I don't know that I disagree with any of that, but I might say it differently.
Yimbyism's big rhetorical innovation was going from talking about *housing* to talking about *housing supply*; obviously, that's just by virtue of the Yimby diagnosis, but that's big change - the acknowledgement that the housing crisis is a supply issue, full stop.
The other big thing we've leaned into over the years is the fact that all roads lead to Yimby. Environmentalists, social justice advocates, folks concerned with more traditionally framed issues of class inequity, the pro-growth crowd, folks into property rights, even some pro-natalists and the AARP... all arrive at the same conclusion wrt to housing. Being a true single-issue movement facilitates that, but there has been a conscious decision amongst most leadership in the movement to keep things big tent by continuing to put down whatever people are wanting to pick up.
I know it's broken through rhetorically, but are there places where it's won politically? Where they've made it easy to build with the result of more development and growth, especially the kind of development we're accustomed to assuming is zoned out? (I've seen those X posts from M. Nolan Gray of old houses turned into larger/denser complexes, but my assumption was that these were cases of someone managing to cut through the red tape, rather than the red tape being withdrawn.)
Short answer, things are a lot better in many places and Austin is probably the best example in terms of being farther along the curve and having the demand to really have that start to show.
Longer answer, we are light years ahead of where we were when this all started ten years ago. Before this most recent presidential election*, some folks in the movement were saying things like we needed 5 more years to finishing passing laws, another 5-10 to implement them, and then another 10 to really see the benefits. That's all to say, the type of success we'd all like to see was always going to be a lagging indicator and we're working on fairly long term time scales.
*framing it this way as the the amount of regime uncertainty we're experiencing right now is making it really hard for a lot of us to do math about the future.
In terms of actually changing zoning policy to be more YIMBY, I think Seattle has probably done the most, but the baseline prices were so high, the amount of growth since 2000 is so much, and the cost of construction is so high that these changes haven’t actually made housing affordable. I’m sure they have relative to not changing anything, but Seattle’s issues really do show how Yimbies need to tackle supply in other ways besides zoning reform to achieve the end of truly affordable housing.
Housing was seen as a basic entitlement until the 80s. When new families were forming after WW2, everyone in media and government recognized that more houses were needed, and government got its ass in gear to encourage the new houses. FHA loans, VA loans, assistance to GIs.
I think the focus changed when media and government decided that houses were meant to be a trading card like stocks and options and credit swaps. Houses were no longer a place to live. The only conceivable use for a house was to invest and sell for an ever-increasing price. And the best way to insure increasing price is to cut the supply by allowing hedge funds to buy up all existing houses.
Building more of something does not magically drive down the cost.
Vancouver has tripled housing units in something like the last 40 years and housing is 4 times more expensive ( IIRC, constant dollars ).
iPhones cost slightly more in constant dollars than when they first came out despite over a billion made.
Supply and demand is, to be a bit oversimplistic, only something works in a healthy market. And even if we had that, it's not a silver bullet for lowering costs.
I don't know that I disagree with any of that, but I might say it differently.
Yimbyism's big rhetorical innovation was going from talking about *housing* to talking about *housing supply*; obviously, that's just by virtue of the Yimby diagnosis, but that's big change - the acknowledgement that the housing crisis is a supply issue, full stop.
The other big thing we've leaned into over the years is the fact that all roads lead to Yimby. Environmentalists, social justice advocates, folks concerned with more traditionally framed issues of class inequity, the pro-growth crowd, folks into property rights, even some pro-natalists and the AARP... all arrive at the same conclusion wrt to housing. Being a true single-issue movement facilitates that, but there has been a conscious decision amongst most leadership in the movement to keep things big tent by continuing to put down whatever people are wanting to pick up.
I know it's broken through rhetorically, but are there places where it's won politically? Where they've made it easy to build with the result of more development and growth, especially the kind of development we're accustomed to assuming is zoned out? (I've seen those X posts from M. Nolan Gray of old houses turned into larger/denser complexes, but my assumption was that these were cases of someone managing to cut through the red tape, rather than the red tape being withdrawn.)
Short answer, things are a lot better in many places and Austin is probably the best example in terms of being farther along the curve and having the demand to really have that start to show.
Longer answer, we are light years ahead of where we were when this all started ten years ago. Before this most recent presidential election*, some folks in the movement were saying things like we needed 5 more years to finishing passing laws, another 5-10 to implement them, and then another 10 to really see the benefits. That's all to say, the type of success we'd all like to see was always going to be a lagging indicator and we're working on fairly long term time scales.
*framing it this way as the the amount of regime uncertainty we're experiencing right now is making it really hard for a lot of us to do math about the future.
In terms of actually changing zoning policy to be more YIMBY, I think Seattle has probably done the most, but the baseline prices were so high, the amount of growth since 2000 is so much, and the cost of construction is so high that these changes haven’t actually made housing affordable. I’m sure they have relative to not changing anything, but Seattle’s issues really do show how Yimbies need to tackle supply in other ways besides zoning reform to achieve the end of truly affordable housing.
Housing was seen as a basic entitlement until the 80s. When new families were forming after WW2, everyone in media and government recognized that more houses were needed, and government got its ass in gear to encourage the new houses. FHA loans, VA loans, assistance to GIs.
I think the focus changed when media and government decided that houses were meant to be a trading card like stocks and options and credit swaps. Houses were no longer a place to live. The only conceivable use for a house was to invest and sell for an ever-increasing price. And the best way to insure increasing price is to cut the supply by allowing hedge funds to buy up all existing houses.
Building more of something does not magically drive down the cost.
Vancouver has tripled housing units in something like the last 40 years and housing is 4 times more expensive ( IIRC, constant dollars ).
iPhones cost slightly more in constant dollars than when they first came out despite over a billion made.
Supply and demand is, to be a bit oversimplistic, only something works in a healthy market. And even if we had that, it's not a silver bullet for lowering costs.