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

[Anonymous]

Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

You're conflating causality here in a way that's either disingenuous or ignorant. A place like Navy Yard didn't see rising housing prices because high density housing was built. High density housing was built because Navy Yard became more desirable, transitioning from an area dominated by warehouses, surface parking lots, and light industry into an actual neighborhood anchored by a ballpark and riverfront parks.

The whole supply theory of housing is based on filtering. New “luxury” supply in one location, e.g. Navy Yard, will see depreciated former “luxury” stock in other areas become more affordable, e.g. upper Connecticut Ave. And so on.

You don’t seem to even understand the underlying theories of your own cause. So odd.

What an odd non sequitur. I was specifically responding to your claim that increasing supply in a neighborhood may locally drive up prices.

And that does happen too. Those old, crappy “modern” SW condos saw an immediate jump in prices thanks to the Navy Yard development. You seem to start with an agenda and then try to backfill arguments at any minute to support that agenda. That’s what leads you to make statements that deny basic YIMBY theory (which doesn’t work by the way) or reality.

Seems like it's been largely flat since 2017, seasonal fluctuations aside: https://www.redfin.com/zipcode/20024/housing-market

Any other easily-disproven half baked "thoughts" about the housing market you'd like to share before I head home? I'm happy to respond on Monday to any you post over the weekend.

I do wonder why you feel the need to lie so much. When you add it to your basic ignorance it’s a sight to behold.

This small condo in an awful building increased in price almost 50% since it was last sold in 2012 as Navy Yard and the Wharf were incipient.
https://www.trulia.com/p/dc/washington/800-4th-st-sw-s313-washington-dc-20024--2090404778

Your ideas have no bounding in basic fact or commons sense and you seem to be an incessant liar that has never progressed past a suburban high school level education.

Oh, neat, I can cherrypick too. Here's a U street condo that's appreciated almost 50% since 2012: https://www.trulia.com/p/dc/washington/1390-v-st-nw-120-washington-dc-20009--2090304384

Did that happen because of development at Navy Yard, too? Or did that happen because there is still a persistent mismatch of supply and demand?

Also, "commons sense." lol. If you're going to talk down to and my supposed high school level education, at least have the decency to proofread your own keyboard vomit.

Do you realize that you are now arguing that “filtering” doesn’t work and that new supply in neighborhoods increases prices? Because that is exactly what you’re doing but you’re too dumb to understand it because your whole point is that you just argue whatever you think is convenient at any moment to justify whatever you think will achieve the outcome that you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s strange how people assume that if you just add housing units, then housing prices must fall. Um, the world doesn’t necessarily obey the tidy little dictums you learned in eighth grade economics. Sometimes demand and prices grow with supply. If you live long enough in DC, you know this from experience.

true, the basic principals of market economics don't work in DC. little known fact, there's a forcefield that reverses supply and demand within DC borders.

There's nothing basic about reality.

Increasing supply may overall reduce costs, in the broader metro DC area. But it may locally drive up prices (gentrification) in a specific area.

Right, let's not build any housing at all. Great solution.

Or how about considering policy measures to release existing supply that is being withheld from the market?

There is a lot of already built housing that should be occupied by people and families but instead is sitting vacant. It’s a ridiculous expenditure of resources, including the embedded GHG emissions, to build first rather than trying to release this supply.

Vacancy is not a problem. Please, take 1 minute and imagine a world with 0% vacancy.

How would anyone, ever, move to a new apartment?

NIMBYs love to talk about vacancy. It's not a problem.

I do wonder what your problem is. The chart clearly has a category of vacancy for rent and it’s a minute portion of the vacancies.

I don’t know if you play dumb or actually are dumb but it’s really interesting to behold.

[Anonymous]

YIMBY proposals are not coherent from a policy perspective, which is why they cannot work.

However, if your view YIMBYism through a prism of benign wittingly or unwittingly front groups to promote developer profits, then it works great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

+1, and I hope the new housing spurs gentrification so we have a deeper tax base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

There is an underlying cost factor to all of this. Input factors on construction costs are land, materials, labor and regulatory. Every upzoning or new construction increases the underlying cost of land, which increases construction costs. It’s a game of chasing a moving target. There is no possible future, absent extrinsic factors, that would make new construction cheaper to the point that it produces new housing units that are “affordable” to the average household in any meaningful sense. Then there’s the obvious fact that new construction actually increases prices for adjacent properties and the idea that building to affordability just makes no sense. Builders will build when it’s economically and profitable for them to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

There is an underlying cost factor to all of this. Input factors on construction costs are land, materials, labor and regulatory. Every upzoning or new construction increases the underlying cost of land, which increases construction costs. It’s a game of chasing a moving target. There is no possible future, absent extrinsic factors, that would make new construction cheaper to the point that it produces new housing units that are “affordable” to the average household in any meaningful sense. Then there’s the obvious fact that new construction actually increases prices for adjacent properties and the idea that building to affordability just makes no sense. Builders will build when it’s economically and profitable for them to do so.

