https://www.fodors.com/news/news/fodors-no-list-2025
So they're a mix of developed and developing world locations, across all continents.
The common theme is over-tourism, in some cases leading to backlash against tourists as in Barcelona and Mallorca -- why don't they protest the industry and the local residents who work in hospitality to actively promote these places as tourist magnets?
Obviously they can choose every top tourist destination in the world, though they claim specific places like Oaxaca and Agrigento are facing water crises and other infrastructure challenges.
A couple of decades ago, a place like Cinque Terre was overrun with tourists and they blame it all on Rick Steves. They say they don't have the infrastructure yet every year, places are packed and many locals are happy to hang up signs to rent rooms or apartments or go online to list their vacation properties.
Article claims that 60% of dwellings in Lisbon are vacation accommodations. That's probably hype but it appears there are plenty of B&B types of properties which the city is licensing out. I don't know if they've tried to restrict Airbnb or VRBO. I've been planning a trip to Portugal in the last week or so. Seems like there are more vacation apartment listings than hotels on sites like booking.com, though I haven't looked at Lisbon specifically. But the listings seem to be from property management companies with licenses for places like Cascais, Algarve, Madeira.
While the average residents may not like too many tourists, the business interests and those who own property which could be let for holiday rentals think differently. Still the average residents outnumber those in the hospitality businesses so they can make electoral choices.
A more common complaint about Portal in recent years is the Golden Visa program, which caused home values in Lisbon and other cities to become unaffordable to citizens, as foreign investors bought their way in. I think they've mostly abolished it or are going to abolish it. No more €300k condos to get Portuguese residency any more.
So they're a mix of developed and developing world locations, across all continents.
The common theme is over-tourism, in some cases leading to backlash against tourists as in Barcelona and Mallorca -- why don't they protest the industry and the local residents who work in hospitality to actively promote these places as tourist magnets?
Obviously they can choose every top tourist destination in the world, though they claim specific places like Oaxaca and Agrigento are facing water crises and other infrastructure challenges.
A couple of decades ago, a place like Cinque Terre was overrun with tourists and they blame it all on Rick Steves. They say they don't have the infrastructure yet every year, places are packed and many locals are happy to hang up signs to rent rooms or apartments or go online to list their vacation properties.
Article claims that 60% of dwellings in Lisbon are vacation accommodations. That's probably hype but it appears there are plenty of B&B types of properties which the city is licensing out. I don't know if they've tried to restrict Airbnb or VRBO. I've been planning a trip to Portugal in the last week or so. Seems like there are more vacation apartment listings than hotels on sites like booking.com, though I haven't looked at Lisbon specifically. But the listings seem to be from property management companies with licenses for places like Cascais, Algarve, Madeira.
While the average residents may not like too many tourists, the business interests and those who own property which could be let for holiday rentals think differently. Still the average residents outnumber those in the hospitality businesses so they can make electoral choices.
A more common complaint about Portal in recent years is the Golden Visa program, which caused home values in Lisbon and other cities to become unaffordable to citizens, as foreign investors bought their way in. I think they've mostly abolished it or are going to abolish it. No more €300k condos to get Portuguese residency any more.
So demand that the govt. restrict tourism and vote in/out politicians who support or oppose this stance.
These places are not Russia or North Korea. The residents have a say.
Some politicians may actually defend policies to encourage tourism, like it brings needed cash into the country. Then the electorate could have a national debate or even at the city/province level and set policy accordingly. Some countries like France and the Netherlands have taken action on Airbnb.
I admit that I don't live in a place full of vacation flats, though I'm near San Francisco, which may have high concentrations of Airbnb in some neighborhoods.
These places are not Russia or North Korea. The residents have a say.
Some politicians may actually defend policies to encourage tourism, like it brings needed cash into the country. Then the electorate could have a national debate or even at the city/province level and set policy accordingly. Some countries like France and the Netherlands have taken action on Airbnb.
I admit that I don't live in a place full of vacation flats, though I'm near San Francisco, which may have high concentrations of Airbnb in some neighborhoods.
Maybe people need to stop following the herd and find other places to visit, spreading the load, if they have to visit at all.
The Disneyfication of these cities for the benefit of tourists is bad all round. Yes tourists bring in income but much of that goes straight out again to foreign owners and companies. Tourists pay tourist tax in some places but that does not cover their impact on the infrastructure of a place, not can it recompense the locals for the lack of housing and community.
The hollowing out of city centres, as has happened in Amsterdam is bad for everyone and leads to a downward spiral of decay, criminality and to the type of tourist who is out for a cheap, trashy trip getting drunk/high and not caring about anyone but their "good time".
San Fransisco is also an example of that btw, with it's vast numbers of homeless, and the resultant drug problems.
I live in a pretty touristy town, and several of the houses near me are owned by Germans who visit them occasionally. They don't let them out as they are not allowed to but their houses stand empty for much of the year which is nearly as bad as a constant stream of strangers with no investment in the community using them. The town centre has many apartments over the shops and for a while they were becoming AirBnBs or similar but local government stepped in and put a stop to most of that, resulting in those apartments becoming available as homes again.
