[miguelxt]

Hard banning Airbnbs will for sure push long-term rent prices down, but not by an amount enough to make them affordable. We already have evidence from cities with active bans. Prices in NYC or Lisbon have not come down significantly.

We still have to wait a few years to see the real effect that bans have on prices. Lowering prices at most 3-5% by banning Airbnb won't make anybody happy and will come with some negative effects like reduced tourism (and other economic activity), which is a very important part of Spain's GDP.

[kazinator]

Regarding tourism, I think airbnb encourages mainly poorer tourists, who just eat food, drink mostly water and take pictures.

If you want $$$ from tourism, you have to find ways to attract the rich.

D'oh!

The rich don't necessarily like their destinations touristy. They don't like to elbow their ways through crowds, stand in lineups, or have stranger "extras" in their pictures.

Airbnb contributes to "touristy".

[bombcar]

Another problem is AirBnB almost by definition are less dense than hotels.

If there were no AirBnB, the economics for a new high-rise hotel would be much better.

But it all comes down to increasing desirable supply (which may be density dwellings at the end of an express train) or building entire new cities (or rejuvenating others).

At some point, if supply outstrips demand, prices will start to stabilize - maybe fall.

[scythe]

Tourism is by definition a small fraction of overall global economic activity. Basically the only places which can really run on tourism have major geographical (Barbados, Andorra) or extraordinary historical (Venice, Kyoto) advantages, or both (San Francisco, Cusco).

My recommendation is that if you want to encourage tourism, change your mind. Build a great place to live and if you do a good job, you might get a boost in a century. I would call this "the Chicago model".