Welcome to YIMBYtown
June 27, 2016 11:58 AM   Subscribe

The first-ever YIMBY conference took place in Boulder, CO, and drew many attendees who are dedicated to building better cities and more housing (both market-rate and affordable). Those who support the YIMBY movement believe that Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) influence pushes housing costs higher and creates more displacement in cities. While the housing shortage is well-documented in places like San Francisco and Seattle, many other cities around the globe are feeling upward pressure on housing costs as more residents move from suburban areas to cities.

Additional reading:

Historically, most new housing is built for those who can afford it. But how does this impact low-income communities? As it turns out, the poor are better off when we build more housing for the rich. As Sara Maxana put it in her YIMBY conference keynote, when housing choices are limited, the wealthy always win.

Why a severe housing shortage means reduced wages for workers.

New development doesn't need to be all high-rise buildings. "Missing middle" housing seeks to meet the demand for housing on a smaller scale.

Short profile of Jesse Kanson-Benanav, YIMBY activist in Cambridge, MA
.

Americans are paying more to live in the very places they once abandoned.

40 Percent of the Buildings in Manhattan Could Not Be Built Today

Additional recaps about the YIMBY conference from writers in Seattle and Denver.
posted by antonymous (37 comments total) 28 users marked this as a favorite
 
We've had YIMBY festival in Toronto since 2006. It's had a conference track for a few years, so first-ever is a stretch.
posted by scruss at 12:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Cool post. I live in SF and consider myself to be a YIMBY supporter. The resistance here to building anything is just absurd, and I think there's no way for the housing crisis to get better in the long term without building a ton more housing.
posted by Aizkolari at 12:45 PM on June 27, 2016


Thanks for this interesting post. I'd also like to point out the related concept of NIABY-- not in anyone's backyard. I think folks are often disingenuously accused of NIMBYism when in fact they're saying they don't want to see certain types of development or infrastructure built in general.
posted by threeants at 1:17 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


Personally I am extremely skeptical of the idea that market-rate infill and upzoning can do enough to keep neighborhoods in areas like Boston and San Francisco diverse and livable, when there seems to be a near-limitless supply of higher-income people to live in the added stock. I believe that instead of focusing on building out already desirable neighborhoods, a more worthwhile result will be had if we increase and urbanize the number of neighborhoods that people want to live in by aggressively expanding transit. Which, for any of y'all who live in Boston or follow our news, lol/weep.
posted by threeants at 1:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [19 favorites]



Personally I am extremely skeptical of the idea that market-rate infill and upzoning can do enough to keep neighborhoods in areas like Boston and San Francisco diverse and livable, when there seems to be a near-limitless supply of higher-income people to live in the added stock.


The 1% constitute only 1% of the population.

I believe that instead of focusing on building out already desirable neighborhoods, a more worthwhile result will be had if we increase and urbanize the number of neighborhoods that people want to live in by aggressively expanding transit. Which, for any of y'all who live in Boston or follow our news, lol/weep.

I live near the end of the GLX. I'd weep, but towns along the MBCR lines are rezoning to allow infill near the stations. So we have that going for us. Which is nice.
posted by ocschwar at 1:30 PM on June 27, 2016


Great post, thank you. It's a serious problem. And aside from my usual go-to opinion about it (There are Too. Many. People.), I found the article about the Missing Middle especially resonant as a viable step forward.

I would live in a building with 10 other homes in a heartbeat. I currently live in a building with 49 other homes from mine. It's too big. I only know about 25 or 30 of the 65-75 people who live here. A smaller group would feel more like a community. It was also poorly planned, with no communal gathering spaces indoors, minimal soundproofing, and is difficult to maintain (no mechanical chases for infrastructure, like HVAC and water lines, which are embedded in demising walls instead. so if something goes awry, walls have to be ripped up to correct.)

This will no doubt devolve into the rural vs urban debate, but the problem still needs a solution.
posted by yoga at 1:44 PM on June 27, 2016


Here's another WaPo article about that report that claims that building luxury buildings increases housing options for the poor and middle class. The fact is opinion among experts ranges wildly about that report and the concept in general.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 1:52 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


(There are Too. Many. People.)

