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

[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.

I don’t think specific projects that went through normal zoning processes are what OP was getting at. I think OP was asking about jurisdiction-wide policies.

In Montgomery County, YIMBY policies seem to boil down to policies that help developers make more money, and those policies seem to have succeeded because projects in Montgomery County have higher cap rates than projects in neighboring jurisdictions.

Clearly, increasing the housing supply would drive prices down, but that’s an objective, not a policy. The question is what policies will help us meet the objective, and the answer is probably a mix of policies that developers like and policy developers hate, to prevent them from using the favorable policies to earn windfall profits while preserving scarcity. It’s hard to have a real conversation about this subject because suppliers benefit from shortages, homeowners similarly benefit from shortages, and lobbyists masquerading as think tanks (Like the Coalition for Smarter Growth) have polluted the discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does. But it also has a stronger YIMBY culture. And it has been a total boon for large real estate developers, and nobody else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

On of the benefits they touted was putting bike lanes on Seminary Road and narrowing it from four lanes to two lanes. The result is traffic jams every morning and afternoon and rarely used bike lanes.

You've just described the entire city of DC. So frustrating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It does. But it also has a stronger YIMBY culture. And it has been a total boon for large real estate developers, and nobody else.

That always happens. The YIMBYs always claim their policies will result in more housing but all that ever happens is higher profit margins.

[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.

I don’t think specific projects that went through normal zoning processes are what OP was getting at. I think OP was asking about jurisdiction-wide policies.

In Montgomery County, YIMBY policies seem to boil down to policies that help developers make more money, and those policies seem to have succeeded because projects in Montgomery County have higher cap rates than projects in neighboring jurisdictions.

Clearly, increasing the housing supply would drive prices down, but that’s an objective, not a policy. The question is what policies will help us meet the objective, and the answer is probably a mix of policies that developers like and policy developers hate, to prevent them from using the favorable policies to earn windfall profits while preserving scarcity. It’s hard to have a real conversation about this subject because suppliers benefit from shortages, homeowners similarly benefit from shortages, and lobbyists masquerading as think tanks (Like the Coalition for Smarter Growth) have polluted the discussion.

The bigger issue in the region is land use. Is it better to pave under green space on the fringes for more cul-de-sacs and arterial car sewers, or focus density on transit corridors to expand housing options that way. What you are calling a windfall for developers, the rest of us call utilizing land in a smarter way than was done from the 1940's to the 1990's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

On of the benefits they touted was putting bike lanes on Seminary Road and narrowing it from four lanes to two lanes. The result is traffic jams every morning and afternoon and rarely used bike lanes.

You've just described the entire city of DC. So frustrating.

more frustrating...all the people using bike lanes using cars and adding more traffic and pollution to the equation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger issue in the region is land use. Is it better to pave under green space on the fringes for more cul-de-sacs and arterial car sewers, or focus density on transit corridors to expand housing options that way. What you are calling a windfall for developers, the rest of us call utilizing land in a smarter way than was done from the 1940's to the 1990's.

Smart land use isn't what Montgomery has actually done. Instead, it has provided non-targeted subsidies that don't tie public funds to public policy goals, and it has enabled high-density development far away from transit. It's a dumber version of the same thing that was done from the 1940s to the 1990s. You can't possibly be defending a land use policy that's allowed developers to use less than half the allowable density to build the cheapest building possible, market it as luxury, and only rent to tenants at 120 percent AMI and above while at the same time approving plans to pave under green space for high density development because it's near I-270.

The communities that have been most successful in executing smart growth -- like Ballston -- have demanded that developers maximize developable land near transit and have smartly targeted subsidies so that they achieve specific outcomes. I'm all for upzoning near transit. I'm not for blank check subsidies that don't require developers to do anything they weren't going to do anyway, and I'm not for building new low-rise developments less than a quarter mile from rail stations. That's dumb, but that's what Montgomery County has done, and Thrive says Montgomery County should do more of it.

All Montgomery County has done is deliver high profits for developers. It makes you wonder whether that's what was intended in the first place, despite the rhetoric about smart growth and affordable housing (a term they don't even use anymore).

[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?

When I was in grad school at Georgetown, I rented a studio in Arlington near Ft. Myer at $270 a month. The building was torn down about 10 years ago and now rents are about $2,500 a month for a one bedroom. Laughs on the building owner because Arlington County is about to put several affordable housing buildings across the street. They talk about neighborhoods changing -- from bad to good and now back to bad thanks to YIMBY

So you think the property owner should still be providing a $270/mo rent in an area with million dollar + condos? I thought we lived in a capitalist society and you want communism.

