NIMBY'S or YIMBY's?

[Avondalist]

I'm a YIMBY because I like modernity, development, building, complexity, cities, the whole nine yards.

But personally and locally YIMBYism has helped me. I live in the Chicago area which has a much lighter touch than peer cities when it comes to allowing new construction, redevelopment, and densification. The ensuing (relative) abundance of housing allowed me to get on the property ladder at a young age and grow from there. If I lived on the west coast or in the northeast I might still be renting.

[Catheetiem]

Originally Posted by ketch89

The government is restricting the housing supply while people suffer with high prices and homelessness - this is immoral. Zoning should allow housing construction where housing is desired. Legalize apartments everywhere.



Just because the majority benefits from housing prohibition (because the majority are homeowners enjoying seeing their property values increase), doesn't make it moral.

Everywhere? There are many areas that do not have the infrastructure or room to support apartments.


Why do people not have a say in the development of the town they live in? It's not just property values, it's quality of life.

[Hemlock140]

Originally Posted by Catheetiem

Everywhere? There are many areas that do not have the infrastructure or room to support apartments.


Why do people not have a say in the development of the town they live in? It's not just property values, it's quality of life.

When people invest in a home with low crime, great schools, quiet streets with little traffic, and uncrowded parks, they are going to do what they can to protect and maintain that quality of life. You add one 4-story apartment building with 100 units and that's a minimum of 100 more cars, more likely 200+. As has been demonstrated in Seattle, building near public transit does not keep the residents from having cars. Seattle has also done up-zoning, but replacing a 1911 2 bedroom house with a 4-plex doesn't do much for the low income people when they are sold as condos for $500k or rent is $2,200 for 1 bedroom.

[509]

Originally Posted by brock2010

In your opinion which is more detrimental; NIMBY'S or YIMBY's? You can answer this in general or in relation to the development of your city?

You need ONE more choice. YIYBYNM...or as know as Yes, in your back yard, not mine.

The city of Seattle specified that their garbage must be disposed of in eastern Washington. Otherwise, known as YES, IN YOUR BACKYARD, NOT MINE.

Most major cities, follow this mantra. Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York and a host of others throughout the country.

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by Hemlock140

When people invest in a home with low crime, great schools, quiet streets with little traffic, and uncrowded parks, they are going to do what they can to protect and maintain that quality of life. You add one 4-story apartment building with 100 units and that's a minimum of 100 more cars, more likely 200+. As has been demonstrated in Seattle, building near public transit does not keep the residents from having cars. Seattle has also done up-zoning, but replacing a 1911 2 bedroom house with a 4-plex doesn't do much for the low income people when they are sold as condos for $500k or rent is $2,200 for 1 bedroom.

No, it doesn't, but most apartment buildings I'm familiar with in the Philadelphia neighborhood I live in have no parking at all, and even so, on-street parking spaces are not hard to find.

That suggests to me that most of the residents of those buildings do not own cars. From what I can tell, only one of the five apartments in the converted house I live in has a tenant with a car as well.

But then again, I live in an older outlying city neighborhood laid out on a grid with a major shopping district within walking distance and three bus lines that all pass within one block of my own residence. One of the big problems of our post-WW2 suburban development is that it wasn't designed to make car-free living even a consideration. I don't know where that Seattle apartment building you describe is located, but if it's in a core city neighborhood, I'll wager the ratio of cars to dwelling units is less than 1:1.

City zoning ordinances in Philadelphia were revised in 2012 to reduce the parking:dwelling unit ratio for projects of 10+ units from 1:1 to 3:10. People here freak over parking because most residential districts in the city consist of rowhouses built before the Auto Age on narrow streets, and in those places, parking is indeed difficult to come by. Were it not for a comprehensive transit network, though, the situation would be even worse.

TBH, though, I don't get the obsession with keeping apartment buildings out among many American suburbanites. Most of our legacy cities have neighborhoods where apartment buildings are mixed in with the SFRs and twins, and I've found that many of those neighborhoods are attractive and peaceful, with good QOL, and many of them are even highly sought after by outsiders (the Mount Airys here, for instance, or Union Hill in my hometown of Kansas City). The larding on of amenities in many new apartment complexes helps raise their rents, but it's still possible to build decent apartment buildings with reasonable rents. However, the kind of housing within reach of lower-income residents is more likely to be "NOAH" — "naturally occurring affordable housing," older residences that have been fully depreciated or older large houses that have been subdivided into apartments. (IOW, I get your point about older houses vs. new apartment buildings. However, the more of those new apartments we build, the lower the upward price pressure on the existing rental housing stock, which is more likely to remain NOAH as a result.)

Most of our post-war suburbs were designed around a specific household type and life stage. IMO, we're going to need to reshape them to accommodate a wider range of ages, lifestyles, and — yes — incomes. There, the YIMBYs will prove useful and the NIMBYs hindrances.