This is an admirable and useful effort to bridge a gap between movements that would benefit from working together. One of the challenges facing such movements is that they both reflect views of groups that, while often including some directly involved with government and planning agencies, neither reflect the actual policies that presently determine state or local approaches. In other words, they reflect views of how things ought to be; such movements tend to develop strongly-held beliefs that can become doctrinaire because they remain theoretical and have not gone through the process of being subjected to political and economic realities.
This leads to partisanship and an unwillingness to compromise since no one wants to compromise on a vision, especially when it is hard to disprove something that hasn’t been implemented pursuant to that vision.
So theorists, even if they are working professionals, argue for their vision rather than doing the hard work of developing consensus. That’s why sincere and pragmatic efforts such as this piece are so valuable. If the two groups could create forums and teams to collaborate on how to move forward in specific locales, the theoretical underpinnings of all visions could be tested in the harsh environment of specific realities.
Aligned with both our essays, I see room for different types of orgs to emphasize local community building vs state technocratic reform, ideally in partnership with each other.
Yesterday I co-hosted a happy hour for pro-housing residents in my hometown and some of the nearby communities as part of my local pro-housing and transit advocacy group, Inclusive Lafayette. We talked about how we could more effectively organize to attend city council meetings, host educational events, and build our base in some of the other cities that are just developing pro housing consciousnesses. We also talked about how we could support California YIMBY’s efforts to pass state legislation that would accelerate reform in our communities. Deepening the interplay, CA YIMBY bought food and drinks for the event (Inclusive Lafayette isn’t an incorporated nonprofit so we don’t have our own money). So even though they don’t do any of the local community building work themselves, they helped us host a better event, which both feeds into our local work and makes it easier to build the base of support needed to pass good state laws
So many other thoughts from your essay on other topics, that just jumped out to me as just one example of how the housing abundance movement melds local and state level advocacy. And a way that Strong Towns can stay true to its localist roots even as it warms up to certain types of state action. Looking forward to deeper conversations at YIMBYTown!
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing. I will be attending the upcoming YIMBY event in New Haven in the hopes of either confirming what I already think the YIMBY movement is about or gaining a more nuanced understanding of it.
My current sense is that the YIMBY movement is an advocacy group for the contemporary real estate development industry. This industry views people as products, which is a fatal flaw if the goal is housing abundance and widespread affordability. In pizza terms, it seems like YIMBYs want to encourage as many Papa John's, Dominoes, and Pizza Huts to open in New Haven as possible.
Strong Towns seems more interested in reviving the tradition of New Haven-style pizza making. There are certainly limits to this approach as well, but I personally find it much more palatable than the YIMBY approach. Still, I don't think either approach fully gets the root of the challenge before us.
I look forward to talking with you there. I think that your sense of the YIMBY movement however is mistaken. There is very little formal connection with the real estate industry--I think there is too little! It's mostly a bunch of people who think the rent is too high because they are renters who feel like they will never buy houses. There is a risk of being short sighted about the other risks and consequences.
This is an excellent summation of the history of Strong Towns thinking. I've never doubted that you understand what we're doing, Seth (of course, because you've been a significant part of shaping it).
I still struggle with the question: Who can provide abundance?
The goals of the state (Seeing Like a State) are very different and (generally) at odds with what should be the goals of a city. The fact that cities have wholesale adopted the self-destructive agenda of state and federal governments -- and do so eagerly, as the default -- is a fascinating cultural observation I've spent a lot of time thinking about (and not necessarily figured out).
I'm deeply skeptical that we can create abundance -- however defined -- in the absence of local empowerment and responsibility. To the extent that the Abundance Movement wants to get state and federal do-gooders out of the way, I am skeptical of the motivation but I don't fight the outcomes. To the extent that the Abundance Movement wants a new generation of technocratic do-gooders, count me out.
As you suggest, I don't think they are organized in a way that they can figure this out, and that adds to my skepticism because I think the default and consensus is more top-down action and less bottom-up empowerment and responsibility.
I think the "Abundance" movement has lots of ideological diversity, but is primarily oriented on the idea that "actually, we can have good things, like more housing and clean energy and scientific innovation." I do agree that there should probably be more people within the Abundance space that have this Strong Towns approach of thinking about incremental development and thinking about how what we do now impacts what society will look like in 50-100 years, not just trying to solve the problem of today in a way that will cause huge issues 50-100 years down the line.
I'm also a big believer in local empowerment and responsibility. I think the Strong Towns approach, and the general concept of tactical urbanism, offers people the vision that civic engagement isn't just about policies that are made at city hall. More importantly, civic engagement is about being a good neighbor and building a better community. But fundamentally that's going to have to take local leaders. Given the groundswell of interest in YIMBYism / Abundance, I'm sure some of those folks could end up being Strong Towns-type leaders. But we need people within the Abundance movement convincing them that these are two tastes that taste great together!
As a side note, I'm part of the Abundance elected officials network and attended the Abundance conference in DC. I found the general vibe of the conference to be a bit think tank-y and divorced from things happening on the ground, so I thought it was good to have local elected officials there. That said, I do also find myself fighting an uphill battle while trying to explain incremental development to other elected officials who have zero personal experience with locations that are actually a good example of incremental development. Some neighborhoods in my town, Issaquah, WA, are an amazing example of this; others, not so much.
This is an admirable and useful effort to bridge a gap between movements that would benefit from working together. One of the challenges facing such movements is that they both reflect views of groups that, while often including some directly involved with government and planning agencies, neither reflect the actual policies that presently determine state or local approaches. In other words, they reflect views of how things ought to be; such movements tend to develop strongly-held beliefs that can become doctrinaire because they remain theoretical and have not gone through the process of being subjected to political and economic realities.
This leads to partisanship and an unwillingness to compromise since no one wants to compromise on a vision, especially when it is hard to disprove something that hasn’t been implemented pursuant to that vision.
So theorists, even if they are working professionals, argue for their vision rather than doing the hard work of developing consensus. That’s why sincere and pragmatic efforts such as this piece are so valuable. If the two groups could create forums and teams to collaborate on how to move forward in specific locales, the theoretical underpinnings of all visions could be tested in the harsh environment of specific realities.
Well said Seth! Thanks for your shoutout
Aligned with both our essays, I see room for different types of orgs to emphasize local community building vs state technocratic reform, ideally in partnership with each other.
Yesterday I co-hosted a happy hour for pro-housing residents in my hometown and some of the nearby communities as part of my local pro-housing and transit advocacy group, Inclusive Lafayette. We talked about how we could more effectively organize to attend city council meetings, host educational events, and build our base in some of the other cities that are just developing pro housing consciousnesses. We also talked about how we could support California YIMBY’s efforts to pass state legislation that would accelerate reform in our communities. Deepening the interplay, CA YIMBY bought food and drinks for the event (Inclusive Lafayette isn’t an incorporated nonprofit so we don’t have our own money). So even though they don’t do any of the local community building work themselves, they helped us host a better event, which both feeds into our local work and makes it easier to build the base of support needed to pass good state laws
So many other thoughts from your essay on other topics, that just jumped out to me as just one example of how the housing abundance movement melds local and state level advocacy. And a way that Strong Towns can stay true to its localist roots even as it warms up to certain types of state action. Looking forward to deeper conversations at YIMBYTown!
Two great essays that taste great together.
Excellent article. Thanks for sharing. I will be attending the upcoming YIMBY event in New Haven in the hopes of either confirming what I already think the YIMBY movement is about or gaining a more nuanced understanding of it.
My current sense is that the YIMBY movement is an advocacy group for the contemporary real estate development industry. This industry views people as products, which is a fatal flaw if the goal is housing abundance and widespread affordability. In pizza terms, it seems like YIMBYs want to encourage as many Papa John's, Dominoes, and Pizza Huts to open in New Haven as possible.
Strong Towns seems more interested in reviving the tradition of New Haven-style pizza making. There are certainly limits to this approach as well, but I personally find it much more palatable than the YIMBY approach. Still, I don't think either approach fully gets the root of the challenge before us.
I look forward to talking with you there. I think that your sense of the YIMBY movement however is mistaken. There is very little formal connection with the real estate industry--I think there is too little! It's mostly a bunch of people who think the rent is too high because they are renters who feel like they will never buy houses. There is a risk of being short sighted about the other risks and consequences.
This is an excellent summation of the history of Strong Towns thinking. I've never doubted that you understand what we're doing, Seth (of course, because you've been a significant part of shaping it).
I still struggle with the question: Who can provide abundance?
The goals of the state (Seeing Like a State) are very different and (generally) at odds with what should be the goals of a city. The fact that cities have wholesale adopted the self-destructive agenda of state and federal governments -- and do so eagerly, as the default -- is a fascinating cultural observation I've spent a lot of time thinking about (and not necessarily figured out).
I'm deeply skeptical that we can create abundance -- however defined -- in the absence of local empowerment and responsibility. To the extent that the Abundance Movement wants to get state and federal do-gooders out of the way, I am skeptical of the motivation but I don't fight the outcomes. To the extent that the Abundance Movement wants a new generation of technocratic do-gooders, count me out.
As you suggest, I don't think they are organized in a way that they can figure this out, and that adds to my skepticism because I think the default and consensus is more top-down action and less bottom-up empowerment and responsibility.
I think the "Abundance" movement has lots of ideological diversity, but is primarily oriented on the idea that "actually, we can have good things, like more housing and clean energy and scientific innovation." I do agree that there should probably be more people within the Abundance space that have this Strong Towns approach of thinking about incremental development and thinking about how what we do now impacts what society will look like in 50-100 years, not just trying to solve the problem of today in a way that will cause huge issues 50-100 years down the line.
I'm also a big believer in local empowerment and responsibility. I think the Strong Towns approach, and the general concept of tactical urbanism, offers people the vision that civic engagement isn't just about policies that are made at city hall. More importantly, civic engagement is about being a good neighbor and building a better community. But fundamentally that's going to have to take local leaders. Given the groundswell of interest in YIMBYism / Abundance, I'm sure some of those folks could end up being Strong Towns-type leaders. But we need people within the Abundance movement convincing them that these are two tastes that taste great together!
As a side note, I'm part of the Abundance elected officials network and attended the Abundance conference in DC. I found the general vibe of the conference to be a bit think tank-y and divorced from things happening on the ground, so I thought it was good to have local elected officials there. That said, I do also find myself fighting an uphill battle while trying to explain incremental development to other elected officials who have zero personal experience with locations that are actually a good example of incremental development. Some neighborhoods in my town, Issaquah, WA, are an amazing example of this; others, not so much.