices etc etc, qt the same time a lot of people can't afford doctors.

I guess I am with libertarians on these issues. Imo, it is better to warn people and give them choice. Just plainly denying access to housing and medicine to poor people is plain evil.

[tippytippytango]

Yep, artificially constrained supply creates ample opportunity for bad actors to exploit the inefficiency.

[arp242]

High-level ideals are all fun, but this ignores the facts on the ground that people are getting evicted right now for no other reason than short-term rentals (that is: AirBnB).

So even if what you say is correct – I don't know enough about the situation in Canada to judge that – then that doesn't really matter because it's pretty clear short-term rentals such as AirBnB add a lot of extra pressure, with all sorts of effects as described in the article.

[cultofmetatron]

> The devastating effect is caused by the fact that they aren’t building enough housing. The problem is not the demand for housing, it’s the supply.

codun't agree more. just got a month long apartment in kuala lumpur. its only $800 and its luxury compared to what I can get for that price anywhere else. it didn't make sense till I realized that they have no issues building housing. there's plenty of it. and its one of the reasons this city is so aweome

[SkyPuncher]

We moved to a booming resort town last year. We’re seeing a similar attitude among the locals.

There are about 250 units of short term rentals in a city of thousands and thousands of housing units. Neighborhood are going up with more units than the entire short term rental market.

To say short term rentals are driving cost is insane when there is clearly a wholesale shortage.

That being said, I understand the legitimate frustration with what are commercial entities moving into residential areas.

[game_the0ry]

Supply is a problem, but so is demand. More specifically, speculative demand.

About 20-30% of buyers in today's market are all-cash investors. [1]

[1] https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/us-home-investor-shar...

[ameminator]

Canada is in the top end of the OECD when it comes to building housing. The problem is that the rate of new house construction has been severely outpaced by population growth. Canada has the highest rate of population growth of any developed nation and it is largely spurred by immigration.

[tgv]

So you claim the markets shouldn't be regulated (what else is the point of moving the focus away from Airbnb, while it obviously is a factor contributing) while blaming the government for not regulating the market?

[hcknwscommenter]

Yes blame Airbnb (and copycats). There is not enough supply. So it's not good to reduce supply for housing by converting homes to short-term rentals. Also, it destroys community.

[ren_engineer]

>The problem is not the demand for housing, it’s the supply

how do you build enough housing when the government of a country with a population of 30 million is bringing in 500K immigrants every year?

[jtuple]

Build 600K houses a year?

The fact they aren't is the supply problem.

Outside of government policies and potential to tank housing prices, is there some reason you can't build 500K+ houses a year?

Canada already seems to have an impressive rate, something like 220-250k housing starts/year. The entire US is only 1300K-1500K/year for comparison.

Is it insurmountable to just 2.5-3x that rate?

I guess the main issue is that housing lags demand. And immigration rate could also 2x on a whim by policymakers.

[Manouchehri]

One would expect/hope some of those 500,000 have skills in construction.

[parthdesai]

> Don’t blame Airbnb when you refuse to build enough housing, the markets going to figure out how to market.

Sure, but I can definitely blame Airbnb for enabling owners to skirt local regulations.

[costcofries]

part of the problem is Airbnb though. We have 'investors' owning multiple properties and operating Airbnbs against local laws which does in fact decrease supply.

[Dudhbbh3343]

That's still easily solvable by getting the government out of the way of the market building sufficient housing to meet demand.

[fassssst]

It’s both, not either or. Build more housing and regulate short term housing more so it doesn’t decrease mode badly needed long term supply.

[password4321]

Airbnb is the tool. Tools enable and incentivize certain behaviors. Also, it is a matter of degree.

[jimbob45]

If you ban AirBNB, you'll immediately get 50,000 (or however many) houses back on the market. You would otherwise need to build 50,000 houses, which would surely require a great deal more effort. Why would you not reach for the lowest-hanging fruit first when attempting to increase the housing supply?

[CuriouslyC]

Because stopping someone from renting out their house to make some extra cash is overreach. Stopping firms from buying up tons of houses with the explicit purpose of airbnb on the other hand? More reasonable.

[asdff]

Because you do that, and a decade goes by and you need 50,000 homes again to meet demand, and then what? Its better to put in a mechanism from the start that will allow for this many homes to be built to meet demand. In most high demand markets, they are already built out to the limits of the zoned capacity and cannot add much of any new units of housing until zoning limits are eased. Zoning is the real low hanging fruit here. Back that off and the market will start to right the ship before long building capacity to match demand incurred by job growth.

[jeduan]

where did you get this 50,000 housing units number from? This article quotes that New York got 15,000 units from their ban. Are you saying that Montreal has 3x as many short term rentals as New York?

https://www.wired.com/story/6-months-after-new-york-banned-a...

[j45]

Because housing supply has been needed to increase for 20 years and builders won’t do it to maintain or grow their margins.

The disruption is needed on the supply side to build more.

[pitaj]

Because it's been tried and there's little evidence it actually works.

[christkv]

Canada is adding 1/2 million immigrants a year. Does not matter how much they build the demand will outstrip housing stock.

[lm411]

It's actually much worse, as the immigration count doesn't include temporary residents -- the majority of of which will become permanent residents.