What an odd interpretation. I simply said that an inexpensive apartment building was replaced by an expensive apartment building. Now, Arlington County is building affordable housing across the street from the expensive apartment building. An area that was once inexpensive, became expensive, and now will become inexpensive again because of the affordable housing being built in the area which will be inexpensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

On of the benefits they touted was putting bike lanes on Seminary Road and narrowing it from four lanes to two lanes. The result is traffic jams every morning and afternoon and rarely used bike lanes.

There were already traffic jams on Seminary Road.

But not as bad as they are now. I could drive from my house on King Street to INOVA Alexandria Hospital in 10 minutes. Now that post pandemic traffic is back, it take 20 minutes. Tell me about your experience commuting on Seminary Road.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

On of the benefits they touted was putting bike lanes on Seminary Road and narrowing it from four lanes to two lanes. The result is traffic jams every morning and afternoon and rarely used bike lanes.

That;s not YIMBY that's the militant bicycle lobby and no area should kowtow to 5% of the populations over the 95%

Alexandria kowtowed to less than 5% of the population as many of the people supporting the bike lanes were students at the Episcopalian Seminary who were in the area for a short term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A bunch of the Arlington YIMBYs, including the chairman of the Arlington planning commission, live in single family neighborhoods along Langston Blvd., an area heavily touted for duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings. Could it be that these YIMBYs stand to profit if their single family home increases significantly in value because the lot is upzoned to R-14 and suddenly they have a much more valuable lot.

YIMBYs act idealistic, but turn one over and they always have a greedy motive. The last Arlington YIMBY meetup was in the sprawling back yard of a YIMBY who stands to gain a good deal by upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A bunch of the Arlington YIMBYs, including the chairman of the Arlington planning commission, live in single family neighborhoods along Langston Blvd., an area heavily touted for duplexes, triplexes, and small apartment buildings. Could it be that these YIMBYs stand to profit if their single family home increases significantly in value because the lot is upzoned to R-14 and suddenly they have a much more valuable lot.

YIMBYs act idealistic, but turn one over and they always have a greedy motive. The last Arlington YIMBY meetup was in the sprawling back yard of a YIMBY who stands to gain a good deal by upzoning.

I’m the Bay Area poster and I used to believe in the YIMBY movement. Then I realized just how tied it was to large, wildly anti-environmental, and massively greedy developers. It’s a disaster as far as I’m concerned. Keep away from those folks. They are just greedy. They don’t actually want to help anything other than their own pockets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The bigger issue in the region is land use. Is it better to pave under green space on the fringes for more cul-de-sacs and arterial car sewers, or focus density on transit corridors to expand housing options that way. What you are calling a windfall for developers, the rest of us call utilizing land in a smarter way than was done from the 1940's to the 1990's.

Smart land use isn't what Montgomery has actually done. Instead, it has provided non-targeted subsidies that don't tie public funds to public policy goals, and it has enabled high-density development far away from transit. It's a dumber version of the same thing that was done from the 1940s to the 1990s. You can't possibly be defending a land use policy that's allowed developers to use less than half the allowable density to build the cheapest building possible, market it as luxury, and only rent to tenants at 120 percent AMI and above while at the same time approving plans to pave under green space for high density development because it's near I-270.

The communities that have been most successful in executing smart growth -- like Ballston -- have demanded that developers maximize developable land near transit and have smartly targeted subsidies so that they achieve specific outcomes. I'm all for upzoning near transit. I'm not for blank check subsidies that don't require developers to do anything they weren't going to do anyway, and I'm not for building new low-rise developments less than a quarter mile from rail stations. That's dumb, but that's what Montgomery County has done, and Thrive says Montgomery County should do more of it.

All Montgomery County has done is deliver high profits for developers. It makes you wonder whether that's what was intended in the first place, despite the rhetoric about smart growth and affordable housing (a term they don't even use anymore).

Very much this. And add a means of providing communities that get more directly impacted by a particular development with an offset.

[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.

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

Ahh. The “privileged white people” dig - what took you so long? Yawn.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

When I was in grad school at Georgetown, I rented a studio in Arlington near Ft. Myer at $270 a month. The building was torn down about 10 years ago and now rents are about $2,500 a month for a one bedroom. Laughs on the building owner because Arlington County is about to put several affordable housing buildings across the street. They talk about neighborhoods changing -- from bad to good and now back to bad thanks to YIMBY

So you think the property owner should still be providing a $270/mo rent in an area with million dollar + condos? I thought we lived in a capitalist society and you want communism.

What an odd interpretation. I simply said that an inexpensive apartment building was replaced by an expensive apartment building. Now, Arlington County is building affordable housing across the street from the expensive apartment building. An area that was once inexpensive, became expensive, and now will become inexpensive again because of the affordable housing being built in the area which will be inexpensive.

And people with money will move out, stores will close for lack or business and the whole place becomes a dump.