3 ms·

> It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. +1 > There's a strong argumen

by ridaj 6y ago

> It's perhaps worth considering these as forces to be balanced, rather than one extreme or the other being maximally desirable. +1 > There's a strong argument that the kind of risk, stress, and precariousness you rightly and richly describe are an effect of a NIMBY-induced housing crisis. Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. Both San Francisco and NYC have housing shortage problems but I'm more likely to believe San Francisco's problem is inflicted by NIMBYism than New York's...

astrange 6y ago
NYC is very NIMBY and undemocratic (practically noone votes in local elections). The reason you don't hear about it more is that YIMBYism is not developed enough there for people to complain about it, but the population of NYC is decreasing because of housing supply issues. They also have a lot of left-NIMBY people making wrong arguments based on things they imagine are happening; in this case it's that all new housing is luxury towers that are being bought by "investors" and kept empty, for some reason related to taxes, instead of being rented out.
Kalium 6y ago
> Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. A great many people would characterize SF as highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. I think this would be inaccurate, but they would say it with sincerity. I cannot find good maps on this particular subject, but I would venture to guess that much of NYC is not built of high-rises. It's likely mostly low-rises with a smattering of four to six story buildings built up to or exceeding current zoning. I would venture to guess that trying to get a parcel or an area up-zoned is a politically fraught and potentially quite expensive proposition.

by ridaj 6y ago

astrange 6y ago

NYC is very NIMBY and undemocratic (practically noone votes in local elections). The reason you don't hear about it more is that YIMBYism is not developed enough there for people to complain about it, but the population of NYC is decreasing because of housing supply issues. They also have a lot of left-NIMBY people making wrong arguments based on things they imagine are happening; in this case it's that all new housing is luxury towers that are being bought by "investors" and kept empty, for some reason related to taxes, instead of being rented out.

Kalium 6y ago

> Perhaps, but in my personal case, I think it was the opposite. I experienced this in an environment that is highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. A great many people would characterize SF as highly favorable to private, market-rate high-rise housing development. I think this would be inaccurate, but they would say it with sincerity. I cannot find good maps on this particular subject, but I would venture to guess that much of NYC is not built of high-rises. It's likely mostly low-rises with a smattering of four to six story buildings built up to or exceeding current zoning. I would venture to guess that trying to get a parcel or an area up-zoned is a politically fraught and potentially quite expensive proposition.