My relationship to the YIMBY movement is a little complicated. One issue is a tendency to oversimplification. It’s understandable; the NIMBY position really is so noxious and the stakes are so high that there’s a natural desire to speak in black and white. But here’s a point that I don’t see engaged with much: while the zoning and regulatory hurdles are the major impediment to more building and lower costs, I suspect that even after major reform we won’t see immediate levels of building at the scale YIMBYs want and that we need. I suspect that market forces, inertia, and status quo bias will slow new building (and attendant badly-needed housing cost reductions) more than assumed. Tearing down regulatory barriers is essential, but that by itself won’t turn Pacific Heights into Neo-Tokyo.
"I find resistance to such new building misguided, those of us who want to build more have to acknowledge that it’s an ugly thing if rich white people can keep new developments off their block but poor people of color can’t."
The emphasis on the whole piece was on market power of wealth, and then you somehow stealth identity into it. Do you think that rich people are going to act fundamentally differently based on race?
I went to college in Vancouver Canada in the late 70s/ early 80s when a middle class family still had some hope of buying a condo or home and my rent for a one bedroom was $310 per month. Now nearing retirement, I can't afford to go back as average rents of one bedroom units are north of $2,000 and average house prices are well north of a million bucks. There is no way i could afford to live there! People have just pushed too much of their income into housing as an "investment" for it to be affordable as a place to live...
I live in a Philly rowhome on a block of rowhomes. Personally I love living in a rowhome and enjoy having my own private outdoor space, and I love passing my neighbors sitting on the steps. A block over, there are three apartment/condo buildings. All 3 of them were built after I moved in. The density doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood at all, imo. It makes parking harder, but I rarely drive. The added population adds amenities to the area. Likewise that block pictured would be just as idyllic imo if there were an apartment building right out of frame.
In my experience, when neighbors lament the change of "neighborhood character", they're just resentful that new people are moving in, period. Younger, different politics, more or less affluent, etc. And of course the parking issue which is behind like 90% of politics in this city. I don't really think it's an argument worth engaging with. But I do wish there were more of a left-YIMBY movement. We exist but many of the most prominent voices are pretty moderate.
"And we have to find ways to build that aren’t purely free market solutions, as I’m simply not convinced market forces in and of themselves will compel building at the scale that we need."
10000%. YIMBYism is insufficient on its own; we need to create massive amounts of new social housing (in mixed-income buildings to avoid the creation of slums).
Most YIMBYs I know would see the Brownstones as high density housing. The comparator is not high rise blocks but single family houses. Terraced (in UK terms don't know US term here) 6 story buildings are high density.
Look at the Eixample district of Barcelona - very high density (highest in Europe I think?) but a desirable walkable place to live. I would argue that the very fact the brownstones are walkable neighbourhoods shows they are high density.
I cannot find it now, but I have seen some claims that 6-8 story buildings offer the best density as they do not need the space around them or support services high rises do.
Left YIMBY here. There is a whole other thing that California YIMBYs are doing, which is forcing neighborhoods zoned single family to upzone to allow at least three and sometimes six units per lot. This is at least a start to redress the redlining which historically de jure and now de facto segregated neighborhoods.
There is no way that just more market rate housing in severely housing restricted areas like the Bay Area can make housing affordable for poor and working class people. It *does* help reduce displacement though, which is a good thing, and it helps us in many other ways. Denser housing means less driving, which reduces our carbon footprint. It also lowers housing costs for middle class people, which is pretty important.
Just building more market rate housing won't solve all of our problems, but it will help solve some of them. Here we have inclusionary zoning, so building new housing funds more affordable housing. This is of course a double edged sword, as it builds more affordable housing at the cost of making new construction even more expensive. YIMBYs (Scott Wiener really) have tried to counter this by making new construction that builds more affordable housing get a "density bonus" but it doesn't totally offset the cost.
We are also doing other things to rally for more construction at all price points: we sued various suburbs for illegally trying to block apartment buildings, we came out in force for a homeless shelter in a poor neighborhood and other things. We aren't 100% a neoliberal organization, which is often how we are characterized by our Progressive NIMBY opponents. It's a "big tent" with members all across the political spectrum. 32,000 members and counting. It's a real grass roots movement, albeit with big funding from developers and unions.
Edit: "Progressive" in San Francisco has a different meaning than the usual definition.
Brownstone neighborhoods are actually very high-density. You'd be surprised. Certainly by the standards of almost anywhere else in the US. It isn't really close.
"Rich people will pay a whole lot to keep other people out."
This one sentence of yours sums it up pretty well. But I thought your other point about the role the free-market plays in all of this is an important one.
The free-market system is always defended with the same few ideas: maximizes innovation and opportunity, serves the hard rules of supply and demand better than anything else, and is a beast of an engine for wealth generation. But the giant flip side of it is that the free market is completely amoral in nature - it doesn't care about people per say, only in profit. This is the precise reason we have all those zoning and regulation statutes. Obviously they can get wildly out of hand, but they are supposed to keep things honest and fair in an otherwise chaotic and cruel world.
