5 ms·

The thing that I really hate about YIMBYs is that none of the development they greenlight is ever even slightly pleasant. The YIMBY game plan is to find a city

The thing that I really hate about YIMBYs is that none of the development they greenlight is ever even slightly pleasant. The YIMBY game plan is to find a city that has a good reputation and nice atmosphere from 50 years ago when it was sparse and really nice, and then throw up 4-plexes as quickly as possible in every vacant lot. They treat neighborhoods and cities like museums that must be crammed as full of new residents as humanely possible, without doing a single thing to make any more square footage of "nice city". They only build more people warehouses everywhere and call it a day. Then they complain about the traffic and criticize existing residents for complaining about the increased crime rate. I hate the ugly, boxy, copy-paste apartment buildings looming up all over my hometown, but what am I to do? The future belongs to the tasteless perma-renter.

burlesona 4y ago
This is such a bad misunderstanding of causation. Modern buildings suck because modern city planning sucks. The buildings look like they do because developers have to follow the asinine rules thought up by a bunch of bureaucrats, who are just responding to fear of being yelled at by thin-skinned people who are easily offended. So basically everything except tasteless copy-paste buildings are illegal. The system is so bad it’s beyond tragic to the point of farce. There are better alternatives (search for the CNU Charter Awards for examples), but very few have been able to break through the regulatory slog. Every city has done this to itself.
- quacked 4y ago
  It's not just the look, it's the location and function. There is no lot too out-of-the-way, secluded, or on a major thoroughfare too much for a copy-paste 4-plex. If the building rules need to be changed for sensible city development and design, then that should be the battleground that YIMBYs are focused on, rather than raucously cheering on every new development owned by an out-of-state investment group (whose board of directors--surprise!--universally live in actually nice areas) and then acting confused when the price of housing doesn't go down across the decade.
hackerlight 4y ago
Your taste is irrelevant and can be swiftly put in the bin because people's right to not be homeless is always supreme. The 4-plexes are actually the fault of NIMBYs because they refuse to allow taller apartments and so this is a compromise.
- quacked 4y ago
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    People who can pay high prices will either pay them for the existing buildings or the newer fancier buildings. New buildings frees up the existing buildings for others to live in. Nobody thinks building luxury apartments is necessary so people can move from the street to a new luxury apartment - they think it is necessary so that people can move from the street to one of thousands of average apartments.
  - khazhoux 4y ago
    > You are outrageously ignorant of the causes of homelessness if you think that the people you see on the street can afford or will stay in any of the new developments. The YIMBY approach to homelessness is just a modern form of trickle-down economics. You see, if only there were more properties for Uber/Twitter/startup millionaires, which they could buy for $3m instead of $4m, then they wouldn't drive up the price of those $2m properties, and then ...<iterate several times>... all those unhoused people on SF sidewalks would have a place to live!
    - neilparikh 4y ago
      > The YIMBY approach to homelessness is just a modern form of trickle-down economics Trickle-down economics is the theory that giving money to people with lower propensity to spend it (the rich) will somehow lead to more economic activity (which is obviously wrong). I don't see how that's at all connected to the idea that more supply of a good leads to lower prices for that good.
philosopher1234 4y ago
Ability to be housed trumps luxury.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  More like ability to be housed trumps bystander's desire to reduce subjective eyesore. It really is that petty and selfish. Total psychopath perspective.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

burlesona 4y ago

This is such a bad misunderstanding of causation. Modern buildings suck because modern city planning sucks. The buildings look like they do because developers have to follow the asinine rules thought up by a bunch of bureaucrats, who are just responding to fear of being yelled at by thin-skinned people who are easily offended. So basically everything except tasteless copy-paste buildings are illegal. The system is so bad it’s beyond tragic to the point of farce. There are better alternatives (search for the CNU Charter Awards for examples), but very few have been able to break through the regulatory slog. Every city has done this to itself.

quacked 4y ago
It's not just the look, it's the location and function. There is no lot too out-of-the-way, secluded, or on a major thoroughfare too much for a copy-paste 4-plex. If the building rules need to be changed for sensible city development and design, then that should be the battleground that YIMBYs are focused on, rather than raucously cheering on every new development owned by an out-of-state investment group (whose board of directors--surprise!--universally live in actually nice areas) and then acting confused when the price of housing doesn't go down across the decade.

hackerlight 4y ago

Your taste is irrelevant and can be swiftly put in the bin because people's right to not be homeless is always supreme. The 4-plexes are actually the fault of NIMBYs because they refuse to allow taller apartments and so this is a compromise.

quacked 4y ago
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  People who can pay high prices will either pay them for the existing buildings or the newer fancier buildings. New buildings frees up the existing buildings for others to live in. Nobody thinks building luxury apartments is necessary so people can move from the street to a new luxury apartment - they think it is necessary so that people can move from the street to one of thousands of average apartments.
- khazhoux 4y ago
  > You are outrageously ignorant of the causes of homelessness if you think that the people you see on the street can afford or will stay in any of the new developments. The YIMBY approach to homelessness is just a modern form of trickle-down economics. You see, if only there were more properties for Uber/Twitter/startup millionaires, which they could buy for $3m instead of $4m, then they wouldn't drive up the price of those $2m properties, and then ...<iterate several times>... all those unhoused people on SF sidewalks would have a place to live!
  - neilparikh 4y ago
    > The YIMBY approach to homelessness is just a modern form of trickle-down economics Trickle-down economics is the theory that giving money to people with lower propensity to spend it (the rich) will somehow lead to more economic activity (which is obviously wrong). I don't see how that's at all connected to the idea that more supply of a good leads to lower prices for that good.

philosopher1234 4y ago

Ability to be housed trumps luxury.

hackerlight 4y ago
More like ability to be housed trumps bystander's desire to reduce subjective eyesore. It really is that petty and selfish. Total psychopath perspective.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]