Post

Conversation

Article claims that YIMBY reforms have failed because there isn’t demand for higher density housing in cities. Genuinely don’t understand how someone can look at the housing crises in cities like NYC/SF/DC and think the problem is lack of demand for certain types of housing…
Image
Quote
Washington Monthly
@monthly
What the Democratic Party’s most buzzed-about policy movement gets right—and wrong. From @glastris & @WeisbergNate: washingtonmonthly.com/2025/03/17/the
David Watson 🥑
Post your reply

It’s a shame they included this really bad section on housing, because the rest of the piece is actually pretty good. I agree that monopoly utilities are the under-discussed villains in the transmission reform policy debate.
Image
Image
I've tried to raise this point myself before, but they're right that it could use more emphasis in the policy discourse. (And I suspect most abundance-oriented folks would agree that utilities are engaged in regulatory capture!):
Quote
Alec Stapp
@AlecStapp
Head of major utility company says that we’ve got to get transmission lines built. I agree. But what’s odd is that lobbyists for utility companies are by far the single biggest roadblock in Washington, DC to permitting reform for transmission. Maybe call your lobbyists?
Show more
Image
Image
Image
But did I mention how bad the housing section of this book review is?
Quote
Jerusalem
@JerusalemDemsas
I thought I'd seen all the YIMBY critiques but "why don't they focus on building transit oriented development" is certainly a doozy 😭
Square profile picture
California has the nation’s highest housing costs. Some blame a housing shortage; others, government policies. We sit down with experts to explore what’s driving costs and discuss the state-mandated Housing Development initiative and why some cities push back.
1:31
Why Housing Costs Are Still Through the Roof in California
From youtube.com
"Abundance" is about de-normalizing excessive government power. We're in an weird spot where stopping people and business from building what they want is seen as normal. The economics don't matter. Freedom does.
I think they are talking about efforts in the rest of NY. Did we need to try to get Montauk to build high density buildings near LIRR? Couldn't we have narrowed the focus to the actual city (where there would be enough pushback in Bronx, Eastern Queens, Staten Island)
I love how when you try to cite “price” as partially revealing of a demand function people will just insist something something cabal.
When I was younger I considered some weird-ass apartments just to stay in Manhattan. Once I lived in a tiny building in the middle of a block surrounded on all by tall buildings blocking all the light. A hurricane hit the city and I couldn't even see the difference.
The article goes on to say dense apartments in commercial areas close to transit are good. He thinks there’s no demand for duplexes in residential areas. That’s very, very different
Square profile picture
California’s housing market defies expectations. Real estate expert Matt McCormick discusses the current trends shaping home prices and what it all means for families trying to find or keep a home. Watch this must-see episode of California Insider.
The demand at that price point (because on the cost of creating such homes) isn’t that high. Building dense is expensive. The desner, the costier. Building in a fully developed cities requires demonition of pretty expensive housing.
It’s not just demand — it’s that the regulatory funnel is not as important as YIMBYs think it is In many cases Projects cannot be produced at market clearing prices even with the regulatory constraints removed
"cheap houses" is the key word here. Of course not. They eliding how the housing market works - on purpose, too.
depends on city. in some cities like Houston supply meets demand, rents reasonable. But in LA or ST or Boston NYC area new apartments are in demand, you can see this by huge rents.
that is not entirely wrong. there are places like hte north Bronx or Queens that are largely suburban in nature and the local homeowners absolutely hate YIMBYism because they dont' want new neighbors and they want their property to be extremely expensive.
In which the kinds of people who actively hold water for those who fight any YIMBY reforms suggest those reforms didn't work because people just didn't want it hard enough.
Their phrasing is weird. Are they talking about the demand from existing homeowners in that area or general market demand? It reads to me like it’s the former…and that’s a weird point to make.