6 ms·

I think the proposal of the Strong Towns organization is among the best I have seen balancing between YIMBY absolutists and NIMBY absolutists. The problem with

I think the proposal of the Strong Towns organization is among the best I have seen balancing between YIMBY absolutists and NIMBY absolutists. The problem with NIMBY absolutists is obvious -- it becomes impossible to expand the housing supply in areas that need expansion. The problem with YIMBY absolutists is also obvious -- it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. (Though, arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a housing crisis, but the Strong Towns proposal is geared towards never letting a housing crisis happen in the first place) The Strong Towns compromise is that it should always be legal to build the next increment of housing stock relative to whatever is the most common in the area. Where the increments are defined something like: single family -> duplex/triplex -> row house -> low rise apartments -> mid rise apartments -> high rise apartments. In a neighborhood with a majority of housing stock at one level, it should always be legal to build the next level. The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" over a few decades.

oconnore 4y ago
> it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes You mean because then it would be in their back yard? Or why?
- elefanten 4y ago
  Because the surrounding infrastructure wasn't made for that density, and it takes way longer to retrofit than it does to throw up density, lowering the quality of life for the existing residents.
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Isn't that a chicken and egg problem ? Perhaps you'd authorize that kind of development under condition of adding sime more infra to support the additional residents, but in itself getting a tower of residents doesn't look like an issue.
- jelliclesfarm 4y ago
  You’d have to expand power grid, more water, city employees, build a new school, parking, roads, shopping for the influx of new residents, more police, more fire dept hires. Further, no one bought and built a 7 bedroom and 9 bath room home on an acre lot to live next to a few hundred people. It’s utterly irrational and illogical. It completely denies the role of status seeking behaviour in our societies which is a human universal. We need wealthy people enjoying all the trappings of wealth and feel special about their status because it is them who are subsidizing the vast majority of the rest of the population. If you don’t reward the golden goose, no free golden egg. Fight the right battle.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    Not sure what you're referring to, but having a 7+ bedroom that sits on multiple lots in a SFH neighborhood is a single of wealth where I'm at. The fact that it sits in a dense community near a city is a bonus. I've seen some really beautiful homes out in the country as well, but they aren't that practical unless you are retired.
akira2501 4y ago
> The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" over a few decades. Which doesn't seem a bad idea.. but where does the level of employment and services factor into this? If an area expands economically, you're going to need to expand housing options, regardless of what was traditionally there.. if the area does not produce a lot of economic activity, then allowing more low density housing is ostensibly not a problem.
- function_seven 4y ago
  If property owners have the option to convert single family homes into duplexes, they can do that. Then if there's not enough demand for their units, they lower the rent until they fill the units. If demand is really high, then more property owners will start converting. If demand remains high, eventually those duplexes will be cleared out for some modest apartment complexes. For areas that don't have a lot of economic activity, I think very few homeowners will go through the expense of converting their properties because they won't be able to make the money back on rent. In those areas it would be more efficient to build new SFHs on vacant lots. Either way, with byzantine zoning rules out of the picture, the pricing and incentives to build, sell, or rent will match the local area much better.
sidewndr46 4y ago
I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd allow existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into duplexes. It's not like suburbia is going to line up in droves to have their house converted into a duplex. This solves basically nothing because if there were pure market forces most of America's cities. would have ceased to be SFH long ago. Slow conversion into duplexes simultaneous pisses off the NIMBYs and doesn't really help add supply in any great deal. The evening news quote for this would be something like "if it were up to us, we'd build the new high rise today. But the city requires us to build several buildings, have people move in, evict them, then demolish that & start over. Something has to change with this process"
- CPLX 4y ago
  > I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd allow existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into duplexes. Twice as much housing is a lot more housing.
  - sidewndr46 4y ago
    But it isn't. You think all those SFH lots are just going overnight become a duplex? Why would the retired lady who walks her dogs and tends the garden care about building a duplex? Now when her kids inherit the home & sell it to a developer, sure it'll happen then. But that is a slow, generational process.
    - jspaetzel 4y ago
      Yeah exactly, it's a nice slow process that wouldn't piss people off by having too much rapid change.
      - sidewndr46 4y ago
        I think you need to meet some of the NIMBYs where I live.
      - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago
mikebenfield 4y ago
NIMBY absolutists exist, and in fact are pretty common. There really are people who will oppose any new construction at all, even at the cost of destroying the livability of their city. But do what you describe as “YIMBY absolutists” actually exist? Maybe they do, but from my perspective I don’t really see anyone arguing that everything should be buildable everywhere.
- kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
  There's also BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody) which is perhaps a bit more tongue in cheek. It also sounds like the "YIMBY absolutists" mentioned in the GP.
fasthands9 4y ago
If it is economical to build a 30 story condo then you can be assured the area is either a very dense city or an extremely rich suburb. I don't think either areas deserves special protection. I suppose I would take the above proposal over the status quo if it truly eliminated local control - but otherwise seems like a very long time for a neighborhood to upzone. Its almost never going to be economical to tear down a SFH and build a triplex unless the SFH is in disrepair - which may be after 50 years from initial construction in most cases.
Brian_K_White 4y ago
"arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a housing crisis" This. It means, if you don't want your precious quality of life messed up, be nicer to all those other people you normally think you don't have to give a shit about. If there wasn't a mass of people with no good jobs or housing, then there wouldn't be an ugly tower being built in your back yard. If your neighbor had his own food, he wouldn't need to steal yours, and you wouldn't have to live within your own private prison.
zajio1am 4y ago
> single family -> duplex/triplex Duplex gives almost no advantage in housing density, but adds more complications due to shared parts of constructions.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
> The problem with YIMBY absolutists is also obvious -- it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. Very few people suggest this seriously, and in any case allowing for this in the market, it's unlikely any developer would do that. Skyscrapers make sense when the land there is particularly in demand, above and beyond what you're likely to find in a SFH neighborhood (unless it's some grandfathered-in area of Manhattan).
TulliusCicero 4y ago
This is a perfectly fine idea if you currently have an okay housing market. But a lot of cities are so far behind that they need a lot more very quickly. You need more radical rezoning to actually help people soon for that. Of course, the most likely outcome is politicians hemming and hawing some more, putting forth grossly inadequate solutions, and passing the buck to the next generation, as is tradition.

