There are many members, especially those living in condos or apartments, who list amenities of their home that are actually not for the exclusive use of guests but are in fact shared with a community of potentially dozens or hundreds of other homes! In particular, these amenities include:
swimming pool
jacuzzi
childrens playground
gym
balcony/terrace
washer/dryer (some members consider a shared coin-operated apartment building laundry room to be an amenity!)
In my opinion, members should ONLY be able to list these types of amenities in their listing if they are PRIVATELY owned by the host and are for the exclusive use of the guest (or at most, shared only with the host although even this is stretching it).
Many condo and apartment homes have greatly inflated points totals because many of these amenities are commonly shared by all residents of the an apartment building but contribute the the GP total of the home as much as a completely private pool, jacuzzi, playground, washing machine, etc.
I can definitely understand the point about making it clear when an amenity is shared rather than private, but I’m not sure I’d agree that shared amenities shouldn’t be listed at all.
As a guest, I’d absolutely want to know if a home has access to a swimming pool, gym, playground, shared laundry facilities, etc. These can be really useful when choosing a home, even if they aren’t exclusively for guests.
I think the more important question is how these amenities are presented and how they contribute to the GuestPoints value of a home. It would be helpful for members to be able to clearly distinguish between private amenities and shared/community amenities, so that guests have all the information they need when making their choice.
This is also something that could potentially be improved through the way amenities are displayed or categorised, rather than removing shared amenities altogether.
I will of course pass this onto the team for consideration.
I agree. The best solution would be for each amenity to have a “qualifier” checkbox that says either “shared” or “exclusive use”. But until the far distant future when or if this change is ever made, I don’t think that shared amenities should contribute to the GP value of the home. An interim approach could be to make the simple change of removing certain commonly abused amenities (such as swimming pools, jacuzzis, gym, playground, etc) from contributing to the GP total of the home. But keep it as a search criteria.
Honestly , if you are going to a condo or an apartment you should assume the amenities are shared it is the nature of the arrangement. The only real complaint one has is when they go to a single family home community and it is not specified that a pool or spa is shared but a condo or apartment it is common sense that pools and spas are shared. Any time someone specifies a laundry is coin operated I would also think shared. Now if people do not tell you that the laundry is shared you can fault them for that but I do think people have to use some common sense. I would also think the fact something is an apartment or condo already gives a different value and that should account for shared amenities but what do I know. In the end we can’t parse out every point exactly.
Disagree. The main point I am making is that the Guest Points calculation algorithm does not give different point values for shared versus exclusive use of certain amenities. Of course everyone knows that the pool at an apartment home is shared. That’s not the point. The point is that a shared apartment swimming pool should be valued at fewer points than a private pool.
A community pool in a Manhattan building is a big asset compared to one at 50 miles from Manhattan.
And what about a underground pool and above ground pool.
And the size.
Heated or not heated pool…
I don’t understand your point. Every amenity in theory could have “qualify” attributes… TVs could be rated by size, available channels, etc; appliances such as washing machines and refrigerators can be rated by capacity, features, etc; terraces could be rated by size, facing direction, etc.
I am not suggesting that amenities be “check boxed” at that level. But for any amenity that must be shared with anyone except the guest and host, I think that there should be a tick-box with that amenity to indicate such a situation.
Still don’t understand your point. Having properly listed amenities means that people can search for homes and see only those that have the desired amenities. What good is an amenity in a photo if the member does not properly “check” the box indicating that they posess the amenity? Also, checking the boxes to properly represent the amenities that you have means that your home is assigned the correct amount of Guest Points value. An amenity in a photo but not checked-off in the amenity list will not contribute to the home’s GP valuation.
I can understand this point. If a pool or gym is shared with many other residents, I would also want that to be clear before choosing a home. It can make a big difference compared with having a private amenity, especially when points are also affected.
