Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
Our growing desire — and ability — to live, work, and/or play in other places is, in my opinion, a powerful macro trend. We spoke about that here, here, and here. And one of the things that has obviously empowered this trend is the growth of short-term rentals.
But right now, the winds are not in favor of this model.
In September 2023, nearly a year ago, New York City enacted one of the strictest short-term rental laws to date, requiring hosts to be physically present while a dwelling is being rented. Yeah, that eliminates the majority of use cases.
Then in June of this year, Barcelona mayor Jaume Collboni announced a complete ban of short-term rentals starting November 2028. This is expected to return some 10,000 apartments to the long-term housing market.
Regardless of whether it will be effective, it is obvious why this is being done: housing unaffordability and too many annoying tourists. (We are flying to Barcelona next week and will endeavor to not be annoying.)
But at the end of the day, this is not going to extinguish our underlying desire to live, work, and play around the world. So I think these restrictions will create new opportunities to service this demand. It also strengthens the bull case for the tried-and-true formula of purpose-built hotels.
There are a lot of headwinds facing Airbnb. Cities around the world seem to be systematically making it more difficult to be a host. New York City, as many of you know, recently made it so that you need to be physically present while the dwelling is being rented. That is pretty limiting. Similar things are happening in non-urban markets too. North of Toronto in Muskoka, there’s a draft by-law that will, among other things, limit short-term rentals to 50% of the total number of days within certain time periods. That eliminates the possibility of doing this as a business. So in many ways, it’s easy to be pessimistic about the future of Airbnb.
But at the same time, if you step back and look at the bigger picture, there are over 7 million active listings on Airbnb. This effectively makes it the largest hospitality brand in the world. There are more accommodations on Airbnb than with Marriott, Hilton, Intercontinental, Wyndham, and Hyatt combined. (The below chart is from Scott Galloway.) It’s also important to point out that while Airbnb doesn’t own any of its own supply, the same is true of most hotel brands. They are, brands. The difference is that Airbnb created a more scalable platform and a more decentralized approach to aggregating supply.
The numbers also don’t suggest that things are slowing down for Airbnb. (Here’s their Q3 2023 shareholder letter.) Active listings on the platform grew 19% YoY in Q3 2023 (or by almost 1 million listings). Revenue is up. Free cash flow is up. And in Q3 of last year, the company repurchased $500 million of stock, bringing their one year total to somewhere around $3 billion. So despite all of the efforts to curb short-term rentals within our cities, the company, at least for now, seems to be holding up just fine. And if they can successfully diversify beyond their core business, there could even be reason to be bullish on the world’s largest hospitality brand.
The prevailing view on short-term rentals right now seems to be this:
That is, it’s viewed as a zero-sum game between residents and tourists. There are only so many homes within a city, and so if any of them are to turn into short-term rentals, then it is a direct reduction in the supply of available long-term homes. This can also happen very quickly given the asset-light nature of Airbnb and the fact that these spaces aren’t usually purpose-built.
It is for this reason that many cities have enacted strict short-term rental laws that basically only allow you to rent out your principal residence when you’re not around or if you happen to have extra space. In the case of New York, you have to be physically present when the dwelling is being rented, and so the use case is exclusively “I have extra space for you.”
Either way, the basic idea is to stop people from removing homes from the long-term market. I do, however, find it curious that reductions in housing supply seem to be generally viewed as bad, but that increases in housing supply are often met with skepticism. Doesn’t housing supply work in both directions? Why aren’t more people clamouring for new homes to be built?
Where my head is at on this issue is that I don’t see it as a zero-sum game. I believe that there should be rules and regulations around short-term rentals, but that they shouldn’t stamp out all use cases other than “here’s an air mattress in my living room.” At the same time, I think we should be viewing this as an opportunity. Clearly we need more homes, more hotels, and more short-term rentals.
In a recent interview with FT, the CEO of Airbnb, Brian Chesky, said that the company is looking at the following expansion plans:
Offering long-term rentals of up to one year (currently, only about 18% of bookings on the platform are for 30 days or longer)
Offering more “things to do on your trip”, including car rentals and dining
These brand extensions make natural sense. You book a trip and then maybe you need a car, or something fun to do. I have used Airbnb “experiences” on a number of occasions to book things like boat tours and photographers. It’s a great service.
