A proposed mega-development in bucolic Menlo Park demonstrates the failure of the old NIMBY paradigm — and the risks of giving developers carte blanche
Wonderful reporting and you're hitting on an important tension in intra-yimby movement conversations; namely whether pro-housing wins can be "too big" and cause backlash that's net/net detrimental.
At least in my corner of Yimbyland, we take the viewpoint that there's zero backlash risk, because NIMBYs everywhere are already maximally NIMBY. A corollary to that might be that there's no "contagion" risk from leapfrog development where a 20-story tower goes up amongst two-story construction. Real NIMBYism (separate from ideological anti-supply folks online) is inherently parochial and largely empowered by institutional arrangements...ie there's no "NIMBY Movement" and aggravating folks in Palo Alto doesn't activate anyone in Austin.
Thank you! These are all important and challenging considerations worth wrestling with. My concern with this particular project is both its potential to produce backlash, and its apparent disregard for broader urban planning and design considerations.
Increasingly, I think the backlash concern is worth paying attention to. Louis Mirante, a pro-housing lobbyist in California, wrote on X that the 600 foot tower proposed for SF's outer Sunset has had a seriously detrimental impact on his work. "I cannot overstate how damaging it has been to the perception of housing laws among members of the Legislature. I cannot overstate its harm."
That’s fair, I’ll walk back my view on this a couple feet. The sloat tower is probably sui generis given the dev’s motivations, but it’s understandable that it freaks out electeds.
I’d still maintain that /most/ other big moves we could make most turn the temp of opposition up anymore than it already is, but thats admittedly an opinion.
First, thank you for your contributions. Writing a nuanced YIMBY piece is always a little fraught.
If we want to substantially deflate housing prices to cost (hopefully one day) rather than just target slower growth, we need supply to match underlying demand rather than being artificially constrained. Paradoxically, this means building a bit more than current (with all of the other non-zoning regulations still in effect).
I'd actually take the opposite tack than this article: the coalition that we have right now is quite fragile: it mostly hinges on low-engagement people attracted only because of unaffordable housing prices barely eking out over very high-engagement NIMBYs. If we take steps to moderate it to, say, keep rents steady and merely affordable (rather than cheap and deflating to cost), the coalition could dissolve and could be overcome by NIMBYs. We should use the strength and the opportunity we have on an already polarized issue (high engagement NIMBYs aren't going to become much higher engagement!) to push forth reforms that'll finish the job and risk them being undone at a later date rather than risk the incremental coalition losing steam a few steps in.
Again, thanks for the writing and I hope things are well.
Thanks for your comment, Jack. I appreciate the kudos.
I take your point. I guess my response would be that I don't really think there's such a thing as finishing the job when it comes to housing policy. There will always be more tweaks and reforms. And there will always be a political back and forth between the activists on the leading edge and the more cautious people who value the status quo. The builder's remedy was never meant to be a housing policy; it was a cudgel to get cities to do the right thing with their housing elements. A more sustainable housing policy would take into account proximity to transit, parking maximums, and some basic urban design requirements.
Wonderful reporting and you're hitting on an important tension in intra-yimby movement conversations; namely whether pro-housing wins can be "too big" and cause backlash that's net/net detrimental.
At least in my corner of Yimbyland, we take the viewpoint that there's zero backlash risk, because NIMBYs everywhere are already maximally NIMBY. A corollary to that might be that there's no "contagion" risk from leapfrog development where a 20-story tower goes up amongst two-story construction. Real NIMBYism (separate from ideological anti-supply folks online) is inherently parochial and largely empowered by institutional arrangements...ie there's no "NIMBY Movement" and aggravating folks in Palo Alto doesn't activate anyone in Austin.
Thank you! These are all important and challenging considerations worth wrestling with. My concern with this particular project is both its potential to produce backlash, and its apparent disregard for broader urban planning and design considerations.
Increasingly, I think the backlash concern is worth paying attention to. Louis Mirante, a pro-housing lobbyist in California, wrote on X that the 600 foot tower proposed for SF's outer Sunset has had a seriously detrimental impact on his work. "I cannot overstate how damaging it has been to the perception of housing laws among members of the Legislature. I cannot overstate its harm."
https://x.com/louismirante/status/1775579351037415832
That’s fair, I’ll walk back my view on this a couple feet. The sloat tower is probably sui generis given the dev’s motivations, but it’s understandable that it freaks out electeds.
I’d still maintain that /most/ other big moves we could make most turn the temp of opposition up anymore than it already is, but thats admittedly an opinion.
First, thank you for your contributions. Writing a nuanced YIMBY piece is always a little fraught.
If we want to substantially deflate housing prices to cost (hopefully one day) rather than just target slower growth, we need supply to match underlying demand rather than being artificially constrained. Paradoxically, this means building a bit more than current (with all of the other non-zoning regulations still in effect).
I'd actually take the opposite tack than this article: the coalition that we have right now is quite fragile: it mostly hinges on low-engagement people attracted only because of unaffordable housing prices barely eking out over very high-engagement NIMBYs. If we take steps to moderate it to, say, keep rents steady and merely affordable (rather than cheap and deflating to cost), the coalition could dissolve and could be overcome by NIMBYs. We should use the strength and the opportunity we have on an already polarized issue (high engagement NIMBYs aren't going to become much higher engagement!) to push forth reforms that'll finish the job and risk them being undone at a later date rather than risk the incremental coalition losing steam a few steps in.
Again, thanks for the writing and I hope things are well.
Thanks for your comment, Jack. I appreciate the kudos.
I take your point. I guess my response would be that I don't really think there's such a thing as finishing the job when it comes to housing policy. There will always be more tweaks and reforms. And there will always be a political back and forth between the activists on the leading edge and the more cautious people who value the status quo. The builder's remedy was never meant to be a housing policy; it was a cudgel to get cities to do the right thing with their housing elements. A more sustainable housing policy would take into account proximity to transit, parking maximums, and some basic urban design requirements.