Conor Maguire introduced me to an interesting site today called Airbnb vs. Berlin. The site does a deep dive into Berlin’s Airbnb market with the hope of answering the question: Is Airbnb contributing to a shortage in affordable housing?

The site is very well done. It’s filled with lots of great market stats and diagrams such as this one here: 

Of course, the impetus for a site like this is that cities all around the world, from San Francisco to Berlin, are grappling with rising home prices. If you happen to live in a successful, growing city, that’s probably what is happening.

But when this happens, we seem to want to look for something or someone to blame. In San Francisco it’s the tech workers. They’re the ones driving up homes prices. In Vancouver, it’s the foreign Chinese buyers. And in Berlin, it’s those Airbnb users who are just out to make a profit. In all of these cases, we like to tell ourselves that if we could just get rid of “X”, everything would be much better. 

But I think sometimes we forget that this is also the result of doing many things right.

If Berlin wasn’t a brilliantly cool place to visit, then tourists wouldn’t come. And if tourists didn’t come, then Berlin wouldn’t have, by far, the largest Airbnb market in Germany. If Vancouver wasn’t one of the most enjoyable places in the world to live, you wouldn’t have the same attention from overseas buyers looking to snatch up properties. 

So in a way, we should be asking ourselves: How do we, as a city, manage our own awesomeness?

The other thing that Airbnb vs. Berlin reminded me of is the viewpoint that profits are some dirty little secret. I hear it all the time in the real estate development business. People will say: “That developer is just out to make money.” Of course she/he is! They operate a business. And like all for-profit businesses, one of the objectives – it may not be the only one – is to make money.

I say all this not as a direct response to the website. They remained fairly neutral in their analysis. Instead, I raise it as an alternate viewpoint in the seemingly universal battle against “X.”

In case you’re wondering about Berlin’s Airbnb market, the site estimates that there are roughly 11,701 Airbnb listings in the city out of a total of about 1.9 million flats. Of these listings, it is estimated that somewhere around 30% are by “professional users” who are only out to make a profit and are not participating in the “sharing economy” in its purest sense. That equates to about 0.18% of all Berlin flats.

Based on this number, I’d say that Berlin’s cool factor probably has a lot more to do with the city’s rising rents than do the profit seeking Airbnb users.

Yesterday I wrote about a new book that was just released called The Next Urban Renaissance. 

The first essay in the book, written by Ingrid Gould Ellen of New York University, is centered around three ideas to help cities deal with the affordable housing problem. This is something that successful cities all around the world are grappling with.

The first idea is land-value taxation, which is also known as a “split-rate” tax. I’ve touched on land-value taxation before on ATC, but I never really dug into it. So this was a good reminder to do that.

The idea behind land-value taxation is to split property taxes into a land tax and an improvements tax (i.e. the building), and then shift more of the burden over to the land side. Economists tend to really like this model because taxing buildings/improvements can discourage property investment and development, whereas taxing land doesn’t impact supply. The supply of land is fixed.

So in the context of affordable housing, land-value taxation is thought to be a way to encourage more development and to increase the supply of new housing – which is usually a good way to keep home prices in check.

Here’s how Ingrid Gould Ellen described it:

…a land tax would discourage speculators from hoarding undeveloped land and incentivize them to develop their parcels to the full extent allowable. Regardless of whether a parcel sits vacant, houses a partially occupied, one-story retail strip, or holds a 30-story apartment tower, the annual tax bill would be the same. By switching to a land tax, a city could therefore increase the supply of housing and, by doing so, reduce prices across the board.

But I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t more applicable to cities or areas that are currently struggling to encourage development. For instance, would boom town Toronto really benefit (in terms of affordable housing) from a tax change that ends up encouraging more high-rise development?

It also strikes me as being exceptionally difficult to implement, particularly in city like Toronto that is growing and changing so quickly. Is it reasonable to ask the owner of a small downtown parking lot to being paying property taxes as if a 90 storey supertall had been built on top of it? Because that is the reality in some parts of this city.

And if we opted to phase in this new land tax, would it then become a game of arbitrage where developers look for properties with the lowest land taxes but the highest achievable densities?

Finally, I wonder if it wouldn’t exacerbate some of the problems that already exist in rapidly growing cities, one of which is the preservation of smaller heritage buildings in centrally located neighborhoods:

In the case of a split-rate tax, the losers will be owners of parcels with high land-to-building value ratios, or owners of small buildings on valuable, centrally located parcels, who will likely see an increase in their tax bills after the switch to a split-rate tax.

Land-value taxation is something that I’ve been thinking about for a number of months now. But I am struggling to come up with a decisive position. If you have any thoughts on this, it would be great to hear from you in the comments.