6 ms·

of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in

of course, most people feel like the level of density they have now is roughly the correct level density, it just needs to "be cheaper". Nevermind trillions in infrastructure spending on the assumption of low density suburban lifestyle. I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end, but unless there's a cultural shift back towards the idea of stronger property freedoms wrt real estate, I don't see us making strides against housing costs. A lot of the modern zoning code was built to protect us from urban woes that literally do not exist anymore in this country - preventing things like noisy polluting factories next to apartment buildings in the middle of a city. We exported the factories to China and kept the zoning code as a cudgel to prevent dense housing.

dmitrygr 5y ago
Having lived in Chicago, having seen SF's downtown, let me tell you, urban woes are alive and well...
dublinben 5y ago
>urban woes The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racial segregation.[0] [0]https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/ https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/
- helen___keller 5y ago
  I agree, but there were genuinely a lot of issues with industrial revolution living (tenements, poor sanitation, pollution, etc) and preventing these is something I've seen as a pro-zoning talking point.
- dionidium 5y ago
  Yes, but not just that. Euclid v. Ambler makes it clear that modern zoning is also about pathologizing apartment living. It was a direct attack on density, which it literally described as parasitic. The decision is pretty wild: > "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 This is all plainly nonsense. These judges don't like apartment buildings. Great. Good for them. I don't like disco or onions. But they invented a constitutional justification for their distaste from thin air and that's modern zoning.
  - mullingitover 5y ago
    Wow. Yeah, that's some chutzpah: > ...in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Ironically it's the low density that's parasitizing the city because the infrastructure maintenance is far more costly than what the low density residential tax base can support.
swiley 5y ago
>I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end Man I'd just move if I lived somewhere like that. In fact, I did. There's infrastructure, dense housing, etc. I can select exactly what I want in the "affordability, amenities, commute" triangle and am supper happy with what I have. I also pretty much just walked in and filled out the application for my current apartment. There are condos around here that I can afford and I'm thinking about buying one soon. The trip to my parent's isn't too too long so I still visit them (and they visit me) a few times a month. Let the NIMBYs have their crappy low density neighborhoods with half their neighbors living on their lawns. Don't be the man raging against the machine.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  I did, I moved to one of the few municipalities in Greater Boston that experienced double digit percent growth in the past decade. Unfortunately, we're still a tiny fraction of the region as a whole, and there's nothing we can do about the fact that most towns in greater Boston built enough housing to grow their population by maybe 1-3% in a decade (tragically including several with access to rapid transit) - while prices doubled almost everywhere here in the same time frame.
specialist 5y ago
> ...til the bitter end I'm of two minds. #1 Any progress has to done on the down low. Consider our history. Advocacy for fairness, justice, balance always triggers a massive backlash. Meanwhile, massive decades long investment strategy created a rich ecosystem for deeply unpopular policy agenda has resulted in a nearly complete takeover of our government and society. Don't storm the castle. Rock, paper, scissors. There's got to be 100s of small wins which cement a lasting victory. Neither Rome or our liberal democracy were toppled in a day. The attacks were tiny, incremental, seemingly insignificant at the time. What are the administrative, procedural, non-threatening pro-YIMBY reforms which can be rolled out over decades, peicemeal, scattered across the land? #2 Settle for Pyrrhic victories Opportunity for large scale, durable reforms are rare. Maybe every 20 to 40 years. And the effort consumes the coalition advocating the reform. As said above, any amount of progress triggers a massive reactionary backlash. Further, the reform coalition was only held together by the shared goal. Once attained, the coalition will dissolve (or worse). Whereas the coalition of reactionaries is evergreen; their individual motivations don't matter so long as they agree on "No". So go for broke. Maybe someone like Gov Newsom is willing to burn whatever goodwill and political capital they've accumulated in one final glorious battle to cement their legacy.
- zapita 5y ago
  > Don't storm the castle. Rock, paper, scissors. There's got to be 100s of small wins which cement a lasting victory. This is the strategy of the pro-housing coalition in the California legislature and it’s starting to pay off. San Francisco’s state senator Scott Wiener is a crucial player in that coalition. The fact that NIMBY outlets like 48hills are targeting him personally is a sign that he is delivering.

