11 ms·
Steelmanning the NIMBYs
- CPLX 8y agoThis reminds me of those 20,000 word articles that explain why weight loss is impossible and diets don’t work. Coming to the Bay Area from living in NYC or traveling around Europe, you see a city full of 1-2 story single family homes, or Apple building a massive campus with literally no connection to rapid transit, and it’s like watching someone living off Mountain Dew and donuts and wondering why things aren’t going well. Like build some fucking apartment buildings and run some trains to places where the jobs and housing are. It’s not that fucking complicated.
- falcolas 8y agoIt is, however, expensive. Someone has to pay for all of the real estate being condemned for the new buildings (and ideally they're paying fair market value, and not rock-bottom prices). They then have to put up the buildings themselves and improve the transit to and from the new buildings. NYC was able to do this because they did it 50, 70, 100 years ago. Today, they're just building over the same footprints as they had already carved out. Property was less expensive, and the government/companies under fewer moral constraints then.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- adrianN 8y agoIt is my understanding that zoning laws is SF prevent people from buying real estate in order to build apartment buildings, no matter how much money they offer.
- falcolas 8y agoThe laws do need to change first, but that wouldn't change the need to buy the land which will, based on past experiences, involve the city having to come in and force some people out.
- venantius 8y agoBetter transit would go a long way, it's true. But for reasons we haven't really been able to diagnose, building new transit infrastructure -- any big infrastructure projects, really -- has become ludicrously expensive in the US. It's almost certainly still worth the investment, but the numbers are so eye-popping that it requires significant goverment subsidizing, which runs into political problems that are hard to get around in the current environment.
- claydavisss 8y agoThe VTA knew Apple of Apple's construction plans for years and yet made no effort to extend light rail to the new campus. Instead they continue to make "investments" in "communities of need" since apparently wealthy tech workers are not deserving of government spending. If you dispute this, go look at how much unused transit capacity exists in East and South San Jose while places like Mountain View and Cupertino receive no attention. You can't even take the VTA to San Jose airport, because flying is also something rich people do. It got so bad that Palo Alto threatened to leave the VTA entirely. This is what happens when a transit agency stops addressing transit needs to focus on "justice". If you think anything has changed, go look at the VTA's projected plans...dumping even more government spending in places where their existing investment sits idle. Indeed, the VTA is actually reducing their commitments outside of San Jose over time...its all in their plans available for public review.
- tom_ 8y agoScare quotes are rarely a good look.
- jasode 8y ago>Like build some fucking apartment buildings and run some trains to places where the jobs and housing are. It’s not that fucking complicated. Are you addressing what the author wrote because it seems like Scott Alexander says it may be more complicated than you claim. He wrote: >suppose San Francisco dectupled its housing growth for decades, until it was packed border to border with skyscrapers, and was exactly as dense as Manhattan. In a simple supply-based model, the glut of supply should make rents crash to only a few hundred dollars a month or less. But in actual Manhattan, single-bedroom apartments cost $3800 a month – even more than in San Francisco! If your theory predicts that turning a city into Manhattan will make rents plummet, then consider that turning Manhattan into Manhattan made rents much worse, and so maybe your theory is wrong.
- orblivion 8y agoI didn't buy this argument in particular (though the article in general was compelling). Housing follows jobs. It's not as though there are hedge funds there because a bunch of people with finance degrees decided to move to Manhattan. And even if such a network effect kicks in, there's a limit to what that industry can sustain. Also how many of those high rises are residential?
- frgtpsswrdlame 8y ago>even if At least read the article man. Besides it's perfectly possible that what you posit in Manhattan is true and saying that there's a limit says nothing about how close we are to it. If that limit is far off then agglomeration effects outweighing increasing supply is still a possibility far into the future. We're willing to accept that the demand curve for labor is upward sloping - that's our justification for immigration. So why is it so hard to accept even the possibility that in certain locations the demand curve for housing is also upward sloping?
- humanrebar 8y agoHe ignores that Manhattan housing growth is also terrible. He also ignores that a lot of Manhattan workers live in other burroughs, cities, and even states.
