5 ms·

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their

> These are people who vote blue, champion diversity, and have generally progressive views. But when push comes to shove they circle the wagons to defend their interests A specific example in the city of Seattle - a neighborhood group sued to delay increasing housing density (read: make housing more affordable). While the suit called for an environmental study, you can easily read between the lines and see that homeowners in the area do not want change, and view increased density as a threat to the character of their neighborhoods. The lawsuit has already delayed a significant increase to the housing stock for the entire city by 2 years. [0] [0] https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-anne-group-again-challenges-plan-to-ease-restrictions-on-backyard-cottages-in-seattle/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/queen-ann...

isoskeles 8y ago
I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY. As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)
- mshenfield 8y ago
  People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.
- britch 8y ago
  You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at. I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it. "I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."
  - illegalsmile 8y ago
    Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.
    - Silfen 8y ago
      Increasing the supply of housing should lower prices, yes. In nearly every neighborhood, single family, detached homes are the most expensive form of housing. There is an effect where improving the consumption benefits of the city may draw new migration from other parts of the country, but it is generally accepted that this effect is much smaller than the effect of increased competition between landlords and developers. If you think that housing somehow operates differently from a normal market - increasing supply will not change the price - it is incumbent on you to explain why you think this might be true.
      - kspaans 8y ago
        Possibly what the grandparent was thinking of is land values. If a neighbourhood is rezoned to allow more density, one would be able to build a duplex or low-rise condo/apartment building where there used to be a single family home. This makes the underlying land more valuable, while probably also making the per-square-foot cost of housing go down. I also suspect as more SFHs get turned into more dense housing, the scarcity of SFHs would make their value jump up as well. One thing that could counteract this would be if property value assessments rose enough such that it became very expensive to own a SFH on land zoned for density, which would encourage most owners to turn them into more dense housing. Though possible one house in a 'hood of low-rise buildings would be less desirable and would only be sold as a teardown. Either way I figure more density would overall be a windfall for landowners (read: homeowners) even as housing prices drop.
poulsbohemian 8y ago
I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tipping over the million dollar mark. That said, where I get flustered is the number of new housing units with inadequate parking or where perfectly good houses are being torn down. Case in point: corner of Market and Phinney. Cute, well-maintained craftsman with a land-use sign in front of it indicating it will be torn down and replaced with a multi-plex unit with only two parking spots. It's likely already an $800K house in that neighborhood, but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. And therein lies an unfortunate twist on the Seattle market: at the moment, supply and demand are not in balance, so even as supply increases, housing still isn't affordable for many. I have no problem with creating greater density. I have no problem with incentivizing public transportation. But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses in already very crowded neighborhoods, it's just annoying on so many levels.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?
  - poulsbohemian 8y ago
    Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built. Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance. Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.
bb2018 8y ago
When I was little I remember my parents getting us hyped up to go around the neighborhood to get signatures for a town vote which would protect the area due to wetlands. We were middle class and Democrat - but certainly not rich and not environmentalists. I cannot remember my parents ever saying anything about wetlands after that. It's clear it was all motivated by property issues, but I didn't realize that until years later.
moorhosj 8y ago
Maybe it's as simple as wanting less development to maintain and increase the value of their currently owned property.

isoskeles 8y ago

I don't agree with them, but increased density is absolutely a "threat" to the character of any neighborhood, not just something they "view" as such. Having more people live in a neighborhood changes everything about it, I don't understand why people neglect this point, like it isn't real or maybe doesn't count because everything NIMBYs say is invalid because we all want cheaper rent. But I am not saying you're doing this, it's just what I see when people talk about NIMBY. As a result of denser housing, rent should go down N%, but your quality of life (if you're not fooling yourself) will also go down slightly as you have to deal with the reality of living near more people. (Longer waits at local stores, more crowded sidewalks, etc. We can pretend this is a "good" thing and that humans are social creatures, but there is a point where it becomes less tolerable to most people.)

