[dcdc123]

I’m a full time nomad and stay in airbnbs and similar almost full time going on four years now. I used to rent my house but finally sold it so I figure I’m a net zero on the housing issue. I also like to spend a few weeks to a month in a walkable residential neighborhood and get to know it a bit. You can’t usually do that in hotels.

[addicted]

You’re quite literally exemplifying the issue described in the article which is homes being used for short term rentals rather than people who are there for the long term and form communities.

[apwell23]

build more housing to "form communities" then. You can't have it both ways. NIMBYs crying about airbnbs is the most ironic thing in this whole "debate".

[eesmith]

Yes, you’re quite literally describing the solution described in the article: "There needs to be an express focus on building for people who actually live in a place. Once you give the market free rein to build for anyone, then you’re just hoping that it trickles down to people. But increasingly, housing is seen as a commodity."

That you agree would make you one of the crying NIMBYs, it would seem.

[rickydroll]

I've never been part of a community where I've lived. The activity-specific communities I participate in are miles from where I live.

[crystal_revenge]

> I’m a full time nomad

> a walkable residential neighborhood

You see the contradiction in your logic right?

As someone who owns a house in one of those "walkable residential neighborhoods" the reason they feel so pleasant is precisely because virtually all the people living there have lived their a long time (most people on my block have been here ~20 years). This means there is a community that keeps the local shops alive, people know each other so that they know who does and doesn't belong which keeps them those places safe (I can't overstate how important this is), people raise their children there so they remain active in local politics and work to ensure policies that continue to make these areas nice, and, because they have invested a lot in that area, their homes are all beautiful.

The houses in my neighborhood that are AirBnBs is painfully obvious, and thankfully remain quite few in number. The parts of my city that contain higher density of housing for "full time nomads" are notably worse, and often have much higher number of other "nomads" (mainly itinerant homeless). I've lived in other cities in some beautiful, historic neighborhoods, that are effectively ghosts of what they were given that a critical number of the apartments don't have permanent residents. Still pleasant for a stroll, but you can feel the void of a living community of residents.

[amazingamazing]

> As someone who owns a house in one of those "walkable residential neighborhoods" the reason they feel so pleasant is precisely because virtually all the people living there have lived their a long time (most people on my block have been here ~20 years). This means there is a community that keeps the local shops alive, people know each other so that they know who does and doesn't belong which keeps them those places safe (I can't overstate how important this is), people raise their children there so they remain active in local politics and work to ensure policies that continue to make these areas nice, and, because they have invested a lot in that area, their homes are all beautiful.

I can give you plenty of examples of places where people owned their houses for decades and it’s still crappy.

[scheme271]

I think more relevant examples would be places with a lot of transient residents (airbnbs, etc) that are still walkable and have a neighborhood vibe

[snapplebobapple]

most of the Netherlands