For the record, there is no generalized movement towards a pro-sprawl position in the YIMBY movement.
While Connor Dougherty is a total YIMBY, and a wonderful journalist, he had a bad take. Most YIMBYs are overwhelmingly focused on unblocking infill development and/or ensuring the next wave of greenfield dev in expanding metros is something other than just SFH.
As a movement, we struggle with widely read online commentators being taken as representative of where the larger community is at, but there’s like a dozen major leaders (most of whom are just not that online) that more fully represent current thinking amongst folks actually doing the work.
Jeff, thanks for your comment. I've been working as a practicing planner and writing about cities for years, so I know there's no prevailing shift toward a pro-sprawl position in the YIMBY movement. But I have noticed what appears to be a growing frustration with the pace of change nationally, and I think it's leading to takes like Dougherty's, and the willingness of YIMBYs to support things like the use of western federal lands for housing (definitely not an option for someone like me in the Midwest).
Bottom line, I'm a city lover, always have been and always will be. I acknowledge that housing affordability on the coasts is a huge problem, and YIMBYism is actually the right policy response for a region with that kind of problem. However, there's little acknowledgment of critically undervalued places in Midwestern cities, with little being done about it. I want a response for that, too.
Hey Pete, would love to hear what kinds of housing / land use issues you see as unique to Midwestern cities.
Yimby Action chapters in the Midwest are quite active, would love to highlight some of the work being done there (and hear where it seems like there’s a disconnect).
Fwiw I also see the ST folks as Yimby in all but name, though I totally acknowledge they put an emphasis on municipal finance that’s less of an immediate concern to coastal cities (and less front and center in Yimby discourse).
The challenges of affording the infrastructure as areas age is the nut we can not crack because it cost more than anyone wants to pay. Growing out typically means leaving the closer in areas behind. Affordability needs gentle increases in density and affordability needs transportation. Housing and Transportation are the two big pieces in the household budget.
This is, unfortunately, a good illustration of politics on the internet. You start with a good idea, but you have to turn it into a slogan or a meme, and before long the meme overtakes the original idea. “Build more housing” is a good idea. “Build more housing in the middle of nowhere two hours from downtown” is a pretty terrible idea, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the 20th century should realize. I agree that today’s boomtowns are just California pre-stagnation, but I guess that’s what happens when people stop paying attention to actual policy arguments and communicate only by memes.
I've been sharing this paper where I can but I think it speaks to what you're talking about (and Chuck is saying) and really led me to a bit of a rethink on development speed frustration. Soon everyone is going to have a California problem, they just don't seem to realize it yet. People want to be near activity centers and so at some point we run out of land proximate to activity centers and have to reverse and increase densities. Anyways, thought it might be of interest. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1540-6229.12490
For the record, there is no generalized movement towards a pro-sprawl position in the YIMBY movement.
While Connor Dougherty is a total YIMBY, and a wonderful journalist, he had a bad take. Most YIMBYs are overwhelmingly focused on unblocking infill development and/or ensuring the next wave of greenfield dev in expanding metros is something other than just SFH.
As a movement, we struggle with widely read online commentators being taken as representative of where the larger community is at, but there’s like a dozen major leaders (most of whom are just not that online) that more fully represent current thinking amongst folks actually doing the work.
Jeff, thanks for your comment. I've been working as a practicing planner and writing about cities for years, so I know there's no prevailing shift toward a pro-sprawl position in the YIMBY movement. But I have noticed what appears to be a growing frustration with the pace of change nationally, and I think it's leading to takes like Dougherty's, and the willingness of YIMBYs to support things like the use of western federal lands for housing (definitely not an option for someone like me in the Midwest).
Bottom line, I'm a city lover, always have been and always will be. I acknowledge that housing affordability on the coasts is a huge problem, and YIMBYism is actually the right policy response for a region with that kind of problem. However, there's little acknowledgment of critically undervalued places in Midwestern cities, with little being done about it. I want a response for that, too.
Hey Pete, would love to hear what kinds of housing / land use issues you see as unique to Midwestern cities.
Yimby Action chapters in the Midwest are quite active, would love to highlight some of the work being done there (and hear where it seems like there’s a disconnect).
Fwiw I also see the ST folks as Yimby in all but name, though I totally acknowledge they put an emphasis on municipal finance that’s less of an immediate concern to coastal cities (and less front and center in Yimby discourse).
The challenges of affording the infrastructure as areas age is the nut we can not crack because it cost more than anyone wants to pay. Growing out typically means leaving the closer in areas behind. Affordability needs gentle increases in density and affordability needs transportation. Housing and Transportation are the two big pieces in the household budget.
This is, unfortunately, a good illustration of politics on the internet. You start with a good idea, but you have to turn it into a slogan or a meme, and before long the meme overtakes the original idea. “Build more housing” is a good idea. “Build more housing in the middle of nowhere two hours from downtown” is a pretty terrible idea, as anyone with even a passing familiarity with the 20th century should realize. I agree that today’s boomtowns are just California pre-stagnation, but I guess that’s what happens when people stop paying attention to actual policy arguments and communicate only by memes.
I've been sharing this paper where I can but I think it speaks to what you're talking about (and Chuck is saying) and really led me to a bit of a rethink on development speed frustration. Soon everyone is going to have a California problem, they just don't seem to realize it yet. People want to be near activity centers and so at some point we run out of land proximate to activity centers and have to reverse and increase densities. Anyways, thought it might be of interest. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1540-6229.12490
Deep Left Analysis is an Elite Human Capital type. My cynical definition- "Elite Human Capital: 'Neoliberalism, without the Negro Problem'".