mshenfield 8y ago
People in small neighborhoods tend to value the charm, convenience, and connection they have with their communities. I don't want to pretend things won't change, but those qualities can be preserved even as a neighborhood gets dense (Brooklyn might be a good example). Plus, there are additional benefits (transit, shops, services) that tend to come with density.
britch 8y ago
You're absolutely right, it would change the character of the neighborhoods. But the argument you present is exposes the hypocrisy at the center of people in these neighborhoods and hits at some of what Giridharadas is getting at. I suspect many of the generalized Seattle NIMBY's champion affordable housing and decry gentrification, but when the rubber hits the road and they are asked to give up something (neighborhood charm) to actually do something about these problems (increase density to lower housing costs), they actively fight against it. "I like affordable housing as long as I can still live in the same neighborhood and don't have to give anything up."
- illegalsmile 8y ago
  Would increased density actually lead to lower housing costs though? My initial thought is no, especially in a major city such as Seattle.
  - Silfen 8y ago
    Increasing the supply of housing should lower prices, yes. In nearly every neighborhood, single family, detached homes are the most expensive form of housing. There is an effect where improving the consumption benefits of the city may draw new migration from other parts of the country, but it is generally accepted that this effect is much smaller than the effect of increased competition between landlords and developers. If you think that housing somehow operates differently from a normal market - increasing supply will not change the price - it is incumbent on you to explain why you think this might be true.
    - kspaans 8y ago
      Possibly what the grandparent was thinking of is land values. If a neighbourhood is rezoned to allow more density, one would be able to build a duplex or low-rise condo/apartment building where there used to be a single family home. This makes the underlying land more valuable, while probably also making the per-square-foot cost of housing go down. I also suspect as more SFHs get turned into more dense housing, the scarcity of SFHs would make their value jump up as well. One thing that could counteract this would be if property value assessments rose enough such that it became very expensive to own a SFH on land zoned for density, which would encourage most owners to turn them into more dense housing. Though possible one house in a 'hood of low-rise buildings would be less desirable and would only be sold as a teardown. Either way I figure more density would overall be a windfall for landowners (read: homeowners) even as housing prices drop.

poulsbohemian 8y ago

I suspect there are many people in Seattle who recognize the need for more housing and more affordable housing, given the number of neighborhoods that are tipping over the million dollar mark. That said, where I get flustered is the number of new housing units with inadequate parking or where perfectly good houses are being torn down. Case in point: corner of Market and Phinney. Cute, well-maintained craftsman with a land-use sign in front of it indicating it will be torn down and replaced with a multi-plex unit with only two parking spots. It's likely already an $800K house in that neighborhood, but due to pure greed will become a 5x $800K property for someone. And therein lies an unfortunate twist on the Seattle market: at the moment, supply and demand are not in balance, so even as supply increases, housing still isn't affordable for many. I have no problem with creating greater density. I have no problem with incentivizing public transportation. But, when you tear down perfectly charming houses in already very crowded neighborhoods, it's just annoying on so many levels.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
How do you reconcile being "flustered" that housing density is being increased, and at the same time acknowledging the need for much more housing? And you claim have no problem with greater density and incentivizing public transportation, but still want to use up valuable space for parking?
- poulsbohemian 8y ago
  Because I'd rather that density increase by replacing dilapidated buildings or ones that are actually in need of improvement rather than perfectly good ones. I don't know how to actually enforce that in any way, but it's a nuance that is one reason why it sticks in people's craw to see new housing units built. Regarding parking - the problem is, you put up a new space, but only provide parking for maybe 10% of the occupancy (which matches my casual observation of numerous land-use billboards). Ok - the problem is, there isn't enough public transportation for the other 90% of people. So we're creating a problem where we still have way too many cars, people, etc, we're just kicking the problem off into the distance. Or maybe said another way -- it's a perverse incentive, because it lets the land developer off the hook while creating greater strain on streets, parking, IE: it's adding density but not actually planning ahead to accommodate that density.

bb2018 8y ago

When I was little I remember my parents getting us hyped up to go around the neighborhood to get signatures for a town vote which would protect the area due to wetlands. We were middle class and Democrat - but certainly not rich and not environmentalists. I cannot remember my parents ever saying anything about wetlands after that. It's clear it was all motivated by property issues, but I didn't realize that until years later.

moorhosj 8y ago

Maybe it's as simple as wanting less development to maintain and increase the value of their currently owned property.