"Canada's population increased by more than 1.2 million in 2023"

https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/taux-analyses/analyse-eco...

Meanwhile YoY housing starts are down.

[Tiktaalik]

All of Canada's housing issues were issues before 2015, before this current government and before the increase in immigration

[LegitShady]

canada is building housing like crazy, but also allowing massive immigration numbers, and airbnb is icing on the cake. Its not just one problem. But airbnb is garbage and should be banned.

[hodder]

We are not building housing like crazy.

https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/blog/2023/estimating-how-much-ho...

https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/housi...

[adamduren]

Wouldn't a more sustainable solution other than banning Airbnb involve coming up with regulations that prevent empire-building?

The problem is not the hosts on Airbnb that are listing spare bedrooms or their vacation homes. It's corporations and ambitious individuals that are depleting the supply.

[bongodongobob]

... So they need to build more housing.

[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"The devastating effect is caused by the fact that they aren't building enough housing." [X]

"Don't blame Airbnb when you refuse to build enough housing, the markets going to figure out how to market."

AirBnB reduces the already limited supply of available housing. [Y]

AirBnB makes a bad situation worse. We should ignore this because the bad situation exists? WTF.

Problem X is exacerbated by Problem Y. Therefore, according to HN commenter, "Problem Y is not the problem. The problem is Problem X."

Who is persuaded by such nonsensical reasoning.

1. According the study, Problem Y is a legitimate problem. HN commenter provides no evidence to counter/invalidate the findings.

2. Assuming Problem X exists and AirBnB knows it exists, then AirBnB is consciously making a bad situation worse. For profit.

https://cjur.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjur/article/download/27...

"Through removing housing that would otherwise be available on the long-term rental market Airbnb is reducing housing supply and, in turn, housing affordability."

In other words, converting long-term rentals into short-term rentals using AirBnB reduces the effective supply of available housing. This may in turn cause long-term housing prices to increase.

The study suggests the effects of AirBnB are not felt evenly across Canada. For example, some areas are adversely affected while others are not.

"Five years ago, short-term rentals in cities - both in Canada and abroad - were almost universally illegal with the exception of licenced bed and breakfasts. STRs were illegal either through bans on commercial uses in residential areas, through fire codes and regulations on lodgings, or through explicit bans on rentals below a certain threshold of nights. Despite operating in a legal grey area at best, STRs facilitated by platforms such as Airbnb have proliferated."

[johnea]

That's total bullshit

AirBNB is an unlicensed hotel.

Are you saying there's so much unoccupied land on Montreal Island that you could just build all of those AirBNBs?

If you multiply this articles stated extend by 100x, then you have an idea of theproblem this is causing in the US.

Many communitiees that are in vacation friendly locations are eliminating the ability to rent housing.

You could build more residences, they would also be converted to AirBNB.

As expected here on HN, a bunch of vulture capital appologizism...

[ForestCritter]

Montreal is a fully developed Island. Your arguement doesn't make sense.Montreal has become unaffordable for the workers who support the tourism and blue collar industries.

[Dudhbbh3343]

> Montreal has become unaffordable for the workers who support the tourism

That's a self-correcting problem: either tourists pay higher prices to keep attracting workers or the higher prices scare off tourists and fewer workers are needed.

[light_hue_1]

That's a really confused way of looking at the issue. That the only thing we should look at is supply. Demand matters of course too.

Airbnb created massive new demand for housing for people that don't live there. Those people can afford to pay more than locals. That takes away large amounts of supply from locals.

Therefore AirBnb's effect is devastating.

AirBnb should be completely banned everywhere in the world immediately.

[com2kid]

> Airbnb created massive new demand for housing for people that don't live there.

That is debatable, does the existence of Airbnb increase the number of tourists visiting a city? If Airbnb's reduced cost of overnight lodging causes more tourists to visit a city, then yes Airbnb increased demand.

There are a few other possibilities:

1. Tourism demand was growing, and hotels failed to keep up. 2. Airbnb shifted traffic away from hotels and to Airbnb hosts. 3. Airbnb induced demand from people who otherwise wouldn't travel using traditional hotel accommodations.

IMHO Airbnb demonstrated that there was an unfulfilled market for certain types of overnight accommodations (ones with a kitchen and laundry service) that existing hotels were failing to fulfill.

The fact is, at the same $ I'll choose an Airbnb over a hotel for anything more than 1 or 2 nights due to laundry services alone. Basically the entire time I've travelled as an adult has been while Airbnb has existed and as such I've had laundry on site, no way do I want to manage the logistics of a 2 week vacation using just hotels in various cities[1]. If I'm hitting up a bunch of different cities I'll maybe have a hotel for a couple nights in-between Airbnbs where I can do laundry.

> AirBnb should be completely banned everywhere in the world immediately.

If hotels offered better services and didn't try to charge me $5 per pair of socks I want washed, Airbnb would lose a lot of business.

[1] Even more so traveling with kids, as an adult I can reasonably bring 3 or 4 sets of clothes and lots of changes of underclothes, but kids need laundry done a lot, it is not unreasonable for a toddler to cover 2 sets of clothes in filth in a single day!