zlacker

>>voisin+(OP)
Honest question: does this work?

It seems to me that this change will have unintended effects and will fail to produce the desired results.

AFAIK rent in NYC hasn’t gone down since they changed their short-term rental regulations.

I might be naive, but I’d assume that the solution is to build more housing to increase the supply instead of curbing the demand?

Genuinely curious about others’ takes on this.

>>lucasf+f2
Where in Barcelona would you increase density?

https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/barcelona-pop...

from >>40752920 ("Barcelona has a 16,000 people per square km density - that’s already one of the highest in Europe.")

Capital moves faster than meat space. To defend the human (affordable housing), you have to regulate. The whole "just build more, I want my AirBnB" argument boggles the mind considering the physical system constraints in play. Easier to just ban AirBnB.

>>toomuc+X2
That being said, in the US you can and should absolutely should build more, and basically get rid of most zoning regulations. You'd have a hard time finding anything as touristic and dense as Barcelona in the US.

>>pupper+Y4
> get rid of most zoning regulations

"most" is doing a lot of work here. don't forget you probably don't want to live next to an airport, railroad, chemical plant

>>38+G5
Well, living near and airport or railroad is priced in, and not really a problem. Chemical plants... A bit of a stretch, isn't it?

>>pupper+W41
I lived a few miles away from the Texas City plant, growing up. A good, stiff, wind, and a penchant for rhinoviruses can solve a lot of chemical-plant-related issues.