And people who don't want bloody temporary neighbors who have no incentive not to be dicks. Or who are visiting cities and, more often than not, want to party. Who often don't understand what it's like to live in NYC where apartments are right next to each other and just how much sound carries or how much sound they're making; drunk people are not quiet people. Or SF where I live in a nicer building but can still touch my neighbor's house when I stretch my arms out.
If they want to help people do whatever they want with their houses in the country or in suburbs, Airbnb should knock themselves out. But in the city, where they help introduce really obnoxious neighbors, they should go away.
ps -- when I lived in Yorkville, my gf and I paid $3700 for our apartment. If you think I have exactly no tolerance for loud neighbors, well, you're right. That's not even on the high end of middle class housing in that area.
I have no experience with AirBnB, but my roommate has been a Couch Surfing (http://www.couchsurfing.org/) host and has never had a problem. Most of the time it's not actually people looking to party, or at least not party in their rooms. It's mostly people traveling on small budgets leaving small footprints.
Couldn't the same thing happen though with people putting up out of town relatives or friends? The people coming through are temporary but your neighbours that are putting them up are permanent and should be in a position to set the rules.
I'd assume this has a lot more to do with hotels being undercut.
There are at least two pretty different kinds of rentals that go on on AirBnB, though: 1) people who live in the apartment sometimes taking in visitors for a few days; and 2) people who don't live in the apartment, renting out an apartment on a regular basis.
Sometimes those in #2 get consolidated so many such units are operated by one person, making more or less a quasi-hotel. And having hotel units next door to you is somewhat different than having an apartment with a long-term tenant next door to you, which is presumably what you signed up expecting.
You are exactly the type of person I would hate to live next to, the type who moves to a city from the suburbs and tries to keep all the benefits of both.
Cities are chaotic. Cities are loud. How about if you want peace and quiet, you move somewhere where they occur naturally, like the middle of nowhere?
The same thing could be said of you. The type that moves from the suburbs and expects to have the benefits of both. Being able to be as loud as they want because no one can hear them in their single family home.
When you're in the city you have neighbors. Some are there decades and the walls seperating you can be paper thing as far as sound travels. Cities can be loud during the day, but at night the businesses are closed and the residents are still there.
Whether you are subletter, leasee, or owner keep in mind your neighbors can shut you down so be mindful of them as well.
Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this. But from the comments on NYT I see some people support it because they don't want their building treated like a hotel. If airbnb what this bill taken down they better do something fast because, although the hotel industry wrote it, it is gaining support amongst residents.
> Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this.
Isn't the point of all legislation to restrict people's free will in one way or another? (Just a quibble; I realize this statement is not central to your comment.)
Well there are some freedoms that have to be denied for the greater good; disallowing strangling your obnoxious neighbor, flinging shit onto the street, dumping in rivers, or pedophilia. It's part and parcel of living in a "free" society. I give up some freedoms so that everyone and I can get along.
Yes, I agree -- my point was merely that in any case, it wouldn't make sense to argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away freedoms, since that is necessarily what any bill (with a few trivial exceptions) must do. (Of course you can argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away some freedom in particular, given, for example, that such freedom has been enshrined in a founding document, &c., &c.)
I was rude to earl in my original post, and I apologize for that. I have no way to be sure what kind of neighbor he'd make, and I shouldn't draw conclusions from one post.
I grew up mostly in the suburbs or in smaller cities (Columbus, Lexington), and I've lived my entire adult life in cities (New York first, Philadelphia now.) In my experience, which is limited to those two cities, I've found that the base level of noise is higher in the cities regardless of time. Trash trucks, ambulances, police cars, delivery trucks, drunks walking home, cabs cruising for fares, and tons of other noisy events occur at all times of day and with a greater frequency than I experienced in the suburbs.
I overreacted to earl's post. I pictured him as the type of person who can't handle any late night noise, regardless of the day of week or the holiday associated. I pictured the kind of guy who won't sign the block party application, or who pins notes to your door or car.
I lived by people like the one I describe, and I can't stand them. Maybe I'm unique--one of my first apartments was within a 1.5 block radius of a very active fire station, four bars, a liquor store, and a 24 hour gas station. You get used to noise pretty quick, or give up sleeping in environments like that.
But, politically, I do have a point: I don't see why earl's right to be free from potentially noisy, short term neighbors should lead to legislation that will cripple an industry that hasn't had the time to find its legs. We're killing innovation by some to avoid possible annoyance of others.