- rb808 8y agoWait. Apple is the most valuable company in the world, in the most economically successful region of the world. And you're saying they're doing it wrong and should be more like Europe? I think your biases are blinding your objectivity.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- epistasis 8y agoBeing right or wrong is not a 100% thing across all subjects. It's not Apple that's responsible for building rail, for zoning for apartments, it's the city. The city itself is not responsible for Apple's success either, and many of the residents would rather that Apple had never been sited in Cupertino so they wouldn't have to deal with all those other people. That's the problem with Cupertino; a bunch of people moved there and changed it, and thought, "now that I'm here it's finally perfect and we shouldn't let anybody else in." That type of planning attitude, of "build it once and never let it change," is not something that's succeeded ever in the history of mankind. But we'll see how long it lasts this time.
- empath75 8y agoThe only argument he made that I agree with is that people resisting what they perceive as negative changes to their neighborhood is natural and not particularly blame worthy, but it’s not particularly convincing as an argument to heed their wishes. One of the things that government ought to do is force people to do what they don’t want to, when it benefits the people as a whole. That’s the thinking behind eminent domain, for example. This is particularly true when people’s fear of change isn’t particularly rational. My parents used to swear up and down the dc metro expanding would bring crime out to the suburbs (by which they meant black people, of course), but the reality is that it increased property values and improved quality of life in almost every case. I do think that moving tech companies out of San Francisco is the only feasible solution to housing prices. I don’t understand why people keep starting them there, or why they stay there. There’s no way the premium they pay to have an office there can be worth it.
- MrBuddyCasino 8y agoOne data point I heard is that all the VCs are there, and they do not like to travel.
- black6 8y ago> One of the things that government ought to do is force people to do what they don’t want to... It doesn’t matter what is past the ellipses, because in the absence of a crime against another, a government should never force its people to do or give up anything.
- empath75 8y agoPeople pay taxes to build roads etc. Unless you’re a radical libertarian that’s how it works.
- beaconstudios 8y ago> One of the things that government ought to do is force people to do what they don’t want to, when it benefits the people as a whole. Or in this case: force one set of people to do what they don't want to do, at the behest of a different set of people. You can't argue for the benefit of "the people" when you're privileging one subset of "the people" over another.
- claydavisss 8y agoHe missed one of the obvious ones that YIMBYs paper over - if you just build more housing rapidly without building out other infrastructure at approximately the same time, you just make everyone's life hell. The typical response is that infrastructure will eventually address congestion concerns...meanwhile BART still has not fulfilled the vision that was laid out in 60s. How long are people supposed to wait?
- TheTrotters 8y agoHigher density would obviously put much more pressure on local governments to build the necessary infrastructure and it’d increase their tax revenue to fund these projects.
- claydavisss 8y agoIn theory.
- mannykannot 8y agoThe evidence needed to assess the probability of that outcome can be found in New York City.
- Redoubts 8y agoDidn't they sell control of the MTA to the state?
- emodendroket 8y agoIn the past ten years Boston's traffic has literally gotten twice as bad. Governor Baker thinks the MBTA's budget woes are because it serves too many places (and it poorly serves various areas of the city and the metro area). You tell me how well this squares up with your claim.
- venantius 8y agoIt has been pointed out previously that BART's infrastructure was totally reasonable...for the original level of growth the city assumed it would face. Meanwhile, SF's actual population growth has exceeded that to a considerable degree.
- epistasis 8y agoFor those unfamiliar with the terminology, "steelmanning" is a play on the term "strawman." But instead of making an opponent's argument that's easy to push over, you try to make a very strong version of your opponent's argument.
- ummonk 8y ago>Sorry for having to say this, but YIMBYism is one of the most tribal, most emotional, most closed-minded movements I have ever seen this side of a college campus. Why do supposed “rationalists” insist on trying to advocate everything through dispassionate, logical discourse? Do they really not realize how ineffective that is in the competition of ideas for human mindshare? Do they have zero understanding of human psychology and sociological group dynamics?
- tom_ 8y agoIf they did something else, they might be more persuasive, but would they still be rationalists?
- Anderkent 8y agoBecause we like to establish whether the ideas are good before trying to push them into the 'competition in the human mindshare'.
- ummonk 8y agoYIMBYs have already done that for themselves, and are now in the advocacy phase.
- emodendroket 8y agoThis article is specifically considering the question: are YIMBY ideas good? Why might they not be?
