[dorchadas]

It has nothing to do with tourists visiting. It's tourists taking up the local housing. Tourists are planned into any good urban planning -- but they're not expected to stay in the residential areas, especially while the local residents are getting hurt because of it.

The issue isn't tourists, it's where they're staying. Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel.

> Maybe we should just build enough housing for everyone.

Except that won't ever be enough because more and more will just come. And there's already even a glut on AirBnB for tourists, so none of that housing will go the locals. Building isn't the only solution.

[FredPret]

That's fair. From a tourist's point of view, hotels suck, and houses are much better. Home owners also have the right to rent out their houses, as limited by the zoning.

I maintain that the issue can be fixed with more development - build a new tourist zone with hotels that appeal, or AirBnB friendly zoning, or something like that. And for locals, more housing = more options. The local housing can be built outside tourist zones if it has to.

The fact is we have a growing population, a growing global economy, tons of people exiting poverty and entering the global middle class and travelling. This will all accelerate for hundreds of years to come.

[soco]

Hotels suck only to those buying into the relatively recent religion "live like locals" and they are not that many percentage-wise. Most of the AirBnB customers go there hoping for lower prices and that's all there is. Tax the hosts like the hotels are taxed, make them offer the same services the hotels are offering, and I'm sure the main problem will be solved. I say only the main problem because Venice will be Venice and the increase in tourists numbers will be felt either way, so at some point the bigger issue will need to be discussed: should we limit the number of tourists? Sell them time schedule tickets or something? Venice has this discussion already.

[leoedin]

Hotels suck for other reasons. If you're travelling as a group you often don't want to have separate hotel rooms with no shared space. If you're travelling as a family you might have kids that need to go to bed before you. There's much more of a trend to build serviced apartments now - which solve most of those issues.

[carlosjobim]

Many (most?) hotels offer these kind of apartments as well.

[FredPret]

I just need a kitchen man

[troyvit]

Exactly. I rent houses and apartments because they have kitchens to cook in, a patio to hang laundry on or relax on, a separate bedroom for the kids, they allow dogs, and it's the same price as a hotel. If hotels start sucking less they can take the business back.

[Gud]

Why is this getting down voted? These are the same reasons I rent apartments.

[pjc50]

> Tourists are welcome, they're not entitled to live like 'locals' at the local's expense. Stay in a hotel.

I feel this is an artificial distinction. It's not really the type of building that's involved. People tend to pick whichever of AirBnB or hotel is the most economical for their stay. It's the massive conversion of property from residential to "hotel" by the (often local!) owners that's the problem.