oconnore 4y ago

> it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes You mean because then it would be in their back yard? Or why?

elefanten 4y ago
Because the surrounding infrastructure wasn't made for that density, and it takes way longer to retrofit than it does to throw up density, lowering the quality of life for the existing residents.
- makeitdouble 4y ago
  Isn't that a chicken and egg problem ? Perhaps you'd authorize that kind of development under condition of adding sime more infra to support the additional residents, but in itself getting a tower of residents doesn't look like an issue.
jelliclesfarm 4y ago
You’d have to expand power grid, more water, city employees, build a new school, parking, roads, shopping for the influx of new residents, more police, more fire dept hires. Further, no one bought and built a 7 bedroom and 9 bath room home on an acre lot to live next to a few hundred people. It’s utterly irrational and illogical. It completely denies the role of status seeking behaviour in our societies which is a human universal. We need wealthy people enjoying all the trappings of wealth and feel special about their status because it is them who are subsidizing the vast majority of the rest of the population. If you don’t reward the golden goose, no free golden egg. Fight the right battle.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Not sure what you're referring to, but having a 7+ bedroom that sits on multiple lots in a SFH neighborhood is a single of wealth where I'm at. The fact that it sits in a dense community near a city is a bonus. I've seen some really beautiful homes out in the country as well, but they aren't that practical unless you are retired.

akira2501 4y ago

> The idea is that it allows neighborhoods to "thicken up" over a few decades. Which doesn't seem a bad idea.. but where does the level of employment and services factor into this? If an area expands economically, you're going to need to expand housing options, regardless of what was traditionally there.. if the area does not produce a lot of economic activity, then allowing more low density housing is ostensibly not a problem.

