Metro Vancouver Hotel & Short Term Rental Market Discussion

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

I don't even have an issue with a building having both hotel and residential uses I'm the same building, as long as it's planned that way (eg. Having top floors residential and bottom floors hotel or vice-versa, and having adequate noise mitigation between the two uses)

Sorry to continue hijacking, but surely you must be in support of the Playa Del Sol owner-operators then too right? They did everything right by operating AirBNBs in a dedicated AirBNB development didn't they? (I've stayed here, it was great!)

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Vienna had a ton of hotel options under $100 a night, including some midrange chains like Mercure.

Vienna has a lot more hotels, period. More options = lower prices.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I just hope you realise that you're making the exact same case the anti-daycare, anti-supportive housing, anti-multiplex, anti-neighbourhood business NIMBYs make. I would have assumed that you would be in support of walkable, mixed use neighbourhoods.

There are legitimate privacy, noise, traffic, crime, and infrastructure concerns with having daycares, supportive housing, multiplexes, and neighbourhood businesses sharing a street with single family homes. NIMBYs will say that all of these things should be planned and placed in areas that are designed and meant for them, and not ruin the existing character of their SFH neighbourhoods. There's a huge difference between having daycares, supportive housing, etc. in your city vs on your street. In your world view, how are they wrong? It's hard for me to understand how you could argue against them if you believe so strongly in your anti-AirBNB view.

Hell, I've heard this exact line of argumentation against allowing renters in condos and even basement suites! "They're loud, they invite all their friends to party, they don't have a buy-in to the building/neighbourhood so they break and disrespect things, we ought to ban rentals!" Do you subscribe to this?

I'm very curious if this means you're A-OK with AirBNBs in any SFH? You ought to be right? Or conversely you must be extremely against anyone running a home business out of their condo/duplex/multiplex, right?

You keep saying I'm making the same argument as nimbys even though I'm not. Claiming so doesn't make it true. Renters are residents, the same as owners, they use properties the same way. The way they use a property is different than the way a hotel user would use it. The way a building with a different use impacts the neighbourhood/street is far different than the way a unit with a different use impacts a building its in. If you want an extreme example, i dont have an issue with a light manufacturing use next to a residential property, but i would have an issue if we started allowing that use within individual units of multifamily buildings without the consent of all owners(assuming it was able to be up to code). But again in this scenario i would have no issue with a live-work building where light manufacturing occurred that was developed as such, as in that case all owners residence would know whay they're getting into.

I've made it clear i have no issue with mixed use buildings and neighbourhoods, but you keep trying to use inconsistent analogies dismiss my argument, even though those analogies are not equal comparisons.

You seem intent on purposefully misunderstanding it and mischaracterising my argument in order to make it seem unreasonable, instead of addressing it directly. If you want to disagree with me fine, but if you can't even acknowledge how different units within a building having different uses might be more problematic than different buildings (or for mixed use, completely different sections) having different uses, I don't know what to say. The reality of shared hallways, elevators, amenities, and construction standards between units completely changes the level of impact on residents.

Home businesses are a known, permitted, and regulated use, where businesses have restrictions on hours, employees etc. Not sure it's the gotcha you think it is.

There's probably a place for short term rentals, but it needs to be properly regulated, meaning owners should go through the rezoning process, and the merits should be discussed with planning/council. We have policies to restrict residential in our CBD to stop the encroachment onto our employment lands, similarly, we're in a housing crisis, so we should be stopping encroachment of hotel uses into our housing stock.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Vienna has a lot more hotels, period. More options = lower prices.

Sure, because so much land was driven up by developers looking to build condos in Vancouver. Luckily Vienna has escaped that scourge to the same degree.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by seamusmcduff

You keep saying I'm making the same argument as nimbys even though I'm not. Claiming so doesn't make it true. Renters are residents, the same as owners, they use properties the same way. The way they use a property is different than the way a hotel user would use it.

Denying it doesn't make it false. Short term renters are renters. They use properties the same way. They sleep there, they might cook there, they probably have a good time sometimes too. Renters can be a huge pain in the ass, owners of neighbouring properties can be a huge pain in the ass, AirBNB guests can be a huge pain in the ass. They're all people, being in an AirBNB doesn't suddenly change you. I reject this premise. The average student renter is probably a worse neighbour than the average AirBNB renter.

