[kazinator]

Regarding tourism, I think airbnb encourages mainly poorer tourists, who just eat food, drink mostly water and take pictures.

If you want $$$ from tourism, you have to find ways to attract the rich.

D'oh!

The rich don't necessarily like their destinations touristy. They don't like to elbow their ways through crowds, stand in lineups, or have stranger "extras" in their pictures.

Airbnb contributes to "touristy".

[bombcar]

Another problem is AirBnB almost by definition are less dense than hotels.

If there were no AirBnB, the economics for a new high-rise hotel would be much better.

But it all comes down to increasing desirable supply (which may be density dwellings at the end of an express train) or building entire new cities (or rejuvenating others).

At some point, if supply outstrips demand, prices will start to stabilize - maybe fall.

[scythe]

Tourism is by definition a small fraction of overall global economic activity. Basically the only places which can really run on tourism have major geographical (Barbados, Andorra) or extraordinary historical (Venice, Kyoto) advantages, or both (San Francisco, Cusco).

My recommendation is that if you want to encourage tourism, change your mind. Build a great place to live and if you do a good job, you might get a boost in a century. I would call this "the Chicago model".