Hacker News Reader

Comment by niam | Hacker News Reader

> It doesn't address the risk of gentrification and displacement

This is a puzzling critique because it seems very much in the wheelhouse of "abundance YIMBYism" to advocate for cheaper housing--an argued byproduct of which is that fewer people are displaced. It probably changes the problem statement of gentrification since, if housing is abundant and displacement is low, there's not much to distinguish "gentrification" from just "investing in the neighborhood".

>the critical need for direct public housing to serve low-income communities

This isn't a problem caused by YIMBYism, nor one whose solutions are obstructed by it. We could by that reason malign it for not solving heart palpitations or cancer too.

View on HN

This “abundance” ideology which aims to influence Democratic policy promotes YIMBYism to address housing shortages by deregulating construction. It’s this claimed benefit I’m criticizing. Public housing does address this issue, which is why I bring it up.

Similarly, gentrification is enabled by this narrow focus on YIMBYism. Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there. This increases prices in the neighborhood leading to gentrification. This in turn leads to displacement - a key phenomenon that this ideology purports to address.

My issue is not YIMBYism in particular but that it’s offered as a solution to these problems.

You are arguing as if buildling more make things worse, when in fact, this is not the case. The opposite of buildling more is building less. Building less will increase existing price a lot more on an existing neighborhood than building a new buildling will ever do.

When there's not enough housing for people to live in, people start competing on rent and bidding wars on purchases, this drives price very fast.

That's why you have to build more. To avoid the biggest issue which is a housing shortage.

Is that the ONLY solution? Of course not! Public housing is great. But the same things that prevent YIMBY policies is the same thing that prevents public housing to be built. When you advocate for more zoning to prevent new condos in your neighborhood, it's not just new condos at market price that will be prevented, it's a whole range of housing.

>When there's not enough housing for people to live in,

In the country I live in, our population is a shrinking. Quite literally. There would be fewer people today than last year, and will be fewer people next year than this year. Except...

"Upzoning increases land value. Developers build profitable market rate houses there"

Unless you are upzoning ONLY in low-income neighborhoods, this doesn't add up. The assumption is that upzoning makes development more attractive. But this would apply to the entire city, and would therefore increase housing supply outside those low-income neighborhoods as well, which actually reduces the propensity for displacement.

> Public housing

You can't have Vienna style public housing without having Vienna style zoning codes and building codes.

Most of the housing in Vienna would be illegal to build in like 99% of American cities.

Public housing construction typically has to follow the law as well, so how does it help in cities where increasing housing units is heavily restricted, and outright banned in 90%+ of the city? YIMBY upzoning is strictly necessary no matter what funder you want for development.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com