In 2017 it was Airbnb itself that introduced an innovative limit in the city of London: 90 annual days as a stop for complete housing rentals. The measure, adopted after authorities pressure Local and London’s town hall, sought to prevent the platform from being used fraudulently.
Today we know that the consequence, although weak, was expected: up to 4%.
Airbnb and London. Airbnb’s growth in London during the 2010 made the city one of the main focus of the collaborative economy, with More than 40,000 properties offered and an annual expansion. However, what was born as a specific form of income for individuals quickly became a business for professional operators.
Almost A quarter From the advertisements of complete housing they exceeded the threshold of the 90 annual rental nights without having the required permission, which took thousands of floors from the residential market. The phenomenon generated neighborhood complaints about the constant rotation of temporary tenants and additional pressure on a market already tensioning for the lack of affordable housing.
The political reaction. The lack of capacity of the municipalities to monitor these excesses led to local leaders Como Sarah Haywardin Camden, to denounce that whole neighborhoods were being emptied of long -term rent.
Given this situation, Airbnb recognized that the regulation was inescapable and that it should prevent its platform from being used as a way to operate undercover hotels. The measure had the support of opposition politicians, Like Tom Copleythat demanded a firm response to stop the negative effects on local communities.
The 90 -day rule. Thus, given the growing pressure, Airbnb decided to introduce in 2017 An automatic limitation: No host could rent a complete home more than 90 nights per year unless it was proven to have authorization from the Consistory. It was a way of transferring the legal restriction directly to the code of the application itself, preventing the ads from remaining active once the limit is exceeded.
With this measure, the company tried to stop Operators’ abuse professionals and project a commitment to urban sustainability. The change was well received by local managers, who considered that only a platform level control could guarantee the effective compliance of the norm.
The impact on prices. Now, with the data of recent studiesan open secret has been confirmed: that the Airbnb expansion reduced the residential rental offer and uploaded prices in several districts in London.
But not just that. The introduction of the 90 -day rule allowed for a time to mitigate part of these effects, with a registered fall around 4.1% in housing price rates after the entry into force of the regulation. In other words: the episode became a reference to analyze how digital platforms can transform urban markets and to what extent regulation itself can correct its externalities.
The (great) dilemma. The London case reflects a gallimatisms present in many other large cities: How to balance the economic attraction of digital platforms with the need to protect housing as a social good.
While Airbnb defenders highlight the flexibility, diversification of tourism and additional income for families, their critics underline the Gentrificationthe Tourist saturation and the loss of tissue Community London, in this way, became In a laboratory Of this tension, showing that without a robust regulatory framework (and, very important, sustained), the impact on housing can be devastating.
A precedent. The introduction of The London rule He had an international impact, by inspiring other local governments to establish similar limits. European and American cities closely observed The experimentverifying that the combination of technological automation and political control could reduce adverse effects.
The debate, of course, remains more than open: to what extent the platforms must self -regulate, and how far the states will impose restrictions to safeguard the right to housing. The citywith its mixture of neighborhood pressure, empirical data And political decisions, it was erected at a turning point in the relationship between digital economy and urban policies.
Comparative with other “great.” As we said, the London frame was not isolated. In Berlinthe proliferation of tourist rentals led to the introduction of fines of up to 100,000 euros For those who rent more than half of their home without permission, a rule that sought to avoid the massive conversion of residential buildings into tourist accommodations. In Barcelonathe City Council has undertaken A crusade Against illegal tourist floors, closing hundreds of ads and fine Airbnb for not removing accommodations without a license, in an attempt to contain the expulsion of neighbors in central neighborhoods (while hotels prices rose).
In New Yorkthe restrictions focused in limiting rentals of complete apartments when the owner did not live in the same property, accompanied by daily sanctions of up to $ 1,000to prevent whole blocks from being converted into clandestine hotels. San Francisco set sanctions from up to $ 1,000 newspapers not to register the properties.
All examples that show how cities, each with their legal and social peculiarities, agreed on an essential point: the Airbnb phenomenon had overcome the border of technological innovation to become a real political and urban challenge of the first order.
In Xataka | In 2023 New York closed the tap to Airbnb to protect his home. Two years later, only hotels are happy
GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings