I will have to listen to the podcast but just to reiterate the take you already know I have: I am totally sympathetic to the bottom-up iterative approach, because it's more stable and enduring than anything imposed top-down. But what I see from YIMBYs is really not a yearning for centralized top-down planning at all. They want to remove rules that strangle cities. They want cities to breathe—a necessary precursor to iteration! What we're looking for, and I think ST/YIMBY should in theory agree on, is for states to come in and say, "hey cities, you guys can't do exclusionary zoning anymore," with broad latitude for how cities can choose to grow once the stranglehold of restrictions is removed.
Some of the desire for a Robert Moses type is that too often nothing actually gets done. Even the smallest project gets bogged down in endless public engagement and 'discussion' rather than action. Someone ultimately has to decide to do a thing, even a small thing, and we've lost that capacity in too many arenas. I know that's what Strong Towns is all about, trying to get to a place where those small things can happen, but too many cities aren't there yet.
“Stranglehold of restrictions” Many YIMBYs think let the free market do it, but that can just as easily mean Toll Brothers would build even more expensive sprawl than they already have, and Big Finance will buy even more single-family houses. In New York City, Big Real Estate has a stranglehold over the market and many politicians. Paraphrasing Sam Stein, no matter what the question the answer is luxury towers. I once asked Vince Graham why he didn’t build apartment buildings in Charleston. “I can’t compete with the big boys,” he said. https://www.archdaily.com/977467/big-real-estates-continuing-stranglehold-over-new-york-city
I will have to listen to the podcast but just to reiterate the take you already know I have: I am totally sympathetic to the bottom-up iterative approach, because it's more stable and enduring than anything imposed top-down. But what I see from YIMBYs is really not a yearning for centralized top-down planning at all. They want to remove rules that strangle cities. They want cities to breathe—a necessary precursor to iteration! What we're looking for, and I think ST/YIMBY should in theory agree on, is for states to come in and say, "hey cities, you guys can't do exclusionary zoning anymore," with broad latitude for how cities can choose to grow once the stranglehold of restrictions is removed.
Thanks for joining me for this discussion. This is so well-said:
"The throughline isn’t ideology. It’s a deep discomfort with systems that optimize for scale and control while externalizing risk and fragility."
Some of the desire for a Robert Moses type is that too often nothing actually gets done. Even the smallest project gets bogged down in endless public engagement and 'discussion' rather than action. Someone ultimately has to decide to do a thing, even a small thing, and we've lost that capacity in too many arenas. I know that's what Strong Towns is all about, trying to get to a place where those small things can happen, but too many cities aren't there yet.
“Stranglehold of restrictions” Many YIMBYs think let the free market do it, but that can just as easily mean Toll Brothers would build even more expensive sprawl than they already have, and Big Finance will buy even more single-family houses. In New York City, Big Real Estate has a stranglehold over the market and many politicians. Paraphrasing Sam Stein, no matter what the question the answer is luxury towers. I once asked Vince Graham why he didn’t build apartment buildings in Charleston. “I can’t compete with the big boys,” he said. https://www.archdaily.com/977467/big-real-estates-continuing-stranglehold-over-new-york-city