The USA has 7.7 acres per person of land.
posted by GuyZero at 2:04 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


The USA has 7.7 acres per person of land.

Yes, well, you're welcome to Alaska.
posted by entropicamericana at 2:24 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


  NIABY-- not in anyone's backyard

As a wind power guy, I've encountered that a lot. Often, it breaks down to “I don't want this, you are a bad person for wanting this” concern trolling. Sometimes it can help to improve permitting and process, but my experience has mostly been incorrect-but-truthy soundbites that are too complex to counter in a tweet.
posted by scruss at 2:30 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are Too. Many. People.

that want to live where I want to live.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:32 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Personally I am extremely skeptical of the idea that market-rate infill and upzoning can do enough to keep neighborhoods in areas like Boston and San Francisco diverse and livable, when there seems to be a near-limitless supply of higher-income people to live in the added stock.

It's possible, but it means allowing converting from single family dwelling models to apartment block ones. Paris, for example is two or three times denser than either Boston (core) or SF, but gets better ratings for livability/quality of life/etc... from the Economist. So it's possible to be denser, and denser without a proliferation of condo towers, and still maintain a high quality of life for residents (and still be a nice place to visit too).
posted by bonehead at 2:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [13 favorites]


Remember that time that The Emperor commanded much of central Paris to be torn down and rebuilt with wider streets and taller buildings? If only we still had Emperor Norton out here in SF.
posted by GuyZero at 2:53 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


What we need to do is bad passenger vehicles in cities. Which is how they got so dense in the first place when cars didn't exist. I'm a NIMBY on anything invented post-1900 for civic infrastructure (with the exception of sewers and water treatment I suppose).
posted by GuyZero at 2:55 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


The most disgusting example of NIMBY that I've witnessed was when residents protested a new security fence around a grade school that was installed after Sandy Hook. They wanted to arm the teachers instead. No, I don't want a fence near my house, yes, I want 10-20 undertrained people with guns near it instead. What the fuck?
posted by Brocktoon at 3:14 PM on June 27, 2016 [7 favorites]


In a related story, my NIMBYfest has been postponed yet again due to lack of venue.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:17 PM on June 27, 2016 [27 favorites]


What we need to do is bad passenger vehicles in cities. Which is how they got so dense in the first place when cars didn't exist.

I wish more cities would experiment with this. Just drop in some jersey barriers and signage for a few months and see how it goes, if people hate it you're only out a few thousand bucks.
posted by ghharr at 4:20 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


What we need to do is bad passenger vehicles in cities. Which is how they got so dense in the first place when cars didn't exist. I'm a NIMBY on anything invented post-1900 for civic infrastructure (with the exception of sewers and water treatment I suppose).

Ban wireless and wireline internet from cities? Ban buses? Electrical infrastructure? Telephones? Light rail?
posted by indubitable at 4:25 PM on June 27, 2016 [1 favorite]


I also enjoyed the "Missing Middle" artice. We have lived in duplexes for 12 years (3 different duplexes in 3 different cities). It is a great solution for us, a creative/academic couple with no kids who like living in a neighborhood and having a yard to hang out in but don't really have much time/need for the space of a single family home and yard. All three duplexes were built before 1950. Our current neighborhood is actually full of former duplexes that have been retrofitted as (large) single family homes. Ours is the last one I know about that's still a duplex.

All new housing in Atlanta is either Infill McMansions, highrise luxury condos, or 5 or 6 story large apartment complexes, some with at least a gesture at first floor retail. Unfortunately, until Atlanta changes dramatically and makes transit a real priority, the parking issue is probably the primary obstacle to smaller apartment building, cottage courts, rowhouses, etc.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:36 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Ban wireless and wireline internet from cities? Ban buses? Electrical infrastructure? Telephones? Light rail?

Wires aren't civic infrastructure per se, they're just infrastructure. Luckily I get to make up terms and define them however I like!

And busses predate 1900, as does rail transport, so woo-hoo.
posted by GuyZero at 5:03 PM on June 27, 2016


The housing situation in Vancouver is getting to me to the point that even the word NIMBY rankles a little, as I would love to have a MBY to have or not have things in. Ditto a lawn to either allow or deny people access to. At least I have the clouds to yell at.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 5:35 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


The clouds are now the sole intellectual property of CuckooLand LLC, please leave them alone citizen.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 5:41 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


Here's another WaPo article about that report that claims that building luxury buildings increases housing options for the poor and middle class. The fact is opinion among experts ranges wildly about that report and the concept in general.

