Can anyone cite an example in which YIMBY policies have worked?

[Anonymous]

YIMBYs, Urbanists, Smart Growthers, and the like:

Can you cite and describe an example - local, municipal, statewide etc - in which blanket upzoning and deregulating development has actually resulted in stabilizing the housing market, decreasing homelessness and rent burdened residents?

I’m really not trying to concern troll here. I’m not digging my heels against the Greater Greater Washington types, I’m just skeptical. I could be convinced with some real numbers that the YIMBY idea actually works.

[Anonymous]

What is yimby?

[Anonymous]

Wilson Blvd on the positive side and Rockville Pike today and Downtown DC in the 90's on the negative side. Upsizing concentrated around subway stations with walkeable areas works and it works well. Upsized sprawl along arterial roads works poorly because it relies on lots of parking spaces to work and cant handle the population growth.

[Anonymous]

Japan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is yimby?

Yes in my backyard

[Anonymous]

SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

SF is nimby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:SF Bay Area resident here and the answer is there is no place in the Bay Area where this has worked well. But the giant construction companies absolutely love it. They’ve certainly benefited.

San Francisco has even stronger NIMBY culture than D.C. does, which is saying something.

[Anonymous]

Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Haven’t all those places gotten MORE expensive?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Aside from building luxury housing for mainly privileged white people, how did those areas help in the ways OP is asking?

[Anonymous]

The suburbs after WWII?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Haven’t all those places gotten MORE expensive?

You're missing the point. Development of a particular piece of land is going to be done because it can be converted to a higher use, so yes, the thing you build is going to be more expensive than the thing it replaces. It would be hard to get people to put money up otherwise. The idea is that by building more housing you increase the supply and prices across the market don't rise as much as they would have otherwise.

It's hard to prove whether it works or not because you can't run controlled experiments. Who knows what prices in DC would be if Cathedral Commons hadn't been built? It's just too speculative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Haven’t all those places gotten MORE expensive?

You're missing the point. Development of a particular piece of land is going to be done because it can be converted to a higher use, so yes, the thing you build is going to be more expensive than the thing it replaces. It would be hard to get people to put money up otherwise. The idea is that by building more housing you increase the supply and prices across the market don't rise as much as they would have otherwise.

It's hard to prove whether it works or not because you can't run controlled experiments. Who knows what prices in DC would be if Cathedral Commons hadn't been built? It's just too speculative.

In other words, YIMBY does not actually produce the benefits that it's proponents tout

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of "downtown" Arlington; Cathedral Commons, the Wharf, Navy Yard, 14th Street, H Street, U Street, Bethesda Row, Pentagon Row, I could go on, just in the DC area.

Haven’t all those places gotten MORE expensive?

You're missing the point. Development of a particular piece of land is going to be done because it can be converted to a higher use, so yes, the thing you build is going to be more expensive than the thing it replaces. It would be hard to get people to put money up otherwise. The idea is that by building more housing you increase the supply and prices across the market don't rise as much as they would have otherwise.

It's hard to prove whether it works or not because you can't run controlled experiments. Who knows what prices in DC would be if Cathedral Commons hadn't been built? It's just too speculative.

In other words, YIMBY does not actually produce the benefits that it's proponents tout

No, in other words nobody really knows.