The way a building with a different use impacts the neighbourhood/street is far different than the way a unit with a different use impacts a building its in. If you want an extreme example, i dont have an issue with a light manufacturing use next to a residential property, but i would have an issue if we started allowing that use within individual units of multifamily buildings without the consent of all owners(assuming it was able to be up to code). But again in this scenario i would have no issue with a live-work building where light manufacturing occurred that was developed as such, as in that case all owners residence would know whay they're getting into.

It's different, but it's a impact to their homes that people get really bothered and uppity about. It's the same argument. I'll ask again, does this mean you'd be okay with people opening AirBNBs out of SFHs they own?

I've made it clear i have no issue with mixed use buildings and neighbourhoods, but you keep trying to use inconsistent analogies dismiss my argument, even though those analogies are not equal comparisons.

It's the same line of reasoning, I'm sorry.

You seem intent on purposefully misunderstanding it and mischaracterising my argument in order to make it seem unreasonable, instead of addressing it directly. If you want to disagree with me fine, but if you can't even acknowledge how different units within a building having different uses might be more problematic than different buildings (or for mixed use, completely different sections) having different uses, I don't know what to say. The reality of shared hallways, elevators, amenities, and construction standards between units completely changes the level of impact on residents.

Honestly, I don't acknowledge it. Can you please explain how having 2-3 short term residents in an apartment completely changes hallways and elevators and amenities and "construction standards" compared to having 2-3 long term residents in an apartment? What is fundamentally different about a couple of university students renting a condo versus a couple from out of town visiting for a weekend?

Home businesses are a known, permitted, and regulated use, where businesses have restrictions on hours, employees etc. Not sure it's the gotcha you think it is.

AirBNBs were a known, permitted, and regulated use before they were effectively banned. Not sure how this is the gotcha you think it is. By the way, in the City of Vancouver home business are also almost regulated out of existence. I hope this means you're in favour of deregulating home business restrictions? To be honest, it sounds like you want home businesses kicked out of multifamily dwellings.

There's probably a place for short term rentals, but it needs to be properly regulated, meaning owners should go through the rezoning process, and the merits should be discussed with planning/council. We have policies to restrict residential in our CBD to stop the encroachment onto our employment lands, similarly, we're in a housing crisis, so we should be stopping encroachment of hotel uses into our housing stock.

I really don't see how you can be in support of mixed use walkable neighbourhoods while holding this view. Doesn't commercial use in historically residential areas "encroach" on housing stock?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Sure, because so much land was driven up by developers looking to build condos in Vancouver. Luckily Vienna has escaped that scourge to the same degree.

More like how for 30+ years, Vancouver's leaders have sat on their hands and said "nah, the city's got more than enough hotels, eh?" until the Olympics came along and we realized that no, we don't. Then we gave up even more to become homeless shelters, and then had to write them off.

... Whereas Vienna's been adding dozens every decade for the last 200+ years, and so competition keeps prices down.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Denying it doesn't make it false. Short term renters are renters. They use properties the same way. They sleep there, they might cook there, they probably have a good time sometimes too...

Short term renters are using a residential unit as a hotel suite - not as as residential unit. Had you noticed we have a shortage of residential units to rent? If they stay for 30 days or more, they're renters. Less than that, they're tourists.

We haven't seen many new hotels developed in recent years. We have seen a lot of short-term rentals in residential buildings - many of them without even a valid business licence. It seems reasonable to suggest that one reason nobody was willing to invest in new hotel rooms (for several years before COVID) was because short term rentals were stripping off the potential hotel business. Hotel guests pay taxes to support tourism, and hotel owners pay business taxes, while short-term rental hosts pay (lower) residential taxes.

Short-term rental landlords made the affordability problem worse in Vancouver. Investors bought apartments at a higher price because they could pay the mortgage from the short-term rental income. That wouldn't be true for a normal tenancy, as a recent news story illustrates.

Problems in strata buildings caused by short-term rentals have been widely shared. If a renter, (or an owner) is causing problems in a building it's usually possible for the landlord or strata council to do something about it. With a short term renter, that's impossible - they've gone before the damage to common property is found, (or the water damage from starting a fire). It's even worse if investors have acquired a lot of the units, and the building has become a hotel in all but name.