Ultimately it is the residents who provide the economy - they are the ones shopping all year round, paying their taxes, working in the area, taking part in the cultural life, maintaining their buildings, not the visitors.
The Disneyfication of these cities for the benefit of tourists is bad all round. Yes tourists bring in income but much of that goes straight out again to foreign owners and companies. Tourists pay tourist tax in some places but that does not cover their impact on the infrastructure of a place, not can it recompense the locals for the lack of housing and community.
The hollowing out of city centres, as has happened in Amsterdam is bad for everyone and leads to a downward spiral of decay, criminality and to the type of tourist who is out for a cheap, trashy trip getting drunk/high and not caring about anyone but their "good time".
San Fransisco is also an example of that btw, with it's vast numbers of homeless, and the resultant drug problems.
I live in a pretty touristy town, and several of the houses near me are owned by Germans who visit them occasionally. They don't let them out as they are not allowed to but their houses stand empty for much of the year which is nearly as bad as a constant stream of strangers with no investment in the community using them. The town centre has many apartments over the shops and for a while they were becoming AirBnBs or similar but local government stepped in and put a stop to most of that, resulting in those apartments becoming available as homes again.
Ultimately it is the residents who provide the economy - they are the ones shopping all year round, paying their taxes, working in the area, taking part in the cultural life, maintaining their buildings, not the visitors.
I live in a touristy town in the US and short term rentals is a hotly debated topic. For decades, or maybe more than a century (going on 2) local homeowners have rented out their homes during the summer for weeks or months at a time, and I've been told some can get enough money in 2mo to pay for the mortgage for the entire year....
Of course one would have to have a place to live during those times.... or travel. I have neighbors who are teachers and travel during the summer. They are very selective about who they rent to so we've never had any problems. We've thought about renting out our home but haven't crossed that bridge yet. Don't have any place else to live, aren't retired, don't need the income, and don't particularly want someone else in our space...
Others in town have rental properties that they let out for college students during the school year, then AirBnB/VRBO during the summer. The town has wanted to implement fees and restrictions due to the usual complaints from hotel owners feeling they are being undercut pricewise, public tax departments who want a cut of hotel tax revenue, residents in some neighborhoods who don't like a constant parade of different faces, and often loud parties, and others who say this limits housing stock and drives up prices.. All of which are true, to some extent, but since vacation rentals are ingrained in the local history the debate has been fierce. Visitors paying hotel/occupancy tax makes sense to me - as long as that is added to all properties across the board. Visitors use city infrastucture and services, and should contribute to paying for them. Some nominal one time or annual property registration fee paid by the owner also makes sense, as long as it's within reason.
Of course one would have to have a place to live during those times.... or travel. I have neighbors who are teachers and travel during the summer. They are very selective about who they rent to so we've never had any problems. We've thought about renting out our home but haven't crossed that bridge yet. Don't have any place else to live, aren't retired, don't need the income, and don't particularly want someone else in our space...
Others in town have rental properties that they let out for college students during the school year, then AirBnB/VRBO during the summer. The town has wanted to implement fees and restrictions due to the usual complaints from hotel owners feeling they are being undercut pricewise, public tax departments who want a cut of hotel tax revenue, residents in some neighborhoods who don't like a constant parade of different faces, and often loud parties, and others who say this limits housing stock and drives up prices.. All of which are true, to some extent, but since vacation rentals are ingrained in the local history the debate has been fierce. Visitors paying hotel/occupancy tax makes sense to me - as long as that is added to all properties across the board. Visitors use city infrastucture and services, and should contribute to paying for them. Some nominal one time or annual property registration fee paid by the owner also makes sense, as long as it's within reason.
It is a very different scenario renting your house out for the summer to companies buying up apartments when they come on the market, or even worse taking rental apartments they already own and using them as holiday lets all year. These companies don't care about the full time residents left in these blocks, not do they react to complaints from full time residents, they only care about their bottom line. Some residents are scared to complain because they live in a rental and could have their lease cancelled. That is the problem many European cities have.
Cities need people living in their centres full time, they need the social control that gives, and it is what gives a city it's soul.
Cities need people living in their centres full time, they need the social control that gives, and it is what gives a city it's soul.
Quote:
Cities need people living in their centres full time, they need the social control that gives, and it is what gives a city it's soul.
+1Originally Posted by hetismij2
It is a very different scenario renting your house out for the summer to companies buying up apartments when they come on the market, or even worse taking rental apartments they already own and using them as holiday lets all year. These companies don't care about the full time residents left in these blocks, not do they react to complaints from full time residents, they only care about their bottom line. Some residents are scared to complain because they live in a rental and could have their lease cancelled. That is the problem many European cities have.Cities need people living in their centres full time, they need the social control that gives, and it is what gives a city it's soul.
