Hacker News Reader

Comment by DoneWithAllThat | Hacker News Reader

Sorry are we trying to build more housing for tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people, or be “fresh and sustainable”? This is the thing that gets me about so called “YIMBY”s: they’re not so much yes in my back yard, they’re just urban density fetishists typically driven by a degrowth mindset. They claim to fanatically want as much development as possible but never on new land, they just want towering skyscrapers packed like sardine cans and no cars. Then they get upset when nobody supports that but claim it’s just being anti-development. No, we’re not anti development, we just don’t like the one specific narrow definition of development that YIMBYs want.

View on HN

Density, in and of itself, is consistently correlated with lower per capita carbon footprint, lower water usage, lower vehicle miles traveled, etc.

You can have development that is sustainable and doesn’t pave over what few habitats we have left.

And the Bay Area hardly needs to be Hong Kong to accommodate more people; San Jose, for example, has a density a quarter of that of Queens, NY, a borough associated with large parks, streets with trees and early-20th century housing. If San Jose could accommodate 3M more people that would easily solve a good chunk of the housing crisis, and you could spread that 3M across all nine counties of the Bay instead of just one city.

The irony is that most of YIMBY do not have a backyard.

Once they buy some property and start raising kids, the attitude changes to "yeah, the syringe distribution center is very important... but can we please build it somewhere else?"

I prefer the acronym YIYBY - people like Dean Preston in SF live in large detached historic houses while espousing sardine can overcrowding, bicycles and public transport for the plebs. There is no reason to continue to expand giant historic cities at this point in history, that era is now over.

' The Rise of the Creative Class hit on what now seems blindingly obvious: that the “clustering force” of young creatives and tech workers in metropolitan areas was leading to greater economic prosperity. Don’t waste money on stadiums and concert halls, or luring big companies with tax breaks, he told the world’s mayors. Instead make your town a place where hipsters want to be, with a vibrant arts and music scene and a lively cafe culture. Embrace the “three T’s” of technology, talent and tolerance and the “creative class” will come flocking.' https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/oct/26/gentrificatio...

Ancient history, now replaced by anarchic dystopian urban decay

Frankly I'd rather have the syringe center near me because it's less obnoxious on an annualized basis than having to behave and maintain my property in accordance with "good neighborhood" standards lest Karen narc on me weekly to the point where the city gets sick of being bothered, capitulates and then starts fining me over some BS ordinance.

I'd rather not: BS ordinances suck, but in some sense it's my problem. I know how to solve it.

Syringe center inhabitants, on the other hand, is also a problem for my kids and my dog, who may be not mature enough to handle it properly.

Taking anything in its extreme is bag.

The issue is that we have a very obvious issue with housing and said pricing, if you know a method to solve the problem and keep the status quo + with reducing pollution then everyone and their mother will listen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com