zlacker

Having lived in two tourism-heavy cities over my life, I don't think most cites are fundamentally opposed to tourism per se. But — and that is a big "But" it is a question of the amount and the kind of tourism. Too much of the wrong tourism in the wrong area of the city can be a negative thing for living quality, for life outside touristic seasons, for the general development of neighborhoods etc.

So it is within a cities interest to have some degree of control ofer the amount and kind of tourism. And controlling the number of accommodations is a pretty good lever.

>>atoav+(OP)
> Too much of the wrong tourism in the wrong area of the city can be a negative thing for living quality, for life outside touristic seasons, for the general development of neighborhoods etc.

If that was really a concern, cities like Barcelona would be railing against hostels and would impose a higher baseline for tourist taxes to eliminate the economic feasibility of projects catering to low-cost party tourism.

>>chipda+Cw
Well yes and no. Cities do have hostels and hotels under control by their ability to give or deny permits. If everybody can turn their private flat into an tourist rental just by signing up to an online platform that is no longer the case. Suddenly what was zoned as residental turns into tourism.

Surely there are multiple ways ro tackle that, e.g. one could require permits for those as well, but I didn't defend the measures taken by Barcelona, I defended the fact that unregulated AirBnB can turn into a problem for a city and the people living there.

>>atoav+r21
> If everybody can turn their private flat into an tourist rental just by signing up to an online platform that is no longer the case.

In Barcelona, making apartments available as short-term rentals involves the exact same type of reglatio that hostels need to go through to operate.

If AirBnB is suddenly deemed a problem in spite of the absolute lack of evidence, in the very least regular horeca businesses are more to blame.