I would agree with you that the free-market is one of the major factors that is making the housing market so lopsided towards low density. If developers can make more money with a handful of wealthy clients than they can with an army of poor...that's a no-brainer in terms of making money. In fact, the free-market system encourages such hard truths. I see this even in my own small town of 50K, affordable housing is rapidly becoming like Tasmanian Devil sightings.
I'm not sure how we got here, it wasn't like this even a few decades ago. But I would guess that America's infatuation with the suburb lifestyle, with all of it's roomy green buffers between every single home, is part of the problem. Because whenever I see video footage of the 'suburbs' in almost every other country, I almost never see the same wide-open spacing betwixt housing like I do here. And this is not even bothering to mention the increasingly large size of our suburban homes, but that is another matter.
Dense metropolitan housing probably has a lot of other issues too, but I don't live there so I can't reliably remark on that.
First, I don't think any kind of real zoning reform is coming to New York. Look at what happened with Hochul's ADU/accessory apartment proposal. It was the weakest of teas and people out here on Long Island freaked the fuck out.
Second, apart from neighborhood character, the majority of people would prefer not to live in a concrete box in the sky. I really enjoy the luxury of twenty feet of air between my walls and my closest neighbors.
Sooooooo...I haven't really dipped into the NIMBY wars because the whole thing seems among the most toxic debates available right now, but...
...do the YIMBYs have any rebuttal or attempts to lessen to how unattractive most people apparently find high-density living? Because that seems to be the crux of the issue: everyone hates it, but everyone also wants to keep living in Brooklyn or wherever. Those who have bought or lucked into property desperately protect it, while those who don't have it want it--but want more of what already exists, not high-density.
Like, even in these piece you seem to be implying that high-density building would impact certain poorer neighborhoods in detrimental ways. Of course people don't want their neighborhoods to be worsened! Why isn't the argument "here's all the way high-density housing will make your life better"?
(I hate cities so much that I find even sprawling Minneapolis grotesque, but most people seem to have at least some aversion to apartment or converted living)
Why, exactly, do "we have to build"? Because lots of people want to live in New York? I just don't see that as sufficient reason (and I live in California, not New York).
So how about: don't destroy New York's nice neighborhoods, the very things that make people want to live there. Move to Akron (or a zillion other places like it) instead, where there is plenty of existing housing at far more reasonable prices.
Am I wrong or are there not tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of vacant apartments in NYC?
Whoa how did this happen:
"I find resistance to such new building misguided, those of us who want to build more have to acknowledge that it’s an ugly thing if rich white people can keep new developments off their block but poor people of color can’t."
The emphasis on the whole piece was on market power of wealth, and then you somehow stealth identity into it. Do you think that rich people are going to act fundamentally differently based on race?
I went to college in Vancouver Canada in the late 70s/ early 80s when a middle class family still had some hope of buying a condo or home and my rent for a one bedroom was $310 per month. Now nearing retirement, I can't afford to go back as average rents of one bedroom units are north of $2,000 and average house prices are well north of a million bucks. There is no way i could afford to live there! People have just pushed too much of their income into housing as an "investment" for it to be affordable as a place to live...
A good article on how attempting to control sprawl has contributed to rising housing costs.
https://reason.com/2022/03/13/how-the-war-on-sprawl-caused-high-housing-prices/
"We have to build. But “just build” is never sufficient analysis."
Then I guess it's great that that is not the YIMBY analysis then.
I live in a Philly rowhome on a block of rowhomes. Personally I love living in a rowhome and enjoy having my own private outdoor space, and I love passing my neighbors sitting on the steps. A block over, there are three apartment/condo buildings. All 3 of them were built after I moved in. The density doesn't affect the character of the neighborhood at all, imo. It makes parking harder, but I rarely drive. The added population adds amenities to the area. Likewise that block pictured would be just as idyllic imo if there were an apartment building right out of frame.
In my experience, when neighbors lament the change of "neighborhood character", they're just resentful that new people are moving in, period. Younger, different politics, more or less affluent, etc. And of course the parking issue which is behind like 90% of politics in this city. I don't really think it's an argument worth engaging with. But I do wish there were more of a left-YIMBY movement. We exist but many of the most prominent voices are pretty moderate.
"And we have to find ways to build that aren’t purely free market solutions, as I’m simply not convinced market forces in and of themselves will compel building at the scale that we need."
10000%. YIMBYism is insufficient on its own; we need to create massive amounts of new social housing (in mixed-income buildings to avoid the creation of slums).
Most YIMBYs I know would see the Brownstones as high density housing. The comparator is not high rise blocks but single family houses. Terraced (in UK terms don't know US term here) 6 story buildings are high density.
Look at the Eixample district of Barcelona - very high density (highest in Europe I think?) but a desirable walkable place to live. I would argue that the very fact the brownstones are walkable neighbourhoods shows they are high density.
