Slashdot Mirror
New Microhotels Fight Airbnb With 65 Square Foot Rooms (nytimes.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Amy Zipkin writes in the [New York Times] that a growing number of so-called microhotels are taking a smaller-is-better approach to fight Airbnb, offering rooms in New York City for about $100 a night. The catch? Some rooms measure 65 square feet and offer a shared bathroom. "Disruptions from short-term rentals are creating a whole new supply channel," says Scott Berman. The micro concept first gained traction in Europe with brands like CitizenM and Yotel at airports and in urban centers. Now the model is expanding. Yotel, which has a property in Manhattan, plans to open others in San Francisco, Boston, Miami and Brooklyn, as well as London, Geneva and Singapore. Pod expects to open another hotel in Manhattan, as well as in Brooklyn and Washington. "We are focused on the millennial-minded consumer, with an emphasis on style, attitude and design at an economical value," says Vicki Poulos. But some travelers don't necessarily agree that the comfort level equals that of regular hotels. "At first, it is entirely novel," says Diana Edelman. "But then reality hits that it is nearly impossible to open a suitcase in the room without hitting your head on the bed's 'roof' or that you are showering next to the toilet and sink."
Showering next to the toilet and sink? Er, is there something wrong with that?
I've stayed at CitiezenM in Times Square. Damn nice hotel for the price.
If I'm visiting New York City I'm not there to hang out in the hotel room. All I need is a _clean_ room, soft king bed (I'm tall and my wife likes her space ;-) and a _clean_ bathroom. CitizenM covers this perfectly.
However, I would personally never stay somewhere with a shared bathroom! That's a bit _too_ "European" for my tastes :-)
I understand that college kids and the young may not care about this sort of thing, it's go cheap or don't go at all. But this is an absolutely terrible idea, that if it catches on, will make business travel even more shitty than it already it for people in most typical bottom dollar employers. Already some of these places have a $25/day restriction on food (McDonalds basically) . It's better not to compete with Airbnb, and let the kids do as kids do and focus on the captive audience that is already paying premium because it can afford it, but doesn't want to afford it.
I am all for more options. And I definitely can see how a small and affordable hotel room fills a particular niche. But I don't see how this would be direct competition with AirBNB.
When I travel, I book AirBNB because I want an apartment rather than a hotel room. I don't necessarily need the amenities that traditional hotels offer (i.e. front-desk, swimming pool and on-site restaurant), but I do want a multi-room apartment; the ability to use the kitchen; convenient location downtown and close to public transportation; in-unit washer/dryer; included WiFi networking; affordable long-term rental; ...
I can find some of these conveniences in hotels, but only after searching a lot and usually for quite a high premium. AirBNB (or its various copy-cats) really don't have much competition from traditional hotels.
Unfortunately, there is always someone who will pay for anything. If there was something $10 less than a 65x65 room, then there to some people the 65x65 room looks like a frivolous luxury expense. Chasing these consumers will always be a race to the bottom. This is why there have always been health and safety regulations. Now with Ubers and Air BnBs able to work around the regulations, there is nothing to stop from hitting the bottom.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
... at a hostile price
a LOT of cities have laws against tiny hotel rooms and apartments. Are they also factoring in the costs of legal fees fighting these stupid laws put on the books?
FWIW, most of the laws on the books prevent tiny hotel rooms and apartments are "fire-code" laws. For example, in Washington state, a transient accommodation provider (e.g., a hotel) must provide 36" wide path on one side of a permanent bed and 18" wide path on one side for a temporary bed (e.g.,rollaway) for egress in case of a fire. No triple bunks and any double bunk beds need to have sufficient unobstructed vertical space so that an adult may sit up comfortably between the bottom and top bunk, or the top bunk and ceiling.
Not sure that these are completely "stupid" laws...
I travel for business and I travel alone. I don't need a room bigger than you would find in a sleeper car in a train. But the shared bathroom? That sounds like the MBA technique where they deliberately make you miserable in some unnecessary way so that you will upgrade. Airlines have mastered this. They could make the seats with a tiny bit of extra leg room for just a few dollars more per flight. But they won't because they want you to upgrade for a zillion dollars more. The same with the executive lounges, etc. They make the normal waiting areas cold, noisy and uncomfortable so that you will want to go into the executive areas.
But here is my ideal hotel experience. I book my room on a phone. Then when I get to the hotel I use my phone or CC to get into the tiny tiny room that it says is mine. No humans, no wasted extras such as desks, ironing boards, etc.
If there are any features that I would like it would be stunning noise proofing.
One thing that I have long thought would be possible would be that instead of hotels that were huge buildings full of hotel rooms, there would be these little rooms tucked into nooks and crannies throughout the city. Then the management company would send maids out to clean the rooms scattered around. A restaurant would have a few in an old storage room. An office building would have a few dozen on a floor that wasn't used anymore, etc. For me there is little advantage to having a room that is surrounded by 400 other rooms. Being in the office building that I am doing a contract in would be far better.