The distinction you draw between "professional NIMBYs" and regular folks who just vaguley prefer what they know is important. I've noticed in local planning meetings that there's always a core group of maybe 5-10 people who show up to oppose everything, while hundres of people who might casually support the same positions would never actually attend. The Lawler piece on government-created suburbia is fascinating, especially the Hoover angle, most people think of suburbia as pure market outcomes when the zoning/loan/highway architecture was extremely deliberate. One thing that stuck with me is how lifestyle creep discussion connects back to car dependency, when everything's far apart and you need to drive, the friction of consumption drops so much that overspending becomes almost automatic. Do you think the state preemption debate will eventually settle based on empirical results from early-adopter states, or will it stay ideologically split regardless of outcomes?
Yeah - I like how the pieces I picked flow together, it was kind of on purpose but also kind of came together like that!
I think results from states that do preemption will eventually be a bigger part of the discussion, yes. One issue is that the *way* they do it can differ quite a bit - to my knowledge no state has actually withdrawn zoning powers from localities (which they could by repealing the enabling law). That would be *true* preemption but is pretty extreme. They've done more piecemeal or targeted things that might have loopholes, that might involve technocratic determinations like distance from transit, etc. So it could be hard to say exactly what works, but it should become clear eventually whether this is a necessary tool or something that works on the margins all told.
Thanks for the shout-out, Addison. I had fun rereading my essay — it’s still a personal favorite, and I stand by it even more a year later, now having moved to Spain permanently.
Your gut reaction that international travel must equal indulgence fits perfectly into that same distinctly American lens. I think some people hear “Emily is living in Europe” and picture me lying on a lounge chair on a Greek island, sipping my third aperol spritz by 1pm. Sure, I’ve splurged on a weekend trip here and there, but I moved here because my regular, day-to-day quality of life is higher. There are quite literally nine places within a 5-minute walk of my apartment where I can buy milk — why would I ever want to battle for a parking spot at Costco?
To be clear, this was never meant to be a “holier than thou” essay. I was perfectly content with my classic American lifestyle until I decided to travel for a few months (which turned into years), forcing me to limit my belongings to a suitcase and cut ties with my car and most of my material possessions. And now, from outside the fishbowl, observing what many Americans perceive as “baseline survival” and how overconsumption has been normalized is jarring.
There’s also a xenophobia/classism/fear-of-change angle wrapped up in a lot of the typical NIMBY argument, which living outside of your home country and culture also tends to help cure — but I’ll leave that loaded topic for another day. Great read!
Oh, my whole main area of inquiry is housing/development/urbanism, so that's not a loaded topic for me! (If that stuff interests you, you might like this piece I wrote earlier this week: https://www.thedeletedscenes.com/p/is-yimbyism-about-sex)
Yeah, the idea that Europeans are these lazy, lounging people is itself an American stereotype (and part of European tourism marketing haha), and I'd bet that's a factor in why Americans see walkable cities kind of like theme parks, as kind of fun but unserious. I almost wonder if we're afraid to stare in the face how much lifestyle bloat we've gotten accustomed to, honestly.
America as "convenience-driven behavior" is backwards. Sprawl creates the most inconvenient lifestyles, where hypermobility and consumption compensate for it. Seeking walkability is really convenience-driven behavior.
We should make the John Coltrane version of "My Favorite Things" into a new holiday music standard.
My experience with YIMBY Action in Silicon Valley was that it was pro-development----ANY development, including potentially expensive condominiums.
It also wasn't strategic. Witness its attempted "takeover" (the YIMBY staffer's word) of the Silicon Valley Sierra Club chapter leadership but without actually getting to know the chapter by attending committee meetings. So the YIMBY candidates lost.
I actually supported them just to get some new blood into the chapter and because I knew one of them from the bike advocacy scene.
But YIMBY didn't convince enough members to join Sierra Club for $15 so they could vote.
Outside of Sierra Club, I didn't see any YIMBY Action members at our local housing-justice advocacy group meetings which focused on tenant protections and promoting COPA and multi-family zoning.
Strong Towns (I attended its gathering this year in Providence) seems more democratic and positive, promoting in-fill, ADUs, mixed uses, and pedestrian and bike infrastructure. It also emphasizes organizing and advocacy techniques and creating local groups.
One house per family is not a modern invention. It's the human norm as far back as we can dig up history. The (extremely) modern change is smaller families, not separate houses. The ancient American tribes lived in villages with separate dwellings for each family. The houses had front yards between the house and the main path.
It's not a new invention, but what's new is regulating other kinds of buildings out of existence, whereas density would have just naturally increased where it seemed needed in the old days. Urban renewal, redlining, etc. were not natural or precedented.
