Hi , my names are Kevin Muhes , a new host in host , i mostl...
Latest reply
Hi , my names are Kevin Muhes , a new host in host , i mostly host using suites and resorts , kindly someone take me through ...
Latest reply
I’m planning an update to my mountain cabin. My area is a destination for people in the city about 90 minutes away. Rental market is pretty consistent except maybe January and February as we don’t get snow so not much to do in the dead of winter. Right now the lower level is a bunkroom with a bath and a rec room, main level has primary bedroom with en-suite plus kitchen, GR, and powder/laundry room. My main area I’m going to renovate is the 3rd floor. Currently it is 1 huge bedroom with a decent walk in closet and a ho-hum bath, plus a loft that is open to the great room. I want to close in the loft. In this instance, the open loft is the most useless waste of space. As it is open to the great room below it’s not like it ever gets used. You can hear everything going on in the great room and kitchen and vice versa. It’s basically been unused other than being a spot to park furniture I can’t find a home for. So based on the layout and current windows I have 2 options
1. Make 3 bedrooms that could each have a queen bed and one shared bath. The bath would be a basic bath, tub shower combo, toilet and a single sink vanity. So cabin would sleep 10-12, depending on how many in bunk room.
2. Or I could do 2 bedrooms that could each fit a king and each have their own en-suite bath. Cabin would sleep 8-12 depending on how many in bunk room.
So this is why I’m having trouble deciding. The dining area of the kitchen is not very big. The current table seats 6. A bigger table would be really cramped. I am adding a large dining table to the back covered porch(overlooking the river) but it is outside so not sure it would usable all the time. So is it a bad idea to have the sleeping capacity significantly more than the dining capacity? I’ve heard the adage”heads in beds” but is packing people in beds good if they don’t have enough seating at dinner time?
Answered! Go to Best Answer
Hello @Annette76
My two pennies worth would be to go for option 2 for various reasons:
1) Three double bedrooms sharing 1 bathroom with the toilet not separate is going to be too uncomfortable I think for guests.
2) You will lessen the chances of people renting for a party if you go for the two bed two ensuite bathroom option.
3) Be able to charge more for this option as you have more and better amenities on offer
4) Not being able to seat the number of guests around a table is a tricky one indeed and not sure how Airbnb would view this so the fewer guests you have the better!
5) The more people you have staying the more your property is going to suffer in the short and medium term
So yes I agree with your final comment, packing a max amount of people in a property is not the way to go especially if they can't have a meal together. You will undoubtedly receive negative comments for this I think. For the number of people you mention even with option 2, this would mean that your guests would not be able to sit down to a family/group meal so they would have to have two sittings!
6) Which type of guests are you aiming for and what level of furnishings are you prepared to invest in? These criteria will also determine how much you can charge per night obviously
7) Cleaning costs?
Good luck Annette
All the best
Joëlle
Whatever accommodation you provide amenities should be available for max numbers booked ie for six three beds, two large sofas, outdoor seating for six , dining space for six six sets crockery etc . @Annette76
Hello @Annette76
My two pennies worth would be to go for option 2 for various reasons:
1) Three double bedrooms sharing 1 bathroom with the toilet not separate is going to be too uncomfortable I think for guests.
2) You will lessen the chances of people renting for a party if you go for the two bed two ensuite bathroom option.
3) Be able to charge more for this option as you have more and better amenities on offer
4) Not being able to seat the number of guests around a table is a tricky one indeed and not sure how Airbnb would view this so the fewer guests you have the better!
5) The more people you have staying the more your property is going to suffer in the short and medium term
So yes I agree with your final comment, packing a max amount of people in a property is not the way to go especially if they can't have a meal together. You will undoubtedly receive negative comments for this I think. For the number of people you mention even with option 2, this would mean that your guests would not be able to sit down to a family/group meal so they would have to have two sittings!
6) Which type of guests are you aiming for and what level of furnishings are you prepared to invest in? These criteria will also determine how much you can charge per night obviously
7) Cleaning costs?
Good luck Annette
All the best
Joëlle
I have large properties so here are my thoughts:
1. I do not provide seating for every guest I can fit. I do state the number that can sit at a dining table. I provide a couple of additional folding chairs if people want to cram. I have heard every complaint in the universe at this point, including not enough seating in front of the TV, but never about dining. I have stayed at several Airbnbs that do not provide a dining room table at all
2. I am a big fan of minimizing the types of beds so you can have as streamline of a bedding situation as possible.
3. you are not a luxury condo. No one expects a king bed, this will not be a return on investment
4. Why do you want more people? In my case, I get more money for this and it separates me from competition. If you have a good reason to cater to bigger groups, go for it. You need to know what it is though. As someone mentioned, it comes with more wear and tear
5. I do not think a number of people you can fit has anything to do with a risk of party. The explanation to this thought is very long so I will leave it at that unless you or someone else on this thread wants to explore this subject further.