People who doubt this must have completely ignored what went on in the late 90's.

What I saw in Boston was people who were distinctly not lacking for money being perfectly willing to live in seriously beaten down apartments, and pay high rents to do so, while the housing boom was getting started. To spell out the obvious: non-retired rich people are more concerned with earning money than spending it. Their choice of city to live in has more to do with the former than the latter.

So if a rich person wants to live in Boston, he's going to live in Boston.

If YOU want to live in Boston, you better hope that new condo tower completes before someone richer than you offers a higher rent to your landlord.
posted by ocschwar at 5:45 PM on June 27, 2016 [5 favorites]


I have near-zero sympathy for NIMBY arguments that are about "character" or things being "out of scale" with the neighborhood, or that involve stalling much needed rapid transit projects to protect fucking parking spaces, or abusing environmental regulation laws to prevent the city from adding bike infrastructure. So in that sense, yeah, I would love to see more YIMBY spirit across America and in places like SF specifically.

But... the "just build" crowd in SF also often seems to elide the questions of what happens to low- and middle-income people while we wait for supply and demand to equilibrate, which could take more than a decade even at an accelerated building rate. This set of responses to that WaPo article discusses that a little, but I don't really know whether there's a politically feasible solution.
posted by en forme de poire at 6:01 PM on June 27, 2016 [10 favorites]


The other thing about "all new construction is luxury" is that I think the word "luxury" in regards to real estate is sometimes getting used in the same way that "premium" is with ice cream. At least around here* I think most of the new construction gets advertised as "luxury"' but there's not like, high end appliances or solid gold bathtubs or whatever, just the niceness of new and maybe some gimmicky fitness room or something. It's just a word for market rate apartments to make people feel better about the market rate being pretty high.

*However, it's easier to build here, rents are lower, and there are fewer rich people than the coasts, so YMMV. I'm sure those skinny supertalls in Manhattan are legit swanky.
posted by ghharr at 6:10 PM on June 27, 2016 [4 favorites]


there seems to be a near-limitless supply of higher-income people to live in the added stock

This is a good point. In Seattle, where I live, most new hires for high-income techie jobs are imports from out of state (in part because the state education system supply of STEM education is not adequate to the demand) and there is no reason for this trend to abate.

(Meanwhile, Seattle's homeless people are often painted as out-of-towners who came here for the sweet sweet services, when they are mostly from right here!)
posted by splitpeasoup at 9:02 PM on June 27, 2016 [3 favorites]


Seattle's homeless people are often painted as out-of-towners who came here for the sweet sweet services, when they are mostly from right here!

One of the more common urban legends about the homeless in any given town
posted by entropicamericana at 9:49 PM on June 27, 2016 [2 favorites]


The other thing about "all new construction is luxury" is that I think the word "luxury" in regards to real estate is sometimes getting used in the same way that "premium" is with ice cream. At least around here* I think most of the new construction gets advertised as "luxury"' but there's not like, high end appliances or solid gold bathtubs or whatever, just the niceness of new and maybe some gimmicky fitness room or something. It's just a word for market rate apartments to make people feel better about the market rate being pretty high.

When I was debating between the three areas of South Florida I was considering living in before moving into my current apartment, I checked out a "luxury" apartment complex that was across the street from the county landfill. I don't care how many amenities it has -- you apartment complex would always smell like Florida landfill. And at this time of year... It has to be particularly ripe.
posted by JustKeepSwimming at 6:10 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Now that I've gotten my fun story out of the way -- I also appreciated the missing middle article.

As someone who lives in Miami, so many of the issues around development are also environmentalist issues. How do we develop in such a way that doesn't encroach upon the everglades? (Or is it too late?) How do we develop so that we aren't completely screwed by global warming? (Can we?)

However, the NIMBY issues do tend to be around parking regulations, so that's similar. I'm all for better local transit. I'm also against things that will make our current environmental situation worse. There's a serious water crisis going on upstate -- and while that's mostly due to industrial agriculture, developing into the everglades creates serious problems for us further down the line. It's not a "new housing is always good" issue, even though the housing situation here is really bad.
posted by JustKeepSwimming at 6:25 AM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


(There are Too. Many. People.)