Perhaps more interesting, though, is how the housing component of their platform is evolving. They started by offering excess or found space for rent (which was very clever). Then it grew to become a short-term rental platform that competed with hotels.
This has created a significant amount of regulatory risk for the company (see New York), and so it’s not surprising that they’re looking at other ways of slicing up housing: rooms, nights, months, and now years.
Longer stays are less contentious.
If you’re renting on a nightly basis, then you’re an annoying tourist that is taking away housing. And if you’re renting on a monthly basis, then you might be an annoying digital nomad and that is similarly problematic. But if you’re renting for a year, well, then, that’s perfectly fine.
Now you’re just a normal city dweller.
Is there a world where Airbnb becomes a major platform for traditional long-term rentals?
This past week, New York City enacted a new short-term rental registration law that is not very friendly toward platforms like Airbnb and VRBO. Here are some of the new rules:
All hosts must register with the city
No more than 2 paying guests can stay in a short-term rental at one time, regardless of the size of the home (does this mean families are excluded?)
Hosts and visitors must leave all doors inside the dwelling unlocked (presumably this is to stop people from creating self-contained suites within a larger home)
And the host must be physically present while the dwelling is being rented
So in a way, this takes us back to the original use case of Airbnb: “Hey, I have extra space in my home. Would you like to rent this mostly clean air mattress in my living room and be my roommate for a bit?” Of course, this is not how most people like to Airbnb today. And so this is also a kind of ban on short-term rentals in New York City.
It’s certainly stricter than the regulations we have in Toronto. Here, it must be your principal residence. Meaning you’re only legally allowed to operate one short-term rental at a time. But you don’t need to be physically present while the home is being rented. If you want to earn some extra cash while you’re away in Rio de Janeiro for New Year’s Eve, you can do that.
However, the rules are still fairly strict. For instance, if you have a basement apartment or a laneway suite on your property, you are not technically permitted to short-term rent these dwellings, even if you live in the main portion of the home. It has to be your exact principal residence.
Presumably the intent behind this is to not remove any housing from the long-term rental market. And if it’s your principal residence, then yeah, there’s no net loss. Though this feels like an overreach to me. It’s the same property and a homeowner could very easily decide to not even do a long-term rental in these secondary suites.
But overall, I guess it’s still slightly more flexible than forcing hostel-like short-term rentals. Long live the hotel?
There is a commonly held view that short-term rentals (such as the ones you might find on platforms like Airbnb) are bad for housing affordability because they take long-term rentals out of the market and they help to drive up property values. And there’s evidence for this. A study published in Harvard Business Review found that home-sharing alone might be responsible for about 20% of the average annual rent increases across the US.
Findings like these have encouraged municipalities around the world to put restrictions in place for STRs. But like most policy issues, there are nuances. And the thoughtful answers are rarely as obvious as they may initially seem. This has been part of my complaint around inclusionary zoning. It sounds good when politicians say it: let’s just get developers to build us free affordable housing. But again, there are nuances to consider.
Short-term rentals are similar. A recent follow-up study that was again published in Harvard Business Review has actually uncovered some interesting longer-term benefits to STRs.
Using residential permit data, Airbnb listings, and STR policies across the US, the team found that when you look over a longer time horizon, Airbnb listings actually tend to increase the supply of residential housing. On average, a 1% increase in Airbnb listings led to a 0.769% increase in permit applications. Supply is of course good for a whole host of reasons, one of which is boosting the local tax base.
Conversely, they found that restricting STRs tended to reduce the supply of new housing and renovations. After new regulations were put in place affecting STRs, Airbnb listings fell on average by about 21% and residential permits fell by 10%.
Restrictions also seem to have a direct impact on the construction of things like accessory dwelling units (laneway and garden suites for us here in Toronto). When analyzing data in and around the borders between jurisdictions in Los Angeles County, the researchers found that areas without STR regulations saw 17% more ADU permit applications compared to the areas that had restrictions.
For the 15 US cities that the team studied, they conservatively estimated that STR restrictions reduced property values by about $2.8 billion and impacted tax revenues by about $40 million per year. Some cities, like Chicago, have also found success using STRs as an economic development strategy in distressed neighborhoods, which would further bolster the tax base.
All of these findings suggest that a more nuanced approach to STR policies is probably merited.
