I think the resentment comes from the fact that, for many large cities, the tourism aspect is a very small part of the city. Take for example the city I grew up in - Edinburgh. Tourism contributes £1.3bn to the cities economy, but the city has a GDP of £26bn. So tourism is 5% of GDP, yet it has a completely disproportionate impact on the city centre.

If you play "count the lockboxes" in the centre you realise almost every flat in the centre is an AirBnB. Those flats take in 4x what a normal rented flat will make, so of course there's a strong incentive for landlords to rent on AirBnB. Right now the city is going through a huge housing shortage - people are having to defer degree courses or live outside the city because they literally can't find anywhere to rent.

Of course, tourists aren't the only cause of this. There's a huge intergenerational issue (I know countless people in their 60s living in very large houses), and the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.

Ultimately the city is owned and run mostly by the people who live there. Most of them have no choice about the level of tourism, and it's pretty reasonable to want to have a discussion about whether you really want to have your city turned into a theme park.

> the city has historically been very conservative about building new houses to match population growth.

This is the main problem. Solution is simple: Allow more new construction, lots of it.

Local people have voted against their own long term interests, if they have voted for politicians who have opposed new construction.

It is easy to succumb to short term selfishness: "I already have a home, so I don't want any new construction near me. I oppose building new homes." But in time, every one of us will need to move to a new home. Then you will start to wish that if you had supported building new homes, it would be easier for you, too, to find a new home.

> Allow more new construction, lots of it

Specifically in Edinburgh, the problem is the city is a World Heritage Site. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/728/

It's an inherent problem in tourism: tourists want an "unspoiled" view, which means not building infrastructure for tourists or locals.

Building definitely is happening. See the Plan: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk/downloads/file/25264/edinburgh-... - but of course you can't build just houses, you have to build roads and schools and waste disposal and public transport to go with them. The city has struggled with its tram project and the railways are at capacity.

When the younger generation takes over, I predict a massive wave of construction globally. Most millennials have had it up to here both with high rent and the anti-development I've-already-got-my-own-house crowd that caused it.

And I'll be the old guy yelling about it in the street. I've lived in the same town for most of my life, so I've seen it metastasize across the countryside, gobbling up farmland, wildlife habitat and open spaces, replacing them with McMansions, apartment buildings and Costcos, just to make room for more ... frikken ... people. It's like watching your best high school friend turn into a junkie whore before your eyes.

I don't know what the answer is, but there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people, and maybe rethinking the idea that growth is necessary to success, 'cause we're running out of room and that definition can't last forever.

Long term we’ll have falling population, but right now the people looking for a place to live already exist. Not sure what you expect them to do.

Yeah like I said, I don't know what the answer is. I just know what's getting destroyed.

This issue has been solved very well in other countries with medium and high-density construction. Many US communities feel overcrowded because they are low-density.

Yeah I think you're right there, at least to a degree. So many American towns have really crappy zoning laws that limit the amount of high density construction, even though it's awesome for a tax base (especially if you allow for mixed use areas (which has the double benefit of helping mitigate food deserts)).

Drama much? People need somewhere to live! Where?

Change is inherent in a situation where you have however many billion people we have now. We are a dynamic system, and a huge one.

Literally the old guy yelling in the street, so yeah, drama much and much drama.

What you say is true, and also isn't anything new to the discussion. Change is awesome, and isn't even the point. It's more about the unsustainable quest for growth that is the foundation of our economy.

That's a complete narcissistic take. Other people are crowding your view? Would it be possible for you to understand that you take up as much space as any other person? That you are crowding their view? "At the expense of fewer people" - do you want to start killing your fellow man?

I don't know why you're getting downvoted, maybe the "narcissistic" part. Nah man I don't know what the answer is, only that I see the destruction happening. There has to be a more sustainable way to manage growth.

> there is something to be said for retaining some beauty at the expense of fewer people

I'll let you argue with the "why aren't people having children any more?" people.

You need laws to prevent speculators/investors from buying up all the newly built housing.

Vancouver built lots of new housing but it was mostly snapped up by investors.

That Norwegian ski town got it right.

This is the real kicker. If Venice turns into a tourist Disneyland I’d feel a bit bad for the people who had lived there, but maybe it would be for the best.

But if downtowns of cities are being hollowed out and filled with tourists, it’s not going to go well for anyone - because eventually even the tourists won’t really want to be there anymore.

Too right. Glasgow is cracking down on new AirBnBs but not hard enough in my opinion. A city is for the people that live and work there, primarily. Tourism should be supported, but in almost no case should it take priority over making the city itself better for the people that have made it their home.

Airbnb-free is not tourist free, there are hotels, apartment hotels, hostels, resorts, campsites etc.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I just need a kitchen man

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.

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

> 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.

If there only was some type of accommodation offering rooms to tourists right there where they want to go but respecting the local laws and regulations... maybe we could call them "hotels" or something.

> tourists that want to visit can go to hell?

Hotels and hostels are a thing, you know?

Tourists can use hotels.