It's not just the City that's limiting the use of short term rentals, it's the Province too.

The City of Vancouver is in the process of making it even easier to operate a home business. It's already legal to do so.

Short term rentals are still possible in Vancouver - the owner just has to live there. They can't buy (or lease) an apartment, and then use it for a short-term rental business.

Developers who want to offer short term rentals can apply to do so. Onni have done exactly that on their strata building at 1002 Seymour.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Short term renters are using a residential unit as a hotel suite - not as as residential unit. Had you noticed we have a shortage of residential units to rent? If they stay for 30 days or more, they're renters. Less than that, they're tourists.

My response was not to say that they're renting the suite for the same reason, obviously they're not. But can you tell me what exactly an AirBNB renter does that a long term renter doesn't?

We haven't seen many new hotels developed in recent years. We have seen a lot of short-term rentals in residential buildings - many of them without even a valid business licence. It seems reasonable to suggest that one reason nobody was willing to invest in new hotel rooms (for several years before COVID) was because short term rentals were stripping off the potential hotel business. Hotel guests pay taxes to support tourism, and hotel owners pay business taxes, while short-term rental hosts pay (lower) residential taxes.

I would have thought you of all people would be crying foul then. What happened to "we have limited construction capacity"? Doesn't it bother you that all of a sudden every new major development contains a hotel? You're opening up a can of worms by mentioning that commercial property pays stupidly higher property tax but I don't want to get into that. AirBNB operators if they're smart do pay business taxes. If they're dumb, they pay income taxes.

Short-term rental landlords made the affordability problem worse in Vancouver. Investors bought apartments at a higher price because they could pay the mortgage from the short-term rental income. That wouldn't be true for a normal tenancy, as a recent news story illustrates.

We all know this is true for long term rentals too. This is not a problem caused by AirBNB. This is a problem caused by a lack of supply.

Problems in strata buildings caused by short-term rentals have been widely shared. If a renter, (or an owner) is causing problems in a building it's usually possible for the landlord or strata council to do something about it. With a short term renter, that's impossible - they've gone before the damage to common property is found, (or the water damage from starting a fire). It's even worse if investors have acquired a lot of the units, and the building has become a hotel in all but name.

Firstly, I remember this article and I put very little value on it. AirBNB renters leave every morning? What, do regular residents not leave for work every morning? I'm bothered when I have to wait for the elevator because others are trying to use it, do AirBNB renters somehow use it more? Also the idea that short term renters can cause damage with no liability is patently absurd. Sure, they can leave before the damage is found but the owner of the property is now liable. They're part of the equation too you know.

The City of Vancouver is in the process of making it even easier to operate a home business. It's already legal to do so.

I didn't know about that that's fantastic! I'm filling out the survey now and it's crazy to me that it was illegal to teach painting in a Vancouver home until now. Talk about over regulation.

But aren't you worried about the fact that HBB pay residential taxes not commercial taxes?

Developers who want to offer short term rentals can apply to do so. Onni have done exactly that on their strata building at 1002 Seymour.

I believe they are proposing to provide the short term rental known as a "hotel". Worse, the most recent proposal is to reduce the amount of residential units to zero and fully convert the building to a hotel.

https://council.vancouver.ca/20240123/documents/rr1.pdf

1. Background
In 2007, a mixed-use building was approved under DD zoning to construct 16,820.1 sq. m
(181,050 sq. ft.) of total floor area, including a heritage density transfer of 1,074 sq. m
(11,561 sq. ft.), for a total FSR of 5.5. The development consisted of 231.4 sq. m (2,491 sq. ft.)
of retail uses at grade, 2,717.4 sq. m (29,250 sq. ft.) of office use in the podium, and
13,871 sq. m (149,309 sq. ft.) of dwelling use (188 strata-titled units) in the podium and tower.
In 2019, a development permit was approved for a change of use of 20 units or 1,322.6 sq. m
(14,236 sq. ft.) of residential (strata) to commercial (hotel).
2. Proposal
The existing mixed-use development has a total floor area of 16,820.1 sq. m (181,050 sq. ft.).
The application proposes to change the use of 12,548.7 sq. m (135,073 sq. ft.) of residential
floor area (strata) to commercial floor area (hotel strata). The rezoning and resulting change of
use from residential to commercial will increase the density from 5.5 to 6.17 FSR.