That doesn't seem like a fair trade, or a likely one. I doubt anyone paying to spend a few nights in earl's neighborhood is really there to throw a kegger and urinate in the hallway.
Part of living in a city is exercising some basic decorum when it comes to living very close to a lot of people. When you play loud music until 2 am -- keeping your neighbor awake with a bass rumble that can be felt through the bed frame despite ear plugs that shouldn't be necessary in the first place -- you should remember that your neighbor might just have to work tomorrow.
(It might be hard to fathom, but not everybody is a college student or an unmarried 23 year old, and some people even have to get to work early on the weekends -- myself included, during crunch times).
If you can't handle treating other people living in the next room with basic courtesy, you should yourself seriously consider living in the suburbs.
It makes for pretty bad neighborly relations, and they'll just behave worse the next time. The best approach is to mention it politely when you run into them in the hallways or out on the sidewalk.
However, it's still pretty rare for inconsiderate people to grow up and show some consideration just because you ask.
I've lived in cities for my entire adult life, and I find that choosing the right building and neighborhood is imperative. When I've had bad neighbors, it's rarely just one.
Yes, it's no good for longer term neighbours. But nobody seems to have a problem with them. Or, rather, the discussion was about short term neighbours not behaving.
Calling the police is a reactive measure -- you're already awake at 2am, now you're just trying to mitigate the damage and prevent it from happening again.
With a short-term tenant, there isn't a next time to prevent, and chances are good that they'll just turn the music down until the cops leave (and possibly find ways to mistreat your property in retaliation).
There will never be a hostel. That's why it's important to go to zoning board meetings / your local planning council. Just skim the meeting notes once a month and if there are new businesses opening near you, read what they are!
In general, there is a place for people to stay and party -- and that's in business districts. Or in hotels that are subject to increased sound insulation requirements and further regulatory requirements requiring noise, with penalties for not enforcing compliance from the guests up to and including loss of licence.
Comments
And people who don't want bloody temporary neighbors who have no incentive not to be dicks. Or who are visiting cities and, more often than not, want to party. Who often don't understand what it's like to live in NYC where apartments are right next to each other and just how much sound carries or how much sound they're making; drunk people are not quiet people. Or SF where I live in a nicer building but can still touch my neighbor's house when I stretch my arms out.
If they want to help people do whatever they want with their houses in the country or in suburbs, Airbnb should knock themselves out. But in the city, where they help introduce really obnoxious neighbors, they should go away.
ps -- when I lived in Yorkville, my gf and I paid $3700 for our apartment. If you think I have exactly no tolerance for loud neighbors, well, you're right. That's not even on the high end of middle class housing in that area.
I have no experience with AirBnB, but my roommate has been a Couch Surfing (http://www.couchsurfing.org/) host and has never had a problem. Most of the time it's not actually people looking to party, or at least not party in their rooms. It's mostly people traveling on small budgets leaving small footprints.
Couldn't the same thing happen though with people putting up out of town relatives or friends? The people coming through are temporary but your neighbours that are putting them up are permanent and should be in a position to set the rules.
I'd assume this has a lot more to do with hotels being undercut.
There are at least two pretty different kinds of rentals that go on on AirBnB, though: 1) people who live in the apartment sometimes taking in visitors for a few days; and 2) people who don't live in the apartment, renting out an apartment on a regular basis.
Sometimes those in #2 get consolidated so many such units are operated by one person, making more or less a quasi-hotel. And having hotel units next door to you is somewhat different than having an apartment with a long-term tenant next door to you, which is presumably what you signed up expecting.
I have little problem with them changing the rules on the second situation you listed but the first is the one that's problematic.
You are exactly the type of person I would hate to live next to, the type who moves to a city from the suburbs and tries to keep all the benefits of both.
Cities are chaotic. Cities are loud. How about if you want peace and quiet, you move somewhere where they occur naturally, like the middle of nowhere?
The same thing could be said of you. The type that moves from the suburbs and expects to have the benefits of both. Being able to be as loud as they want because no one can hear them in their single family home.
When you're in the city you have neighbors. Some are there decades and the walls seperating you can be paper thing as far as sound travels. Cities can be loud during the day, but at night the businesses are closed and the residents are still there.
Whether you are subletter, leasee, or owner keep in mind your neighbors can shut you down so be mindful of them as well.
Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this. But from the comments on NYT I see some people support it because they don't want their building treated like a hotel. If airbnb what this bill taken down they better do something fast because, although the hotel industry wrote it, it is gaining support amongst residents.
> Anyway I don't like bills that restrict people's free will like this.
Isn't the point of all legislation to restrict people's free will in one way or another? (Just a quibble; I realize this statement is not central to your comment.)
Well there are some freedoms that have to be denied for the greater good; disallowing strangling your obnoxious neighbor, flinging shit onto the street, dumping in rivers, or pedophilia. It's part and parcel of living in a "free" society. I give up some freedoms so that everyone and I can get along.
Yes, I agree -- my point was merely that in any case, it wouldn't make sense to argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away freedoms, since that is necessarily what any bill (with a few trivial exceptions) must do. (Of course you can argue against a bill on the basis that it takes away some freedom in particular, given, for example, that such freedom has been enshrined in a founding document, &c., &c.)
I was rude to earl in my original post, and I apologize for that. I have no way to be sure what kind of neighbor he'd make, and I shouldn't draw conclusions from one post.
I grew up mostly in the suburbs or in smaller cities (Columbus, Lexington), and I've lived my entire adult life in cities (New York first, Philadelphia now.) In my experience, which is limited to those two cities, I've found that the base level of noise is higher in the cities regardless of time. Trash trucks, ambulances, police cars, delivery trucks, drunks walking home, cabs cruising for fares, and tons of other noisy events occur at all times of day and with a greater frequency than I experienced in the suburbs.
I overreacted to earl's post. I pictured him as the type of person who can't handle any late night noise, regardless of the day of week or the holiday associated. I pictured the kind of guy who won't sign the block party application, or who pins notes to your door or car.
I lived by people like the one I describe, and I can't stand them. Maybe I'm unique--one of my first apartments was within a 1.5 block radius of a very active fire station, four bars, a liquor store, and a 24 hour gas station. You get used to noise pretty quick, or give up sleeping in environments like that.
But, politically, I do have a point: I don't see why earl's right to be free from potentially noisy, short term neighbors should lead to legislation that will cripple an industry that hasn't had the time to find its legs. We're killing innovation by some to avoid possible annoyance of others.
That doesn't seem like a fair trade, or a likely one. I doubt anyone paying to spend a few nights in earl's neighborhood is really there to throw a kegger and urinate in the hallway.
Part of living in a city is exercising some basic decorum when it comes to living very close to a lot of people. When you play loud music until 2 am -- keeping your neighbor awake with a bass rumble that can be felt through the bed frame despite ear plugs that shouldn't be necessary in the first place -- you should remember that your neighbor might just have to work tomorrow.
(It might be hard to fathom, but not everybody is a college student or an unmarried 23 year old, and some people even have to get to work early on the weekends -- myself included, during crunch times).
If you can't handle treating other people living in the next room with basic courtesy, you should yourself seriously consider living in the suburbs.
I sure wouldn't want to live next to you.
Can't you just call the police on the loud people?
It makes for pretty bad neighborly relations, and they'll just behave worse the next time. The best approach is to mention it politely when you run into them in the hallways or out on the sidewalk.
However, it's still pretty rare for inconsiderate people to grow up and show some consideration just because you ask.
I've lived in cities for my entire adult life, and I find that choosing the right building and neighborhood is imperative. When I've had bad neighbors, it's rarely just one.
Yes, it's no good for longer term neighbours. But nobody seems to have a problem with them. Or, rather, the discussion was about short term neighbours not behaving.
Calling the police is a reactive measure -- you're already awake at 2am, now you're just trying to mitigate the damage and prevent it from happening again.
With a short-term tenant, there isn't a next time to prevent, and chances are good that they'll just turn the music down until the cops leave (and possibly find ways to mistreat your property in retaliation).
Yes, that's probably true.
I'm going to play devil's advocate here: Would you rather have a hostel open up next door?
At the rent he's paying I highly doubt a hostel would be profitable in that area.
There will never be a hostel. That's why it's important to go to zoning board meetings / your local planning council. Just skim the meeting notes once a month and if there are new businesses opening near you, read what they are!
In general, there is a place for people to stay and party -- and that's in business districts. Or in hotels that are subject to increased sound insulation requirements and further regulatory requirements requiring noise, with penalties for not enforcing compliance from the guests up to and including loss of licence.
I find it funny that Americans that such store in zoning laws.