I cannot find it now, but I have seen some claims that 6-8 story buildings offer the best density as they do not need the space around them or support services high rises do.
Left YIMBY here. There is a whole other thing that California YIMBYs are doing, which is forcing neighborhoods zoned single family to upzone to allow at least three and sometimes six units per lot. This is at least a start to redress the redlining which historically de jure and now de facto segregated neighborhoods.
There is no way that just more market rate housing in severely housing restricted areas like the Bay Area can make housing affordable for poor and working class people. It *does* help reduce displacement though, which is a good thing, and it helps us in many other ways. Denser housing means less driving, which reduces our carbon footprint. It also lowers housing costs for middle class people, which is pretty important.
Just building more market rate housing won't solve all of our problems, but it will help solve some of them. Here we have inclusionary zoning, so building new housing funds more affordable housing. This is of course a double edged sword, as it builds more affordable housing at the cost of making new construction even more expensive. YIMBYs (Scott Wiener really) have tried to counter this by making new construction that builds more affordable housing get a "density bonus" but it doesn't totally offset the cost.
We are also doing other things to rally for more construction at all price points: we sued various suburbs for illegally trying to block apartment buildings, we came out in force for a homeless shelter in a poor neighborhood and other things. We aren't 100% a neoliberal organization, which is often how we are characterized by our Progressive NIMBY opponents. It's a "big tent" with members all across the political spectrum. 32,000 members and counting. It's a real grass roots movement, albeit with big funding from developers and unions.
Edit: "Progressive" in San Francisco has a different meaning than the usual definition.
Brownstone neighborhoods are actually very high-density. You'd be surprised. Certainly by the standards of almost anywhere else in the US. It isn't really close.
I’d never heard of YIMBY and NIMBY, but I’m glad we have another point to divide us. Society needs that.
"Rich people will pay a whole lot to keep other people out."
This one sentence of yours sums it up pretty well. But I thought your other point about the role the free-market plays in all of this is an important one.
The free-market system is always defended with the same few ideas: maximizes innovation and opportunity, serves the hard rules of supply and demand better than anything else, and is a beast of an engine for wealth generation. But the giant flip side of it is that the free market is completely amoral in nature - it doesn't care about people per say, only in profit. This is the precise reason we have all those zoning and regulation statutes. Obviously they can get wildly out of hand, but they are supposed to keep things honest and fair in an otherwise chaotic and cruel world.
I would agree with you that the free-market is one of the major factors that is making the housing market so lopsided towards low density. If developers can make more money with a handful of wealthy clients than they can with an army of poor...that's a no-brainer in terms of making money. In fact, the free-market system encourages such hard truths. I see this even in my own small town of 50K, affordable housing is rapidly becoming like Tasmanian Devil sightings.
I'm not sure how we got here, it wasn't like this even a few decades ago. But I would guess that America's infatuation with the suburb lifestyle, with all of it's roomy green buffers between every single home, is part of the problem. Because whenever I see video footage of the 'suburbs' in almost every other country, I almost never see the same wide-open spacing betwixt housing like I do here. And this is not even bothering to mention the increasingly large size of our suburban homes, but that is another matter.
Dense metropolitan housing probably has a lot of other issues too, but I don't live there so I can't reliably remark on that.
Two things here.
First, I don't think any kind of real zoning reform is coming to New York. Look at what happened with Hochul's ADU/accessory apartment proposal. It was the weakest of teas and people out here on Long Island freaked the fuck out.
Second, apart from neighborhood character, the majority of people would prefer not to live in a concrete box in the sky. I really enjoy the luxury of twenty feet of air between my walls and my closest neighbors.
Sooooooo...I haven't really dipped into the NIMBY wars because the whole thing seems among the most toxic debates available right now, but...
...do the YIMBYs have any rebuttal or attempts to lessen to how unattractive most people apparently find high-density living? Because that seems to be the crux of the issue: everyone hates it, but everyone also wants to keep living in Brooklyn or wherever. Those who have bought or lucked into property desperately protect it, while those who don't have it want it--but want more of what already exists, not high-density.
Like, even in these piece you seem to be implying that high-density building would impact certain poorer neighborhoods in detrimental ways. Of course people don't want their neighborhoods to be worsened! Why isn't the argument "here's all the way high-density housing will make your life better"?
(I hate cities so much that I find even sprawling Minneapolis grotesque, but most people seem to have at least some aversion to apartment or converted living)
Why, exactly, do "we have to build"? Because lots of people want to live in New York? I just don't see that as sufficient reason (and I live in California, not New York).
Per this 2021 article about the "hot" housing market in my hometown of Akron, Ohio, the median listing price was $180K: https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/business/2021/04/16/akron-ohio-realtor-com-list-housing-markets-march-2021/7238183002/
So how about: don't destroy New York's nice neighborhoods, the very things that make people want to live there. Move to Akron (or a zillion other places like it) instead, where there is plenty of existing housing at far more reasonable prices.