But I guess we don't care about this, huh? After all, we don't care about building new units, all we care about is kicking AirBNBs out! Thank God wonderful benevolent companies like Onni can apply to convert their rental units into short term rentals, but disgusting filthy private citizens are fortunately prevented from doing so.

[chowhou]

I'm sorry, this should go in

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...=237090&page=2

[FarmerHaight]

Originally Posted by Changing City

hotel owners pay business taxes, while short-term rental hosts pay (lower) residential taxes.

This is incorrect. Most short-term rental hosts with a property or two likely aren't incorporated, so their rental income is taxed at their personal tax bracket. On the contrary, hotels are taxed at the corporate rate. If you're making $100k per year, you would be in the 31% combined Federal and Provincial bracket, while a business making $100k per year in BC would pay something like 11% combined Federal and Provincial income tax.

Where your point about taxes may come into play is when a multi-national hotel company's property is competing against an incorporated but small Canadian short-term rental company. Assuming the Canadian company is eligible for the SBD, they could be paying 20% less in income taxes compared to their international competition.

However, hotels do pay additional taxes and fees and are forced to levy a 2.5% accommodation tax. Short-term rentals are also supposed to levy the 2.5% but I wonder how many are able to skirt this?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by FarmerHaight

This is incorrect. Most short-term rental hosts with a property or two likely aren't incorporated, so their rental income is taxed at their personal tax bracket. On the contrary, hotels are taxed at the corporate rate. If you're making $100k per year, you would be in the 31% combined Federal and Provincial bracket, while a business making $100k per year in BC would pay something like 11% combined Federal and Provincial income tax.

Where your point about taxes may come into play is when a multi-national hotel company's property is competing against an incorporated but small Canadian short-term rental company. Assuming the Canadian company is eligible for the SBD, they could be paying 20% less in income taxes compared to their international competition.

However, hotels do pay additional taxes and fees and are forced to levy a 2.5% accommodation tax. Short-term rentals are also supposed to levy the 2.5% but I wonder how many are able to skirt this?

Sorry, I'll clarify, as it seems it was ambiguous. hotel owners pay property taxes at the business rate, while short-term rental hosts pay (lower) residential property tax.

[seamusmcduff]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm sorry, this should go in

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...=237090&page=2

Thanks for the discussion, but I still completely disagree with your assertions and comparisons. I started a response but I don't think it's worth either of our time to continue going back and forth on this lol

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

My response was not to say that they're renting the suite for the same reason, obviously they're not. But can you tell me what exactly an AirBNB renter does that a long term renter doesn't?
.

Continuing this here. Generally the biggest difference is the AirBnB renter does not work in the city the STR unit is located in. So if an AirBnb landlord owns six units and lives in just one, that is five units taken away from housing local workers the economy needs.

Yes, more construction would help solve the housing shortage but that is constrained by available, affordable land, available construction workers etc.

I'm a bit surprised you're so vociferous in defending a position almost nobody else agrees with. Do/did you own a short term rental unit?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Continuing this here. Generally the biggest difference is the AirBnB renter does not work in the city the STR unit is located in. So if an AirBnb landlord owns six units and lives in just one, that is five units taken away from housing local workers the economy needs.

This is a completely different argument, so in other words AirBNB residents are no more disruptive than non-AirBNB residents. To extrapolate from this other argument you're making, we therefore need to start forcing every hotel to convert into SROs/studios/condos. Every single hotel room that is being used for tourists and not local housing is a tragedy. If we're going to end STRs because they could be housing, we need to be ending the hotel industry.

Yes, more construction would help solve the housing shortage but that is constrained by available, affordable land, available construction workers etc.

So isn't it a bad thing that restricting the short term rental supply is causing developers to now push for building more hotels instead of building more housing supply?

I'm a bit surprised you're so vociferous in defending a position almost nobody else agrees with. Do/did you own a short term rental unit?