Apartment List’s quarterly Renter Migration Report (Q4 2020) offers up some interesting insights into what may be playing out in the apartment sector right now. The most striking takeaway seems to be the surge in people looking for short-term rentals (leases of six months or less). And while the data has historically shown that those looking to move to a new metro are more likely to be looking for a short-term rental compared to those searching within their current metro, that spread really widened starting in the spring of last year. See above.
And when you drill even deeper, the most popular inbound destination — at least according to Apartment List’s search data — seems to be Honolulu. In the second half of 2020, about 26.8% of users searching in Honolulu from somewhere else in the US were looking for a short-term lease. This is compared to 14.9% during the same time period in 2019. Intuitively this makes sense to me. If you’re in lockdown and working from home, why the hell not do it from Hawaii? We’ve all have this same thought.
Apartment List goes on to speculate that this short-term rental spike could be an indication that the inbound and outbound flows we’re seeing right now with certain cities may not be all that permanent. People are simply optimizing for the current environment. Though this data is representative of intent, rather than of leases consummated. Either way, that would be my guess. But who knows. Maybe some people will discover that surfing in the morning and working from the beach is a pretty enjoyable way to live.
The word on the street is that Sonder — the marketplace for vacation rentals and competitor to Airbnb — is close to finalizing a $200 million investment round that would value the company at $1 billion.
I first wrote about Sonder back in 2016 after I met someone from their business development team here in Toronto. I have yet to stay in a Sonder, but I’ve looked at their rentals a few times.
One of the main differences between Sonder and Airbnb is that the former head leases their rental supply. And they do this by trying to go higher up on the food chain and partner with developers and real estate operators.
In this regard, they are similar to WeWork. And it allows them to sit somewhere in between Airbnb and a conventional hotel. The supply is distributed, but the service offering is more consistent.
Of course, this arguably makes their business model slower (they have to negotiate leases) and more costly (they’re committing to fixed costs). So it becomes a question of: How valuable is that consistent service offering?
Lately when I travel, I’ve been trending more toward hotels, as opposed to Airbnb-like rentals. I like the experiences that many hotels are now focused on creating and I like knowing that if my flight arrives late (in a place like Brazil), I’ll be able to get into my room.
At the beginning of this year, the City of New York filed this lawsuit in an attempt to shut down an Airbnb business that has supposedly generated around $20 million in revenue since 2012. It is currently illegal to rent out an apartment in most buildings in the city for less than 30 days unless the owner/permanent tenant is present. And that’s not how this business was being operated.
Here are the locations of the rentals named in the lawsuit (map from the New York Times):
The defendants include a real estate brokerage, the three partners behind the business (more on them here), as well as others. NYC has been trying to pass legislation that would force Airbnb to disclose more information to the Mayor’s Office of Special Enforcement. Information such as the full name(s) and address(es) of every host and whether the short-term rental is an entire dwelling or a room. That presumably would have helped here.
For more on the lawsuit and the backstory, click here.
You may also find it interesting to go back to the five-point plan that Airbnb put forward back in 2016. It was intended to serve as a framework for new short-term rental legislation. The points make a lot of sense.
Fred Wilson published a good post last weekend on the proposed bill that went to New York City Council this week regarding new reporting requirements for Airbnb and their hosts in NYC. You can read more about his position on his blog, but he is in favor of a comprehensive bill that would properly legitimize short-term rentals. He is also not opposed to city and state taxes on the service.
What I wanted to focus on today were his comments around housing. This is already sounding like a broken record, but Fred draws attention to the severe supply-demand imbalance that is occurring in the boroughs of Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, precisely because many/most young people were priced out of Manhattan long ago and want to live in these places.
But I particularly like his comments around what makes for good policy and what makes for good politics. I agree with his view that it is often a case of the latter over the former. I think a lot of the excitement around Airbnb is a red herring. For me, it’s akin to the fixation on foreign buyers and their impact on the local housing market in places like Toronto and Vancouver.
Yes, they are factors. But the data suggests they are marginal ones. As Fred points out, they are almost certainly not the root cause of the problem. The reality is that we need a lot more housing – both market-rate housing and subsidized housing. The challenge is that nobody wants to pay for the latter and so we’ve instead decided to focus on things that sound like they’re going to help.
