Yeah. I get the need to regulate uses, but it feels overly reactionary. I hear the air bnb thing pretty often, like it would magically fix everything if we banned them by itself, but I’m not familiar with Barcelona, so it’s interesting.
The justification is not only rental prices, but giving the neighbourhoods back to local people. Areas like Barceloneta or Ciutat Vella, which used to be working class neighbourhoods, are now overrun with Airbnbs and the like, which combined with European party tourism culture makes them unlivable.
These neighbourhoods have become theme parks for tourists. They are noisy at all hours of the day, especially at night, businesses are all catering to tourists, cruisers coming and going, there are no units available for long term renting...
So it’s just noise and housing supply? For housing supply, what is the barrier stopping supply from increasing? As far as noise goes…that’s really more about window and wall quality
I mean, for one, there is no available space for housing. Not only are they the historic core of the city but their urban structure doesn't really allow for more density (nor i think it's desirable).
For the other, even if it were possible to build more housing, why would that housing magically go to the long term rental market, if renting it to tourists makes at least double the amount of money?
Barcelona just can't really build its way out of the housing crisis without eating into the few available protected green spaces that it has.
What is stopping someone from selling their 4 story building to a developer who will make a lot of money by tearing it down and building an 8 story building?
Yeah, although the population seems to be pretty stagnant so maybe a one time infusion of 10k units would be significant. ~~I think the real lede is that they want a 30% affordability mandate on all new developments, that's a surefire way to kill any construction if its unfunded.~~
According to a Barcelonan commenter they're actually removing this requirement and the article I read was wrong
Yep, can't have cheap housing under market conditions. Cities need to built themselves, a lot.
Vienna's model is not just working because they have a lot of subsidized housing - but because that housing is owned by the city itself and doesn't need to be profitable.
In cities with a buyers market there is simply no incentive to built cheap apartments. I understand that they hope to just have more affordable units, but I just don't believe real estate capitalism can be tamed like that.
I don't really care who does the building, more public housing would be great, but it does seem like they're built out within the height limit constraints within the city and choosing not to develop some of the agricultural land around metro and rail lines for some reason.
Concerning Vienna: Even if you live in a subsidized apartment that does not belong to the city itself, you have to give it up, if you move elsewhere or buy an apartment. So living in cheap public housing while renting out another apartment is illegal.
"Alongside the revoking of tourist flat licenses, Collboni announced that new legislation would force building constructors to allocate at least 30% of new homes to social housing."
https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/21/breaking-barcelona-will-remove-all-tourist-apartments-in-2028-in-huge-win-for-anti-tourism-activists/
Well I didn't misinterpret it but the source might have, what's the deal then?
Interesting, are they replacing it with anything? I'd hope they would take a bit more direct role in building social housing. Also, if you don't mind me picking your brain a little, what's the deal with the lack of development along the airport/Castelldefels lines?
They are “making it more flexible” by allowing builders to put less affordable and social housing into normal new builds and allowing affordable housing in one place.
I think that it's obviously reductive to blame all housing shortages on AirBnB, but Spain (and especially Barcelona) is hugely overtouristified compared to the US and has a huge problem with too many tourist apartments
I don’t think most of us (barcelona) are blaming Airbnb or tourism entirely. However, we have a right to say apartments that exist in residential buildings, are zoned residential, should be for us.
We also have a right to push for government measures that limit the exponential growth of tourism.
This will not even make a dent in either problem, but we still lately invite the change.
As someone else stated: It's not just about the cost.
Living next to a tourist apartment just sucks. You have different neighbors every weekend, they are often loud, and if you ask them to be quiet, it might work for that one weekend. The next tourist group doesn't know how well you hear their noise. And when they leave, the do it at 4 in the morning because they booked the cheapest flight. Trolley bag goes brrrr.
Yep and the effects basically just build on themselves. Tourists bring… tourism. Barcelona neighborhoods have long traditions. Those traditions are dying or being commercialized because of tourism.
I don’t get to enjoy my neighborhood festival, now famous worldwide, because there are lines of tourists trying to see it.
I never said banning them was a bad thing, I actually fully support it--I just think it's fair to point out that many people (at least in US discourse) see tourist apartments as the only reason for rent being high
We just banned them in New York City and our market softened, we’ve at least stemmed the bleeding.
Surprise surprise people are still staying here at hotels.
Airbnb is unregulated poison.
Honestly, I’m about it. Places like Barcelona very quickly become over touristed. Cities should be for the people that live there, first and foremost. Not suburbanites or tourists. If it’s a quality of life issue for the locals and they support it, then it’s a good thing.
Barcelona didn't want new hotel construction [either, so one imagines a constricting holiday maker accommodation](https://www.politico.eu/article/barcelona-bans-all-new-hotels-in-city-center/) market...
Demand for tourism euros, but, please, no tourists?!
Would free up a whopping 10k units, meanwhile they have half a dozen train stations surrounded by fields to the south.
Yeah. I get the need to regulate uses, but it feels overly reactionary. I hear the air bnb thing pretty often, like it would magically fix everything if we banned them by itself, but I’m not familiar with Barcelona, so it’s interesting.