The distinction you draw between "professional NIMBYs" and regular folks who just vaguley prefer what they know is important. I've noticed in local planning meetings that there's always a core group of maybe 5-10 people who show up to oppose everything, while hundres of people who might casually support the same positions would never actually attend. The Lawler piece on government-created suburbia is fascinating, especially the Hoover angle, most people think of suburbia as pure market outcomes when the zoning/loan/highway architecture was extremely deliberate. One thing that stuck with me is how lifestyle creep discussion connects back to car dependency, when everything's far apart and you need to drive, the friction of consumption drops so much that overspending becomes almost automatic. Do you think the state preemption debate will eventually settle based on empirical results from early-adopter states, or will it stay ideologically split regardless of outcomes?
Yeah - I like how the pieces I picked flow together, it was kind of on purpose but also kind of came together like that!
I think results from states that do preemption will eventually be a bigger part of the discussion, yes. One issue is that the *way* they do it can differ quite a bit - to my knowledge no state has actually withdrawn zoning powers from localities (which they could by repealing the enabling law). That would be *true* preemption but is pretty extreme. They've done more piecemeal or targeted things that might have loopholes, that might involve technocratic determinations like distance from transit, etc. So it could be hard to say exactly what works, but it should become clear eventually whether this is a necessary tool or something that works on the margins all told.
Thanks for the shout-out, Addison. I had fun rereading my essay — it’s still a personal favorite, and I stand by it even more a year later, now having moved to Spain permanently.
Your gut reaction that international travel must equal indulgence fits perfectly into that same distinctly American lens. I think some people hear “Emily is living in Europe” and picture me lying on a lounge chair on a Greek island, sipping my third aperol spritz by 1pm. Sure, I’ve splurged on a weekend trip here and there, but I moved here because my regular, day-to-day quality of life is higher. There are quite literally nine places within a 5-minute walk of my apartment where I can buy milk — why would I ever want to battle for a parking spot at Costco?
To be clear, this was never meant to be a “holier than thou” essay. I was perfectly content with my classic American lifestyle until I decided to travel for a few months (which turned into years), forcing me to limit my belongings to a suitcase and cut ties with my car and most of my material possessions. And now, from outside the fishbowl, observing what many Americans perceive as “baseline survival” and how overconsumption has been normalized is jarring.
There’s also a xenophobia/classism/fear-of-change angle wrapped up in a lot of the typical NIMBY argument, which living outside of your home country and culture also tends to help cure — but I’ll leave that loaded topic for another day. Great read!
Oh, my whole main area of inquiry is housing/development/urbanism, so that's not a loaded topic for me! (If that stuff interests you, you might like this piece I wrote earlier this week: https://www.thedeletedscenes.com/p/is-yimbyism-about-sex)
Yeah, the idea that Europeans are these lazy, lounging people is itself an American stereotype (and part of European tourism marketing haha), and I'd bet that's a factor in why Americans see walkable cities kind of like theme parks, as kind of fun but unserious. I almost wonder if we're afraid to stare in the face how much lifestyle bloat we've gotten accustomed to, honestly.
America as "convenience-driven behavior" is backwards. Sprawl creates the most inconvenient lifestyles, where hypermobility and consumption compensate for it. Seeking walkability is really convenience-driven behavior.
We should make the John Coltrane version of "My Favorite Things" into a new holiday music standard.
My experience with YIMBY Action in Silicon Valley was that it was pro-development----ANY development, including potentially expensive condominiums.
It also wasn't strategic. Witness its attempted "takeover" (the YIMBY staffer's word) of the Silicon Valley Sierra Club chapter leadership but without actually getting to know the chapter by attending committee meetings. So the YIMBY candidates lost.
I actually supported them just to get some new blood into the chapter and because I knew one of them from the bike advocacy scene.
But YIMBY didn't convince enough members to join Sierra Club for $15 so they could vote.
Outside of Sierra Club, I didn't see any YIMBY Action members at our local housing-justice advocacy group meetings which focused on tenant protections and promoting COPA and multi-family zoning.
Strong Towns (I attended its gathering this year in Providence) seems more democratic and positive, promoting in-fill, ADUs, mixed uses, and pedestrian and bike infrastructure. It also emphasizes organizing and advocacy techniques and creating local groups.
One house per family is not a modern invention. It's the human norm as far back as we can dig up history. The (extremely) modern change is smaller families, not separate houses. The ancient American tribes lived in villages with separate dwellings for each family. The houses had front yards between the house and the main path.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/piedmont_fossil/15823921065/in/album-72157649354048332/
It's not a new invention, but what's new is regulating other kinds of buildings out of existence, whereas density would have just naturally increased where it seemed needed in the old days. Urban renewal, redlining, etc. were not natural or precedented.