dmitrygr 5y ago

Having lived in Chicago, having seen SF's downtown, let me tell you, urban woes are alive and well...

dublinben 5y ago

>urban woes The "urban woes" that suburban zoning laws were passed to prevent were minorities, not factories. The roots of zoning and NIMBY attitudes are racial segregation.[0] [0]https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/ https://wwnorton.com/books/The-Color-of-Law/

helen___keller 5y ago
I agree, but there were genuinely a lot of issues with industrial revolution living (tenements, poor sanitation, pollution, etc) and preventing these is something I've seen as a pro-zoning talking point.
dionidium 5y ago
Yes, but not just that. Euclid v. Ambler makes it clear that modern zoning is also about pathologizing apartment living. It was a direct attack on density, which it literally described as parasitic. The decision is pretty wild: > "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances." Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/272/365 This is all plainly nonsense. These judges don't like apartment buildings. Great. Good for them. I don't like disco or onions. But they invented a constitutional justification for their distaste from thin air and that's modern zoning.
- mullingitover 5y ago
  Wow. Yeah, that's some chutzpah: > ...in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Ironically it's the low density that's parasitizing the city because the infrastructure maintenance is far more costly than what the low density residential tax base can support.

swiley 5y ago

>I'll fight for YIMBY policy til the bitter end Man I'd just move if I lived somewhere like that. In fact, I did. There's infrastructure, dense housing, etc. I can select exactly what I want in the "affordability, amenities, commute" triangle and am supper happy with what I have. I also pretty much just walked in and filled out the application for my current apartment. There are condos around here that I can afford and I'm thinking about buying one soon. The trip to my parent's isn't too too long so I still visit them (and they visit me) a few times a month. Let the NIMBYs have their crappy low density neighborhoods with half their neighbors living on their lawns. Don't be the man raging against the machine.

helen___keller 5y ago
I did, I moved to one of the few municipalities in Greater Boston that experienced double digit percent growth in the past decade. Unfortunately, we're still a tiny fraction of the region as a whole, and there's nothing we can do about the fact that most towns in greater Boston built enough housing to grow their population by maybe 1-3% in a decade (tragically including several with access to rapid transit) - while prices doubled almost everywhere here in the same time frame.

specialist 5y ago

> ...til the bitter end I'm of two minds. #1 Any progress has to done on the down low. Consider our history. Advocacy for fairness, justice, balance always triggers a massive backlash. Meanwhile, massive decades long investment strategy created a rich ecosystem for deeply unpopular policy agenda has resulted in a nearly complete takeover of our government and society. Don't storm the castle. Rock, paper, scissors. There's got to be 100s of small wins which cement a lasting victory. Neither Rome or our liberal democracy were toppled in a day. The attacks were tiny, incremental, seemingly insignificant at the time. What are the administrative, procedural, non-threatening pro-YIMBY reforms which can be rolled out over decades, peicemeal, scattered across the land? #2 Settle for Pyrrhic victories Opportunity for large scale, durable reforms are rare. Maybe every 20 to 40 years. And the effort consumes the coalition advocating the reform. As said above, any amount of progress triggers a massive reactionary backlash. Further, the reform coalition was only held together by the shared goal. Once attained, the coalition will dissolve (or worse). Whereas the coalition of reactionaries is evergreen; their individual motivations don't matter so long as they agree on "No". So go for broke. Maybe someone like Gov Newsom is willing to burn whatever goodwill and political capital they've accumulated in one final glorious battle to cement their legacy.

zapita 5y ago
> Don't storm the castle. Rock, paper, scissors. There's got to be 100s of small wins which cement a lasting victory. This is the strategy of the pro-housing coalition in the California legislature and it’s starting to pay off. San Francisco’s state senator Scott Wiener is a crucial player in that coalition. The fact that NIMBY outlets like 48hills are targeting him personally is a sign that he is delivering.