You’ll know housing is getting cheaper when developers stop building

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Detached single family homes inside the beltway accommodate a smaller share of the population than they did 30 years ago, and household incomes have gone up. That means prices have gone way up.

If those SF homes are replaced with multifamily housing, single family homes inside the beltway will accommodate an even smaller share of the population. Prices will keep going up.

The YIMBYs have grown fond of positing SF home listings and screaming about the prices, but there’s nothing their proposals will do to reverse the trend. Prices for SF detached would go up even faster if YIMBY policies actually worked. It’s just the usual YIMBY distortion.

The only thing that will stop this trend is a big recession, very high interest rates, or a massive and sustained population decline.

I’d rather live in one of those tiny post-war brick houses than a stacked duplex or townhouse made out of manufactured wood. No way am I paying $800k to share walls or a floor with someone else.

So I guess it boils down to defining what it means to say that a policy "works." If your definition of "works" is that you can afford to live in the type of housing you personally prefer when you couldn't otherwise, I think you're right when you say that it would take big recession or a sustained population decline. I don't think high interest rates would change anything. And you'd have to hope that you weren't personally one of the people driven away by the recession or the population decline.

Now, if my definition of what it means to say that a policy "works" is to say that more people get to live in housing that better fits their needs, then yes, building more housing accomplishes that.

Their needs according to whom? Time and again people have proven that they’ll endure long commutes to buy SF detached.

People say it loud and clear in surveys and they the practice this in the market.

89% of homebuyers would prefer a single-family home with a backyard over a unit in a triplex with a shorter commute.

https://www.redfin.com/news/millennial-homebuyers-prefer-single-family-homes/

I hope Jeff tells us what lobbyist or crazy people are running this thread. It is completely bizarre. NIMBY serves the people who already live there. YIMBY serves developers. Elected officials don’t really benefit by helping people who don’t live in their districts yet and don’t have much money. So it never happens. Happy now?

As for SFHs we have tons in Baltimore for cheap. But someone no one is buying. Want to discuss that in light of this survey?

It’s almost like revealed preferences confirm that the “build to the property line” mantra of the YIMBY/urbanist crowd is unpopular. Baltimore neighborhoods where the THs have front setbacks (yard/porch) have some decent amount of demand. The ones where your front door opens onto a bus stop, not so much. And I cannot believe that this obvious statement needs to be said but here we are. Turns out that set backs are good. Who could’ve guessed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

There is an underlying cost factor to all of this. Input factors on construction costs are land, materials, labor and regulatory. Every upzoning or new construction increases the underlying cost of land, which increases construction costs. It’s a game of chasing a moving target. There is no possible future, absent extrinsic factors, that would make new construction cheaper to the point that it produces new housing units that are “affordable” to the average household in any meaningful sense. Then there’s the obvious fact that new construction actually increases prices for adjacent properties and the idea that building to affordability just makes no sense. Builders will build when it’s economically and profitable for them to do so.

You’ll know housing is getting cheaper when developers stop building

Exactly. The YIMBY presumption is that housing is a commodity and developers are dumber than corn farmers. Somehow they will decide to over-build and the market clears at a lower price and housing is cheaper. But that would require developers to lose their shirts and that’s just not going to happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the silly people saying building more housing doesn't work:

https://twitter.com/yitgordon/status/1523338237640843269

Try again.

Washington DC has been adding thousands of housing units every single year for decades. Just because this issue is new to you doesn’t mean it hasn’t already been tried many many times before.

Oh man, I wonder how it could be true that Washington DC has built housing and yet prices are increasing. Could it be that population is growing faster than the construction of new housing? No, that couldn't possibly be the case.

https://dc.urbanturf.com/articles/blog/since-2000-the-dc-region-added-twice-as-many-people-as-housing-units/15405

It will always be true, no matter how many units we add.

What's your point?

Add all the housing you want. It will not make any difference to prices. There’s five million people in the suburbs and many of them would love a shorter commute.

Induced demand! It’s funny and yet it’s also true.