4 ms·

The NIMBYs described don’t value density, they value access. Speaking for myself, I only value density as a means to establishing a global “right of return”, w

The NIMBYs described don’t value density, they value access. Speaking for myself, I only value density as a means to establishing a global “right of return”, which I believe is a moral good: Human ecologies are healthier when children who grow up in a place have the option to remain, or to return after exploring. Oakland, right now, is forcing out large numbers of indigenous people, young and old, perhaps never to return. I don’t care about the density of Oakland, I just care that people who have spent part of their development here can continue to embody the geography. As long as there is a supply of wealthy would-be immigrants (which shows no sign of slowing) then that means I am for increasing density. But it’s a means to an end.

istjohn 8y ago
I hear you. I imagine people have many different reasons for self-identifying as YIMBYs. In the context of the article, the theory of agglomeration effects cited by the author posits that increasing a city's density makes a city more attractive, and thus exerts an upward pressure on property values. > This supply-demand model ignores something important: the value of living in a particular place is greatly determined by how many people live around it. As the number of people living in a place increases, so does the value of being there. This is often labeled the "agglomeration effect". I'm not familiar with the empirical evidence for the agglomeration effect, but if it's real, it indicates that aside from whatever specific arguments one can make for or against dense cities, the market values density. The author suggests some plausible reasons why the market might value density, but really it's kind of besides the point why density is valued by the market (which represents the demonstrated preferences of you and I and every other economic actor). If the market values density, and there are perverse incentives which prevent cities from increasing density (the interests of existing property owners), it behooves us to intervene at the national level. One can make a number of other orthogonal arguments for increasing density: smaller environmental footprint, increased diversity and social mobility in communities, equality of opportunity and access, and your argument for a "right of return," to name a few.
- zjaffee 8y ago
  As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities, I still think it's important to make note of the major negatives of density. Namely, what happens to overbuilt places during periods of population decline (as maintenance of existing real estate becomes virtually impossible to afford). What happens to those living in the area should there be a major environmental or political crisis (it's much harder to evacuate manhattan than most other places). And how can we scale our infrastructure concurrently with increases to density such that transportation and other government resources are never lacking.
  - rsync 8y ago
    "As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities" I also appreciate (and spend a lot of time in) dense cities and I wish that a lot of SF were much denser. But I appreciate grass roots, local control more and I am alarmed at how quickly principles of democracy are thrown out the window when they produce "the wrong kind of results".
    - closeparen 8y ago
      >local control Local control is elitism: the people who are local to desirable places control everything that matters. Justifying that by saying the rest of us have "local control" over our Rust Belt garbage dumps and third-world hellholes is worse than the doctrine of Separate But Equal. Democracy means it is not only the rich who vote on taxation, not only the business owners who vote on regulation, not only the defense contractors who vote on foreign policy, even though each is the primary stakeholder in their respective issue. In the same way, it should not only be the homeowners in desirable cities who vote on access to those cities.
pmiller2 8y ago
> Human ecologies are healthier when children who grow up in a place have the option to remain, or to return after exploring. You obviously didn't grow up anywhere near where I did. I could easily buy property where I grew up, but there's no opportunity for me there, other than as a remote worker, and I don't prefer that. I get more value out of paying 3x what I would for my 2BR apartment here than living there.
- graeme 8y ago
  They said "the option", not the obligation.
jhayward 8y ago
I would appreciate it if the conversation could refrain from disrespecting people they disagree with, such as calling people "NIMBYs" as an epithet. I don't think it's a helpful label - it is more of a tribal/disrespect marker.
Robotbeat 8y ago
But it's impossible to return if the housing prices are so high. That's the thing NIMBY's completely miss: NIMBY policies cause displacement of middle class and poor people by giving them no affordable housing in the area. YIMBY policies actually increase access for people wishing to return and enable indigenous people--even those who aren't rich--to stay in the area.
- erikpukinskis 8y ago
  Oops, I typed NIMBY when I meant YIMBY

istjohn 8y ago

I hear you. I imagine people have many different reasons for self-identifying as YIMBYs. In the context of the article, the theory of agglomeration effects cited by the author posits that increasing a city's density makes a city more attractive, and thus exerts an upward pressure on property values. > This supply-demand model ignores something important: the value of living in a particular place is greatly determined by how many people live around it. As the number of people living in a place increases, so does the value of being there. This is often labeled the "agglomeration effect". I'm not familiar with the empirical evidence for the agglomeration effect, but if it's real, it indicates that aside from whatever specific arguments one can make for or against dense cities, the market values density. The author suggests some plausible reasons why the market might value density, but really it's kind of besides the point why density is valued by the market (which represents the demonstrated preferences of you and I and every other economic actor). If the market values density, and there are perverse incentives which prevent cities from increasing density (the interests of existing property owners), it behooves us to intervene at the national level. One can make a number of other orthogonal arguments for increasing density: smaller environmental footprint, increased diversity and social mobility in communities, equality of opportunity and access, and your argument for a "right of return," to name a few.

zjaffee 8y ago
As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities, I still think it's important to make note of the major negatives of density. Namely, what happens to overbuilt places during periods of population decline (as maintenance of existing real estate becomes virtually impossible to afford). What happens to those living in the area should there be a major environmental or political crisis (it's much harder to evacuate manhattan than most other places). And how can we scale our infrastructure concurrently with increases to density such that transportation and other government resources are never lacking.
- rsync 8y ago
  "As someone who supports some aspects of YIMBYism almost entirely because I like very dense cities" I also appreciate (and spend a lot of time in) dense cities and I wish that a lot of SF were much denser. But I appreciate grass roots, local control more and I am alarmed at how quickly principles of democracy are thrown out the window when they produce "the wrong kind of results".
  - closeparen 8y ago
    >local control Local control is elitism: the people who are local to desirable places control everything that matters. Justifying that by saying the rest of us have "local control" over our Rust Belt garbage dumps and third-world hellholes is worse than the doctrine of Separate But Equal. Democracy means it is not only the rich who vote on taxation, not only the business owners who vote on regulation, not only the defense contractors who vote on foreign policy, even though each is the primary stakeholder in their respective issue. In the same way, it should not only be the homeowners in desirable cities who vote on access to those cities.

pmiller2 8y ago

> Human ecologies are healthier when children who grow up in a place have the option to remain, or to return after exploring. You obviously didn't grow up anywhere near where I did. I could easily buy property where I grew up, but there's no opportunity for me there, other than as a remote worker, and I don't prefer that. I get more value out of paying 3x what I would for my 2BR apartment here than living there.

graeme 8y ago
They said "the option", not the obligation.

jhayward 8y ago

I would appreciate it if the conversation could refrain from disrespecting people they disagree with, such as calling people "NIMBYs" as an epithet. I don't think it's a helpful label - it is more of a tribal/disrespect marker.

Robotbeat 8y ago

But it's impossible to return if the housing prices are so high. That's the thing NIMBY's completely miss: NIMBY policies cause displacement of middle class and poor people by giving them no affordable housing in the area. YIMBY policies actually increase access for people wishing to return and enable indigenous people--even those who aren't rich--to stay in the area.

erikpukinskis 8y ago
Oops, I typed NIMBY when I meant YIMBY