- Anderkent 8y agoSure, but there's a ton of different groups that have already 'established for themselves' that they're right, and are in 'advocacy phrase'. Every group has people who advocate for the group beliefs in emotional, close-minded ways. Groups that have accurate beliefs will also have people who argue more dispassionately. If you see a discourse dominated almost exclusively by tribal back-patting, it should put their beliefs in question.
- 8y ago
- rb808 8y agoIt completely missed the point that allowing more people to live in the Bay Area will likely degrade the quality of life for the people that live there now. Sure you could turn Palo Alto into a Manhattan look alike - why would current residents want that?
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoWe're not yet a Soviet bloc country. Deciding who's to be allowed to live somewhere is not quite democratic? Nor free market, nor capitalist. This idea is pernicious, that because I can think of a better way for things to work, there should be rules to make them work that way. Its not in alignment with US values, yet so many folks are on that bandwagon. Part of the great divide in US politics at the moment.
- rb808 8y agoYou're free to live there, just pay up. I'd like a Malibu beach house too but it isn't going to ever happen.
- isoskeles 8y agoWe're not deciding who gets to live here, we're deciding what gets to be built here. It's a fairly common idea in most cities. On a case-by-case basis, San Francisco gets it wrong quite a bit. A most recent example is the "historic" laundromat that some city officials have prevented from being developed into more housing.
- JoeAltmaier 8y agoYeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Also, responding to the comment that did go there, talking about who's allowed
- emodendroket 8y ago> Yeah that's all foreign to me, as I live in a county that has no real code and no inspectors. I build what I like on my property. Really? If you wanted to build an abattoir, or a factory, on the property your house is on, that would be allowed?
- innocentfelon 8y agoIt’s time we passed a moratorium on building articles like this that fail to address the real villain in this affair: vacant properties deliberately kept vacant, because tenants drive property values way down. San Francisco bears way too much resemblance to an end-stage game of Monopoly, where one player owns almost all the properties, there’s no more paper money in the bank, and there are no more houses or hotels left in the box. That last $150 house on Marvin Gardens (the only misspelled property) isn’t getting built to generate a good ROI- it’s built to either ruin the competition when they stay there (driving them to the poor house- sound familiar?), or because there’s literally no more places to stash your wealth. Tossing the game board sure sounds like the only good move left to make. That, or getting up to leave.
- exp1orer 8y agoLooking at data from the US Census [1], in 2017 the SF-Oakland-Hayward metro area had: * a rental vacancy rate of 4.2% (8th lowest out of the 75 largest metro areas) * a homeowner vacancy rate of 0.7% (11th lowest) The rates were similar for the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metro area. It's possible there are issues with this data, or that it's not measuring the phenomenon you're discussing, but this certainly seems to suggest that SF doesn't have a ton of vacant properties. [1] https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann17ind.html https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/data/ann17ind.html
- innocentfelon 8y agoThere needs to be a similar moratorium on this red herring of an argument. Buildings off the rental market don’t count as vacant rentals. Failure to understand this normally subtle distinction retards the progress of this discussion. If I said there are very few single women in SF because 98% of marriage-minded women are married, you’d see the flaw in the reasoning I’m talking about.
- epistasis 8y agoThis is not a very effective way to convince bystanders that have not yet already come to a conclusion. I'm left wondering what you mean, but also afraid to engage because you're pretty hostile to what seems to be some great data around what you're saying. But to address that data, you now say that clearly what we thought you were saying was not what you meant, and that we should be disallowed from bringing up data? But at the risk that I'm continuing to misunderstand what you're saying, could you point out an example of a building that should be for rent but that is vacant instead, as an example so that we can understand you? What mechanism do you suggest that can find such buildings and compel them to become rented? Are you suggesting something like building on vacant land or underutilized land (the YIMBY position), or just existing buildings?
- emodendroket 8y agoI really liked this article, which was a lot more thoughtful and less "preaching talking points to the already-converted" than most articles I see posted on the subject.
- dgritsko 8y agoHighly recommend you check out more of Scott's blog posts, they are almost always thought-provoking and insightful.
- cagenut 8y agoThis is fantastic, in that it does such an awful job its almost like a deliberate counter-argument. To the authors credit he's gone back and edited in notes where he was wrong/off, but the resulting article reads like a self-takedown. Or at least the top half does. The bottom half reads like standard suburban reactionary boilerplate. "cities are gross I like to live in the country" nonsense by people who want their well-paved sprawl and quarter acre castle subsidized and protected by everyone else.
