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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Minneapolis is not a success at all. Barely any 2-4 unit housing has been created and the YIMBYs blame the fact that they didn’t change setback requirements.

[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?

Different poster, but yes, this seems like an ideal solution to the problems of housing affordability, especially if it's high-quality, well-built government funded housing. I realize there's no way that'll happen now, but if I were in charge, this would be my preferred policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Minneapolis is not a success at all. Barely any 2-4 unit housing has been created and the YIMBYs blame the fact that they didn’t change setback requirements.

read the article? not that many multiplexes but significant more larger projects, considerable new supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Different poster, but yes, this seems like an ideal solution to the problems of housing affordability, especially if it's high-quality, well-built government funded housing. I realize there's no way that'll happen now, but if I were in charge, this would be my preferred policy.

so the government should build middle class housing instead of letting the market do it. do you feel the same way about every product?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This a completely nonsensical characterization (and of course for reasons only you know, you’re fixated on the “YIMBY mindset” rather than actual housing policy discussion.)

Anyway- I don’t know anyone who thinks people should not be able to profit of their SFH. The objection comes when homeowners try to claim they have a right to control zoning and public space for their exclusive benefit. Developers, in contrast, are part of the market creating housing. And since we live in a market economy, yes, they need to have a viable profit. Further, YIMBYs believe that SFH owners should have more rights in their property - the right to build ADUs, renovate into duplexes, etc.

[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.

How many units are actually getting built?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Minneapolis is not a success at all. Barely any 2-4 unit housing has been created and the YIMBYs blame the fact that they didn’t change setback requirements.

More on Minneapolis

https://streets.mn/2022/05/06/minneapolis-rents-drop/

[Anonymous]

Increasing density drives up housing prices. It has been true in every single neighborhood in dc for the past 30 years. Navy yard is only the latest example

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives up housing prices. It has been true in every single neighborhood in dc for the past 30 years. Navy yard is only the latest example

Correlation vs causation. Also navy yard didn't have housing before they built housing. So there was no 'before' price.

DC has not seen an increase in rent prices in 15 years (if you control for national inflation).

This is entirely due to the pro-developer policies of Bowser and her predecessors.

[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.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

How many units are actually getting built?

article indicates about 40% more that prior to the reforms, and counting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Increasing density drives up housing prices. It has been true in every single neighborhood in dc for the past 30 years. Navy yard is only the latest example

huh? maybe drives up SFH there but overall, no.

[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.

YIMBYs don't care what you do with your own land. They don't want you being communists and dictating what they do on their own land.

It is "Yes in my backyard" literally. They want to build a in-law unit or apartment building in their own back yard. They don't care about your house. Quit being such busybodies. Not everyone want to live in your personal glorified HOA.

yesss thank you. the NIMBYs in my Hill neighborhood are quite literally insane.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read the other comments so maybe repeating, but it seems to be working reasonably well in Vancouver. Lots of carriage houses / ADUs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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/

Minneapolis is not a success at all. Barely any 2-4 unit housing has been created and the YIMBYs blame the fact that they didn’t change setback requirements.

read the article? not that many multiplexes but significant more larger projects, considerable new supply.

That is because of an increase in larger MFH buildings, not the supposed “missing middle” 2-4 unit duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes that were “illegal” and that the universal upzoning was supposed to solve. The complaint now is that the zoning change still includes setback requirements which limit the size of the individual units in a tri-plex and there is limited market for people wanting to live in a tiny tri-plex unit on a SFH lot in the midst of a single-family neighborhood. Apparently the only way that this upzoning can be successful is through paving the city, which would be bad for the environment (storm water) and climate (heat island). But they push for it nonetheless.