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

[Anonymous]

Every red state/city.

Blue areas have essentially disallowed construction through endless petty legislation.

[Anonymous]

YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

In actuality, the YIMBY policy goal at any moment reflects the personal desires of the median Millennial. 10 years ago the median Millennial wanted to live in NYC or SF in neighborhoods that they could not afford so they demanded more high rises to accommodate them. Now the median Millennial is in their late 30s and wants to buy a starter home in an affluent neighborhood that they cannot afford so they are demanding “missing middle”. 10 years from now, the median Millennial will want a SFH and YIMBYism will morph once again towards getting them SFHs, probably by trying to figure out how to force everyone else into all of these other housing types that they demanded that no one else wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

These people don’t actually exist. They say they do, but it’s never their backyard.

During the pandemic, the urbanist, density types all retreated to the suburbs.

Live in a shoebox and a half dozen roommates, but still with your childhood room for the weekends (free vacation home), and feel like a big boy or girl, even though mommy and daddy pay for both and then the house they bought you in said suburbs.

Ignore what people say, and look at what they do, when real money and commitments are on the line. Easy to be for something that will turn a neighborhood into an investment slum, when you ditch the place anyway in a couple years.

Next ask them where they really send their children to school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is yimby?

Yes in my backyard

And actually Yes in Your Backyard. Look up where the head of these groups live, not just the local patsy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Japan

ha ha good one. Average Tokyo rents are astonishingly low.

https://www.barrettish.com/log/post/tokyo-studio-apartment-for-950-dollars?format=amp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So basically you hate capitalism? I mean, we need more housing, and someone has to pay to build housing. What’s your alternative, fully govt funded housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

No, YIMBYs think that just because you like your SFH doesn’t mean you get to control where everyone else lives. YIMBYs are pro choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

These people don’t actually exist. They say they do, but it’s never their backyard.

During the pandemic, the urbanist, density types all retreated to the suburbs.

Live in a shoebox and a half dozen roommates, but still with your childhood room for the weekends (free vacation home), and feel like a big boy or girl, even though mommy and daddy pay for both and then the house they bought you in said suburbs.

Ignore what people say, and look at what they do, when real money and commitments are on the line. Easy to be for something that will turn a neighborhood into an investment slum, when you ditch the place anyway in a couple years.

Next ask them where they really send their children to school.

Feel better now?

Meanwhile, Minneapolis is a great example of YIMBY success. Spoiler, it’s reducing parking that did it, not zoning (yet). https://reason.com/2022/05/11/eliminating-single-family-zoning-isnt-the-reason-minneapolis-is-a-yimby-success-story/

[Anonymous]

I feel like Alexandria City has a decent balance of mixed-income neighborhoods and low rates of violent crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

In actuality, the YIMBY policy goal at any moment reflects the personal desires of the median Millennial. 10 years ago the median Millennial wanted to live in NYC or SF in neighborhoods that they could not afford so they demanded more high rises to accommodate them. Now the median Millennial is in their late 30s and wants to buy a starter home in an affluent neighborhood that they cannot afford so they are demanding “missing middle”. 10 years from now, the median Millennial will want a SFH and YIMBYism will morph once again towards getting them SFHs, probably by trying to figure out how to force everyone else into all of these other housing types that they demanded that no one else wanted.

100%!

Ah yes the “missing middle”.

An admission that these urbanists don’t want to live in a mid or high rise, so a quadplex is a step up. But when they get sick of the any shared walls and parking problems, the locust will move on to single family homes, and wonder why the fraction left command such high prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

In actuality, the YIMBY policy goal at any moment reflects the personal desires of the median Millennial. 10 years ago the median Millennial wanted to live in NYC or SF in neighborhoods that they could not afford so they demanded more high rises to accommodate them. Now the median Millennial is in their late 30s and wants to buy a starter home in an affluent neighborhood that they cannot afford so they are demanding “missing middle”. 10 years from now, the median Millennial will want a SFH and YIMBYism will morph once again towards getting them SFHs, probably by trying to figure out how to force everyone else into all of these other housing types that they demanded that no one else wanted.

100%!

Ah yes the “missing middle”.

An admission that these urbanists don’t want to live in a mid or high rise, so a quadplex is a step up. But when they get sick of the any shared walls and parking problems, the locust will move on to single family homes, and wonder why the fraction left command such high prices.

?? Not clear why you think ad hominem attacks add to your credibility.

Anyway, “missing middle” described both a type of housing and a price-point affordable to the middle class. The idea is that duplexes etc would have a natural market but for zoning restrictions. Interestingly the Minneapolis example seems to indicate that the real barriers are parking requirements, not number of units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Alexandria City has a decent balance of mixed-income neighborhoods and low rates of violent crime

It doesn’t. The “mixed income” neighborhood left is Old Town and that’s only through public housing, which just updates the public housing, and only supported through high real estate costs for everyone else.

The rest of the city is highly segmented if mixed at all.

Household income also covers up the unnatural distribution of housing. The new higher income apartments are 1 bed/bath to offset the lottery of public and subsidized housing.

If the dual income no kids, high income couple, want to form a family, they must leave. So while it looks “mixed” and “functional”, it is anything but.

But put up large glass windows, black bricks, grey floors, and shiny appliances, most people can’t tel the difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:YIMBYs seem to think everyone with a family wants to live in a high rise. It CAN work, but goes against consumer tastes. YIMBYs ignore that people like single family houses and having land.

In actuality, the YIMBY policy goal at any moment reflects the personal desires of the median Millennial. 10 years ago the median Millennial wanted to live in NYC or SF in neighborhoods that they could not afford so they demanded more high rises to accommodate them. Now the median Millennial is in their late 30s and wants to buy a starter home in an affluent neighborhood that they cannot afford so they are demanding “missing middle”. 10 years from now, the median Millennial will want a SFH and YIMBYism will morph once again towards getting them SFHs, probably by trying to figure out how to force everyone else into all of these other housing types that they demanded that no one else wanted.

100%!

Ah yes the “missing middle”.

An admission that these urbanists don’t want to live in a mid or high rise, so a quadplex is a step up. But when they get sick of the any shared walls and parking problems, the locust will move on to single family homes, and wonder why the fraction left command such high prices.

?? Not clear why you think ad hominem attacks add to your credibility.

Anyway, “missing middle” described both a type of housing and a price-point affordable to the middle class. The idea is that duplexes etc would have a natural market but for zoning restrictions. Interestingly the Minneapolis example seems to indicate that the real barriers are parking requirements, not number of units.

You brought in an extraneous and unrelated market to this and you are accusing me of ad hominem?

There are more townhomes and condos here than most of the country and they are mostly viable.

What isn’t viable is a non-metro accessible neighborhood being turned into a slum.

And it’s the entry level, starter home market, that gets hit first because the math still works out to buy a lot, put up 2 to 4 homes.

The premium to avoid that, just goes higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So basically you hate capitalism? I mean, we need more housing, and someone has to pay to build housing. What’s your alternative, fully govt funded housing?

I’m happy that you posted this because it so perfectly encapsulates the YIMBY mindset. According to YIMBYs, average Americans making money off their house is a very, very bad. But billion dollar corporations making money off the same house is very, very good. I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions why that is.