- emodendroket 8y agoSince he says he's "steel-manning," it seems that he is actually of the YIMBY position but is deliberately trying to put the opposite position forward in its strongest form. So I don't really think your personal attacks are even relevant.
- cagenut 8y agoIts not a personal attack its barely far from a direct quote. The fact that you read it as a personal attack means you either a.) didn't read the article or b.) so strongly identify with that side that you defensively view criticism of it as personal.
- emodendroket 8y agoYou're going to have to show me where he describes himself as a "[person] who wants [his] well-paved sprawl and quarter acre castle subsidized and protected by everyone else."
- cagenut 8y agoI dunno what to tell you man, try reading the article again? Most of that stuff is in point #4.
- emodendroket 8y agoIf it's "almost a direct quote," surely you can show me the passage it paraphrases? Otherwise I might be tempted to think it's a glib gloss on his ideas that's gratuitously insulting.
- bootsz 8y ago> But in actual Manhattan, single-bedroom apartments cost $3800 a month – even more than in San Francisco! I'm not sure this accurately captures the comparison between Manhattan and SF housing. I'm guessing this figure is an "average cost" but probably heavily skewed by certain downtown neighborhoods. Manhattan is super expensive for sure but I still think the market is substantially better than SF. In NYC you have tons of options as to where to live either within Manhattan or in one of the boroughs, and pretty much everywhere has good transit access to get you downtown reasonably quickly. Yeah, if you try to live in Tribeca you're gonna pay an insane amount for a 1 bedroom, but just go uptown and prices drop off considerably, well below SF prices, and still within quick walking distance to multiple subways. Secondly in NY there's definitely more housing supply: you can go apartment hunting and have a lease signed before the end of the first day. That seems to be how it goes for most people I know here.
- alexhutcheson 8y agoIt's also just wrong. You can get a nice 1 bedroom in a nice neighborhood in Manhattan near the subway for ~$3000/month. You can go significantly lower than that in Bushwick, Astoria, Washington Heights, etc. Not sure where the $3800 figure came from, but it's easy to be mislead by what you see on Streeteasy, Zillow, etc. The most overpriced units stay on the market for a long time, because they're a bad deal, so you'll see lots of them if you check at any point in time. Underpriced units get rented quickly, so you'll see less of them.
- berbec 8y ago79th & 1st. I'm currently living in a 1 bedroom for $2300
- MisterTea 8y agoTrue. I'm a native NYC dweller and live in the Ozone Park/Woodhaven area. Not a happening place but there is plenty of good food and convenience stores. I walk less than 5 minutes to the A train and I'm in downtown in about 35-45 minutes. Midtown in under an hour. Rent around the neighborhood is around 1200-1600 for single bedrooms and 1700-2500 for 2/3 bedroom. And these places arent roach motels, many are newly renovated. NYC is plenty affordable unless you're making at or near minimum wage or spend a substantial amount of money on take out or prepared gourmet food.
- ryanmarsh 8y agoThere are people who like all sorts of things. Some people like being tied up, whipped, and electrocuted by strangers. And a disproportionate number of these people live in San Francisco. I am just saying this isn’t a coincidence. Best line in the article. The author legitimately raises many good points. I’ve never understood the supply and demand argument for YIMBY’s, particularly in the Bay Area. That’s not how cities work in the 21st century. More housing would just make SF into a stronger more desirable economic epicenter thus keeping rents high. Manhattan is a perfect example. The points about Austin stand as well. Austin has had tons of available prime real estate for a long time. It still has plenty. Having, over the past 20+ years, watched SF become Mordor, Seattle become SF, and Austin become Seattle. I think this may just be the natural progression of things.
- ucaetano 8y ago> How does this compare to other cities? This is the BS part of the article. The author shouldn't be comparing to other US cities, but to other large cities in the world that don't have a housing crisis. His argument is picking a sick person, and comparing to other sick people for differences, instead of comparing to other healthy people. Almost all the cities he mentions have housing crisis, but he was either too ignorant or too dishonest to realize that. Tokyo, no available land, builds an entire new San Francisco every 2.5 years for the past 20 years. The article is incompetence at best, but most likely, given the "depth" of the analysis, intellectual dishonesty.