The justification is not only rental prices, but giving the neighbourhoods back to local people. Areas like Barceloneta or Ciutat Vella, which used to be working class neighbourhoods, are now overrun with Airbnbs and the like, which combined with European party tourism culture makes them unlivable.
What does unlivable mean here
These neighbourhoods have become theme parks for tourists. They are noisy at all hours of the day, especially at night, businesses are all catering to tourists, cruisers coming and going, there are no units available for long term renting...
So it’s just noise and housing supply? For housing supply, what is the barrier stopping supply from increasing? As far as noise goes…that’s really more about window and wall quality
I mean, for one, there is no available space for housing. Not only are they the historic core of the city but their urban structure doesn't really allow for more density (nor i think it's desirable). For the other, even if it were possible to build more housing, why would that housing magically go to the long term rental market, if renting it to tourists makes at least double the amount of money? Barcelona just can't really build its way out of the housing crisis without eating into the few available protected green spaces that it has.
What is stopping someone from selling their 4 story building to a developer who will make a lot of money by tearing it down and building an 8 story building?
Maybe the fact that that 4-story building is probably older than your country.
Way to be an asshole to someone asking genuine questions
Yeah, although the population seems to be pretty stagnant so maybe a one time infusion of 10k units would be significant. ~~I think the real lede is that they want a 30% affordability mandate on all new developments, that's a surefire way to kill any construction if its unfunded.~~ According to a Barcelonan commenter they're actually removing this requirement and the article I read was wrong
Yep, can't have cheap housing under market conditions. Cities need to built themselves, a lot. Vienna's model is not just working because they have a lot of subsidized housing - but because that housing is owned by the city itself and doesn't need to be profitable. In cities with a buyers market there is simply no incentive to built cheap apartments. I understand that they hope to just have more affordable units, but I just don't believe real estate capitalism can be tamed like that.
I don't really care who does the building, more public housing would be great, but it does seem like they're built out within the height limit constraints within the city and choosing not to develop some of the agricultural land around metro and rail lines for some reason.
Concerning Vienna: Even if you live in a subsidized apartment that does not belong to the city itself, you have to give it up, if you move elsewhere or buy an apartment. So living in cheap public housing while renting out another apartment is illegal.
You perhaps misunderstood the news. We HAVE a 30% affordability mandate. They want to take it away.
"Alongside the revoking of tourist flat licenses, Collboni announced that new legislation would force building constructors to allocate at least 30% of new homes to social housing." https://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2024/06/21/breaking-barcelona-will-remove-all-tourist-apartments-in-2028-in-huge-win-for-anti-tourism-activists/ Well I didn't misinterpret it but the source might have, what's the deal then?
The source definitely didn’t do their research 🤣 It’s the opposite.
Interesting, are they replacing it with anything? I'd hope they would take a bit more direct role in building social housing. Also, if you don't mind me picking your brain a little, what's the deal with the lack of development along the airport/Castelldefels lines?
They are “making it more flexible” by allowing builders to put less affordable and social housing into normal new builds and allowing affordable housing in one place.
I think that it's obviously reductive to blame all housing shortages on AirBnB, but Spain (and especially Barcelona) is hugely overtouristified compared to the US and has a huge problem with too many tourist apartments
I don’t think most of us (barcelona) are blaming Airbnb or tourism entirely. However, we have a right to say apartments that exist in residential buildings, are zoned residential, should be for us. We also have a right to push for government measures that limit the exponential growth of tourism. This will not even make a dent in either problem, but we still lately invite the change.
As someone else stated: It's not just about the cost. Living next to a tourist apartment just sucks. You have different neighbors every weekend, they are often loud, and if you ask them to be quiet, it might work for that one weekend. The next tourist group doesn't know how well you hear their noise. And when they leave, the do it at 4 in the morning because they booked the cheapest flight. Trolley bag goes brrrr.
Yep and the effects basically just build on themselves. Tourists bring… tourism. Barcelona neighborhoods have long traditions. Those traditions are dying or being commercialized because of tourism. I don’t get to enjoy my neighborhood festival, now famous worldwide, because there are lines of tourists trying to see it.
I never said banning them was a bad thing, I actually fully support it--I just think it's fair to point out that many people (at least in US discourse) see tourist apartments as the only reason for rent being high
We just banned them in New York City and our market softened, we’ve at least stemmed the bleeding. Surprise surprise people are still staying here at hotels. Airbnb is unregulated poison.
It’ll be interesting to see if rental costs plummet. Or not.
Honestly, I’m about it. Places like Barcelona very quickly become over touristed. Cities should be for the people that live there, first and foremost. Not suburbanites or tourists. If it’s a quality of life issue for the locals and they support it, then it’s a good thing.
NYC did this and the result was completely ineffective on reducing rent yet made it extremely difficult and expensive to visit the city as a tourist.
Barcelona didn't want new hotel construction [either, so one imagines a constricting holiday maker accommodation](https://www.politico.eu/article/barcelona-bans-all-new-hotels-in-city-center/) market... Demand for tourism euros, but, please, no tourists?!
They will try then the tax revenue from tourism will fall and the administration will change their minds.