The USA has 7.7 acres per person of land.
posted by GuyZero at 5:04 PM on June 27 [has favorites +] [!]


Oh if it were that simple. (And is that before or after the 2+ meter rise in sea level?)

The bottom line is, wherever there are people, they need things - you know, like a place to get food, hospitals/doctors/dentists, banks & post offices, schools, jobs, a roof overhead, something to sleep on, clean water, electricity.....

Like Atlanta, new construction here is McMansion or hi rise. Infill development is sorely lacking, and the Missing Middle could easily nest into dozens of spots the bigger options can't.

There *is* something between 0 and 100 that can be just as beautiful, efficient and pleasant a solution.
posted by yoga at 9:48 AM on June 28, 2016


The 1% constitute only 1% of the population.
1) They are unevenly distributed. This is, after all, why gentrification occurs.
2) They consume a disproportionate share of resources and own a staggeringly high share of assets, and their housing footprint reflects this.
3) One of the problems with our income and wealth maldistribution is that just as the 1% can easily outbid the 10%, the 10% can easily outbid the 90%. Likewise, the 0.1% outbid the 1%. The exponentialish distribution means each tier sees those above pulling farther away and the economy caters to the whims of the higher tiers before considering the needs of those lower.
posted by LarsC at 9:51 AM on June 28, 2016 [3 favorites]



The 1% constitute only 1% of the population.
1) They are unevenly distributed. This is, after all, why gentrification occurs.


True, but to expect that no amount of housing construction will satiate the demand of the 1% for housing, is bordering on silly. Except for London, where apartments are a speculative asset more than they are a place of residence for the 1%, no city has to worry about that.



2) They consume a disproportionate share of resources and own a staggeringly high share of assets, and their housing footprint reflects this.


They consume a disproportionate share of gold plated plumbing, granite countertopping and the like, but it's not like luxury condos are built to be McMansions in the sky.


3) One of the problems with our income and wealth maldistribution is that just as the 1% can easily outbid the 10%, the 10% can easily outbid the 90%. Likewise, the 0.1% outbid the 1%. The exponentialish distribution means each tier sees those above pulling farther away and the economy caters to the whims of the higher tiers before considering the needs of those lower.


That's not something you can deal with at the municipal level. But if you do have 1%ers crowding in to your town, you can just let builders build.
posted by ocschwar at 10:01 AM on June 28, 2016


How do we develop in such a way that doesn't encroach upon the everglades? (Or is it too late?)

Based on the people west of Krome ave whose houses are prone to flood I'd say yeah, too late; Miami started encroaching into the glades past the point of negative-for-everyone (except the builders and the politicians who they greased well enough to let them out there) in the late 80s.
posted by phearlez at 11:58 AM on June 28, 2016


I recently moved into a house in Culver City that has empty lots across from it. The houses that were there were torn down for freeway widening, and habit for humanity has been trying for *eleven years* to build some duplexes there. They'll be for sale, most of them for 80% of market value, so they'll still be like $600000+ homes. They need a variance to build them because of lot size restrictions, and the neighborhood has been fighting the development tooth and nail. I went to one planning commission meeting where someone said the development would be "ruining people's lives". And of course complained about property values. Someone whose home has appreciated almost a million dollars since he bought it. (he gave his address. you better believe I looked it up.)
Ironically, according to my realtor, she's gotten calls from people working on other sales asking why my house sold for so little... we just got a great deal on it, so I'm the one bringing property values down.
Anyway, it sounds like it's FINALLY happening, but for fuck's sake it shouldn't've taken that long.
Now a block or so away there's a proposed five story mixed use building proposed, to replace an empty and decaying building. Of COURSE all I've heard about it is hand wringing from neighbors. I've not been to a meeting but I see the posts on next door and get flyers.
I'm all for both developments, for exactly the reasons given above. The housing has to go SOMEWHERE, it's definitely not go to hurt property values for these empty lots to be filled. Also yes more retail I can walk to, great! Parking might get slightly less absurdly easy but the whole neighborhood is mostly R1 or R2 with garages.
Calm your tits, neighborhood. Let development happen.
posted by flaterik at 3:00 PM on June 28, 2016 [9 favorites]


But if you do have 1%ers crowding in to your town, you can just let builders build.