- emodendroket 8y agoTokyo is not particularly affordable.
- ucaetano 8y agoOh, it is, far more affordable than most of the US cities. Not only that, but over the past 20 years, the housing prices have increased just slightly above inflation. https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3c60 https://www.ft.com/content/023562e2-54a6-11e6-befd-2fc0c26b3... https://www.weetas.com/article/rent-income-ratio-17-major-cities/ https://www.weetas.com/article/rent-income-ratio-17-major-ci...
- quelltext 8y agoIf you compare by price per sqm you are probably right, but places are just generally smaller so you are in the same boat as everyone else. People can typically afford to rent their own apartment.
- emodendroket 8y agoI think it also comes out unfavorably if you compare average income to average rent, but I admit it's been years since I have really looked into it.
- 8y ago
- donatj 8y agoI think the problem is just the unreasonable demand to be in the Bay. Why would any company or their workers want to be in the bay? This is the part I don’t understand. Sure, as a bay developer I could make more money, but my actual spending power would likely be way lower than it already is. Sure, you as a company are near other tech companies but does physical location really matter in this day and age? I have a ten minute commute, live in a burb and commute to a neighboring burb. My rent is dirt cheap. I don’t see the appeal, it feels like mass hysteria to me.
- ryandrake 8y agoWhat happens during the next tech downturn, when there are no companies near your burb hiring? That’s what I asked myself before moving out to Bay Area. I’ve been through two major tech dry-ups, both living outside of tech hubs, and having zero employment options in a 200 mile radius sucks. During 2008 I had two months left until I would be living out of my car. I’ll take my chances here in Silicon Valley where there are major established firms on every street corner.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> I think the problem is just the unreasonable demand to be in the Bay. Having a utility function that favors certain conditions isn't unreasonable. > Why would any company or their workers want to be in the bay? Workers want it for climate, social, and cultural reasons, among others. Companies want it because that's where the existing pool of workers is and many of them are resistant to leaving. (Also, for some of the same reasons, the VCs and people they want for their boards.)1
- village-idiot 8y agoI think the author does a lot of harm to their argument by cherry picking data and then having to retract the points. Furthermore, I think the author is losing a bit of historical context. For all of human history settlements have grown from a central point outwards. There has been a highly dense core, with decreasing density towards the suburbs. As time progresses the density spreads too to match demand and economic growth. Only in the past century or so have large numbers of people been able to demand that this density spread stop or reverse itself, typically with the application of zoning regulations. This has put undue pressure on the cities where this happens between those trying to continue an ancient growth pattern, and those who are trying to stop it. So from a very large historical view, those living on the outskirts of a city complaining about the spread of density are being unreasonable, because this is exactly what successful cities have done for all of human history.
- emodendroket 8y agoFor most of history, people dumped human waste into the street. Appeals to an idyllic past are suspect to me.
- village-idiot 8y agoIt's not an appeal to an idyllic past. It's the recognition that human development seems to follow a pretty consistent pattern, and that fighting it is going to take a lot of energy and have unintended consequences. If you notice that a certain part of a mountain near you has consistent avalanches, then you really shouldn't be surprised if a home built near it gets knocked flat on a regular basis. You can build a giant wall next to it, but at a certain point you should recognize that you ought to build elsewhere. Similarly, if you want to live a low density lifestyle, don't build close to a thriving metropolis. The only time they don't spread is if they start to fail, or if there is some natural barrier stopping growth.
- emodendroket 8y agoFor most of human history there has not been such a great incentive to live in or near a large city. Because there is such an incentive, you now see people struggling to build enclaves they like living in that are reasonably close to work, rather than going to live in the Great Plains. I don't really see that much about human development is "natural;" humans control the process and are free to make decisions about it.
- Eridrus 8y agoI liked SF and Oakland when I lived there, but I moved to NYC and don't really want to move back. And that makes me take the comment about whether the tech industry should be in the bay area fairly seriously. I work for a Big Tech company, and our org, which has highly visible products and exciting work, is struggling to hire people in the bay area. People don't want to move there, and there is huge competition for the people already there, including from other internal teams, so we're expanding more at other sites.
- Balgair 8y agoSemi-related aside: What the heck is up with BART's noise!? That thing is really really loud. Some sections are quiet-ish, sure, but the loud sections make me cover my ears. What is going on there?