I hate populism, I don't have much more to say about this. I don't want to answer this question because it's so bad faith, but I know you'd assume the answer if I didn't so, no. I do not own a STR, I have not owned an STR, no one in my family has owned an STR, none of my friends own STRs.

No, I'm not one of "them".

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

This is a completely different argument, so in other words AirBNB residents are no more disruptive than non-AirBNB residents. To extrapolate from this other argument you're making, we therefore need to start forcing every hotel to convert into SROs/studios/condos. Every single hotel room that is being used for tourists and not local housing is a tragedy. If we're going to end STRs because they could be housing, we need to be ending the hotel industry.

I don't discount the disruption argument. The majority of AirBnB users are nice people but we've seen high profile examples in the media where they're not. As to extrapolating the argument, tourists bring money into the economy that governments can spend on housing. Just as building office space rather than housing can be a net benefit to the economy.

Originally Posted by chowhou

So isn't it a bad thing that restricting the short term rental supply is causing developers to now push for building more hotels instead of building more housing supply?

Again, taking that argument to the extreme, we would build nothing but housing. No hotels, no office, no retail, no cultural.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I hate populism, I don't have much more to say about this. I don't want to answer this question because it's so bad faith, but I know you'd assume the answer if I didn't so, no. I do not own a STR, I have not owned an STR, no one in my family has owned an STR, none of my friends own STRs.

No, I'm not one of "them".

Ok, glad to hear you're not a STR owner. I was just surprised you argued so strongly for it when in the past you've been so strongly for housing supply at the expense of other considerations, like heritage etc.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I don't discount the disruption argument. The majority of AirBnB users are nice people but we've seen high profile examples in the media where they're not. As to extrapolating the argument, tourists bring money into the economy that governments can spend on housing. Just as building office space rather than housing can be a net benefit to the economy.

The disruption argument is equally true for other renters, and belligerent owners. I've seen horror stories of neighbouring long term rental tenants and owners too. Until I've seen facts that AirBNB tenants are uniquely disruptive compared to university students, I'm completely discounting that argument.

So in other words, you can see that there is a value to AirBNB STRs which is similar if not equal to hotel STRs.

Again, taking that argument to the extreme, we would build nothing but housing. No hotels, no office, no retail, no cultural.

Yeah, exactly. So why did we decide that hotel STRs are okay but AirBNB STRs aren't? Just seems like fear of change and attachment to the status quo to me.

Ok, glad to hear you're not a STR owner. I was just surprised you argued so strongly for it when in the past you've been so strongly for housing supply at the expense of other considerations, like heritage etc.

I'm completely aligned on this. Heritage designations have no tangible value while housing supply, hotels, and AirBNBs do. Heritage buildings prevent the development of new housing supply, banning AirBNB prevents the development of new housing supply as hotels are built to replace them.

You'll never hear me saying crazy things like retail, industrial, or hotels ought to be replaced with residential. If anything, I've made it clear in this thread that I'm perfectly okay with residential properties being partially converted into office/industrial/retail space as home based businesses. As long as development of new housing supply does not have legislative or economic barriers placed in front of it, I'm happy. The spice must flow.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I don't discount the disruption argument. The majority of AirBnB users are nice people but we've seen high profile examples in the media where they're not. As to extrapolating the argument, tourists bring money into the economy that governments can spend on housing. Just as building office space rather than housing can be a net benefit to the economy.

Being on a strata council for many years I can tell you that AirBNB guests generate the most resident complaints and overall issues "per capita" by far.

Renters, specifically those with offshore/out of sight landlords are easily the 2nd worst.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Being on a strata council for many years I can tell you that AirBNB guests generate the most resident complaints and overall issues "per capita" by far.

Renters, specifically those with offshore/out of sight landlords are easily the 2nd worst.

Owners who serve on strata councils are saints, it is a thankless and underappreciated job. Back in my condo days I tried it and it was no end of hassle and stress.

[s211]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Owners who serve on strata councils are saints, it is a thankless and underappreciated job. Back in my condo days I tried it and it was no end of hassle and stress.

Been there, done that, bought the straitjacket.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by s211

Been there, done that, bought the straitjacket.

My building is full of apathetic people. We have trouble getting enough on council. I like to be on to have some handle on the long term health of the property.