The thing is, though, in SF it's not just literally about 1%ers, it's also about an overall polarization in income. Check out page 10 (PDF). From 1990 to 2010, the very top and the very bottom of the income distributions both grew, especially the top: households making >$200K (adjusted for inflation) actually tripled from 1990 to 2010, while people making ≤$25K increased around 10%. But there was a big decrease in households making $25–75K, falling from around 42% to 27% of the population. And of course Black and Latinx households are way overrepresented among those suffering from poverty so they bear the brunt of this trend in inequality disproportionately. It's difficult to build your way out of those problems. Which isn't to say stop building or don't build, it's just not the whole solution.
posted by en forme de poire at 4:25 PM on June 28, 2016 [1 favorite]


Things that predate 1900 that have been complained about in this thread as not meeting the 1900 infrastructure deadline:
Sewers -- the Paris sewers date to 1370 and rather famously put in an appearance in Les Miz. London's modern system was begun in the 1850s and 1860s, again rather famously after repeatedly cholera epidemics. Chicago's sewers predate the Civil War. Modern sewage treatment began in 1890.
Water treatment -- 1829 in London (1855 for a law that all water had to be filtered). Chlorination experiments in the 1890s but it's true that regular and reliable chlorination post-dates 1900. Fluoridation not until after WWII.
Telephone service -- 1877. In fact, AT&T itself was formed in 1899, and some of the telephone taxes you pay in the US predate 1900.
Residential electrical service -- 1882 in both London and NYC
Omnibuses -- horse drawn from 1820, steam from 1830, electric from the 1880s, motor from 1895.
Light rail -- does not have a specific definition but most of the included technologies predate 1900; for example, electric trams to 1880 and cable trolleys to 1873.

It's true that wireless internet postdates 1900, although wired internet can easily be delivered along your pre-1900 telephone wires (as mine was for quite a long damn time as the old slow form of DSL).

Nobody mentioned but they seem important: Cable television seems like it doesn't count since it can just piggyback on the existing wire-holding infrastructure for electricity and telephone. I feel like cell phone transmission towers are probably the most obvious "new" infrastructure that's actually on the ground. 8 billion TV satellite dishes isn't the most attractive thing but I'm not totally sure those count as civic infrastructure since the infrastructure part is up in orbit somewhere and the dishes are on private buildings. Natural gas for domestic illumination begins in about 1785 and was pretty widespread before 1800 (took longer to harness it for heat, but before 1900). If you live in NYC and happen to get steam, that dates to the 1880s.

Respect your infrastructural history!!!

No, but seriously, this is really interesting sorts of stuff to learn about where you live! I personally receive drinking water from a source developed before 1850 and still in use (although the bulk of the water now comes from additional wells and rivers), over a water system whose mains predate 1900, as do my sewer mains, which is why we're paying a literal billion dollars to modernize the system or facing the wrath of the EPA. It blows my mind that there are people in town grousing about the sudden 50% increase in water rates which have been debated for TEN YEARS before being put into effect, to fund some of this billion dollars, but who have just totally tuned out the part where the water mains and sewers that serve the central part of the system, through which all distribution runs, largely predate the Civil War!

The modern buses here largely cover routes pioneered by streetcars, which brought electrification with them so the streetcars could run, where you can still easily go see electrical poles that are right up against the street because they had to be for the trolley to reach its cables and the arrangement of the electrical distribution system to houses from 100 years ago and sometimes poles that are that old and still unreplaced.

These are interesting things to know about where you live and often kind-of important when debating zoning changes and infill and local taxes and things like that. Like, the fires that followed the 1906 San Francisco earthquake were from ruptured gas lines, so you know that municipal gas lines at least predate 1906, and that if you live in earthquake territory the handling of gas lines should interest you!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:31 PM on June 28, 2016 [7 favorites]


YIMBYism in nature, pros and cons.
posted by meinvt at 7:44 PM on July 15, 2016


« Older Stoya Said Stop.   |   The irony that this essay is a memoir is not lost... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments