Great explanation. I, too, am a member of all three. At last year's CNU in Charlotte, I appreciated the debate between Kevin and Laura. Having seen the ramifications of not paying attention to design and context I tend not to go into the supply at all costs, but am a huge advocate for incrementally increasing supply. I really appreciate you laying this all out.
Paige Saunders captures one piece of this dynamic well in his Youtube series on housing: people move to particular neighborhoods because they like them. Someone whose land-use policy stances are motivated primarily by a love for traditional, mid-density urbanism is a YIMBY in suburbia, and a NIMBY in San Francisco or Boston.
Even Mike's case against "missing middle housing" isn't that it's bad, only that it's a distraction. He's coming in large part from a climate perspective, and from that perspective I have to agree. Legalizing 2-6plexes on all lots isn't likely to rapidly change cities.
There's a little CNU/YIMBY fissure here in Portland too. Here's a comment exchange I had the last few weeks, reacting to an exercise from some local CNU-aligned thinkers.
As somebody who's probably in the NNE (YIMBY-YIMBY-CNU) sector of your two-axis grid, I will say that the best way for a CNU-aligned person to drive me up the wall personally is for them to pipe up against large or tall buildings - especially those near them personally - on the grounds that 3-7 story buildings would be better. The day that person turns out for any of the many opportunities to legalize more 3-7 story buildings in exclusive areas, I will forgive them. I haven't seen it happen yet. Some people just love holding seminars, I guess.
Seth, I think a lot of what you say below is either not true or implies causes that are not the case. I am not implying you don’t think it’s true, but it’s clear you don’t know a lot about building in New York City. I’ll say more later. John
First off - I am coming to this late - thank you for writing this and breaking down a rift I see in housing discourse, but often is poorly explored on mediums like Twitter. Unfortunately, in activism broadly there is a huge tendency for the “narcissism of small differences” to get in the way of making common cause. As someone who comes from the younger YIMBY side of things, it is easy for us to dismiss the perspective of an older movement - probably mostly to our detriment (that said, most YIMBYs I know, including myself, really enjoy Strong Towns and have learned a lot from its perspective, for what its worth)
I think one point that would be interesting to explore is how the location you live in shapes how you approach the dichotomy. To your point, YIMBYs tend to live in places where housing has genuinely become a crisis - which is thankfully not most cities in America. In a crisis, one fundamental truth is that speed matters - and to achieve speed, you need some level of top-down action. So the YIMBY ethos is partially shaped by this environment. There is also a personal dimension to this - the fact that we are younger and disproportionately likely to have had the housing crisis impact our own lives and our friends is part of this too. I remember getting quite angry when a CNU-affiliated person in LA was blocking a housing project in his neighborhood that he did not like because of the architecture - knowing that his single-family home had appreciated 3x in the last 10 years, while at the time my wife and I were struggling to buy anything.
That said, in most cities in America that are not yet in acute crisis, taking a more organic, incremental approach is almost certainly better than broad sweeping change, especially if there is an effort to try to regularly revisit those policies and continue to change in response to changing circumstances. So more Strong Towns, less pure YIMBY (though again, I think there is much overlap here!)
I think there is a separate dimension to the disagreement, which concerns a post-modern critique of how architectural taste and wealth are intertwined. But that is for another day 🙂
Great explanation. I, too, am a member of all three. At last year's CNU in Charlotte, I appreciated the debate between Kevin and Laura. Having seen the ramifications of not paying attention to design and context I tend not to go into the supply at all costs, but am a huge advocate for incrementally increasing supply. I really appreciate you laying this all out.
Paige Saunders captures one piece of this dynamic well in his Youtube series on housing: people move to particular neighborhoods because they like them. Someone whose land-use policy stances are motivated primarily by a love for traditional, mid-density urbanism is a YIMBY in suburbia, and a NIMBY in San Francisco or Boston.
(https://youtu.be/kgW7qjLP12s?si=okqQ2OtRODaJ5GqF)
Fantastic article!
Great overview and synthesis! - from a New Urbanist YIMBY Californian
Nicely observed post, Seth.
Even Mike's case against "missing middle housing" isn't that it's bad, only that it's a distraction. He's coming in large part from a climate perspective, and from that perspective I have to agree. Legalizing 2-6plexes on all lots isn't likely to rapidly change cities.
There's a little CNU/YIMBY fissure here in Portland too. Here's a comment exchange I had the last few weeks, reacting to an exercise from some local CNU-aligned thinkers.
https://bikeportland.org/2024/02/22/legos-growth-and-dynamic-density-in-irvington-384088#comment-7516488
As somebody who's probably in the NNE (YIMBY-YIMBY-CNU) sector of your two-axis grid, I will say that the best way for a CNU-aligned person to drive me up the wall personally is for them to pipe up against large or tall buildings - especially those near them personally - on the grounds that 3-7 story buildings would be better. The day that person turns out for any of the many opportunities to legalize more 3-7 story buildings in exclusive areas, I will forgive them. I haven't seen it happen yet. Some people just love holding seminars, I guess.
Seth, I think a lot of what you say below is either not true or implies causes that are not the case. I am not implying you don’t think it’s true, but it’s clear you don’t know a lot about building in New York City. I’ll say more later. John
First off - I am coming to this late - thank you for writing this and breaking down a rift I see in housing discourse, but often is poorly explored on mediums like Twitter. Unfortunately, in activism broadly there is a huge tendency for the “narcissism of small differences” to get in the way of making common cause. As someone who comes from the younger YIMBY side of things, it is easy for us to dismiss the perspective of an older movement - probably mostly to our detriment (that said, most YIMBYs I know, including myself, really enjoy Strong Towns and have learned a lot from its perspective, for what its worth)
I think one point that would be interesting to explore is how the location you live in shapes how you approach the dichotomy. To your point, YIMBYs tend to live in places where housing has genuinely become a crisis - which is thankfully not most cities in America. In a crisis, one fundamental truth is that speed matters - and to achieve speed, you need some level of top-down action. So the YIMBY ethos is partially shaped by this environment. There is also a personal dimension to this - the fact that we are younger and disproportionately likely to have had the housing crisis impact our own lives and our friends is part of this too. I remember getting quite angry when a CNU-affiliated person in LA was blocking a housing project in his neighborhood that he did not like because of the architecture - knowing that his single-family home had appreciated 3x in the last 10 years, while at the time my wife and I were struggling to buy anything.
That said, in most cities in America that are not yet in acute crisis, taking a more organic, incremental approach is almost certainly better than broad sweeping change, especially if there is an effort to try to regularly revisit those policies and continue to change in response to changing circumstances. So more Strong Towns, less pure YIMBY (though again, I think there is much overlap here!)
I think there is a separate dimension to the disagreement, which concerns a post-modern critique of how architectural taste and wealth are intertwined. But that is for another day 🙂
Seth, Are you on Twitter? Searching for "Seth" doesn't work. Thanks, john@massengale.com