Maybe We Should Give Up On NIMBY Cities

[Barbarossa]

.

[jd3189]

I've been thinking about this as well. Like I mentioned in other threads here on the topic, we as city residents (especially as residents of cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, Boston, and Philly) pride ourselves in our great urban environments and wish for the day cities overcome suburbs as places where most working Americans can live. However, many of these cities are harbors for NIMBYs who reject any type of growth to make their cities more advanced and places for everyone to live. Thus, most people who can't afford to live in the city will always opt for the suburbs or other cities that will want to include more working class folks into urban environments.


I'm not sure if I'm clear enough, but if certain cities aren't growing enough to maintain a balanced supply and demand for housing and will also not invest in good public transportation, resulting in cities being only places for the ultra wealthy and very poor, why bother?

[Khantilever]

It’s an intriguing idea that I’ve never thought about, because it’s so “obvious” that at the margin improvements in housing efficiency for these NIMBY places is so valuable. It’s so valuable because these places are so productive and desirable. Ozimek is making the argument that because the productivity/desirability of cities depends largely on the effects of agglomeration, that if we could shift development elsewhere we could essentially still have that productivity and amenities while having less income go to land rents.

So the argument crucially depends, as he acknowledges, on whether it’s really about population that determines the productivity/amenities of cities—as opposed to things like natural advantages. That may be true but I worry he’s too focused on the current NIMBY problem in SF and other tech hubs, where it’s obvious* that productivity is closely tied to the density of tech employment and not “something in the water”.

Perhaps we should just give up on the West Coast NIMBY strongholds, but not necessarily write off others like capitals (DC), port cities and transportation hubs.

*Actually, some people argue that mild weather is important for encouraging innovation through facilitating interactions between tech workers. So who knows.

[mhays]

HQ/invention tech employment isn't just about concentration. It's also people with high incomes (employees, leaders) that can choose their favorite cities. That probably means water, topography, recreation, urbanity, and so on. The selection of tech/finance/etc cities has already been defined by this dynamic as a major part.

[Khantilever]

Originally Posted by mhays

HQ/invention tech employment isn't just about concentration. It's also people with high incomes (employees, leaders) that can choose their favorite cities. That probably means water, topography, recreation, urbanity, and so on. The selection of tech/finance/etc cities has already been defined by this dynamic as a major part.

Definitely, though that’s still partly a story of concentration. Some places are productive because a lot of people live there, and a lot of people live there because there are lots of amenities. Some of those amenities are natural, like water and topography, and some are agglomeration amenities that come from density and wealth, like urbanity and cultural attractions.

So to the extent that the West Coast is rich in natural amenities, that alone will attract people and that concentration will create productivity spillovers, and so yeah we run into the same problem. Giving up on California isn’t really an option unless the benefits of agglomeration elsewhere are sufficiently large.

[dubu]

its not your game. the only way to change anything is to make your own game. i cant do anything i want in city building games and if i went to the people that made the game and said i hate your game change it now, that wouldnt go well. that just something ive learnd recently.