function_seven 4y ago
If property owners have the option to convert single family homes into duplexes, they can do that. Then if there's not enough demand for their units, they lower the rent until they fill the units. If demand is really high, then more property owners will start converting. If demand remains high, eventually those duplexes will be cleared out for some modest apartment complexes. For areas that don't have a lot of economic activity, I think very few homeowners will go through the expense of converting their properties because they won't be able to make the money back on rent. In those areas it would be more efficient to build new SFHs on vacant lots. Either way, with byzantine zoning rules out of the picture, the pricing and incentives to build, sell, or rent will match the local area much better.

sidewndr46 4y ago

I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd allow existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into duplexes. It's not like suburbia is going to line up in droves to have their house converted into a duplex. This solves basically nothing because if there were pure market forces most of America's cities. would have ceased to be SFH long ago. Slow conversion into duplexes simultaneous pisses off the NIMBYs and doesn't really help add supply in any great deal. The evening news quote for this would be something like "if it were up to us, we'd build the new high rise today. But the city requires us to build several buildings, have people move in, evict them, then demolish that & start over. Something has to change with this process"

CPLX 4y ago
> I really don't see how this would solve anything. It'd allow existing areas of SFH to be slowly converted into duplexes. Twice as much housing is a lot more housing.
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  But it isn't. You think all those SFH lots are just going overnight become a duplex? Why would the retired lady who walks her dogs and tends the garden care about building a duplex? Now when her kids inherit the home & sell it to a developer, sure it'll happen then. But that is a slow, generational process.
  - jspaetzel 4y ago
    Yeah exactly, it's a nice slow process that wouldn't piss people off by having too much rapid change.
    - sidewndr46 4y ago
      I think you need to meet some of the NIMBYs where I live.
    - ImPostingOnHN 4y ago

mikebenfield 4y ago

NIMBY absolutists exist, and in fact are pretty common. There really are people who will oppose any new construction at all, even at the cost of destroying the livability of their city. But do what you describe as “YIMBY absolutists” actually exist? Maybe they do, but from my perspective I don’t really see anyone arguing that everything should be buildable everywhere.

kitten_mittens_ 4y ago
There's also BANANA (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anybody) which is perhaps a bit more tongue in cheek. It also sounds like the "YIMBY absolutists" mentioned in the GP.

fasthands9 4y ago

If it is economical to build a 30 story condo then you can be assured the area is either a very dense city or an extremely rich suburb. I don't think either areas deserves special protection. I suppose I would take the above proposal over the status quo if it truly eliminated local control - but otherwise seems like a very long time for a neighborhood to upzone. Its almost never going to be economical to tear down a SFH and build a triplex unless the SFH is in disrepair - which may be after 50 years from initial construction in most cases.

Brian_K_White 4y ago

"arguably a 30 story condo tower is better than a housing crisis" This. It means, if you don't want your precious quality of life messed up, be nicer to all those other people you normally think you don't have to give a shit about. If there wasn't a mass of people with no good jobs or housing, then there wouldn't be an ugly tower being built in your back yard. If your neighbor had his own food, he wouldn't need to steal yours, and you wouldn't have to live within your own private prison.

zajio1am 4y ago

> single family -> duplex/triplex Duplex gives almost no advantage in housing density, but adds more complications due to shared parts of constructions.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

> The problem with YIMBY absolutists is also obvious -- it's probably not ideal to build a 30 story condo tower in the middle of a neighborhood of single family homes. Very few people suggest this seriously, and in any case allowing for this in the market, it's unlikely any developer would do that. Skyscrapers make sense when the land there is particularly in demand, above and beyond what you're likely to find in a SFH neighborhood (unless it's some grandfathered-in area of Manhattan).

TulliusCicero 4y ago

This is a perfectly fine idea if you currently have an okay housing market. But a lot of cities are so far behind that they need a lot more very quickly. You need more radical rezoning to actually help people soon for that. Of course, the most likely outcome is politicians hemming and hawing some more, putting forth grossly inadequate solutions, and passing the buck to the next generation, as is tradition.